I’ve never found them user hostile. They just sell appliances that do a thing.
It is very hostile to users and their freedom. They are requiring you to buy things that they approve of. I guarantee you somewhere in their backlog is an item that says "require app store for app installations on macOS". In line with iOS.
You have paid for some hardware, and you can only run their software. They are refusing to give you information on running one of many other operating systems. They are refusing to allow you to buy hardware that runs their operating system[0] (this is in my opinion more okay, unless they are willing to sell the software separately).
They then refuse to give you new versions of the same software that they enforce to run on the hardware you bought. The hardware is probably still in perfect working order, and will still work with an older version of said software, but soon after some zero day is found, and you are stuck with this software that you can either never connect to the internet, or suck it up and accept the risk.
You can recycle it sure, but apple will give you pennies on the dollar (if they give you anything at all) and no one else really wants it because Apple refuses to let them (or you for that matter) fix it if it breaks, give it a new life through Linux (or Windows for that matter). So now you have at best some expensive paperweight, at worst e-waste.
So yes, Apple is user hostile whether it affects you or not. And no, Apple is not the only one.
I guarantee you somewhere in their backlog is an item that says "require app store for app installations on macOS"
This has been said for over a decade and it still hasn't happened, and Apple hasn't even tried to do so.
I think a better way to model their approach is to push non-technical users further and further away from the typical .dmg app installation approach, and put hoops up to prevent them from following malicious instructions, like the privacy/security and unverified developer hoops. Mildly annoying for technical users, but near impassable for the tech illiterate. We've been seeing this transition across windows and android for a long time, and it seems to be a net positive, if my family is anything to go by. I spend much less time on tech support now.
Yeah this narrative is effectively fiction as most of what you say is entirely untrue. They are very user-friendly, and it's why they have so many customers.
We can run old versions of macOS on ancient hardware just fine; Apple supports this up to about 7-8 years, anything after is possible through community support since Darwin is open.
They also support their mobile/embedded OSes longer than any other ecosystem.
I guarantee you somewhere in their backlog is an item that says "require app store for app installations on macOS"
Apple isn't the company that has already attempted to lock their PC operating system to only accept apps from an app store.
That's Microsoft with both WindowsRT and Windows S.
Just because the first attempt failed in the marketplace and Microsoft backed down on the second doesn't mean they haven't already tried to lock Windows to only run app store apps multiple times.
I'm interested in contrary informed views. I was interested in your view until your third sentence, when it became apparent that you're just making stuff up.
Comments
It is very hostile to users and their freedom. They are requiring you to buy things that they approve of. I guarantee you somewhere in their backlog is an item that says "require app store for app installations on macOS". In line with iOS.
You have paid for some hardware, and you can only run their software. They are refusing to give you information on running one of many other operating systems. They are refusing to allow you to buy hardware that runs their operating system[0] (this is in my opinion more okay, unless they are willing to sell the software separately).
They then refuse to give you new versions of the same software that they enforce to run on the hardware you bought. The hardware is probably still in perfect working order, and will still work with an older version of said software, but soon after some zero day is found, and you are stuck with this software that you can either never connect to the internet, or suck it up and accept the risk.
You can recycle it sure, but apple will give you pennies on the dollar (if they give you anything at all) and no one else really wants it because Apple refuses to let them (or you for that matter) fix it if it breaks, give it a new life through Linux (or Windows for that matter). So now you have at best some expensive paperweight, at worst e-waste.
So yes, Apple is user hostile whether it affects you or not. And no, Apple is not the only one.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackintosh
This has been said for over a decade and it still hasn't happened, and Apple hasn't even tried to do so.
I think a better way to model their approach is to push non-technical users further and further away from the typical .dmg app installation approach, and put hoops up to prevent them from following malicious instructions, like the privacy/security and unverified developer hoops. Mildly annoying for technical users, but near impassable for the tech illiterate. We've been seeing this transition across windows and android for a long time, and it seems to be a net positive, if my family is anything to go by. I spend much less time on tech support now.
Unless motivated and instructed by a scammer, then it's useless.
Yeah this narrative is effectively fiction as most of what you say is entirely untrue. They are very user-friendly, and it's why they have so many customers.
We can run old versions of macOS on ancient hardware just fine; Apple supports this up to about 7-8 years, anything after is possible through community support since Darwin is open.
They also support their mobile/embedded OSes longer than any other ecosystem.
They're
Apple isn't the company that has already attempted to lock their PC operating system to only accept apps from an app store.
That's Microsoft with both WindowsRT and Windows S.
Just because the first attempt failed in the marketplace and Microsoft backed down on the second doesn't mean they haven't already tried to lock Windows to only run app store apps multiple times.
For sure shareholders will start demanding it at some point.
Tim Cook has famously told shareholders to sell the stock and buy another if they don't like that he doesn't maximize profits all the time.
I'm interested in contrary informed views. I was interested in your view until your third sentence, when it became apparent that you're just making stuff up.