December Days 2021 #25: iHate iProducts
Dec. 25th, 2021 11:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradept[Welcome to December Days, where I natter on about things organized around a theme (sometimes very loosely), one a day, for 31 days. This year, we're taking a look back at some touchpoints along the way of my journey with computing and computing devices.]
This is the only iProduct I actually own, which I received as a hand-me down from my ex when she got a newer one. This one's mine, as opposed to the many ones that have been provided as part of work before they fell into the void and I got to play with them properly, or they disappeared and were replaced by newer versions of the same object. Coincidentally, it's also the last product that Apple made before they switched everything over to iOS, a starter that gave them even greater control than they had previously exerted on their devices. Compared to the things that are possible in current iProducts, this Classic (already named so because the new versions were touchscreen devices functionally the same as iPhones, but without the ability to connect to the cellular networks) is extremely primitive, but it's also the one that required the last amount of effort to put into a space where its life can be extended far past the original date, for however long the battery lasts.
The change to iOS and the restrictions it imposed is not new to the Apple Computer Company. The design decision for the PowerPC line ensured that Mac OS wouldn't run on x86-type computers, so if you wanted a Mac, you'd have to buy from Apple. Apple very much wants Apple things to run on Apple hardware so that other people don't try to copy Apple or install Apple software on other possible machines. This extends to their iPods, iPhones, iPads, and likely the Apple Watch as well. Being able to design specifically for hardware you know will be there makes it easier to take advantage of all the things that will go well, rather than having to plan for every thing that can go sideways, so it allows Apple devices to appear smooth and polished, sometimes more so than the plethora of possibilities that can run the other operating systems. And it all being Apple hardware under the hood also allows for a premium price to be tacked on top of the already inflated prices that most smartphones and devices retail for in the United States. (And yes, that's with underpaying the workers who assemble the devices in other countries.) So, strike one against iProducts: they're almost always more expensive than something comparable that doesn't have the Apple logo on it.
In the interim period between the PowerPC and the Apple M1 chip, it was possible to build a "Hackintosh," but it was obviously very unsupported to do so and required inserting a lot of drivers and other elements into the process so as to make it work better. Like the process that's trying to get full-fledged Windows 10 (11?) to install on the Raspberry Pi (there's are other Single-Board Computers that can and do run full Windows 10 or 11, but you port to Pi because that gets you the inexpensive, very subsidized computer running as basically a desktop replacement), creating Hackintoshes is a matter of following some very specific steps to achieve the desired results. During that time period, I thought about what kind of terrible creation I could make to produce a computer that could not to Windows, Mac OS X, and a Linux distribution, justifying it in my head of "being able to test all of the major potential platforms at once." Or, basically, using it as a tool so that someone could experience all three possibilities and device what kind of operating system they wanted to follow best. (Of course, I also know that a lot of Linux distributions' desktop environments deliberately mimic the look and feel of Windows or Mac (or have options for both) just so that people will feel comfortable with them.) Ultimately, I didn't do it, mostly because I didn't want to mess around with OS X that badly, but thoughts that Apple might just join the reasons of having many machines that can run their software disappeared fairly quickly. Strike two against Apple: because it's their own tech in there, there's very little chance of being able to replace anything without having to go through Apple, and their support and repair charges are more expensive (or geared toward replacing your device with a newer one.) There's a lot of Right to Repair people who have been trying to get through all the necessary hoops to be able to fix Apple computers, and they've been stymied at almost every turn by Apple and needing to get court documents and other such legal requirements before Apple will do anything.
What really ticks me off about Apple design is that Apple not only encourages people not to keep their devices for very long, Apple actively engages in planned obsolescence for their devices. Yes, I recognize that many device manufacturers want us to change phones and tablets well before the point where the physical internals will give out and refuse to work. For Android's highest rating, they say there has to be three years of support and security updates provided. And, as the Android versions have advanced, their minimum system requirements have slowly been squeezing certain devices out of being able to update to the latest base version. So, eventually, yes, Android does push out devices, but the custom operating system folks are often able to keep up with the security updates even if the platform updates are now beyond their ability. As I demonstrated with the OnePlus One a device can last longer than the official support period before giving out, and that was with a fairly significant amount of rough handling. Other people who preserve their phones and don't play intensive games on them could probably go for much much longer. And so long as the phone itself can continue to serve the user's needs, then it should be able to keep going, right?
Not according to Apple. Apple does timely updates of their operating systems with fixes and security patches, absolutely. But at a certain point in time, Apple declares that certain devices are no longer eligible to receive updates, and that within a certain amount of time, with no updates forthcoming, the devices themselves will lose access to the App Store outside of what they already have, so make sure you have all the apps that you're ever going to need for the future downloaded and installed in the devices that are going out of updates. Now, if you do generously device to buy a device that is still in support, your out of support device can have access to the last updated version of an app for the OS last supported, but you first have to install the app on the new device before you can get it on the old one. By locking out the App Store, Apple effectively destroys the used market for their products, either for someone to sell or for someone to give to their relatives or children. Nobody gets to join the Apple club cheap or to try a used device to see if they like it before joining in with something newer. You have to go in full price or not at all, and when you join, there's effectively a clock running over your head until Apple decides your device is too old for them and they need you to buy another one, regardless of what device you purchase to get there, and regardless of whether or not the device itself has more years left in it.
For people who are more technically inclined, they might think they have some leeway. After all, on Android devices, once you can get appropriate access, you can install a custom operating system, along with your store of choice, and go from there to have a perfectly functional and secure device. And there are known exploits that can be used to jailbreak Apple devices. However, those jailbreaks are generally limited to allowing people to make cosmetic tweaks to the devices, as there isn't a known way of getting bootloader access to iProducts running iOS, and possibly offering repositories of older versions of software that's disappeared off the App Store for the old devices. Which really only works for as long as those systems are still on the Internet, which becomes less and less likely as the old systems become older.
There's one last-ditch technique someone might use, if they have applications stored on their computers, to self-sign the things and get them on the device, but that only works for seven days, so someone would have to spend time every week reloading all those apps (or crafting a script to do so programmatically) just to keep their old device alive. I don't know that many people who are interested in spending all that time and work to keep their devices alive. The best thing that happens to old iProducts is that they become limited use devices, possibly without any sort of internet access, or they become expensive breakable toys for children or others, since they have no actual use as devices any more. Strike three.
I can't condone anyone buying or using Apple devices at this point (aside from all the issues with their laborer practices and the labor practices of their contractors) because they're promoting waste and deliberately removing items from their ecosystem for no reason higher than they want someone to buy a new thing and brag to their shareholders about how secure their devices are and how many of them are running the current or one version back of their software. If anyone ever manages to crack the bootloader and start developing alternate operating systems for iProducts, or finds a way of continuing to be able to install Mac OS versions past their official last supported one, the anti-recommendation might change to something like "people who know what they're doing and want to extend the life of their devices may be okay to get iProducts and Macs." Even then, there's still the problem of the Apple premium and the understanding that it's going to be extremely difficult to leave the Apple ecosystem without having to start all over again. I don't think anyone is going to bring successful antitrust actions against Apple for their walled garden approach, their lack of competitive cooperation, and the high switching cost they impose on their users, not with Android out there and able to provide essentially the same services (and because antitrust is still Bourked), but I feel like a significant number of these large technology companies engage in anticompetitive behavior and are long overdue for being broken up or required to make it easier for their users to have options and to stay with Apple (or Google, or Microsoft) because those companies provide the best product in a fair competition, not because people don't have a meaningful choice of whether to use their products and services or not. Apple is very visible in what they do, and so iHate iProducts, but they're not the only corporation that needs to be crushed or encouraged to find ways for people to keep using their devices and keep them up on security updates for as long as the physical hardware lasts.
- CPU: Samsung ARM, unknown type, unknown clock speed
- Memory: 64 MB RAM
- Graphics: Unknown chipset, max resolution 320x240
- Sound: Stereo output sound through 3.5" jack
- Inputs/Peripherals: 30-pin USB connector for computer connection and synchronization, "click wheel" with ability to scroll through options, with five possible presses marked Previous, Next, Menu, Play, and the center button
- Storage: 80 GB internal storage
- OS: iPod OS 1.1.2 → Rockbox
This is the only iProduct I actually own, which I received as a hand-me down from my ex when she got a newer one. This one's mine, as opposed to the many ones that have been provided as part of work before they fell into the void and I got to play with them properly, or they disappeared and were replaced by newer versions of the same object. Coincidentally, it's also the last product that Apple made before they switched everything over to iOS, a starter that gave them even greater control than they had previously exerted on their devices. Compared to the things that are possible in current iProducts, this Classic (already named so because the new versions were touchscreen devices functionally the same as iPhones, but without the ability to connect to the cellular networks) is extremely primitive, but it's also the one that required the last amount of effort to put into a space where its life can be extended far past the original date, for however long the battery lasts.
The change to iOS and the restrictions it imposed is not new to the Apple Computer Company. The design decision for the PowerPC line ensured that Mac OS wouldn't run on x86-type computers, so if you wanted a Mac, you'd have to buy from Apple. Apple very much wants Apple things to run on Apple hardware so that other people don't try to copy Apple or install Apple software on other possible machines. This extends to their iPods, iPhones, iPads, and likely the Apple Watch as well. Being able to design specifically for hardware you know will be there makes it easier to take advantage of all the things that will go well, rather than having to plan for every thing that can go sideways, so it allows Apple devices to appear smooth and polished, sometimes more so than the plethora of possibilities that can run the other operating systems. And it all being Apple hardware under the hood also allows for a premium price to be tacked on top of the already inflated prices that most smartphones and devices retail for in the United States. (And yes, that's with underpaying the workers who assemble the devices in other countries.) So, strike one against iProducts: they're almost always more expensive than something comparable that doesn't have the Apple logo on it.
In the interim period between the PowerPC and the Apple M1 chip, it was possible to build a "Hackintosh," but it was obviously very unsupported to do so and required inserting a lot of drivers and other elements into the process so as to make it work better. Like the process that's trying to get full-fledged Windows 10 (11?) to install on the Raspberry Pi (there's are other Single-Board Computers that can and do run full Windows 10 or 11, but you port to Pi because that gets you the inexpensive, very subsidized computer running as basically a desktop replacement), creating Hackintoshes is a matter of following some very specific steps to achieve the desired results. During that time period, I thought about what kind of terrible creation I could make to produce a computer that could not to Windows, Mac OS X, and a Linux distribution, justifying it in my head of "being able to test all of the major potential platforms at once." Or, basically, using it as a tool so that someone could experience all three possibilities and device what kind of operating system they wanted to follow best. (Of course, I also know that a lot of Linux distributions' desktop environments deliberately mimic the look and feel of Windows or Mac (or have options for both) just so that people will feel comfortable with them.) Ultimately, I didn't do it, mostly because I didn't want to mess around with OS X that badly, but thoughts that Apple might just join the reasons of having many machines that can run their software disappeared fairly quickly. Strike two against Apple: because it's their own tech in there, there's very little chance of being able to replace anything without having to go through Apple, and their support and repair charges are more expensive (or geared toward replacing your device with a newer one.) There's a lot of Right to Repair people who have been trying to get through all the necessary hoops to be able to fix Apple computers, and they've been stymied at almost every turn by Apple and needing to get court documents and other such legal requirements before Apple will do anything.
What really ticks me off about Apple design is that Apple not only encourages people not to keep their devices for very long, Apple actively engages in planned obsolescence for their devices. Yes, I recognize that many device manufacturers want us to change phones and tablets well before the point where the physical internals will give out and refuse to work. For Android's highest rating, they say there has to be three years of support and security updates provided. And, as the Android versions have advanced, their minimum system requirements have slowly been squeezing certain devices out of being able to update to the latest base version. So, eventually, yes, Android does push out devices, but the custom operating system folks are often able to keep up with the security updates even if the platform updates are now beyond their ability. As I demonstrated with the OnePlus One a device can last longer than the official support period before giving out, and that was with a fairly significant amount of rough handling. Other people who preserve their phones and don't play intensive games on them could probably go for much much longer. And so long as the phone itself can continue to serve the user's needs, then it should be able to keep going, right?
Not according to Apple. Apple does timely updates of their operating systems with fixes and security patches, absolutely. But at a certain point in time, Apple declares that certain devices are no longer eligible to receive updates, and that within a certain amount of time, with no updates forthcoming, the devices themselves will lose access to the App Store outside of what they already have, so make sure you have all the apps that you're ever going to need for the future downloaded and installed in the devices that are going out of updates. Now, if you do generously device to buy a device that is still in support, your out of support device can have access to the last updated version of an app for the OS last supported, but you first have to install the app on the new device before you can get it on the old one. By locking out the App Store, Apple effectively destroys the used market for their products, either for someone to sell or for someone to give to their relatives or children. Nobody gets to join the Apple club cheap or to try a used device to see if they like it before joining in with something newer. You have to go in full price or not at all, and when you join, there's effectively a clock running over your head until Apple decides your device is too old for them and they need you to buy another one, regardless of what device you purchase to get there, and regardless of whether or not the device itself has more years left in it.
For people who are more technically inclined, they might think they have some leeway. After all, on Android devices, once you can get appropriate access, you can install a custom operating system, along with your store of choice, and go from there to have a perfectly functional and secure device. And there are known exploits that can be used to jailbreak Apple devices. However, those jailbreaks are generally limited to allowing people to make cosmetic tweaks to the devices, as there isn't a known way of getting bootloader access to iProducts running iOS, and possibly offering repositories of older versions of software that's disappeared off the App Store for the old devices. Which really only works for as long as those systems are still on the Internet, which becomes less and less likely as the old systems become older.
There's one last-ditch technique someone might use, if they have applications stored on their computers, to self-sign the things and get them on the device, but that only works for seven days, so someone would have to spend time every week reloading all those apps (or crafting a script to do so programmatically) just to keep their old device alive. I don't know that many people who are interested in spending all that time and work to keep their devices alive. The best thing that happens to old iProducts is that they become limited use devices, possibly without any sort of internet access, or they become expensive breakable toys for children or others, since they have no actual use as devices any more. Strike three.
I can't condone anyone buying or using Apple devices at this point (aside from all the issues with their laborer practices and the labor practices of their contractors) because they're promoting waste and deliberately removing items from their ecosystem for no reason higher than they want someone to buy a new thing and brag to their shareholders about how secure their devices are and how many of them are running the current or one version back of their software. If anyone ever manages to crack the bootloader and start developing alternate operating systems for iProducts, or finds a way of continuing to be able to install Mac OS versions past their official last supported one, the anti-recommendation might change to something like "people who know what they're doing and want to extend the life of their devices may be okay to get iProducts and Macs." Even then, there's still the problem of the Apple premium and the understanding that it's going to be extremely difficult to leave the Apple ecosystem without having to start all over again. I don't think anyone is going to bring successful antitrust actions against Apple for their walled garden approach, their lack of competitive cooperation, and the high switching cost they impose on their users, not with Android out there and able to provide essentially the same services (and because antitrust is still Bourked), but I feel like a significant number of these large technology companies engage in anticompetitive behavior and are long overdue for being broken up or required to make it easier for their users to have options and to stay with Apple (or Google, or Microsoft) because those companies provide the best product in a fair competition, not because people don't have a meaningful choice of whether to use their products and services or not. Apple is very visible in what they do, and so iHate iProducts, but they're not the only corporation that needs to be crushed or encouraged to find ways for people to keep using their devices and keep them up on security updates for as long as the physical hardware lasts.
no subject
Date: 2021-12-26 10:00 am (UTC)fuck Apple.
(and since Discord and Twitter apps have not got this level of restriction on iOS, we're kind of wondering if Tumblr encouraging would-be Post+ users to sign up via Android app or desktop site—since the cut of the money going to the user would be so much smaller if Apple got its hands on that user's pie—pissed Apple off mightily)
no subject
Date: 2021-12-26 10:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-12-26 09:00 pm (UTC)and of course anyone who has paid money for any iOS app can't just pick up stakes for Android, never mind any open-source ecosystem, without either losing access to that app or needing to pay money for it again
no subject
Date: 2021-12-26 10:40 pm (UTC)