Personally, I strongly agree with your colleague. If you truly believe openness is a good thing (and it sounds like you do), Apple’s ethos is just about the direct antithesis. They only collaborate with the wider tech industry when they absolutely have to. Otherwise, they are greedy, secretive, controlling, and vindictive - oftentimes openly hostile to anyone who dares choose a non-Apple device/platform.

The best example of this is the iMessage “green bubbles” phenomenon. Some background: Apple’s default texting experience is iMessage. This service has a bunch of nice, modern chat features - except they’re only available when texting another iPhone. These “better” messages are indicated by blue bubbles. People who don’t use iPhones (whether by choice or by necessity) are forced to use the ancient, insecure, feature-poor SMS protocol, reducing the privacy and security of everyone involved (including iPhone users). It’s also extremely obvious when this happens, since the chat app will switch to green bubbles.

In places where this service has caught on (such as the US), Apple uses this separation to deliberately make texting non-iPhone users a significantly worse experience. This causes social effects, especially among teenagers, where those who don’t use iPhone are bullied and shunned for being a “green bubble”. The Wall Street Journal did a great expose into this phenomenon.

Now, to be clear, this is a totally artificial problem - Apple could fix this overnight if they wanted. For years, the wider tech industry has been working on replacing SMS with a much more modern standard called RCS. Every single other party in the mobile industry has adopted it. Apple, however, is the lone holdout. They see kids bullying other kids into buying an iPhone as a good thing - more iPhone sales! In fact, Apple openly encouraged that narrative: when a journalist asked the (very reasonable) question of “how can I make texting with my Android-user mom better?”, Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with “buy your mom an iPhone.”

There’s plenty more examples of this antagonistic behavior I could talk about, but this one is the most telling.

Of course, if you do choose to go all in with them, you won’t see that side of Apple at all. They are frighteningly good at cultivating their image as the “good guys” among Big Tech, and, honestly, it’s not unwarranted. They are good at what they do, and they do take care of their users. Their tech is great.

Ultimately, my take is that if you prefer using Apple’s stuff over more open alternatives, don’t change what you like! Just remember that they have a dark side. It is good to be aware of the wider tech ecosystem, and to make open technology choices where you can. By being active on the Fediverse, you’re already doing your part 😁

Dont feel too bad about not knowing everything from everywhere, as you said you arent a tech guy, but lets get to your questions

1. Privacy thats…depending on how you see it, supposedly they don’t sell to third partys but they do use it for you
2. I will never support them, not only are their prices disgustingly high compared to their quality, their walled garden and fucking tooth and nail fight to keep it that way isnt helping helping
3. While not required I do think they should at least look into all of it for a bit

Im the end, do whatever you wanna do

I dislike Apple due to their user-hostile business practices. They don’t let you install alternate browsers or keyboards (TRULY alternate and not just re-skins of Safari and the iOS keyboard). They don’t let you sideload (officially). They don’t want you to interface with other phone manufacturers in an equitable way (see the whole blue bubble/green bubble drama). They don’t want you to have the freedom to repair your own devices (see the whole right to repair movement).

And so on and so forth. They are nice products and do what they are supposed to with minimal friction. I just cannot support a company that is so blatantly user-hostile.

It is with high confidence and with a straight face that I can state my opinion that Microsoft is a better partner of open source software than Apple. Microsoft contributes back, Apple pretty much doesn’t. They’re better than AWS, but that’s more a matter of damning with faint praise.

Apple’s built up a vertically integrated market of disposable widgets which cannot be repaired or upgraded. Their sole positive is they’re better than the other guys at keeping older software updated, but I’m sure they did the math on having their customers not getting hacked at the time.

I’m my opinion they’re worth looking at for anti-trust.

I 100% agree with your colleague, though I don’t agree with his purity test. You’re allowed to feel the way you do about medicine and still use whatever products you want. But, yeah, I don’t own or use and Apple products, though I would like to own and restore an Apple IIe.

I spent many years trying to be as FOSS as I could. I tried many different Linux distros, hunted for open source operating systems for my phone (at the time, none did even the basic things I needed it to do) until one day I decided I was sick to death of having to spend hours researching and trying multiple arcane cli commands to get even simple things to work (like WiFi). I realised that I was wasting an enormous amount of time being all-things-open-source.

My next purchase as a macbook as it was based on a *nix and I’ve come to realise that while Apple is a walled garden and in some ways is ‘evil’, it’s less evil than Google is now, or Microsoft was back in the day.

I also like the way that the various Apple devices work really well together. But I hate the fact that it’s harder to hack things to be the way that I want. Don’t get me wrong, I still love open source software, but I have too few years left to waste them on modifying config.org files, or whatever they do now, so I’m much more selective with what I use. I tend to use FOSS applications on MacOS where the software works well enough.

Not trying to bash FOSS, just my 2 cents.

For all of their faults I admire Apple’s commitment to product design a lot. They really seem to center the human use case and mold the technology around that. This kind of focus on design (not just aesthetics!) brings the benefits of technology to people that might not have been able to access them otherwise due to knowledge, time constraints, etc.

How does this relate to FOSS? Well to be blunt the UX on a lot of FOSS technology is bad. It conveys freedom and privacy to technologically inclined people like us who can make sense of it, but it does very little to liberate people who don’t find this stuff easy or can’t devote enough free time to it. Ease of use is not a weakness to be mocked. It can be an extremely powerful force if done correctly. Personally I would love to see more UX designers getting into FOSS development, but unfortunately I can’t really help myself on that front.

Thank you for opening yourself up to the discourse!

First of all: I don’t use any apple products, because I strongly disagree with the company on an ideological level.

My opinion on apple products, personal opinion that is, is that the walled garden approach has pros and cons. Meaning, they control everything within their ecosystem. You can’t install a third party app without it being approved on the appstore first. This is good in the sense, that there is virtually zero risk of bad actors being able to access your systems. This is bad, because it allows apple to dictatorially allow/reject apps, and ideas that they don’t agree with. I don’t know if they have done this, but it would not surprise me.

Another large issue I have, as a nerd, with apple’s approach. Is that having everything easily accessible and controlled by the company (here I mean things like, its more difficult to make changes to your computer as compared to linux, where you have full control) makes for a tech-illiterate public. Anecdotally, I have friends who are very skilled at tech, one is a space-tech student, the other a high-level games programmer, and both feel they can’t switch to another phone than Iphone, because it is such a specific way of interconnectedness that exists when you have all apple products. It is so easy to airdrop, or screen share, cloud save etc etc. That it is a fundamentally different experience to use anything else. Now, that might seem like a pro for apple, but my issue is that this interconnectedness should be a priority between ecosystems too. Ideally I would like to have these features as a given on any system, like email can talk to email (fediverse hype), instead of being locked to a single ecosystem.

In conclusion: Apple is known for keeping their information under lock and key, and not allowing any interference with their systems. I think this is bad.

Thanks for bringing it up! And remember there is no right/wrong, except what you personally feel good about.

To get the point since as you’ve stated your brain is filled.

Here’s how I view Apple:

• anti consumer
• anti developer
• anti privacy
• anti right to repair

As someone who went from FOSS -> Apple -> FOSS, I fully understand the love people have for the Apple ecosystem. In terms of proprietary hardware and software, they have a sheen and an inter-operation between their products that is genuinely unmatched.

That said, what ultimately pushed me out and back to Good Ole FOSS™ was the lack of any control, and the lack of any transparency. The idea of trusting a for-profit company with anything beyond my email address and sometimes phone number is just something I dislike doing. Apple’s processes are extremely opaque, and the last thing they want to give users is any control over their products, it’s an antithesis of what I desire from digital electronics.

As for if non-technical people should look into FOSS. I think FOSS can really give people a fundamental baseline of digital computing, and in the modern world such a baseline is extremely valuable. If they decide afterwards they prefer their proprietary ecosystems, Apple or otherwise, that’s their prerogative and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

@IronTwo
Apple’s ecosystem works well for it’s users, but it screws over anyone else not completely consumed in their ecosystem.

A concept shared by both of these examples is that of the commons. You believe in an information commons, specifically as it pertains to medicine. A lot of users in the FOSS space believe in a technological commons.

I’m not going to delve too extensively into the political and philosophical definitions around the commons; there’s a wealth of economic and political anthropology dissecting the successes of the commons, how they tend to operate, and their potential place in future economies of the world. If you want a very brief primer, David Bollier’s Think Like a Commoner is a good start; it’s quick, inexpensive, and there’s an audiobook if that’s your jam.

I don’t like Apple because of their anti-user, anti-third party policies, but their quality, interoperability, and privacy make me pick it over google for my phone, tablet, and watch.

Granted, it I could replace those things with FOSS alternatives that worked as well as Apple products do, I would in a heart beat.

Wait till you google Richard M. Stallman.

Whether it’s biotech or software, there’s always tension between creating incentives for innovation vs fostering wide availability and openness.

The Free Software / Open Source world exists on the openness side, and while some business (including Apple) have made a business while contributing to open source projects, there is sometimes a catch. For example, Google gives away the core of Android (the Android Open Source Project), but if an OEM wants Google Maps, Google Play, etc, they have to play by Google’s rules.

Anyone who tells you it’s just as easy to make a living selling free software (what GNU calls it) as it is selling proprietary software is full of shit. It’s not as easy. It can be done, and Open Source can be a selling point, but it’s nowhere near as straightforward as just selling a thing for a price. Copyrights, like the copyrights protecting iOS and macOS, let companies just sell a thing for a price. No bullshit.

Apple, like any corporate interest, has reason to support or oppose various laws. I’m an Apple fanboy as much as anyone, but I’ll readily admit they’re on the wrong side of history with right-to-repair. Apple’s an excessively litigious company. They’re bullies in some markets. But I still prefer their simple transactional value proposition, which is that you pay for goods and services. Software is a good.

Open Source software is great too, and often as good as the proprietary stuff, but a world without copyright (basically what he is suggesting) would have a very hard time promoting the useful arts. For that matter, Open Source licenses typically function through copyright law. The GNU GPL, for example, only works because it has copyright as a backstop if you refuse to accept the license.

I’ll preface this by saying don’t beat yourself up for using Apple. You can be critical and still use their products. I am typing this on Windows 10 and have a macbook for work. Microsoft and Google are far from perfect in this space. As the saying goes, “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” lol.

I think you should use open source software but I don’t think you should force yourself if good alternatives don’t exist for your use case. A good example is Photoshop. The open source version is GIMP. I use GIMP mostly because I don’t want to pay for Photoshop but from what I’ve heard from people who edit pictures professionally it is not even a competition.

Compare that to Audacity, my understanding is more people in the audio world use it. Or VLC Media player! It can basically open any format of video, it’s crazy!

If you’re curious to try a linux desktop operating system the choices will become overwhelming like you said. Ubuntu is the go-to suggestion usually. There are ways to create “live USBs” to run it from the USB like a test drive (but it may be slow). I’ve decided my next computer I build I’m going to run Linux primarily but I haven’t got around to building it.