We have a choice to make: How we compute matters
2025-06-26
In the fall of 1992 I bought my first computer, a Mac Color Classic, to write my Masters thesis. I knew nothing about computers. I only chose a Mac because I was new to Memphis and one of the only people I knew was a Mac user that lived across the apartment complex and when I told him I needed a new computer that’s where he guided me. I shrugged and bought a Mac.
Not only would I be writing my thesis using that computer but I aquired my first email account for communicating with my advisor in Vermont. During and after the thesis writing I used it to create a community newsletter and a variety of flyers. In those first few years as a computer user it never occurred to me, not once, to question the ethics of the hardware or software. I booted it, opened “programs” as needed, did the work and walked away. Proprietary, closed software was all I knew. I didn’t even know enough about computing to begin to question it.
By 1998 I was in the middle of a small, growing activist community. The Color Classic was regularly used by a couple people to make flyers and zines and had served its purpose but we wanted to build a website and I was told by the local ISP that I would need a new computer because it would not run Netscape. I was comfortable with Mac OS and had learned enough to understand that it was the underdog fighting to survive. Microsoft was the big, bad corporate wolf. Apple’s was the hero, it’s Mac designed to be easy to use. I bought my second Mac. I’d still not heard of GNU/Linux. I didn’t feel trapped by proprietary software because the Mac was the tool I used. I was “free” to install different programs to do different things. It would never have occurred to me that there was a different way to do computing other than to choose Windows.
What I did know was that my Mac crashed pretty often but I accepted that as normal and learned to troubleshoot. By 2000 I was actively identifying with Apple as the “the good guy” standing up against Microsoft. When they announced OS X the Apple press and users on forums made a big deal about it being a shift to an OS based on Unix (or something to that effect). And it was during those early days after Apple announced OS X that I began hearing about Linux. That it was a free, open source operating system similar in design to where the Mac would be going with OS X. I still knew nothing about the ethics, only that it was “free and open source”. Had I made any effort to really investigate the history, philosophy and ethics of this other computing world, I think I would have jumped ship. Sadly, I did not. I was curious enough to actually install Yellow Dog Linux on a partition. My vague recollection is that I found it fascinating and that, while it mostly worked. I used it for maybe a month, booting back and forth between it and Mac OS. I hadn’t planned to actually switch, I just wanted to get a preview of what was coming with OS X. I deleted it and waited for the OS X Public Beta.
Regrettably, at no point in the 24 years that followed did I ever stop to consider the brief glimpse I’d had into this other computing world. Of course I knew it was there, as it lived as the perpetual meme: “Surely this is the year of the Linux desktop.” My take for years was to chuckle and think something along the lines of “Those poor Linux users, what are they doing?” The nerdiest of the nerds, uselessly suffering with a terminal and an operating system that never seemed to improve. Now, I had no actual evidence for this opinion because I had not actually looked into it in the years since I installed Yellow Dog. Why would I? Apple’s OS had gotten steadily better. Faster, stable, visually beautiful and all the apps I could ever need were there. All running on hardware I had come to appreciate for its sleek design. It was the one form of consumerism I’d allowed myself with almost no questions.
I never felt trapped. Never. I never felt restricted or constrained. I never felt that my freedom was being impinged upon. Just the opposite.
The iPhone came and then the iPad. Both even more locked down, more restricted than the Mac which I had viewed as entirely open. When you’re in it you don’t realize you’re in it. Or, at least, I didn’t. But with iOS and iPadOS it was obvious that things were different. These devices and their OS were completely locked down. In fact, it was questionable if they were really computers. They were computing devices, easy to use, secure and safe enough for anyone, including my aging relatives with zero computing experience, to use. No problems installing apps, using email, browsing the web, messaging, collecting and even editing photos. In her final years my granny, in her 80s, was messaging and emailing her family with no difficulty. Saving photos of great grand kids and random memes. She rarely needed tech support because her iPad just worked.
And I embraced it too. After 20 years using the Mac I found in the iPad a device that still let me get most of my work done and I was happy to stop futzing with the OS. Though OS X had been stable it still required maintenance and often a bit of troubleshooting. But something about the utter simplicity of the iPad, it’s form factor, just grabbed me. By 2017 I preferred it and by 2020 my Mac was rarely used and I resented the times I had to use it. If you’ve read my blog at any point in the past 7 years you’ve very likley gotten tired of my frequent posts about using the iPad.
But with the iPad, I was fully aware of the constraints, I loved using it anyway. And I accepted and even championed the degree to which it was locked down because I celebrated the fact that non-technical people like my granny could participate in “computing” with no fear. Those that want open computing could choose other platforms. If it was their best option non-technical users like my granny should be able to choose locked down, proprietary platforms.
Unfortunately many people, likely, most people, don’t have much of an understanding of the choices. In a world where so many of our interactions are increasingly dominated by just a few mega-capitalists, the obvious OS options are just the three provided by Apple, Microsoft and Google. Our access to information is often limited and our ability to understand the information we do have is always limited. We just push forward sometimes with far too little consideration about the technology we adopt be that industrial agriculture, combustion engines, corn syrup or operating systems. We blunder through it often choosing the most convenient options before we ever consider, much less understand, the long-term implications of those choices.
As individuals and societies, we make often make life altering decisions with far too little discussion and consideration. And we can look around and see what a mess we’ve gotten ourselves into as a result. When we fail to make the effort we cause ourselves harm on a variety of levels. Bringing this back to the specifics of computing and the current context of 2025, we seem to be at a pivotal moment. Computers are central to modern life and are a part of daily life on every possible level. How we choose to use computers matters.
Centralized Social Media The election in the US of Trump has come at a time when many now openly refer to the wealthiest in the US as oligarchs and the US itself as an oligarchy on the verge of autocracy or dictatorship. We regularly acknowledge the harm being done by “big tech” with AI being a notable focus the past couple years. But along with that we have the previous 15 years worth of increasing concentration of internet use into a handful of siloed social media, most notably, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok. When talk about the secret algorithms used by companies seeking to keep us engaged with a mix of outrage, misinformation and feel good animal clips thrown in for relief we call it doomscrolling.
OS Lock-In And of course most people do their doomscrolling using devices that are increasingly not fully their own devices. On the surface, from just very casual thought, these devices may seem to be ours. I bought this iPad, it’s mine to do with as I please! I own it, not Apple! But no. That’s not actually how this arrangement works. The choice to buy the iPad was mine, yes. As long as it’s turned off I can choose to use it as a place to put my sandwhich. I could paint a picture on it with some acrylic paint. I can throw in a lake if I want. But the minute I power it up to use it as a computing device, I am now operating under a new rule system dictated by Apple. In this relationship the simple, ultimate truth is that Apple gets the final word. This is, in no way, an exaggeration.
Device Expiration Date Yes, every Apple iDevice comes with an undeclared expiration date that Apple gets to determine. Why, how? I cannot choose to run a different operating system on an iPad and this is important for many reasons. For example, my 2014 iPad is now beyond use. The version of iPadOS it runs no longer gets security updates nor do newer apps work on it. the last version of iPadOS that did work on it did not work as well because it was not optimized for such old hardware with features that were not supported. After its last upgrade it was much slower.
Is it rididulous for me to expect an 11 year old iPad to still be useful? I’m typing these words using a 2012 Mac Mini that is running the most recent version of Trisquel GNU/Linux with no problem (so, technically it is a Trisquel Mini). It get’s security updates on a regular basis. In the next year or so I’ll have no problem updating it to the next version of Trisquel when it is released. It’s modern OS and most apps open instantly. I might be able to use this computer for another 10 years.
App Lock-in Of course, it goes without saying that because users are locked in to Apple’s OS they are also locked-in to Apple’s app store. Apple sold me a device but that one-time sale was not enough for them. They demand that any and all expanded use beyond the default apps be conducted through their store. Their device, their rules, their store.
While there’s much more that could be said about Apple’s ownership and control of their users’ devices, it’s worth expanding outward to include the OS, apps and services offered by other companies like Microsoft. One recent example is Microsoft eliminating the option for a user to set-up a local account on their computer. Nope. The company requires new user accounts go through an online Microsoft account. Technically, at the moment, there are work arounds to set-up a local account but they are not obvious and require users to work around Microsoft’s efforts to elliminate an option that should be an easy choice at the time of account set-up.
Along the same lines there are countless examples of Microsoft changing user settings with updates. Paul Thurrott, a journalist covering Microsoft for many years, often shares such stories. Just one recent example Giving in:
“I would decline Windows 11’s offer to”backup" my Desktop, Documents, and Pictures folders to OneDrive during Setup, but in each case, it would later ignore that decision and simply enable the feature."
In the above linked article he refers to Microsoft’s behavior as predatory. It's not the first time he's characterized their behavior in such a way. Nor is he the only one to notice. Microsoft regularly and with intent, abuses its users. It’s policy. And, as if going behind users backs is not abusive enough, they also fill the user experience with advertisements and AI slop. Ultimately this is subjugation.
I don’t use Microsoft or Google products but it’s not hard to come up with plenty of examples for both. All three of these companies are invasive in their own ways. All three of these companies agressively seek to control and own the user experience with the goal of increased profits. And of course their reach is global and permeates into every realm of life where computers are used: Home, school, business, government… and every space between.
I accepted Apple’s behavior for far too long. And then, one day, I said nope. Nope. Nope. NOPE. On some level, at some point I began to care about how they, a profit seeking company, were treating me as a human being. I simply had to stop pretending that it was okay for them to treat me in such a way. And that it was in my best interest to stop cooperating. We do not have to comply with their malicious, invasive and abusive profit seeking. We can walk away even if it seems difficult. And we can share when we do and encourage others to do the same. We can help each other in the process.
I’ll end with this. Pete Seeger singing Which side are you on?
I don't have comments but I love email or you can find me on Mastodon.
Share this post 