• Matomo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Imagine feeling like your phone’s brand defines if you’re poor or not lol

      • dukk@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s the logic here?

        Saving money doesn’t make you poor, it makes you smart.

      • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The most expensive iPhone is $1600, and the Galaxy Fold 5 with the same storage option is $2160, disliking Apple has nothing to do with poverty.

        Even if I were a billionaire, I wouldn’t want an iPhone. You can’t sideload apps, that’s an automatic disqualifier in my mind for a smartphone.

        Edit: Also, you’ve edited your comment from “Wanna know how I know you’re poor” to “Wanna know how I know you’re cool” without indicating it, which is a dick move.

          • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d hardly call F-Droid dangerous, these apps are generally safer than many apps on Google’s Play Store. Sure, if you get some apk files from some shady website for the purpose of piracy, you are likely to get malware, but stop acting like installing apps outside of the default appstore is some dangerous and irresponsible thing. Your phone is a computer that lives in your pocket, treat it like you would treat a PC and you’ll be fine.

            • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Tbh, I sometimes don’t care and just throw them into the Workspace environment. As I am using Graphene OS, there shouldn’t be a purpose for the workspace as every app is inside a heavy sandbox on default.

          • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Open Source apps tend to be more secure because you can see, change and audit the code.

            There were too many hacking Attacks for normal apps that contain mostly adware or Malware for both brands… As many are greedy and need to have some purpose to pay 100€ for just showing up on the store.

            With sideloading Open Source apps, you can enjoy a life many people call as the only free life you can have. Richard Stallman makes nearly a religion out of it with GNU.

            • suction@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              OSS has its own attack vectors which closed doesn’t, i.e. malicious code snuck into upstream libraries and going unnoticed for weeks, or outright buying popular oss code from devs to abuse.

              Neither is more secure.

              • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                People can figure out what happens on OSS while for closed source, it will be after 5 years still unnoticed

      • chic_luke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I dislike the Apple ecosystem a lot and the laptop I have on order is more expensive than a MacBook Pro 14 with M2 Pro

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nah, performance.

            Which you can get in spades if you don’t suck on Apples ecosystem like it’s your mother’s tit.

            • suction@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If the performance of a modern Mac isn’t enough for you, you’re probably installing a million background bloatware apps and run them all in the background without knowing, like a boomer.

              You’re just not using computers right

          • chic_luke@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, I was denying the fact that “If you don’t use Apple you’re poor”.

            I am paying top dollar for a laptop that has the specifications I want, an exposed PCIE port for arbitrary PCIE devices to be dropped on the bus at any given time, perfect Linux support, and every part designed to be able to upgraded and repaired at will. Yes, if I ever need to, I want to be able to have 96 GB of RAM and 6 TB of storage installed. Apple simply does not allow this. In my case, my total configuration will be 32 GB of RAM and 3 TB of storage with a 8 core / 16 threads CPU with enough onboard graphical compute units to be usable even for some graphically intensive tasks with the eGPU unplugged. Even with its most expensive option, Apple does not sell a laptop that can be specced this far. I want to be able to connect Oculink eGPUs and not be bound by Thunderbolt’s max transfer speed as well - and Apple does not offer this feature.

            Apple doesn’t offer this. It would be cheaper to buy Apple in my situation, but it simply doesn’t offer the features I ask for.

            Now the small challenge is: guess what laptop I have on order? ;)

            • suction@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You don’t actually need those specs, you just like to brag that you have this and that. Meanwhile thousands of others run circles around whatever you do on lesser machines.