I'm not convinced the author cares very much about this. He bought an iPhone. Based on his other blog posts, he knew what he was buying and what the alternatives are.
An Android phone, even with a stock OS would get him more of the capabilities one would expect from a desktop PC, but he chose an iPhone. Some Android phones let the user unlock the bootloader easily and gain root, but he chose an iPhone. With an unlocked bootloader and a well-supported device, it's possible to install a third-party Android distribution with even more freedom, but he chose an iPhone.
Maybe he likes the iOS UX or app selection better, but if that's the deciding factor then I don't think using the phone as a Real Computer (tm) is really all that important to him.
But you know it's important because of the italics.
As long as it's understood as an opinion piece it's tolerable despite – as you note – the “revealed preference”.
## Appliance Computing:
Take "consoles" for instance. I got tired of building gaming PCs, and after another long day of making computers work, enjoy turning on an Xbox Series X and just doing what the box is there for, much as I appreciate the glass slab in my pocket just doing what it is there for, every single time, without fail, for nearly 2 decades now.
I enjoy a TRMNL (https://trmnl.com/) or Arduino as much as the next person, but don't need my PDA-phone to be a general purpose computing device.
## Mobile Computing:
On the contrary, for both business office work and content creation, and leisure travel logistics and media creation, an iPad Pro with keyboard and trackpad would generally be preferable to a Macbook Pro or Air or Neo if people spent the couple weeks necessary to get used to the different computing paradigm.
Once that sinks in, you may find carrying an iPhone, folding bluetooth keyboard with multi-touch pad, and a Switch 2 USB-C + PowerDelivery + HDMI cable means you can field work on any 4K hotel TV or AirBnB monitor:
But that's better suited for media. iPad Pro + 5G chip + keyboard w/ trackpad is your dual monitor work bet w/ this same cable.
Btw, the point of this particular cable is that power is probably near the TV where the HDMI end goes, with the USB-C where you and your phone or iPad are.
No they wouldn't. We don't have to speculate about that; Android already has a toggle to allow direct installation of apps, and most people don't turn it on.
Many Android devices allow unlocking the bootloader and gaining root or installing an alternate OS without exploits, and there are quite a few third-party Android builds for supported devices. The process is not beyond what a person of average intelligence and modest computer skills could pull off with some patience and a video guide. Only a handful of tech nerds actually do it.
Perhaps we're making different assumptions, but a process that "is not beyond what a person of average intelligence and modest computer skills could pull off with some patience and a video guide" sounds quite a bit more complex than a mere Unlock option in iPhone settings. Also, the results are different too. The process you've described results in an Android desktop, whereas the proposed iphone unlock process would result in a full macOS desktop, which sounds (to me at least) much more desirable to have.
I stand by my speculation that if it were possible to do that on an iphone, it'd definitely be something loads of people would do, including a large amount of people who shouldn't open their device that way but do just because they watched someone on social media telling them to.
> Even today there’s a culture of downloading Android builds from long forum threads on XDA developers
I did that this month. I wouldn't do that for a device I use for anything sensitive, but I have a niche use case for my old Nexus 5, and it needed to be running at least Android 8.
Be sure to give apps that behave that way one-star reviews.
I just tested Waymo and my usual solution of Magisk Play Integrity Fix was insufficient, suggesting hardware-backed attestation. This is the kind of crap Microsoft was doing that inspired Google to put "don't be evil" in its mission statement. We all know how that went.
If your goal is to boycott Google, you're probably not trying to use Waymo. My suggestion was only about punishing the use of remote attestation in the small way most of us can.
Unless you're actually a spy, there's no reason to do this. Just use your secure solution all the time with those conversation partners who are willing to use it.
Unless you're actually a spy, there's no reason to do this. Just use your secure solution all the time with those conversation partners who are willing to use it.
Fundamentally I agree with you but people will stay on the platforms where their friends are. To change that the platform would have to do something really bad such as forcing age checks and even then I think many will just put up with it to stay connected to their friends.
They don't understand anything, but they sure can repeat a pattern.
I'm using Claude Code to work on something involving a declarative UI DSL that wraps a very imperative API. Its first pass at adding a new component required imperative management of that component's state. Without that implementation in context, I told Claude the imperative pattern "sucks" and asked for an improvement just to see how far that would get me.
A human developer familiar with the codebase would easily understand the problem and add some basic state management to the DSL's support for that component. I won't pretend Claude understood, but it matched the pattern and generated the result I wanted.
This does suggest to me that a language spec and a handful of samples is enough to get it to produce useful results.
The Mastodon model does not offer much ability to delete. Well-behaved servers will honor delete requests, but the protocol doesn't mandate it. Additionally, a user cannot generate delete requests if they get banned from their server or the server shuts down. Users and server admins can't control whether another server permits archiving of their content. Mastodon and other fediverse software allows following public posts by RSS, and RSS clients might keep them forever.
The only reasonable understanding is that these protocols are for for publishing to the public. It is not possible to reliably retract anything published to thousands of other peoples' computers. We used to try to teach people that the internet is forever, and that's even more true with federated protocols. That doesn't make them a bad idea.
I think it's important to remember that decentralization is a barrier to having control over your data. If you're going to participate in these systems, you should treat everything you do as permanent, because by design you will not be in control of where that data is stored.
You can save all of anything someone makes public with ATProto, ActivityPub, or RSS. You can do that with anything someone puts on a web page too, but those protocols simplify automation.
I understand why people want to be able to delete things from the internet, but it doesn't work that way. It has never worked that way. It can't work that way unless every computer is locked down to running remotely attested government-approved software, and that's obviously worse.
ATProto won't be this way for much longer. Permissioned data is coming and will not be broadcast or accessible without grants. This will sit next to the public data, but separate.
How do you think about Google Docs? I consider that "on the internet" since it is not on my computer. Same for private channels and threads in Discord.
Also, ATProto can be much more than social media tech, more like a plug-n-play distributed system
Are you serious? Y'all are so confused about what this is.
The entire point of services like Bluesky and Twitter is broadcasting your activity out to the internet for anyone to see (which of, course, is technically little-or-no different from "grab")
ATProto is not Bluesky, the later is just one app on the former. There are many more apps like Tangled, git on ATProto, which need private repositories.
You seem rather confused. I do not work for Bluesky. I am an independent developer building completely separate applications on ATProto.
Fair, I'm aware and I am conflating what people do with Bluesky and what ATProto can do. I absolutely do see the value in ATProto doing things that aren't "social media"
Or more precisely, it might. We now have a better idea of how people actually behave and it's not in accordance with "the internet is forever," and I have no interest in blaming them for 'human nature' in that way.
And it's all still dangerous. Again, I know the internet is forever, but someone else posting about ME might not.
This isn't an individual thing. It's "ecological."
And I have no interest in making Big Brother THAT MUCH EASIER to build.
This comment seems to be saying you don't want most people to do blog-like things. Most social media from Facebook to Youtube is blog-like if you squint.
It does seem like fewer people are posting personal content that way lately. Perhaps most people are better off sharing things one to one, or in small groups that are meant to stay private. That doesn't make it bad for the more public formats to exist; they're just not for everyone.
I had a camera with a field-sequential electronic viewfinder. Because it relies on persistence of vision to mix RGB colors, it could be pretty distracting if I moved my eye quickly, breaking the illusion, and I think it would be similarly annoying on a TV or computer display.
Tektronix built a lot of test equipment based on color-shutter CRTs in the 1990s. It was simultaneously nifty and awful. They could render rich, well-defined color waveforms, but as soon as you moved your eyes, the illusion would break apart into rainbow-colored fragments. It was like watching a movie on a DLP projector, only much worse.
Meanwhile, HP OEM'ed a bunch of Trinitron monitors from Sony and called it a day.
The obsession with control I find objectionable is not their decision not to enable emoji widely until support was stable. That's an obsession with polish, not control. The commitment to polish and self-restraint to not add features until they actually work well is something I've long appreciated about Apple.
The control part is blocking third-party apps to toggle the hidden setting. If you enable unsupported features using a third-party app, the expectation of polish is obviously void. It would even be fine if Apple refused to carry apps like that in their polished, curated store, if they didn't forbid users from installing apps any other way.
I think they were controlling the perception that third party apps could change your entire device settings. That was/still is something that iPhone users expect to be “safe”. As in, if I carelessly install an unknown app, it at least can’t do much harm and I can just delete it without having any real consequences. The existence of “hack apps” undermines that layman understanding of their device security
The problem with this is that it should be a permission the user needs to grant to the app rather than something that apps can never do under any circumstances even when the user explicitly wants them to. The latter is just the vendor declaring themselves by self-fiat to be immune from competition in the markets for those device software features.
The problem there is that the primary security mechanism is enumerating badness by policing what apps users can install. That's not nearly as robust as designing the sandbox so apps can't do much harm. If toggling the setting is really dangerous, which it wasn't in this case, it should have been impossible for an app to do without some sort of special access.
I also think users should be in control of granting or denying that kind of special access, but that's a separate discussion.
So then, was it the same thing waiting 5 years longer than most companies to have something as basic as wireless charging? Or waiting until 2023 to finally adopt USB C charging?
They waited to adopt USB-C for mobile because the trust third parties put into Apple was founded on the fact that they guaranteed ten years of support for Lightning and that’s why it was only iPhone that had accessories like clock radio docks and thermal cameras and external Lightning based peripherals for a long time.
It's the standard Apple "We will decide what you can run on your own computer, not you" paternalism that we have come to know and expect, and that they have perfected over the decades.
That wasn't the standard on the Mac, and looks like it still isn't. That platform has a strong tradition of utility apps that add to or modify core OS functions, and when I looked up "essential mac utilities" today, I found recent listicles with items like Alt Tab (an app switcher), Magnet (window management shortcuts), and TinkerTool (change hidden system settings - exactly like emoji toggles for iPhone).
An Android phone, even with a stock OS would get him more of the capabilities one would expect from a desktop PC, but he chose an iPhone. Some Android phones let the user unlock the bootloader easily and gain root, but he chose an iPhone. With an unlocked bootloader and a well-supported device, it's possible to install a third-party Android distribution with even more freedom, but he chose an iPhone.
Maybe he likes the iOS UX or app selection better, but if that's the deciding factor then I don't think using the phone as a Real Computer (tm) is really all that important to him.
reply