The issue is defaults. Personally, I prefer using an open source alternative OS where generally everything is disbled by default. (NetBSD is best exemple I have found.) Commercial OS like the ones created by Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. have default settings that are opinionated, i.e., some users might not wish to choose these settings. This puts a burden on the user to disable or work around them somehow. Apple iOS and MacOS by default generate a considerable amount of network traffic to Apple servers as soon as they are powered on. When I power on a computer running NetBSD, there is by default no traffic to a corporate mothership.
Given the choice between (a) a corporate OS that requires me to perform some amount of work to "turn off" some "features" the corporation has enabled and (b) a non-corporate OS that requires me to perform some amount of work to "turn on" the "features" that I want to use, I prefer (b).
It seems to me that the issue with this approach is that those commercial OSs have to deal with a way more diverse audience than NetBSD and even Linux.
While most of Linux's audience (and probably practically all of NetBSD's) is rather technically inclined and could possibly be expected to turn on the security features as they need them, most of Windows' and macOS's audience will very likely have no idea that there is even an option to do this.
Also, software companies would probably take the easy route and just assume that since those features aren't enable by default, most people don't enable them and develop their software in a way which could be incompatible with them.
So I think that for an OS like macOS, where most people flock "because it just works and has no viruses", strict defaults are a sane choice. Having people go through hoops and click through warning messages would probably also push companies to better design their software.
In the end, I think the best way is for such features to be the default setup. But those OSs need to have an "escape hatch" for someone who actually wants those features disabled and actually understands the risks of disabling them. While macOS does (for the moment) have this hatch, it looks maybe /too/ complex. But then I think the difficulty of the exercise is in setting the "correct" level of complexity for this operation.
Well said. And frankly, this is true even of FOSS -- or why are there so many flavors of Linux?
Even technical users are going to differ in the sets of opinions they hold and are qualified to hold. I care about which Python I have installed. The virtual memory manager? Not so much. Someone else might, though.
The problem is that people who work on some specific fields (music, cinema, graphics) have almost no choice when choosing OS and computer.
Most of them won't even care about sending too much data to a company if that's the price to have the same device everyone else is using in their industry...
I have a G4 I bought for use as a DAW. It still has OS9; I never installed OSX as I knew it would probably slow things down. I never needed to connect the Mac to the internet. If I needed to send/receive files via internet I moved them via crossover cable to a laptop or PC that was connected to the internet.
People today, even more so than in the 2000's, have multiple computers. Would it still be feasible to have a Mac used for {music, cinema, graphics} that is not connected to the internet. Certainly one would have other computers that were connected to the internet and moving files between computers on the local network, preferably via Ethernet, is much faster.
But the point of me telling personal stories is not to suggest anyone could/should do the same things; on the contrary, it is to illustrate that "one size does not fit all". Today's Apple chooses for the user, rather than letting the user choose.
> The problem is that people who work on some specific fields (music, cinema, graphics) have almost no choice when choosing OS and computer.
Came here to say that.
> Most of them won't even care about sending too much data to a company if that's the price to have the same device everyone else is using in their industry...
I do, I truly do care. So much that I'm looking at open-source/Linux options, at least for my home projects. Doesn't look very bright on the video side, but DaVinci Resolve is at least available for Linux. Rawtherapee is getting there with local adjustments as we speak. Darktable has lots of power but terrible UX.
The problem is not the defaults. The problem is choice. When the motto is "just works", the system needs defaults that works. But savvy user needs to be able to change these things.
A more common use case for this kind of choice is corporate laptops. They usually set up their own policy on the laptop before handing it to employees for good reason. Firewalls are especially necessary to avoid leaking confidential information.
> Given the choice between (a) a corporate OS that requires me to perform some amount of work to "turn off" some "features" the corporation has enabled and (b) a non-corporate OS that requires me to perform some amount of work to "turn on" the "features" that I want to use, I prefer (b).
actually default on, is not a problem if it is easy to turn it off in that case.
if apple would have had a button to turn it off, we would be fine.
Defaults are opinionated per definition. You might agree or disagree with them.
I don't believe the defaults related to this issue are a problem; its the lack of transparency about this, coupled with it being difficult to change this. Probably every update you gotta fix that. That's akin to running a Hackintosh. And we all know macOS is moving towards iOS; not Hackintosh/PC.
Given the choice between (a) a corporate OS that requires me to perform some amount of work to "turn off" some "features" the corporation has enabled and (b) a non-corporate OS that requires me to perform some amount of work to "turn on" the "features" that I want to use, I prefer (b).