Yeah, if Google kills ReVanced, I may as well get an iPhone. What's the difference at this point. You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones.
However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management.
The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.
jacquesm · 5h ago
It's not side loading. It is just installing and running. I swear all this 'for your benefit' crap is going to relegate all of our computing hardware to the status of dumb terminal before long.
Note how the term 'side loading' is already weighted against you doing it, it is supposed to make you feel you're doing something that is borderline illegal even if it is still possible and that you are bypassing safeguards that would stop you from doing this stupid thing if you only took the proper route.
wilsonnb3 · 4h ago
It’s called that because you used to download the apks on a separate computer and then load them onto the phone, it has nothing to do with sounding illegal
jacquesm · 1h ago
No, that's not necessary. You can download them straight to your phone. The 'side' is clearly in reference to the fact that you bypass the app store.
wilsonnb3 · 1h ago
Yes, you can download APKs but I don’t remember that being common in the early days of Android.
This was before it had a download manager or file manager and using your computer to manage your phone was the norm.
The term predates Android anyways, goes back to the 90s I think.
No comments yet
ekianjo · 3h ago
You could always download apks directly from your phone...
wilsonnb3 · 1h ago
Back in the day it wasn’t the norm though. We plugged our phones into our computers to manage media, jailbreak them, install apps downloaded from forums, etc.
Hell, people used to use iTunes to manage the apps on their iPhone and organize their Home Screen.
dadoum · 1h ago
I did not check but I think that the term may be older than Android, iirc on Symbian phones installing custom Java applets required a computer to place the package on the phone.
jimjimwii · 2h ago
That's how I've always done it. Why would anyone do it any other way? Genuine question.
david_allison · 3m ago
Some devices don't have browsers, some are locked-down and only support one app store, or sideloading via adb, sometimes the UX is better (SideQuest for the Meta Quest).
blehn · 4h ago
Not that Google needs any more cash, but ReVanced has to be the absolute worst defense for maintaining openness on Android. As in, you could have cited the thousands of legitimate apps that have nothing to do with circumventing a pretty reasonable subscription (compared to other media subscriptions out there) for Google's own app.
wpm · 3h ago
Not paying for Premium is pretty cheesy but Revanced also fixes a number of hostile UX changes to YouTube no subscription let you escape normally.
It also allows you to patch other apps to make them work the way you want.
necovek · 1h ago
With phones becoming our main computing platform, I wonder why do we look at it any different from our personal computers?
On my computer, I can choose to containerize applications I run with something like docker, flatpak or snaps; run them in a VM, under a separate user, in a chroot... or, not! I can get them from the Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/... archive or... not! Or I might compile it from source and run it directly or... not!
Based on source of the app I decide how much I trust it and thus decide on the encapsulation strategy for it (sometimes, none).
Yes, I understand having full control of your system has some minor downsides (you can mess things up more easily), but you can usually do that anyway (just fill up your phone storage with photos and see how your phone behaves).
baranul · 58m ago
> With phones becoming our main computing platform, I wonder why do we look at it any different from our personal computers?
Especially after people paying so much money for the devices, it's ludicrous that they are not allowed to make their own decisions and install what they want. Ownership, user rights, and privacy have been kicked in the face. If you can not install whatever software that you want, then people should be signing only rental agreements.
It is also more the reason to push Linux smartphones[1]. Android is not doing anything special, that people could not get or create for Linux phones.
The "because they're phones" argument that inevitably gets made is such an entitled take, too. For most people their phone is their only computing platform. Why don't those people deserve sovereignty in their computing device?
The worst part of these walled garden ecosystems is that it's introducing people to computing in a way that makes these restrictions of freedom seem natural and normal. The antithesis of the 80s home computer boom.
fluidcruft · 5h ago
Oh is ReVanced that YouTube-without-ads thing? I'm about to install it out of pure spite to reciprocate Google's hostility.
nodja · 2h ago
It's much more than that. It's an app that patches apks and has a series of community patches for specific apps. For youtube it's the usual ad blocking and sponsorblock, etc. but it can apply patches for all apps, one of the universal patches is changing the package name, this allows you to install 2 of the same app. I use this on youtube and tiktok so I have both accounts logged in at the same time, each logged in to a separate app.
wand3r · 4h ago
> You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones.
Can you not do this on Samsung phones? I was considering buying a used s22 ultra as an iPhone user to explore more freedom and pirate apps, etc. Is andoid really this locked down now? I have heard that quite a bit, but can't you sideload or install any apps you want on Android? Why do you need to unlock the bootloader?
orbital-decay · 3h ago
Not anymore, since OneUI 8. And before that, by unlocking the bootloader you were tripping Samsung's e-fuse, permanently marking the hardware as unlocked. That's why nobody ever bothered making custom firmware builds for Samsung devices.
Sideloading doesn't require rooting the device.
queenkjuul · 26m ago
Unlocking the bootloader is step 1 in rooting the device (usually) and is absolutely required to install an alternate OS (like grapheneOS)
And yeah majority of phones simply won't let you do that anymore
MiddleEndian · 4h ago
>The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.
Disagree entirely. Google Play refused to download some app on my phone because it thought the specs weren't good enough for whatever reason even though it worked fine on my previous weaker phone.
I found the APK, I downloaded it, and just installed it. Why would I want to first download some other middle-man to deal with any of this shit? Ideally there would be no "store" at all on my phone.
I'd probably still want a common repo to get software from, for the same reason we use package managers and repos on Linux. Not to mention that the app store experience is more friendly to the newbies out there. But the 'just download an apk/exe/.app and run it' should still exist as a lowest common denominator. Not to mention that the existence of that possibility will hopefully keep stores in check and not become overtly hostile, since if they do, users can just say 'fuck it' and download their software piecemeal.
wolfi1 · 4h ago
f-droid would also require google approved devs
gdulli · 5h ago
Apple? I'd never give my money to the organization that's responsible for bringing us to this place.
nextos · 5h ago
And Microsoft. Microsoft basically killed Nokia from the inside. Symbian was fairly open in terms of installing applications from wherever you wanted.
And Maemo/MeeGo were basically normal Linux distributions. Right now, SailfishOS is a worthy successor. It runs on a fairly decent number of devices and is quite ready for daily usage. Following the Nokia tradition, offline maps are outstanding. There's also a proprietary Android emulation layer that works really well for most applications, in case that is needed.
SailfishOS and Jolla could challenge the duopoly if a critical mass of developers migrated to the system. Right now, there's a fairly small technical userbase that has nonetheless produced lots of great indie applications. I can't believe I had Linux in my pocket with the N770 in late 2005 and, right now, mainstream options are so locked down.
cmxch · 1h ago
Then let the US in.
bitwize · 4h ago
Sailfish is not, and never will be, available in the USA. The reason why is because US carriers do device whitelisting: if the handset is not approved by the carrier, it cannot connect. And they're not going to approve anything but iOS and Android.
nextos · 4h ago
Plenty of SFOS users run the OS on Sony devices, where it has official support, I don't see a major problem. T-Mobile seems to have no problem with them.
There are of course caveats, but with a larger userbase things would get ironed out. Still, in the Sailfish forum there are American users that employ their devices as daily drivers.
mindslight · 4h ago
Keep on hacking at basebands. In the US, changing a device's IMEI is only illegal when done with intent to obtain unauthorized service. Using a phone of your choice on your side of the radio wave demarc falls squarely under Carterphone.
(Never mind clunkier but more straightforward solutions like a libre device/OS using wifi from a mifi)
bitwize · 3h ago
Ah, but once the baseband is hacked, the FCC may declare it out of compliance with its regulations and thus, illegal to transmit!
mindslight · 3h ago
Sure, but that seems much harder to notice/enforce than blanket blocks. And while you could always get singled out for enforcement, that won't necessarily stop group momentum.
FirmwareBurner · 4h ago
>Microsoft basically killed Nokia from the inside.
Nokia was dead man walking since the first iPhone dropped and Nokia employees of that time will tell you the same as they also wrote here before.
Even before Microsoft took over, Nokia's corporate structure, culture and management was too slow, bureaucratic and cumbersome to modern SW development, to be able to turn the giant ship around and catch up with what Apple and Google have already launched, let alone overtake them. It was game over for them already, Microsoft or no Microsoft.
nextos · 4h ago
I disagree. The N770-N9 saga could have competed with the iPhone. Some of these devices came to the market earlier.
But the company treated it as a side project due to internal politics. They didn't want to bother Symbian.
A classic innovator's dilemma problem. Then Microsoft (Elop) came in, killed the N9, and shifted to Windows.
FirmwareBurner · 4h ago
>I disagree. The N770-N9 saga could have competed with the iPhone.
Says you, not the market. You are free to disagree, but history proves you wrong. If N770-N9 were such good devices for the gen-pop, they would have beaten iPhone sales to the moon and show Apple that they were wrong, but they weren't. The average user is not your tech savvy HN user who likes to tinker with mobile FOSS Linux devices, and iPhone's success proved this.
>[...] due to internal politics.
That's exactly what I said. Having better tech is useless if your corporate management, product execution and marketing is shit. That's why Apple and Google won, and Nokia, Motorola, and et-al lost on the free market.
nextos · 4h ago
I agree with your point about politics. But marketwise, the N9 sold very well despite the project received no support, and also got glowing reviews [1]. The N900 still enjoys cult status. Posts about this device pop up in HN every now and then.
Maemo/MeeGo could have >10% marketshare in some EU countries, just like desktop Linux does right now. The N9 was a very elegant device, ready for the masses, and good enough to become a third mobile platform.
The N9 was incredibly elegant and easy to use. The hardware was well crafted, and the card-based UI was outstanding. All applications were well integrated. For example, any messaging application would add its protocol to your contact list, instead of having everything fragmented in apps. Offline maps were second to none. It took a decade for iOS and Android to catch up.
It shipped with native support for a variety of VoIP protocols, including Google Talk (Jingle) and Skype. The OLED screen was stunning on the dark mode UI. Mozilla provided a great mobile Firefox port, and there was a native terminal just in case you wanted to ssh to machines or do something from your phone. Tethering or even using Linux running on your phone from a bigger screen worked really well, in 2011.
Who cares, is nobody bought it? You need sales to make money because you need money to pay wages and shareholders. Otherwise you're preaching to the choir. The graveyard of history if full of great products and great ideas that didn't catch on for various reasons related to sales, timing, marketing and execution.
It doesn't matter if the N9 was good or not in the minds of the tech savvy HN crowd, what matters is that the iPhone beat them on the free market.
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent" and Steve Jobs understood this better than anyone.
necovek · 1h ago
N9 development was stopped by the management despite the success in the market: all Nokia phones started moving to Windows as the "strategic" platform due to a new CEO who joined from Microsoft.
Yes, previous management messed up before that point too (they did not ship N700 with GSM chip and marketed it as "internet tablet" so as not to jeopardize their Symbian phone sales, only adding it to N800 and beyond, and then Apple turned their iPod Touch into iPhone and stole their lunch), but they finally figured out a great phone, and then... pivoted.
nextos · 3h ago
> Who cares, is nobody bought it?
The N9 was sold out in Scandinavia, and it was outselling Lumia (Windows) in Q4 '11. That's fairly good for something that had no marketing and it had already been labeled as a dead platform. Around 2 million N9 devices were sold. That's on the same order of magnitude as any Google Pixel generation.
What could have happened if the device had been phased out is something we can only hypothesize about, but I don't think it's fair to claim it was a fringe device nobody cared about.
FirmwareBurner · 3h ago
>The N9 was sold out in Scandinavia
If only Scandinavia was as relevant as the US, UK, Asia and rest of the EU for a product to stay in development and in production to remain internationally relevant and competitive to the iPhone.
>Around 2 million N9 devices were sold.
My LLM research says 1-1,5 Million MeeGo powered Nokia N9 devices were sold by 2011, versus 93 Million iPhones and 237 Million Android devices out of which Samsung had 94 million, similar to Apple at the time. The N9's 1,5 Million wasn't even close, it was orders of magnitude less than Apple or Samsung.
So the writing was on the wall by then. How can you even think that they had a chance to be competitive after the numbers of 2011? Based on those numbers they were right to pull the plug back then at the time, the finances spoke for themselves, there was no way for Nokia to turn the ship around in their favor. The line was just going down and even more down.
necovek · 1h ago
This is the phone that came out and faced an announcement that development is stopping on the platform a few months before release — that's actually amazing sales considering the circumstances!
HP Pre 3 was a similar situation where it was pulled after it was shipped to retailers and operators, but before it went officially on sale — they still sold well even with unsupported system.
There were many rugpulls like these, and while they technically make these products flops, they were also not given a fair chance either.
StopDisinfo910 · 2h ago
> Who cares, is nobody bought it?
Your point was that Nokia had nothing that could compete with the iPhone. You have now been shown this to be patently untrue and that Nokia was killed by an incompetent board bringing in a MS transfuge.
Stop trying to move the goal post. You are just wrong. That’s ok, you will survive. Everybody who lived through it could have told you by the way. The first iPhone was a pretty poor device and it wasn’t before the 3 that things started to improve. There was plenty of space to compete.
GeekyBear · 3h ago
> Apple? I'd never give my money to the organization that's responsible for bringing us to this place.
Apple didn't invent walled gardens, and walled gardens are not illegal unless you do what the EU did and change the law.
What is going to bite Google on the ass here is selling users an "open" platform and then using anticompetitive tactics to yank those supposed freedoms away.
Look at Microsoft's Xbox platform. It was created, advertised and sold to the public as a walled garden with no legal repercussions at all, because walled gardens are not illegal.
On the other hand, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform and sold it to the public as such. When Microsoft tried to use anticompetitive tactics to maintain control of the platform they sold as "open", they were found guilty of antitrust in jurisdictions around the world.
Google made the choice to sell Android as open. "Sideloading" apps was the only way to install apps at all for the first couple of years. The decision to sell Android as "open" only to yank those freedoms away will have legal consequences again here.
bonoboTP · 2h ago
Nobody in this chain claimed that's illegal (or not). It can be hostile, dystopian etc without ever being illegal.
GeekyBear · 2h ago
If you don't want to buy into a walled garden, you have the choice not to do so.
The problem here is that the people who announced the "open" platform option were lying to everyone in order to gain market share.
bonoboTP · 2h ago
> If you don't want to buy into a walled garden, you have the choice not to do so.
You can still lament the wider societal scale impacts of increasing controls. If both Google and Apple become walled gardens, then what exactly is left? And people need smartphones to get through daily life, interact with banks and government offices.
And I bet Windows is going to head down the same path. ID-verified-by-default, only government and corporate-approved apps installable, AI surveillance running in the background analyzing your every click (for your safety) etc. You see, we need that to catch the bad guys.
GeekyBear · 1h ago
You can certainly lament anything you like and refuse to buy into walled gardens, but it's not Apple's fault that Google lied to you about their platform being "open".
itake · 5h ago
How are they responsible?
MetaWhirledPeas · 3h ago
Not only did Apple popularize app stores, they made it impossible to get software on their devices any other way, from day one. Google was the relatively "open" option. But that was the old Google. This is the new Google, apparently.
I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free. But I'm 100% against shutting out side-loading. Side-loading was never common let alone a common vector for malware, at least not that I've ever heard. But what it is, apparently (or we would not see these Google shenanigans), is a long-term threat to Google's own app store.
Some idiot executive decided this.
rstat1 · 2h ago
>>I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free
Except that it isn't. Epic v Apple proved this on the Apple side.
The fact that (according to Google) only 50% of Android malware comes from sideloading should also make you question where the other 50% is coming from. (Hint: a lot of it is from the Play Store)
Aloisius · 1h ago
50%? Source?
The only similar claim I can find is they said is you're 50x more likely to encounter malware from internet-sideloaded sources than from the Play Store, but that's rather different.
kleiba · 5h ago
I cannot speak for the grandparent, so here's my best guess what was meant: namely the introduction of a centally managed "app store" as the central/only way to install new software on your device, thereby taking control away from users?!
Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept?
blibble · 5h ago
carriers had similar stores for j2me apps
on the original iphone the only "apps" you could have were websites, as apple hated the carrier approach
justsid · 5h ago
The “sweet solution” has long been debunked by the people who worked on the early iPhone OS software. The iPhone was always supposed to have apps, it just wasn’t ready yet. Heck, half the OS wasn’t ready either at launch or the MacWorld presentation.
guyomes · 4h ago
On video game consoles, the concept of taking control away from users seems common. There was some Linux kit for the Playstation 2 for example [1]. On more recent console, the process is not facilitated, to say the least [2].
> Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept?
Far from it.
Before Apple, carriers and handset makers 100% controlled what you could install. "App stores" like Verizon's Get It Now, BREW, and Nokia’s operator portals existed, but they were fragmented, clunky, often exploitative, and comparatively laughable in scope and scale.
Apple did what seemed impossible at the time, which was to persuade/cajole/force carriers and handset makers to give up their roles as gatekeepers. They created a single global marketplace with mostly-predictable rules and simple discovery, which finally allowed indie developers to reach users directly just as easily as global behemoths.
GeekyBear · 3h ago
Remember when Verizon was sued for forcing device makers to disable Bluetooth file transfers if they wanted their device to be allowed to connect to Verizon's network?
Verizon wanted you to have to pay a fee every time you used their software to transfer an image from your phone to your computer, or vice versa.
gdulli · 3h ago
Even less freedom of sideloading. They normalized it.
pharrington · 6h ago
Why is it weird? You install software on your computer. You install software from your app repository. You install software with your package manager. You install software on your server. You install software on the computers you administrate. "Sideload" was always the weird, Orwellian term.
(editted to add repository and package manager points)
AJ007 · 5h ago
This is what bothers me about the whole "App Store" stuff with the EU. This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of?
The amount of legalism that's been brought in by both sides, Apple/Google and the regulators, layered in lies (we need to approve the software, register the developers, to protect the user from software), is divorced from the reality of the hardware-software relationship. This has led us down a path where everyone is debating the topics that Google, Apple, and revolving door regulators choose rather than the underlying reality.
There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel.
jjav · 2h ago
> This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of?
The Atari 2600 was an immensely popular home computer for a decade(ish), but it didn't exactly spark the personal computer revolution. Why? Because it used the iphone software distribution model. You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. So it was as open as an iphone.
All the actual progress happened on Apple ][, C64, the Radio Shack computers and later the IBM clones. Because, obviously, anyone could write and sell any software they wanted so the market growth went exponential.
A lesson to society, there.
netsharc · 1h ago
The original iPhone didn't launch with an app store, and they weren't even planning to have one, only to allow big providers like AT&T to write software for it. Jailbreakers and reverse-engineers figured out the API and how to compile apps for the iPhone, and then they figured out they could rent-seek 30% and created a new department in their company that provides them billions of income stream.
queenkjuul · 16m ago
I don't think that's true. Third parties produced unlicensed 2600 carts in droves. It was Nintendo that enacted strict licensing requirements.
The 2600 just sucked as a computer.
kcplate · 4h ago
> There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel.
“Simple” solutions can produce unintended outcomes.
You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me.
You have apparently never sat down on an elderly persons PC in the early ‘00s and tried to sort out all manner of shopping toolbars, coupon widgets, and crapware that has caused their pc to slow to a crawl. It’s literally bad enough with the poor performing apps in app stores but it could be so much worse without it
No thanks.
necovek · 1h ago
That's easily solved, ain't it: check the "tech savvy" box, and all "safeguards" are off?
Yet instead, we are getting increasingly fewer phones with unlockable bootloaders and root access available. What gives?
I've also checked out my mom's phone a year or so back: she had so many crappy apps from official store that it was barely usable. Stores do not really help.
jjav · 2h ago
> You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me.
Were you horrified by the Apple ][?
bartread · 2h ago
This is no argument at all. When the Apple II was released microcomputers were still very much in the realms of enthusiasts, and were beginning to make inroads into education.
The Apple II was never used by “everyone” and nobody expected it to be, even towards the end of its quite long life.
No question, it was a stepping stone to where we are today but you can’t compare an enthusiast/early adopter product from nearly 50 years ago to contemporary Android and iOS devices that are intended for “everyone”, in the way you’re attempting with your comment.
jjani · 3h ago
Having to caveat it with "in the early '00s" already invalidates your thesis; it means we've managed to largely fix this issue on PC without resorting to giving away device ownership.
bartread · 2h ago
I don’t think it invalidates the argument at all.
I think it’s more a reflection that people mostly use other devices, like phones and tablets, for tasks they might have used a PC for 20 years ago - at least outside an office environment.
That’s not to say the PC experience hasn’t improved - certainly Windows is at least more secure - but that it’s not the only factor, and I don’t think it’s the biggest factor either.
One data point for you: the last company I worked for, when I joined in 2017, already >50% of external users were accessing our service via mobile devices.
pharrington · 36m ago
The formfactor is the biggest, possibly only, factor. The handheld formfactor works way better for most people than a huge (or even small) stationary brick, or even a laptop.
isaacremuant · 51s ago
Politician and corporations want you to not have ownership or control over your devices. Either for money or control, but they absolutely would love for things like Linux to not be possible or illegal so they can force you to watch ads and pay their next version of enshitified shit, not consume the wrong kind of news and absolutely not assemble in political opposition to their corruption.
If you don't see the patterns of absolutely pathetic authoritianism, which most people cheered on during covid policies times, you're not going be very effective at opposing this crap.
blfr · 5h ago
It's weird because "sideloading" accurately captures that you're doing something ad hoc outside of the main channel. You install software with your package manager, from the app repository, and you sideload it with `curl | bash` or manually moving an .exe/.msi/.apk.
This is a fine distinction. And it will happen and should happen because there are always gaps. Without a way to fill them, you're left with a subpar experience.
And while many people are fine with it on their iPhones, I can't really imagine not having ReVanced apps, Molly, or a dozen other little fixes.
gr4vityWall · 5h ago
> "sideloading" accurately captures that you're doing something ad hoc outside of the main channel.
Who gets to decide what the main channel is?
For a lot of people here, F-Droid is their main way of installing programs on phones.
superkuh · 5h ago
It's not a fine distinction. It's orwellian propaganda. Installation is the normal thing that is the status quo. Having a locked down corporation controlled system that only lets you install things they approve should be called some new word. But the only thing coming to mind personally is "dumb" or "willeventuallybackfireonyoustallation".
Fire-Dragon-DoL · 3h ago
On windows, you mostly download apps from websites and sideload them. And windows is by far the most common OS
JohnTHaller · 3h ago
There's the fact that on iPhone you have to use Safari's rendering engine and every 'browser' just sits atop it.
thrance · 5h ago
Same here, being able to enjoy YouTube without ads is the only thing really blocking me from switching to ios. Silver lining is, maybe if using YouTube is made painful again it'll help me cure my last remaining internet addiction.
Jordan-117 · 4h ago
I used to think jailbreaking was the only way to do this, and mourned my adblocker tweaks when Apple made jailbreaking practically impossible. But turns out sideloading on iOS is a pretty easy alternative: just install AltStore via your computer, sign in with your Apple ID, and then import and install the YTLitePlus .ipa from their GitHub[1]. This gets you a YouTube clone with adblocking, SponsorBlock, custom UI controls, and all sorts of other quality-of-life features. You can even sign into and sync with your existing YouTube account.
The only downside is that free Apple accounts must renew their certificate in AltStore (while connected to their computer's home network) once a week, or else it'll all be deactivated and you'll have to reinstall AltStore and YTLitePlus from scratch. But you can pay $99 for a year-long developer account, set a recurring reminder to renew, or worst case YTLitePlus makes it easy to export your settings so you can quickly restore it after reinstalling.
I watch YouTube without ads on iOS. Any decent Safari ad blocker stops YouTube's ads. Google seems to make YouTube an intentionally subpar experience in a browser compared to a mobile app, but it works.
Saline9515 · 5h ago
Orion browser (from Kagi) and Brave block natively youtube adds on iphone.
thrance · 5h ago
The YouTube app still feels a bit nicer to use than the web mobile client. And with Revanced you can even play vids in the background + a few nice features like sponsorblock and removing shorts.
Fire-Dragon-DoL · 3h ago
You can play background videos with brave too. Listened to a bunch of podcasts at the gym
65 · 5h ago
You can install iOS Safari ad blockers. AdGuard for example
blfr · 5h ago
ReVanced is so much more than an adblocker though.
Yes, it blocks ads but it also skips sponsored segments and other chaff with a SponsorBlock integration. Then it fixes all the little UI annoyances across apps, for example letting you filter out low-view videos and live streams from your TikTok feed.
It turns mass market apps into something that an HN user would make for themselves.
krull10 · 4h ago
I’m all for keeping user freedom to install whatever they want, and wish it was easy to do so on my iPhone. I will point out though that if you pay for YouTube premium it has now incorporated the ability to skip in-video sponsored ads. I use this all the time now on my Apple TV via the YouTube app.
It is actually pretty hypocritical they’re adding such tech to their apps while fighting so hard against people that want to block the ads they serve…
Fargren · 3h ago
You can get this experience in Android (without sideloading) using Firefox with the correct plugins. I don't have an iPhone so I don't know if the same is true there.
ajsnigrutin · 5h ago
> However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management.
Wait, let me take out my word 97 CDs to read the "sideloading instructions" booklet. Oh wait, what was considered a normal install Same on mobile phone in symbian era. It's not "sideloading", it's a "normal install".
leeoniya · 5h ago
> Wait, let me take out my word 97 CDs
oh, those things you literally load from the side? :P
/s
93po · 6h ago
revanced is killed on iOS too unfortunately and has been for a long while
noisy_boy · 6h ago
Atleast you get some decent hardware if you have to give up the freedom anyway.
esseph · 4h ago
Doesn't matter if there's nothing to do with it
akarki15 · 4h ago
Or you can pay youtube premium? Its not free to host these videos...
Free lunch is over yo.
drnick1 · 4h ago
I am not paying for Youtube. Besides the cost, the last thing I want is Google to track what I view through logins and payment details (real name, address, etc.)
akarki15 · 4h ago
lmao the hypocrisy. you want to use a service and not pay for it- there's a word for it. its called "stealing".
drnick1 · 4h ago
Google can suck it. I won't pay or turn my ad-blocker off. I look forward to the day enough people do this and Youtube loses enough money to be shut down by Google. Creators will then go back to the good, old fashioned model of hosting their own websites and videos. The Internet was meant to be a decentralized network, not to be controlled by a handful of corporations. I hope GMail dies too. All of the problems we have today in cyberspace (including the "sideloading of apps" issue) only exist because of excessive corporate control.
swat535 · 40m ago
> Google can suck it. I won't pay or turn my ad-blocker off
I'm not sure what you want.. You want access to their service, they offer a premium.
You don't want to pay, at the same time you are not will to boycott them for moral reasons, so you instead you attempt to circumvent it by using ad blockers..
akarki15 · 1h ago
> Creators will then go back to the good, old fashioned model of hosting their own websites and videos
LMAO. Nope they won't. They'll go to tiktok or some other platform where you'll surprise pikachu face have to watch ads. Ads powers internet. Someone has to pay server cost at the end of the day- either pay with your dollar or your attention. There's no other option.
oskarw85 · 2h ago
Don't choke on that big G
akarki15 · 1h ago
Ah I see we are resorting to no-argument argument strategy I see..
ekianjo · 3h ago
They can enforce it as a paywall then.
6329263929 · 4h ago
Why would anybody give this criminal enterprise their money?
surajrmal · 4h ago
Why do you use YouTube if you do not find it ethical?
SauciestGNU · 4h ago
The content is there, why should I deny myself access to information if I find the entity gatekeeping it abhorrent? Should I also deny myself access to NIH data because of my feelings toward the US government?
swat535 · 39m ago
Many creators offer patron or other services, I think you would be hard press to find any creator who only publishes their content on YouTube. You can subscribe to their services elsewhere.
akarki15 · 1h ago
Its not "gatekeeping". Its called paying for a service. NIH is funded by US taxpayers. Youtube isn't- they need to pay for the servers; it isn't free, you know.
I think the idea is that you would have issues if someone decided to "fix" the gatekeeping of your wallet ...
laserlight · 4h ago
Correction: free drugs are over.
rs186 · 4h ago
ReVanced does more than ad blocking, e.g. SponsorBlock and others.
And as the parent already said, "I may as well get an iPhone".
akarki15 · 1h ago
Well go ahead- g/android isn't stopping anyone from moving to iPhone...
I myself use iphone cause I like the hardware quality (over android). I pay for youtube premium cause I like the service (over apple music for example)...
You can bellow as much as you want that you are losing a "free service" but nothin is free buddy at the end of the day. You get what you paid and youtube premium is one of the few services I find worth paying... Not worth it, you say? Feel free to bounce to a zillion other video platforms - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_video_platforms .
trallnag · 4h ago
Thanks for paying for my lunch
akarki15 · 1h ago
Im guessing you also don't pay for your utilities and tap into your neighbour's wifi/power/water etc?
The hypocrisy...
quantummagic · 6h ago
The government isn't going to save us, they love it and are in bed with these corporations; the more control, the better. Locked down computing, no anonymity online, the threat of losing banking/credit accounts, and authorities showing up to arrest you if you challenge the current dogma too strongly. We're so cooked.
tetris11 · 4h ago
About a year ago, I looked at my collection of old phones and laptops and smirked at my needless hoarding.
Now? I feel like I'm sitting on gold by keeping these cheap dumb devices around.
Telaneo · 1h ago
2G and 3G networks are already being dismantled, if not already gone, in several parts of the world. Even if you do want to stick to those devices out of principle, you often can't, or if you can, only for maybe 5 more years.
You can still buy equivalent dumb phones, but they aren't any more open than the rest of the rabble.
Laptops are a different story, although I believe part of that battle was already lost when the Intel SSM and AMD equivalent came around. We'll see how things go when banks start to require you to enable (In)Secure Boot just to be able to log in through a browser on a PC.
bonoboTP · 2h ago
Until they deprecate old SIM cards and make new ones that refuse to work in legacy phones.
EvanAnderson · 11m ago
I feel like the move toward eSIM is part of that effort.
cyanydeez · 6h ago
Particularly because tech bros confused the ability to scam people with free speech.
Debanking was a crypto scammer problem more than anything else.
fruitworks · 5h ago
Not really. People got debanked all the time for political reasons in the last 10 years
fidotron · 6h ago
I think it's time for us to go back to having mobile phones (texting, virtual credit cards, tethered wifi hotspots etc). separate from mobile storage and compute (mp3 players, cameras etc.).
The modern mobile ecosystem is selling games consoles when the nerds want mobile Unix workstations.
dotancohen · 6h ago
Find a dumb phone that:
1. Presents a mobile hotspot, and
2. Supports CardDAV so I can actually sync my contacts
3. Records calls
There were none the last time I tried, about three years ago. And that even ignores the issue of trying to dial a number from a link on a web page or in a document.
cosmic_cheese · 6h ago
It’s so strange that out of the box CalDAV and CardDAV support is rare for mobile devices. iPhones are the best somehow, with Android being heavily Google-focused and support is totally absent on non-smart platforms, which is the perfect opposite of what one might expect! It’d make way more sense if the more open platforms were built around open standards, but somehow here we are.
omnimus · 6h ago
I am not 100% sure but my partner has the nokia “bannana” phone and i think it supports both. It for sure supports 4g hotspot and caldav but i think even carddav.
Kinda sad that it's KaiOS the FirefoxOS fork. One can only wonder what would have happened if Mozilla kept with the project till now. There is huge wave of people wanting less absorbing devices nowdays.
numpad0 · 6h ago
There was a multiple years of gap between rollout of voice call specification on LTE(VoLTE) and launches of first featurephone operating system supporting it. Android and iOS were only implementation available for a while. For this reason, practically all "featurephone" style phones that supports voice call, except very few, runs AOSP. At the point where your product runs AOSP, you might as well launch it as a low end smartphone, which is what a lot of vendor do.
AJ007 · 5h ago
I suspect the solution may be a compact tablet running a touch-friendly Linux distro, and the "phone" is just a mobile hotspot. If you want some fantastic camera built in, that's a separate problem.
I've been more neutral about this in the past, but the current and future integration of LLMs (and other ML models) into the base operating system will mean these mobile phones do less of what the user wants and more of what the user does not want.
Secondly, Apple is in the process of becoming an adtech company and will not provide an alternative to Google.
Thirdly, Google may be forced to divest Android and the mobile business. If so, the buyer is likely to be as bad, or worse, because they'll have to figure out how to pay for the whole thing.
ajdude · 5h ago
For a couple years I used the TCL Flip as a phone and mobile hotspot for my iPod touch. I'm pretty sure KaiOS supports CardDAV.
baq · 5h ago
> Presents a mobile hotspot
I guess you can get a mobile hotspot and a dumb phone separately. Looks like 5G Wifi 6 APs are available for ~$100.
drnick1 · 4h ago
The dipshits at Apple and Google don't provide what should be a built in feature (recording calls) and make it difficult to add it through third party software. At this point, iOS and Android are actively working against the user.
Almondsetat · 6h ago
The ratio between nerds and "normal" consumers is pretty high, and being a nerd does not automatically mean you care about having a "mobile unix workstation" (what unix-worthy work can you actually do on a phone?), and even if you have one it doesn't mean you'll actually find a use for it. It's safe to say that the market is irrelevant, and, unlike things like woodworking, boutique manyfacturers can't really exist in this space
cosmic_cheese · 6h ago
I don’t really care to do any task traditionally associated with full fat computers directly on my phone, simply because the input methods are extremely poor for that kind of thing. If my phone could act like an ultrabook/netbook when hooked up to a screen and proper desktop input on the other hand (similar to DeX, iPadOS 26, and the forthcoming baseline Android desktop mode), that’s a more interesting proposition and probably one that a number of more typical users would find interesting too.
For example, university students whose main use for a computer is editing documents could comfortably get by with nothing but a nice-ish phone, a monitor, and a Bluetooth KB+mouse.
Almondsetat · 6h ago
Google is said to be in the process of unifying Android and ChromeOs (which can run Linux programs), so your wishes are not that irrealistic (especially since DeX has been around for a while now)
chrisweekly · 6h ago
cool, good to know
also, FYI (and for the sake of non-native English readers), it's "unrealistic". ["irrealistic" relates to irrealism, a literary technique that departs from reality]
if it came out today with say 16gb of RAM and used the new Android VM feature I would buy it instantly
doubled112 · 4h ago
I had an Asus TF700 tablet which had HDMI out and a keyboard dock/touchpad probably about 10 years ago.
It could have been a decent concept if the Tegra 3 chipset wasn’t a little underpowered and the onboard storage so slow.
On new stuff, a Bluetoothu keyboard and mouse more or less solve input, and USB-C should solve video out (and input if you want). Modern phones should be powerful enough for basic desktop use, I just don’t think people want it.
yjftsjthsd-h · 4h ago
> what unix-worthy work can you actually do on a phone?
I do most of my light/routine server management via SSH from my phone, plus keeping a version control checkout of my documents that I do actually work on in vim (yes, the limited keyboard is annoying but it's fine for light work). At a previous job, the former extended quite far; I could get paged in the middle of the night, connect to the VPN, SSH into the server, triage, and frequently diagnose and even fix the problem without having to actually get out of bed.
Almondsetat · 3h ago
But in that case all that you need is a pocketable PC with linux that can sit on your nightstand, especially since doing work-related stuff on your personal smartphone seems dangerous
Telaneo · 1h ago
> especially since doing work-related stuff on your personal smartphone seems dangerous
As compared to your personal laptop? Or is the 'personal' qualifier that makes you say that?
yjftsjthsd-h · 1h ago
> But in that case all that you need is a pocketable PC with linux that can sit on your nightstand,
...A smartphone, yes.
> especially since doing work-related stuff on your personal smartphone seems dangerous
It was my work phone, not my personal phone.
esseph · 4h ago
I've rebuilt Linux servers with my phone from multiple countries over. I've also reconfigured BGP speaking routers with it.
cft · 4h ago
I have also fixed live bugs in vim from my Android phones, starting from 2014.
Controlled BGP enabled switches too.
Fixed database replication issues.
davidw · 6h ago
> unix-worthy work can you actually do on a phone
They're more powerful than plenty of computers from not too long ago
gloxkiqcza · 5h ago
Apple is rumored to release a MacBook with an iPhone 16 Pro SOC this year.
skybrian · 5h ago
If you interpret “this space” a little more broadly, there are boutique manufacturers catering to hackers that sell tiny, cheap, wearable computers. Check out all the stuff Adafruit sells.
Even just my personal CardDAV account has close to 200 contacts.
tokai · 5h ago
CardDAV is an extension of vCard. vCard can handle an arbitrary amount of contacts. But who knows, you definitely have more experience in using address book protocols than me.
dotancohen · 4h ago
I don't claim to know much. But with multiple contact lists and many groups in each list, CardDAV is a must.
bapak · 6h ago
The nerds are the minority. If you want hackable machines vote with your wallet and/or with your politicians.
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
Modem Manager on Linux handles ppp and texting (even MMS if you're willing to build mmsd which isn't easy) with just a USB modem. You don't need a phone at all.
All phones have these days is "the app ecosystem" which is designed and optimized just to rent you out to corporations. Exposing yourself to it is almost always a loss.
butz · 6h ago
It's finally time for Palm Pilot to shine again.
zahlman · 6h ago
> time for us to go back
I never left. Well, my flip phones have had cameras in them, but. On the other hand, "virtual credit card"? What?? And what good is proper "mobile storage and compute" if I don't at least have a laptop-sized screen and a proper physical input device?
rafram · 6h ago
That wouldn’t sell. Who wants to buy two devices with more or less the same hardware when they could buy just one?
rs186 · 3h ago
This.
Apple stopped selling all iPod hardware, including iPod touch, for a reason.
superkuh · 5h ago
Especially since the mobile phone part legally can never be owned or controlled by the human person. Only corporations can own and use the baseband computer/modem because only they have bought the spectrum license rights and built out the infrastructure to justify it to the FCC. Similar situations exist in other countries.
This legal reality is showing itself more and more in the practicalities of actual using "smartphones". The only real solution is what op said, make the modem completely separate from the computing device.
TheRealPomax · 5h ago
Or, and hear me out this is going to sound crazy: we finally stop pretending that we're using phones. When was the last time anyone actually used their "mobile phone" for actual real phone calls to a phone number that wasn't "phone support because the company involved is so ancient or dark patterned that they only offer phone support"? Or voluntarily initiated sending a text message, rather than using email or messenger software?
So how about we just stop making "mobile phones" and just sell what they are: pocket computers. And that name immediately tells legislators what's appropriate hardware control, namely: none. If you buy a pocket computer, you can now do with that computer whatever you want, and the company that makes the hardware has no say over that, and the company that makes the OS has no legal basis for locking you out of anything. And if those are the same company, then the EU can finally go "how about no, you get to break up or you will never sell anything in our market again".
saulpw · 5h ago
> When was the last time anyone actually used their "mobile phone" for actual real phone calls
I called my mom yesterday (to her landline), and then I sent a text message to my friend from a parking lot to let them know I'd be there soon.
pharrington · 6h ago
Nope. Its time to have full ownership over our handheld computers.
fidotron · 6h ago
This isn't going to happen.
You won't have modern mobile banking or cellular communications in a device without binary blobs or "trusted" compute modules you cannot inspect.
ulrikrasmussen · 5h ago
That's a lie. Banking apps work fine on desktop browsers with dedicated security tokens such as smart cards or code displays. My banking app runs on GrapheneOS, but my national identity app which it uses for authorization and authentication doesn't. Luckily the national identity supports hardware tokens, so it just means I have to scan an NFC token in my pocket instead of scanning my fingerprint in the identity app.
consp · 5h ago
Banking apps also work fine on rooted phones which mask most common "detect root" schemes. Don't install sudo for instance, my banking app barked when I did that, removed it and it was fine again (they use the cheap package from one of the many obfuscation firms)
pharrington · 6h ago
There are billions of computer users across the world, but only 100 or so technobarons who want full control over our computers. Full ownership absolutely can happen. It was the standard for a couple decades in the past, and it can be the standard again in the future.
bonoboTP · 2h ago
It was the standard when it didn't matter and was just a hobby thing for nerds or academics. Now it's "serious stuff" with billions of regular users who use it for real life stuff.
pharrington · 28m ago
Without having evidence, for or against your point, I'll confidently say both that you're wrong (about the just for nerds/academics thing), and that mainstream computer use makes demanding full ownership even more important.
echelon · 5h ago
This.
It's time for an antitrust breakup of Google (and Apple).
These two companies control mobile computing like a dictatorship. This is a sector where most people do all of their computing. This isn't gaming or a plaything - it's most people's lives and trillions of dollars of business activity. All gatekept by two companies.
Here's what needs to happen:
1. We need government mandated web installs of native apps without scare walls ("this app is dangerous and may delete your files") and enabled by default without labyrinthine settings to enable.
2. We need the ability to do payments and user signups without Google or Apple's platform pieces. We should not be forced to lock ourselves into their ecosystems.
3. Google search and Chrome cannot be the defaults on mobile platforms. We need the EU-mandated browser / search picker.
4. First party applications should not be treated as first class while third parties are left to dry. Google and Apple should not be allowed to install their platform components by default - a user must seek them out.
5. No more green text / blue text bubbles. All messaging must be multi-platform and equivalent with no favoritism.
6. Google and Apple wallets should not be the defaults, but rather the user should have the ability to configure their bank, PayPal, Cash App, or whatever payment provider they choose.
garciasn · 6h ago
There are options out there for you to do this. Hell, build your own. That’s what nerds did long ago. Keep up the same effort today. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ori_b · 6h ago
There's a lot of effort going into making it impossible to interact with the rest of the world if you run your own code.
Look up remote attestation.
garciasn · 5h ago
Linux changed the landscape of Unix. We can do it with phones too. The defeatist attitude, while potentially true, didn’t land us where we are today server side.
ThrowawayR2 · 5h ago
Linux was a one-time anomaly in a much simpler, wilder era without overwhelmingly dominant incumbents in the spaces that Linux eventually took over.
saulpw · 5h ago
Linux was created in 1993, when the computing world was still understandable by a single human. This is no longer the case, hence why we haven't seen any new (hacker) operating systems since then.
ori_b · 5h ago
A purely technical solution is insufficient. Put on your suit and prepare to play politics.
echelon · 5h ago
> There are options out there for you to do this.
That's like the tiny moments of freedom that Winston Smith has in 1984 before he is captured and tortured.
We live in a mobile computing dictatorship. There isn't time, money, or energy for millions of people to do this.
And so we are taxed, corralled, and treated like cattle. Google and Apple own smartphones and nobody can do anything about it.
The only solution is government dismantlement of the Google/Apple monopoly. That starts with mandates for web installs of native apps by default, without hidden settings menus or scare walls.
bobajeff · 4h ago
Some things to advocate for to counter the direction we've been going in.
1. Termination of WIPO Copyright Treaty (prerequisite for #2)
2. Repeal of DMCA. (primarily because of Section 1201)
3. Enact and enforce, Right to ownership, Right to repair laws.
4. Enforce antitrust laws. / Break up monopolies.
octoberfranklin · 4h ago
> 4. Enforce antitrust laws. / Break up monopolies.
I've given up hope of politically-appointed prosecutors ever doing a thorough and effective job of this. Sure there are some high-profile cases (AT&T, Standard Oil, Microsoft (almost), Google (maybe), etc) but the vast majority go unprosecuted.
There are really only two ways to fix the antitrust disaster:
1. Private right of action (like RICO) for the Sherman Act -- let nonprofits and individuals file the charges. This takes the implicit pardon power away from politically-appointed prosecutors.
2. Graduated corporate income tax, which creates a natural diseconomy of scale. The income tax code already contains a decades-old mechanism (search for "common control" in the IRC) to prevent evasion using shell-company shenanighans. It's very well tested, it works, and it has been working since the 1980s -- mainly to prevent US persons from evading the extra requirements for owning controlling interests in foreign corporations.
ohashi · 3h ago
I believe there is a private right of action on anti trust.
You got my vote! Too bad there isn't any way to actually vote for this (and that is by design.)
tananaev · 6h ago
I'm kind of surprised by this. Google is already under a lot of heat, especially in Europe. All sorts of lawsuits everywhere because of they monopoly abuse. And they decide to pull this move?
112233 · 6h ago
OTOH, it gives more options to implement Cyber Resilience Act requirements, especially once the boundaries get mapped out in real life
frollogaston · 4h ago
New EU laws are kinda requiring Google to do this
progval · 3h ago
Which ones?
jjani · 3h ago
Eagerly awaiting Apple doing the same on Macs then. Let alone any Linux distribution.
supportengineer · 6h ago
Because it is run by greedy billionaires. All the big corporations are run by greedy billionaires. And they all act the same way. Selfishly.
“It’s a big club and you ain’t in it”
vvpan · 5h ago
Yes and no. Yes billionaires are not people to be trusted but also they are a structural problem, a CEO that does not squeeze last the last penny out of users for shareholder value is just not doing their job. Billionaires are a-holes because the corporate incentive system rewards people like them. We need new structures.
jjani · 3h ago
> , a CEO that does not squeeze last the last penny out of users for shareholder value is just not doing their job
This has not always been the case. And still isn't in plenty of locales and companies. The S&P 500 of 2025 doesn't define immutable universal laws.
bonoboTP · 2h ago
Dodge v. Ford Motor Co. was in 1919.
p1mrx · 5h ago
The community could work around this problem by creating an open source general purpose app runtime for Android.
A user would install the runtime, signed by a developer who shared their government ID with Google, and then use the runtime to launch whatever app they want. It's probably infeasible to launch an APK from another APK, so the runtime could be based on WASIX+WebView or something.
We could call it "General Computation". Google could start a cat and mouse game of banning developers who sign the app, but at least this "war on general computation" would be obvious and ironic.
drnick1 · 3h ago
Developers shouldn't have to share personal information with Google or anyone. The real solution here is unlocked bootloaders and free/libre operating systems. Anything less and you don't truly own your phone. You can only use it to the extent allowed by Google/Apple.
kleiba · 4h ago
This would be removed from the app store faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
p1mrx · 4h ago
It doesn't need to be on the Play store, as long as they allow sideloading apps from known developers.
It would be challenging for Google to argue that the app should be banned entirely, as it's basically a web browser with extra APIs, like TCP/UDP sockets.
hleszek · 4h ago
They would ban the developer, or its key or whatever and ask him to register again and not do this again. They won't allow any workaround like this to exist because then the whole system has no purpose, they need to have control.
p1mrx · 2h ago
I think banning developers just for giving users freedom would be bad for PR. Google would have to admit that they are fighting their own users, not fighting malware.
bonoboTP · 2h ago
It wouldn't be any worse PR than the current one. They'd use the same argument to ban that guy's app as they use now to ban sideloading. That it's not secure and it's a protection of users to ban it.
This is "one weird trick" thinking, but there's no tech-based counter if the device manufacturer is determined enough.
shayway · 4h ago
Isn't what you're describing basically just a PWA? Minus the signing shenanigans anyway.
p1mrx · 2h ago
PWAs can't use TCP/UDP sockets. There's probably other interesting stuff in WASIX worth supporting.
codedokode · 6h ago
Maybe it's time for the legal requirement that every computing device or microchip more powerful than 1 MIPS and having writable storage, must support reprogramming, to prevent creating digital waste.
JimDabell · 6h ago
This doesn’t make sense. The most locked down mainstream option on the market – the iPhone – is also the one with the longest market life, with iPhones holding their market value far longer than alternatives. So there seems to be a negative correlation between being locked down and e-waste.
I know you have “let’s reprogram old phones” in mind, but approximately nobody does this even when it’s an option. If you don’t like phones being locked down, then argue that on its own merits; e-waste is not a good argument.
notrealyme123 · 6h ago
7 years lifetime is nothing. All iPhones have to rotate in that timeframe. That's incredible amounts of waste.
Every shitty iPhone could still be a MP3 player, home control or something else. But no, its Garbage because your only way to install is by going online and hoping that your critical apps are still in a useful version in the app store.
dvdkon · 6h ago
I'd say that's a spurious correlation, if it exists at all. Just look at all the Android phone makers who don't allow bootloader unlocks and those who do. Personally I'd say Google Pixel or Sony Xperia phones last longer than Huawei ones, though I wouldn't dare say reprogrammability has anything to do with it.
Besides, when the options on the market range from "impossible" to "damn hard to reprogram", can you blame the market for not taking advantage of that? I'm certain a law that would allow waste recycling companies to unlock any phone, even without password or receipt, would lead to phones or phone motherboards being reused in a variety of lower-volume products.
Fire-Dragon-DoL · 3h ago
One of my desktop pcs is like 15 years old. It faced a ram upgrade and 2 gpus died over time, the processor still holds. The windows 11 upgrade killed it though, but I'll move it to linux and that should be ok.
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
Also not publishing source for drivers should be illegal. There isn't a single legitimate reason not to do that.
codedokode · 6h ago
They may say that if they publish the code, other countries will copy it for free.
wizzwizz4 · 6h ago
Let them! Drivers are virtually useless without the associated hardware, and if you're making the hardware, you know how to write a driver for it.
rekrsiv · 6h ago
At the end of the day, rationales like this are moot when the final deciding factor will be an envelope full of cash to some politicians.
93po · 6h ago
security through obscurity maybe?
anonandwhistle · 6h ago
Do you have lobbying power to pass that? Because $trillions are on opposite side so make sure you can pay for it. Reality.
bapak · 6h ago
This probably falls into the "right to repair" and "green" initiatives, so I think it's going to happen in this decade.
rekrsiv · 6h ago
Both of those have trillions of dollars more in counter-initiatives, and that was before the global democratic backsliding started snowballing. I don't think it's going to happen this century.
jondwillis · 5h ago
It seems that GP was being sarcastic.
gruez · 6h ago
>to prevent creating digital waste.
Approximately nobody is going to be reprogramming their 8 year old iPhones to "prevent creating digital waste", especially when the CPU is unbearably slow and the batteries are well worn out. Say reprogramming is important for user freedom or whatever, but claiming it's going to make a meaningful difference in reducing e-waste is always going to be a spurious justification.
dvdkon · 6h ago
IoT sensors, thermostats, dashcams, home intercoms, mobile data modems, smart TV dongles... I could name a dozen more products that could have an old phone as their heart, if they were cheap, unlocked, and easier to develop for.
An iPhone doesn't have to be an iPhone forever, and end-users don't have to be the ones doing the conversion. All we need is a law that would stop phones from going to a landfill and instead actually get them recycled as general computing devices.
The market can figure out the rest. If manufacturers today are willing to deal with antique toolchains and expensive programmer gear to save a few cents on microcontrollers, imagine what they could do with cheap boards running Android or iOS.
gruez · 5h ago
>IoT sensors
The average person has no need for "IoT sensors", whatever that means.
>thermostats
Seems unlikely given that most HVAC systems in north america operates off 24V wires, so you'd to add some sort of electrical relay switch on top for it to work. That alone is going to kill most of the savings. Moreover is your heating system really something you want to DIY? Sure, it's all fun and games to spend an entire weekend setting up your own home surveillance system from repurposed phones, because if it fails nothing really bad happens. A thermostat is something that you don't want randomly failing because your phone decided to randomly bootloop or turn into a spicy pillow.
>home intercoms
Most people would just use their phones
>mobile data modems
What's wrong with tethering off your phone? Why bring an extra device?
>smart TV dongles
Assuming your phone even supports 4K output in non-mirroring mode (you really want to watch TV shows in 1080 x 2400 that your phone's screen runs at?), this seems like a suboptimal solution given that you'll need a usb-c hub for it to work, and will be missing niceties like supporting a TV remote. All of this hassle, just to save $30 for a fire TV, or $100 for a SBC.
dvdkon · 4h ago
Way to go denying the relevance of multiple established product categories.
- IoT sensors are a thing, whether the "average person" needs them or not. Think remote weather stations, car counting cameras, GPS trackers...
- "Smart thermostats" exist, surely you could just copy whatever they're doing with ease. And let's not limit ourselves to DIY here.
- Every block of flats I've been in here has had an intercom system, some even have video transmission. Sounds like a job for old phone hardware, no?
- Carriers still sell USB modems, and I guess they know what they're doing.
- A hardware manufacturer could surely just build in a USB-C to HDMI converter. A DP-to-HDMI chip is a common enough component already.
And just to repeat, I don't want regular people to start making these things out of old phones en masse, I want businesses to have that opportunity. You're arguing against a strawman.
gruez · 4h ago
>- IoT sensors are a thing, whether the "average person" needs them or not. Think remote weather stations, car counting cameras, GPS trackers...
Something tells me that your average municipal government or enterprise isn't going to want a hodgepodge fleet of phones as IOT sensors. Most of the applications you describe don't even need to the phone to be reprogrammed. There's a dozen apps that allow your phone to be repurposed as cameras or GPS trackers today, what's holding back their adoption?
>- "Smart thermostats" exist, surely you could just copy whatever they're doing with ease. And let's not limit ourselves to DIY here.
Yeah but how much is this custom hardware going to cost, especially when you don't have economies of scale? You can get a sleek looking smart thermostat for $150-200. Most people will take that over a tangled mess of wires that a DIY solution is going to look like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ahmed_Mohamed_Clock_by_Ir...
>- Every block of flats I've been in here has had an intercom system, some even have video transmission. Sounds like a job for old phone hardware, no?
So you're going to be gluing a phone next to your door? Sounds like a great way to lose an old phone.
>And just to repeat, I don't want regular people to start making these things out of old phones en masse, I want businesses to have that opportunity. You're arguing against a strawman.
No, you're arguing against a strawman. If you read my initial comment you'd see it states in no uncertain terms that I'm skeptical of the argument that it'll meaningfully reduce e-waste, not that there's going to be exactly zero people repurposing their phones.
dvdkon · 4h ago
Why are you assuming the result will be a "hodgepodge" or "tangled mess of wires"? Unless you take it apart, you won't be able to tell if a product runs on a bespoke PCB with SoC, a Raspberry Pi, or an old phone's hardware. Plenty of commercial hardware today is just an Android phone with some custom apps and system modifications, only it's generally a new, expensive, "enterprise-ready" device.
> There's a dozen apps that allow your phone to be repurposed as cameras or GPS trackers today, what's holding back their adoption?
Personally I think it's the lack of control over devices that's hindering these apps. A common modern phone doesn't let you replace the system UI with some purpose-built app, it doesn't let you run without a battery, it doesn't even let you disable all notifications. The result just isn't up to snuff unless the user/device manufacturer has full access to reduce the system to just the parts they need.
> If you read my initial comment you'd see it states in no uncertain terms that I'm skeptical of the argument that it'll meaningfully reduce e-waste, ...
And you haven't provided any meaningful counterargument so far. You still seem to be under the impression that reusing phones means hobbyists "gluing phones" places, but that's far from what I'm advocating.
slug · 6h ago
All my personal and family computers are more than 10 year old, running latest Ubuntu. They have probably slower CPUs than that 8 year old iphone, but can run the latest web and email clients just fine. These are almost all salvaged from e-waste. I have a drawer full of old phones that could make very useful computer nodes, but instead of that I have to get (buy) some semi open raspberry pis since those phones are locked down.
gruez · 6h ago
>I have a drawer full of old phones that could make very useful computer nodes, but instead of that I have to get (buy) some semi open raspberry pis since those phones are locked down.
The average person doesn't have any need for "computer nodes". Just because some homelabbers want to create a k8s cluster off their 10 year old phones, doesn't mean any significant proportion of phones are going to be salvaged in that manner.
slug · 5h ago
I just gave you an use case about having family members using old computers for all their needs. If those old phones can continue to be used with software updates not locked down by their original hw vendors, don't see why that is a bad thing.
I also didn't mention any use of k8s which I don't make use of or using rpis as nodes on a computer cluster ("homelab"), so you are extrapolating in a very weird direction.
By nodes I meant, say robotic applications, simple room surveillance camera, baby monitor,audio streaming, multimedia/tv remote control, where a rpi/custom hw could be perfectly be replaced by an old phone, since it comes with imu, cameras, audio, touchscreen, wifi, storage, etc.
gruez · 5h ago
>By nodes I meant, say robotic applications, simple room surveillance camera, baby monitor,audio streaming, multimedia/tv remote control, where a rpi/custom hw could be perfectly be replaced by an old phone, since it comes with imu, cameras, audio, touchscreen, wifi, storage, etc.
For the family that has a techie willing to jump through a dozen hoops to set those up, sure it might mitigate some e-waste. However I doubt that's applicable to most or even 10% of people. Moreover I don't see how an unlocked OS is necessary for most of the applications you mentioned. Why do you need an unlocked bootloader to turn a phone into a camera/baby monitor? Aren't there a dozen apps that basically serves that purpose? Finally, as the saying goes, "[insert OSS project] is only free if you don't value your time". Sure, you can spend an entire weekend turning your old phones into cameras, installing frigate on a docker container somewhere, and adding a coral TPU to do object recognition. Or you can pay $50 for a 2-pack of wyze cameras which have cloud connectivity and object recognition out of the box, and is in a far better form factor than a smartphone.
The point isn't that exactly zero phones will be diverted from landfill, just that approximately zero phones will be.
Almondsetat · 6h ago
>They have probably slower CPUs than that 8 year old iphone
They certainly DON'T. I don't know where this estimate is coming from, but it's inarguably wrong
slug · 5h ago
You are right, my drawer doesn't have a single Apple device, since that company is probably the reason we got into this situation to begin with, so at least I voted with my wallet.
xandrius · 2h ago
Approximately nobody is not nobody.
And saying this in a forum literally named after the act of hacking and repurposing devices is quite bold.
I have old devices still laying around in the hope one day I could reuse them for something, anything useful, I simply can't get myself to throw away something which seemed magical a few years ago.
rpastuszak · 6h ago
My 8 yo iPhone is perfectly usable, the battery wasn’t expensive or difficult to replace.
gruez · 6h ago
I'm not claiming that they're literally unusable, only that they're unusable by most people's standards. Case in point, when was the last time you've seen a touchid iPhone? The last such device was introduced as recently as 2022 (or 2017 if you only count "mainstream" models). The 2022 model is still in support, and 2017 models were still getting security updates as of 5 months ago, yet virtually nobody uses them. If so many people ditched their iPhones while they're in support, what gains could there possibly be to allow people to flash third party ROMs? I'm sure there's some diehard enthusiasts that'd keep it alive, but as I argued above, it's not going to make a meaningful difference.
torstenvl · 6h ago
Lots of people use the iPhone SE or are holding onto the iPhone mini 13. Dislocating your thumb to bring up the Control Center is shit. (Reachability and Back Tap are not solutions.)
Xylakant · 6h ago
The iPhone 13 mini is a faceID device - but I’m holding onto it until the bitter end. But we’ve been using iPhone SE as company phones until they were discontinued- the devices are perfectly usable for all basic use cases.
gruez · 6h ago
The internet means it's easy to find "lots" of people for anything. Excluding yourself how many iPhones do you see in the wild have a home button? I'd estimate less than 1 in 20, or 5%. If less than 5% of people are keeping their phones while they're in support, how much e-waste can you possibly divert by allowing third party OS?
torstenvl · 3h ago
> Excluding yourself how many iPhones do you see in the wild have a home button? I'd estimate less than 1 in 20, or 5%. If less than 5% of people are keeping their phones while they're in support
5% of all iPhone users having a home button does not mean that only 5% of iPhone SE purchasers are keeping their phones, since the population of iPhone SE purchasers is smaller than the population of iPhone users.
Let's be conservative and say about 10% of iPhone users ever bought an SE. If SE users now make up about 5% of the iPhone user base, that would mean that about half have kept their devices -- an order of magnitude off from your 5% claim.
drnick1 · 3h ago
My iPhone Xs is about 7 years old now, and I haven't replaced the battery yet. I won't buy Apple or Google again though, it's GrapheneOS or bust next.
wpm · 2h ago
How about 8 year old Macs with Apple Silicon, which are rapidly going to become a thing in just 3 short years, and are the same thing as an iPhone architecturally
What happens when Apple stops putting new macOS versions out for the M1, which by all accounts is as far better computer than my old Sandy Bridge Thinkpad, but will become completely useless far earlier?
torstenvl · 6h ago
Cool. So if the device is ostensibly so old and unusable now, what possible commercial rationale could exist for preventing its use for other ends?
gruez · 6h ago
If you read my comment carefully, you'd see I'm not objecting to regulations that devices must support programming, only to the argument that such regulations will meaningfully reduce e-waste.
xerox13ster · 5h ago
You don’t know that because the regulations have never existed. Please try to refrain from unscientific thinking such that there are things you think you can know without experimental verification. This is the thinking of a technological dark age.
gruez · 5h ago
>You don’t know that because the regulations have never existed. Please try to refrain from unscientific thinking
You're accusing me of "unscientific thinking", but you're basically making an argument from ignorance? You haven't provided any rebuttals to my argument, and you're basically arguing "we haven't tried so if you try to argue against it you're WRONG".
everdrive · 5h ago
Those 8 year old phones were plenty fast when they were new. Why did operating system, apps, and websites need to get more bloated? Do they even do anything they didn't (or couldn't) do 8 years ago?
codedokode · 6h ago
I also meant microcontrollers. I am sure someone would remove chips from old devices and resell if they were reprogrammable. Also you could use them for your hobby for free.
gruez · 6h ago
Why would anyone go through all that hassle when you can get a ESP8266 from aliexpress for less than $2? The skilled labor cost alone needed to desolder the chips is going to wipe out any savings, not to mention the hassle of fabbing custom PCBs to work with your hodgepodge collection of microcontrollers.
codedokode · 5h ago
There are countries where people would sit all day desoldering phones if they were paid $2 for each. Also even in my country minimum wage is less than $2/hr (although that is rare).
gruez · 5h ago
Note $2 on aliexpress gets you a fully assembled module. If you're trying to repurpose chips after desoldering you still need to sort, test, and resolder them.
BenjiWiebe · 6h ago
The chips in phones would be horrible to work with - they're too small. Plus, the SoC is much more complicated to deal with than a microcontroller intended to be stand-alone.
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
8 year old phones are fine if you run a decent OS on them.
oh_my_goodness · 6h ago
A spurious justification is not ideal, but it would be acceptable at this point.
wslh · 6h ago
The first iPhone is more powerful than the VAX computer my high school used to teach in over fifteen simultaneous terminals.
whycome · 6h ago
Weird, did the CPU somehow slow down over time? Did it get tired?
You’re comparing different models? I don’t understand the connection here to a supposed change in performance over time.
The ways performance is reduced is when processing power may be throttled (eg Apple battery gate) or because a newer App or Os has high requirements.
numpad0 · 5h ago
You have to shock European politicians with credible model of threats showing that not implementing such a regulation could very well lead to their daughters getting home address shared open to the world and harassed 24/7, e.g. so much widely known that it would be trending in Central Asian language while completely walled off from their eyes in languages used around their residence. Not that I endorse that kind of things or that I think faking one will do, of course.
But that kinds of threats must be theoretically established and acknowledged - which I think is ultimately inevitable but could be delayed or hastened by human actions. The point is, you could be seen as throwing pointless tantrum about your toys until it happens.
stavros · 5h ago
Haven't European politicians already legislated against this anyway, with the DMA?
joshlemer · 4h ago
I'm a little bit unclear about this, will Google's changes here also affect other android distributions like LineageOS, OxygenOS, etc? If not, then I could see that Google locking down their Android Distributions like this could breath a lot of life into some alternative distribution(s). If yes, then perhaps forks of Android or even competitors to android altogether.
nilsherzig · 3h ago
I don’t think so, but it’s getting harder to flash custom ROMs (locked bootloaders) and there are even legislations in planning which would make it illegal (at least in the eu).
It’s already cumbersome to run your banking app (and other „required“ apps) on a custom ROM with all the attestation going on. I assume these distributions will bleed users and see a reduction in new ones due to higher entry barriers.
mayama · 3h ago
Google has delayed releasing pixel 10 sources and unlocking bootloader for new phones is becoming increasingly rare. They may lock it down too going forward.
aeblyve · 5h ago
The smartphone is not a mere commodity but a part of an entire social system of production between banks, telcos, software houses. Alternatives seemingly must come from outside the system... possibly Huawei from China and their HarmonyOS, which happily enough is banned in the US.
Or any sufficiently hard-boiled alternative from the inside. IMO things like custom ROMs lack sufficient vertical organization and that is why they're not so relevant (but at that point, you're basically constructing something much like a corporation once again, if not an entire society stemming out of it).
like_any_other · 4h ago
> Alternatives seemingly must come from outside the system... possibly Huawei from China
(It was surprisingly hard to find any news articles covering this. Most media just don't care that one of the biggest manufacturers in the world won't let users control their own phones. So much for holding the powerful to account, or protecting liberties.)
aeblyve · 4h ago
I don't think phones were ever "user-controlled", each one is designed fundamentally to connect to corporate-run wireless networks. Thus they want a say in the types of communications you do, gating certain kinds like RCS behind attestation. To that end there will be never be an alternative without some channel control.
Not totally unlike the way Bell used to strictly regulate their own user endpoints in the 20th century.
Within that stage, I could be wrong, but I would expect a somewhat freer software ecosystem there, as it is an economy oriented around manufacturing, and it is useful to write many various applications around that end.
like_any_other · 4h ago
> I don't think phones were ever "user-controlled", each one is designed fundamentally to connect to corporate-run wireless networks.
And PCs connect to corporate-run wired networks. What you're saying is at best an argument for locking the only radio chip itself, at worst it's propaganda to justify stripping ownership rights from consumers - "The item you think you own can affect some corporate property, therefore the corporation will seize control of it."
Hell the ISPs, phone and wired, can already drop you as a customer, blocking your communications, if they detect you interfering with their network. So any arguments that they must also control your devices are simply lies, transparently so even if they were coming from someone with 1000-times the goodwill and honest record of ISPs.
Edit as reply because I'm "posting too fast, please slow down":
> your handset plays the role also of one of these unfree modems
No, only the cellular chip does. And non-free/locked firmware is nothing new, even in PC-land.
> but any alternative must rival what makes the telco system, for the most part, actually work.
But it worked (and still works) just fine with rootable phones on the network. So rootable phones are not in any way an "alternative" - they are the (dwindling) status quo.
aeblyve · 3h ago
>And PCs connect to corporate-run wired networks
A bit wrong, PCs usually connect to modems or ONTs that in turn connect to the wired telco network, which are deeply unfree.
The nature of RF as a channel means your handset plays the role also of one of these unfree modems.
Attempting to draw a line between the corporate part and "your part" doesn't necessarily make sense because one doesn't exist, and if it did, is always shifting, especially in different environments.
I'm not necessarily "arguing in favor" of this kind of organization by describing it, but any alternative must rival what makes the telco system, for the most part, actually work. It's not enough to demand freedoms (which doesn't work), they have to be enshrined in real organization, in the social sense and material too. Today that means people have to get paid.
aeblyve · 3h ago
> But it worked (and still works) just fine with rootable phones on the network.
If the definition of "the network" is connecting to some LTE, sure, if it means being able to use RCS, or Google pay, or a banking app, it is much more questionable.
You attempt to cut the cellular chip out as the sole telecomm relevant part, but it is a fiction. It's visible today in bandwidth constrained environments like aircraft wifi that certain types of supposedly application-level traffic are not permissible (video calls). Conversely improving the channel capacity in general will require higher control of the user environment.
scarface_74 · 5h ago
Why are people using banks only accessible via apps?
homebrewer · 4h ago
In my case, it is because there aren't any left that don't do this. Two banks still provide web interfaces that work through normal browsers, but only for their business clients.
This trend started in China, spread to countries like mine, and (as recent history shows) the relatively free democracies have been more than happy to copy some pretty nasty ideas from autocracies like ours — we went through your current news cycle 10-15 years ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if removing the last few vestiges of having control over your computing also came to you in another five to ten years.
scarface_74 · 48m ago
What country?
aeblyve · 4h ago
I'm not aware of a bank that is /only/ accessible with an App (maybe that is your point?), but obviously wanting to obtain the best financial offers, interest rates, etc., trumps software freedom for most people.
Part of the story is that it only takes a /single/ major scandal RE sideloading to seriously injure a bank's reputation, even if the vast majority of sideloading use cases are legitimate.
jackwilsdon · 4h ago
Monzo in the UK is basically app-only. They have an "emergency" web interface but it only allows read-only access (apart from un-freezing your card) and can only be used if you've used the app in the past 90 days.
tomatocracy · 3h ago
Chase Bank in the UK has no web interface at all. Same for Virgin credit cards.
JustExAWS · 4h ago
Then don’t use Monzo? Isn’t it a lot easier to choose one of a dozen banks that aren’t app only.
JustExAWS · 4h ago
What banks only offer the best interest rates an offers through apps?
I’m very much a credit card point churner and I have an HYSA. The same rates and offers are on the websites and the apps.
And how would a bank know if you’re using a website on a rooted phone?
People are complaining about the app stores when they are choosing banks which are app only - which I would never do - you should be complaining about your bank.
aeblyve · 4h ago
I'm not aware of such specific cases myself, but an obvious example of new banking functionality requiring OS attestation is tap-to-pay.
JustExAWS · 3h ago
Why would anyone expect Google to attest to the safety of a rooted phone for financial transactions where it is directly in the payment chain? No one in the payment chain would allow that.
aeblyve · 3h ago
They wouldn't, that is exactly what I am saying. A phone isn't merely a standalone "computing tool" but represents an ongoing relationship between many corporate parties. Reasoning about the phone that way, as something like a PC from the 80s being encroached on, is an error. It is derived from entwined corporate interest from the beginning. The only similarity is the payment structure, lump sum or finance to "own".
whywhywhywhy · 5h ago
Timing of this with other privacy and computing/internet freedom pushbacks speaks volumes.
kamranjon · 5h ago
What are the implications of this for GrapheneOS? Because it’s based on android, will that project die off?
janice1999 · 4h ago
They can choose not to enforce it. The problem is that both Google and other phone manufacturers are making custom ROMS more difficult (restricting access to binaries needed to get the phone to work, not providing bootloader unlock etc). The other issue is if governments choose to go after them. Some police services are already trying to equate custom ROMS, and in particular GrapheneOS, with criminal drug-dealing gangs.
justoreply · 4h ago
it doesn't matter, if GrapheneOS is going to be the only one to allow "side-loading", then the market for application installable without a store will disappear
slashtab · 5h ago
No, GOS is fine.
TrianguloY · 2h ago
I wonder if a "parent lock" type of measure but for external installs could work, basically allowing a user to disable the external installations (and other things) unless you enter a custom code.
For those of us who know enough there is no need to enable it.
For those that are not as technological (like elders), a familiar/friend can enable it and no matter what they try, they can't "harm" the device without asking you first.
The only ones not getting any benefit are non technological people without technological contacts, but even in those cases I'm sure shops would gladly provide that support (like the usual "setup support)
So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always.
However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware.
The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software.
So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it.
Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer.
So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.
Wow, that's in Talks at Google. Listening to the Q&A is just so weird. The audience (I assume Google employees) are openly advocating for digital freedoms and the classic hacker ethos. Crazy how much the Overton window has shifted. I wonder where those people are now.
MaxMonteil · 2h ago
In a way I hope this gives more opportunities to PWAs or at least websites that consider the use case of getting "installed" (at least added to home screen).
It's a far cry from native apps and it comes with its own issues. But in my case, the vast majority of apps I use regularly have a competent mobile web interface.
This is of course limited by what the OS will allow as we see with Apple's purposefully poor support for them and Google would likely follow suit. Maybe alternative browsers could offer what's missing.
Maybe there'll be more power behind a Linux distro for Android that puts browser apps and self installs first?
People have a natural desire for ownership in some form, I'm sure we'll find a way. But things do look bleak right now.
loloquwowndueo · 7h ago
You paid $1000 for the metal, but the software is licensed and owned by Google.
You could install a free os on the phone instead and own the whole thing.
yupyupyups · 6h ago
No, people pay for more than just "metal". We pay to access services which society expects us to have access to, a society which is increasingly becoming more unhospitable to those who lack that access. There is no moral obligation on our part to let two large corporations use that against us, by spying on us and robbing us.
otterley · 6h ago
> people pay for more than just "metal"
Correct. They are paying for the physical device and the license to use the installed software.
dotancohen · 6h ago
I'm not sure which two large corporations you are referring to, but I'll take a guess.
My Samsung phone is not linked to my Google account and I don't have a Samsung account. I have no WhatsApp/Facebook/Meta account. I don't use Apple devices or have an Apple account.
Possibly the only apps on my phone that have an account linked with them are Telegram and AnkiDroid.
_aavaa_ · 6h ago
Ridiculous argument.
You didn’t buy a physical book, you bought the paper, but the words are owned and licensed by the publisher.
You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it.
Wrapping the bs in a thin veneer or “software” doesn’t magically make it okay.
ipaddr · 6h ago
You do not need permission to read a book in your hands, lend it to a friend or sell it at your local bookstore.
You are overly restricting yourself.
MereInterest · 6h ago
You are correct that no such permission is required to use, lend, or resell a book. It would be unethical for a seller to impose a requirement for such permission. By the poster’s analogy, it is similarly unethical to impose a requirement for permission prior to the owner’s use, lend, or resale of a computer. Since Google sells computers that cannot later be used without Google’s permission, Google is imposing such an unethical requirement.
_aavaa_ · 2h ago
That was not always the case. See older books that have legal hocus pocus written on the first page stating that you cannot resell this books without the express written consent of the publisher.
Now we have the first sale doctrine for many physical items. It’s not being applied to digital goods since we buy a license to the thing instead of a copy of the thing itself; or so the companies want to argue.
const_cast · 4h ago
Yes that's his entire point.
GeoAtreides · 4h ago
ah, metaphors, gen z worst and least understood enemy
otterley · 6h ago
> You didn’t buy a physical book, you bought the paper, but the words are owned and licensed by the publisher.
Correct.
> You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it.
No. The physical media is transferable and the implied license carries with it. You just can’t make a copy and then retain it if you give the original copy away.
johnnienaked · 6h ago
What you are allowed to do is governed by whatever laws are written.
otterley · 27m ago
This sounds like agreement. Otherwise I’m not sure what the meaning of this reply is.
_aavaa_ · 2h ago
Incorrect. You own that entire physical copy, not a license to it.
No comments yet
lelandbatey · 6h ago
Ah yes, copyright, where in its furthest future form says "though shall not remeber or recall anything anyone owns unless you pay for it again". I cant wait to pay Disney to remember movies from my childhood once we have a neuralink.
fluidcruft · 6h ago
Could you? From what I understand Google is hell-bent on making that difficult nowadays as well.
> Android 16 no longer provides device trees for Pixels as part of the Android Open Source Project. It's important to note it doesn't provide those for any other devices. There are no other OEMs providing similar AOSP support. [...]
Way back before I made the jump to a Nexus S, I was maintainer of a CyanogenMod port. Granted there were other challenges involved with that (bypassing locked bootloaders with kernel module exploits) but I am well aware of what's involved. What Google is doing is a fucking waste of people's time for no reason whatsoever. And it's not just on the AOSP front--it's clearly a strategic platform decision.
I'm done with Google. On every front they are being assholes. The DOJ should have exploded Microsoft into bits and pieces back in the day the way they handled AT&T so that Google would fear the same.
fluidcruft · 6h ago
Yeah, so? Pixel becoming no better than the competition isn't exactly the selling point you hold it out to be.
gruez · 6h ago
AFAIK the impact of that is overblown, because "device trees" are just files that can be extracted from the stock ROMs. Moreover drivers and kernels are still provided by google, albeit in code dump format (no git history).
lawn · 6h ago
GrapheneOS still works fine (support for Pixel 10 will most likely come).
What the future holds is unknown however.
randunel · 6h ago
My banking app, my city hall's app and my kids' school app for parents wouldn't work on non-google OS for "security" reasons.
I never install banking apps (not secure - no second factor, spyware risks) so I don't think it is important to have them. What is important is a phone that no other party can remotely control.
conradfr · 6h ago
Because your bank doesn't force you to verify yourself on the mobile app to log in on desktop ... yet.
speckx · 5h ago
Curious. Do you use the bank's website via a browser from a computer? What about in-person banking? Do you go to the bank?
ipaddr · 6h ago
Use your banks website. Installing a banking app is asking for trouble.
City hall should have information on its website why do you need an app?
Kids school app sounds like the worst idea. What information are you missing by not downloading it?
jbstack · 5h ago
> Use your banks website. Installing a banking app is asking for trouble.
If you can. In order to be able to login to my bank's website I need a OTP which is generated by... can you guess? Yes, their app. Which I can now only run if my Android settings meet their standards. The other day it took me half an hour to access my banking because the app kept complaining that my device wasn't "secure", until I figured out the magic combination of settings to undo to make it work (including for third party apps that should be none of the bank's business).
const_cast · 3h ago
There are numerous TOTP services that we know are perfectly secure.
They should just use one of those. These banks are assholes. They're trying to get you to download the app for advertising, marketing, and data collection purposes. Not security.
tomatocracy · 3h ago
This is in part driven in turn by regulations like PSD2 in the EU requiring "Strong Customer Authentication". Most banks seem to have decided that a TOTP-style challenge does not meet the requirements of the regulation (this may even be an explicit ruling, I don't know).
lawn · 6h ago
That's very unfortunate.
Most apps work fine though, including all Swedish banking and authentication apps I've tried.
worldsayshi · 6h ago
Oh, really, Swish and BankID works on Graphene OS?
lawn · 4h ago
Yes. I only had to enable some permissions when I copied BankID to the new phone but otherwise everything seems to work.
fluidcruft · 6h ago
If Apple made iOS more customizable (i.e. replacing launchers etc) I wouldn't see a reason to keep with Android. I certainly don't see any reason to replace my Pixel with another Pixel at this point (been fiercely loyal to the Nexus/Pixel line since Nexus S).
Hostility is hostility, and when limited to choosing among devices that are a pain in my ass, Pixel no longer has any advantage. Google is converting Pixel into leverage for the rest of their products. Bye.
lawn · 3h ago
Why would you move to Apple when you're upset that Google is copying what Apple has done for many years?
And even after that, the Apple ecosystem is even more closed down than Android.
const_cast · 3h ago
Because the android ecosystem and android devices like the Pixel have a lot of disadvantages - we just look past them because of the customizability and openness-ish of android.
Of android just becomes iOS but worse, then just use iOS. Currently android is iOS but different. But for many years now it seems Google has been shooting for iOS but worse.
fluidcruft · 2h ago
Because using Android is always extra friction in my life. I have tolerated it because of the ideals of Pixel and Android (which Google has slowly and deliberately evaporated).
Also Apple does a better job at standing up to government bullshit (where Google tends to stay suspiciously silent). So when they are on equal ideological footing, Apple as a consumer product company wins against the Google surveillance apparatus.
Basically: Apple is a better Apple if Google wants to turn itself into even more of a pathetic Apple wannabe.
OutOfHere · 6h ago
(deleted)
Klonoar · 6h ago
GrapheneOS project people were literally in comments here in the past month or so indicating they’re in talks with another device maker to have an alternative to the Pixel.
lawn · 6h ago
What's with this annoying and false narrative that it's all over for GrapheneOS?
Everything suggests that they will be able to support the new Pixel models.
> We've received the Pixel 10 we ordered and have confirmed it supports unlocking, flashing another verified boot key and locking again.
4 and 5 are no longer supported (not covered under normal release channels) but you can still download images under legacy extended support.
RadiozRadioz · 6h ago
Part of the issue is that phone manufacturers actively make this difficult. Hardly bootloaders are unlocked, barely any drivers are freely available, all the hardware is so tightly intertwined & locked in that you can still brick these things with no recourse (though this has improved). Not to mention 3rd party apps that have built with dependency on Google Play Services which needs to be replaced, banking apps with "security" attestation - using free software on a phone is magnitudes more hostile than doing so on a PC.
codedokode · 6h ago
You couldn't - many phones do not support installing third-party OS and do not have public specifications. So your options are either become a product or do not have a phone.
bill_joy_fanboy · 6h ago
Your comment makes it sound like this is reasonable. It is not.
This is a complete and total ripoff. Everyone knows it.
loloquwowndueo · 6h ago
Oh I agree it’s entirely unreasonable. But that’s what you signed up for - it’s okay to be angry, I would too, but pretending that’s not what the deal was from the start is pretty naive.
spacebacon · 6h ago
Everyone knows it’s a complete and total ripoff however people like that with good narratives write the laws all day.
oh_my_goodness · 6h ago
No matter how dystopian things get, there's always somebody rooting for the dystopifiers.
loloquwowndueo · 6h ago
Indeed. But that someone is not me. Screw Google!
Just pointing out that the deal with Google is implicit in the piece of metal you bought - and with some phones you have at least the choice of a free system. It’s more of a choice than I have with my iPhone.
oh_my_goodness · 5h ago
I totally dig it. Saying it's the consumer's fault is just your unique way of protecting us. Groovy.
pkphilip · 5h ago
It is time to get the government to recognise mobile phones as being full fledged computers and which require the same consumer protections. Just because you are carrying it around all the time doesn't make it any less a computer.
CharlesW · 5h ago
> It is time to get the government to recognise mobile phones as being full fledged computers…
Mobile phones are not, and have never been, general-purpose computers. If you think they're locked down now, you'd be completely astounded to learn what the industry was like pre-iPhone/pre-App Store.
homebrewer · 4h ago
I was hacking on firmware for the couple Sony Ericssons I had, replacing major system components like sound drivers with no problems. Installing third-party applications without first asking for permission from your master was normal and expected. They were about as open as current Android is, and probably more so than Android in another five years.
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
Don't use smartphones at all, they're only bad for you and you don't need them. Do anything you can to either get away from them or start moving away from them.
_aavaa_ · 6h ago
And use what? A Linux laptop we carry around with us?
This is just letting them win. And if you think the forced pushing for control over what we can do with our computers will simply leave Linux alone, I don’t know what to tell you.
ndriscoll · 6h ago
Handheld PCs like steam deck or legion go seem like a compelling value, at least if you were going to consider a phone in the $500+ price range. Maybe also something like the Mecha comet on the lower end. If you're in an area where banks require an app, you could then go for the absolute cheapest phone you can find (which can probably be years out of date since the whole exercise has nothing to do with security) and treat it as a single purpose device.
_aavaa_ · 2h ago
Can I fit it in my pocket? Can I make a call? Take a photo?
The steam deck is great, but it’s not build for those things.
And there is no reason to cede ground on entire form factors. This behaviour will not stop at phones (or tablets, or smartwatches).
vel0city · 5h ago
A gaming handheld isn't anywhere near as portable as a smartphone, and generally any general input complaints of a smartphone are even worse on such a device. They're great for gaming, OK for something like watching a movie on it, but otherwise they're pretty bad for even typing short things.
And they're far from pocketable. My Legion Go is in its case in my backpack when I'm on the go.
Honestly netbooks and ultra portable mini notebooks of yore were more portable and useful for a general on the go portable PC. The gaming handhelds are better from a gaming perspective with their far more powerful graphics power and built in controller grips but the general computing experience is pretty crap.
noisy_boy · 6h ago
> And use what? A Linux laptop we carry around with us?
Even if you do that, it won't work in many cases because even in the government agencies, there are some that have gone app-only mode.
otterley · 6h ago
Or you could start a business making your own completely open phones. If there’s truly a market for that, you could become extremely wealthy.
_aavaa_ · 2h ago
“If there’s truly a market” monopolies, monopsonies, and anti competitive behaviour would never be a problem.
otterley · 30m ago
What is either company doing unlawfully that’s preventing a disruptive smartphone competitor from arising? Being a duopoly is not in itself unlawful unless either is taking active steps to prevent others from competing in the market.
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
A truly open phone is just a pocketable Linux laptop with an LTE modem. These already exist, companies like GPD make them.
hoppp · 6h ago
I need them for my bank and public transport.
It sucks but I am locked in.
Its a national security issue for Europe to rely on google or apple but seems politicians don't care
gruez · 6h ago
>for my bank
You can't access it via browser? Maybe there's a few fintechs that are app-only (think robinhood, at least initially) but it's not like all banks only offer access via smartphones.
>public transport
???
me_bx · 6h ago
Many banks in EU countries make it mandatory to have their smartphone app installed in order to validate operations clients perform in their web browsers :/
dotancohen · 6h ago
What do they reply when you tell them you do not own a smartphone?
Even if you do own such a device, they don't need to know that.
Telaneo · 15m ago
They give you a hardware token that spits out some numbers and use that as your second factor instead. Usually after a lot more fiddling than a TOTP app would be.
Or they don't and tell you to use a different bank.
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
Sure if you truly need the Android HSM Walmart sells $40 tablets that can run that. You can buy one and keep it in your desk drawer just for banking.
hoppp · 6h ago
My bank is revolut and Im very happy with them. Im a digital nomad and I can't keep making new bank accounts when I move to a new country.
Their website is very limited and for account recovery only.
mmh0000 · 6h ago
You’re very happy with your bank the has a very limited website? Why?
My main banks, Fidelity and a local credit union, both offer websites that let me do anything I want with my money from a website. No spyware apps needed.
hoppp · 5h ago
I don't think they spy on me more than a normal website does and I really don't have the need to use a web interface. Its not a problem as far as UX goes.
Also as I wrote they do have a website, just not as feature rich.
const_cast · 3h ago
Of course they spy on you more, one is a website and the other is an executable you run on your computer.
I would navigate to downloadmoreram.com. I would NOT download moreram.exe and run it. Would you? Fuck no!
Seriously, take a step back and consider why they're pushing the app so much. Why do businesses do things? Money. Its all very simple, we just have to be honest with ourselves.
lawn · 6h ago
In Sweden banks require you to have the BankID authentication app to login on web page (and banking apps, and many other pages).
Banks may offer a physical device but that's another device you have to being with you, and it's not supported by all services anyway.
While not required the same way as water or air is required, it's super limiting and inconvenient to live in Sweden and not have access to the BankID app (either on Android or iOS).
ksec · 5h ago
Depending on which part of the world you are in. It is increasingly impossible to do it. Post COVID, Cash is no longer accepted in many stores or restaurants. Smaller shops that used to avoid VISA and Master now accept them as well, at the expense of slight increase in menu price.
Landlord would rather leave shops empty than rent it at lower price. In order to combat rental restaurants cut cost by having QR Code ordering system.
The uses of QR Code, whether it is for payment or information makes Smartphone mandatory in those places.
Spending Money online with VISA or master now requires Mobile App log in for Authentication. Government Digital Log in System now also default to Apps.
I may be missing a few things, and there will be many more things to come that moves to Mobile Apps only direction.
m01 · 1h ago
Surely you can still pay with plastic cards, at least if the venue advertises accepting the big card issuers?
The latest neobank might require an app, but I'd be surprised if you couldn't find any bank in your country that allows you to spend money without using mobile apps.
Ask if you can order/pay without using the QR code. I'd be surprised if venues didn't have a paper menu as backup.
Telaneo · 9m ago
> Ask if you can order/pay without using the QR code. I'd be surprised if venues didn't have a paper menu as backup.
For newer restaurants, I really wouldn't bet on this being a thing. Or if they do, it's the ones they had before they updated their menus to QR codes, and thus might not be accurate any more.
It's like being blind and asking for the braille menu. Sure, they should have one, but don't bet on them having one.
And even if you know what you want and can pay in cash, even if they're legally bound to take your money at that point, you're working against the current and on some level being a (principled) ass to the staff serving you, who probably had no say in the system they're now having to deal with. It wouldn't even surprise me if some of these places have gone no-cash to the point of not having any place to put your cash after you've paid.
The actual solution is probably 'go somewhere else', but we all how that might go.
TeaBrain · 6h ago
I've recently eaten at several restaurants where the menus were only available via a link reachable from a QR code. At the last place, I asked if the 13 page menus were available in physical form and the waiter explained that they didn't have any. Technically, a phone doesn't need to be that "smart" to reach a QR code and access a web page, but it's just one more way that people are being locked into using phones for tasks that previously didn't require them.
zahlman · 5h ago
> At the last place, I asked if the 13 page menus were available in physical form and the waiter explained that they didn't have any.
I would walk out.
mathiaspoint · 5h ago
I know. You just figure it out. QR code menus aren't worth effectively selling yourself into slavery.
binary132 · 6h ago
the only correct take
ayaros · 5h ago
Both Apple and Google should just bite the fucking bullet and let people install whatever they want.
Apple, for their part, should have just buried the option to "sideload" deep in the settings. They could have put up a dialog, or maybe 5 dialogs in a row, each one scarier than the last, warning the user that if someone told them to do this, they are being scammed. They could have done it every time someone installs an app from outside the App Store. Make the user wait 10 seconds or a minute between each dialog. Put the option behind their passcode, or their Apple ID password. Void AppleCare if they do it, for all I care. They could have done any of this. Anyone actually concerned about their security would have avoided it anyway.
This is what they should have done. Now it looks like regulators are going force their hand. Why Google is doing this now, of all times, is beyond me. Have they read the news lately?
The regulation should be for phones, computers, and game consoles too.
I know this isn't an unpopular opinion... whatever. I gotta vent somewhere.
Squid_Tamer · 5h ago
For real. They could even gate sideloading behind a 10 question multiple-choice-answer quiz on the consequences of sideloading. That's how we license dangerous abilities in the 'real world' - demonstrated competence via standardized test.
It feels so transparent that their concern isn't actually user safety here.
laweijfmvo · 5h ago
I actually don’t want this, especially for non tech savvy older relatives. Someone calls them and gets them to allow remote access to their PC, easily. Ever heard of the Android UI (bugs) that allowed apps to hijacking dialogs etc? I’d rather they just had a phone where security was the only option.
reorder9695 · 4h ago
Why not have it so you could choose to have it like that, but also choose to run whatever you want? No reason this is impossible
const_cast · 3h ago
Doesn't matter, most malware is on the playstore.
Play integrity doesn't protect anything, disallowing side loading has no security benefits. Thats just a lie, a convenient piece of propaganda to convince you to advocate against yourself.
There is no security on the play store. Can apps ask for way too many permissions? Yes. Are they open source? No. Are builds reproducible? No. Does Google check the code? No. Is it almost all adware and spyware? Why, yes!
Google does not give a flying fuck about the quality of the play store and anyone who disagrees is legitimately delusional. Have we looked at the play store? Seen what's recommended?
I mean, for fucks sake you can't download a goddamn calendar app without it asking for phone permissions and showing you popup ads.
Look - Google allows malware on the playstore because they have to. They make money off of ads sold on the playstore and advertisments in apps. Google has ZERO incentive to stamp malware. But they have every incentive to prop it up.
I don't need Grandma to download an unsigned binary from the internet to compromise her. Get fucking real dude. I call her, ask her to install anydesk, and remote control her device, all Google approved.
profsummergig · 3h ago
The canary in the coal mine is that tomorrow Windows or macOS could do the same with PCs.
msarrel · 5h ago
I'm pretty sure that this combined with the announcement that in the newer pixel you will only get 200 charges before it starts to decrease the utility of your battery, and only 1,000 charges are guaranteed. So now they've got a platform where you can't install the apps you want and it has a definite end of life. Sounds like they don't even want to be in the handset business.
Fire-Dragon-DoL · 3h ago
What drives me nuts is: this is for your own good right?
I can still put metal in my microwave and set my home on fire, but I cannot sideload apps.
pharrington · 6h ago
This doesn't stop with handheld computers. If Google will be able to get away with it on phones (which is FAR from guaranteed atm), they will do it on Chromebooks. Microsoft will do it on Windows. Apple will do it on Macs. Then the hardware manufacturers will only allow "trusted" developers via TPM.
Full ownership of all our computers must be norm again. It's fine if tech companies want to charge extra to sell walled gardens and market it as extra security. But they must sell computers and software that the buyer actually owns.
christophilus · 6h ago
I’ve been eyeing the FLX1 or Jolla as a replacement for my iPhone. Anyone daily driving those?
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
I lived with a pinephone for a few years. Once you switch over you realize smartphones were never actually nice and it was all just a very clever psychological trick. You kind of stop taking that form factor seriously. You can skip the trouble and just get a UMPC.
Seattle3503 · 5h ago
what are you using?
y-c-o-m-b · 4h ago
I wonder how feasible it would be to just start using remote desktop apps for connecting to a Linux OS. Until they ban those apps too, of course.
creer · 3h ago
$1000 for a Google phone can be revised. The flagships are now well over $2000.
noisy_boy · 6h ago
I saw a youtube video that the latest Pixel 10 doesn't have a physical sim card slot - only eSIM. Just when I thought the sideloading shit was bad enough.
Why is eSIM related? I want to understand. To me, SIM cards always seemed ridiculous and pointless.
Someone1234 · 5h ago
I can swap a physical SIM into as many devices as I want, without the involvement of the network. With eSim my provider gives me "permission" to swap it to a new device maximum 3 times per YEAR. This has been spoken about by cellphone reviewers in particular as a huge headache.
For another example, Mint Mobile now charges $3 per eSim to swap devices. So now you're paying for something that used to be free, and that is likely a preview of what we have to come.
hedora · 5h ago
My cell company locks my physical sim to the phone it is plugged into.
If I move the sim, I have to go through similar bullshit as I would if I wanted to move an eSIM (attempts to upsell the plan, charge for the “service” of moving the sim, etc, etc.)
At this point, I don’t see any disadvantages for eSIM, since the backported the enshitification to physical sims.
mig1 · 2h ago
I know it feels like this might be part of a big plan against sideloading, but from my time at Google, I’d say it’s more likely to be the idea of some exec trying to get a promo.
bonoboTP · 2h ago
Do you think you were in a position there to hear about any of the actual "big plans" of Google, in case such do exist? Nobody is saying that every last employee who executes on such tasks are "in" on some big secret plan.
Also the two are not in conflict. People are getting promoted for things that advance company goals. They are following rational self-interest of the company.
latchkey · 6h ago
He says one thing that isn't true. He blames Apple for standardizing the concept of not being able to install applications on your "computer" (phone).
This was the case long before Apple, and started at the carrier telco's. Apple was the one who wrestled the control of the app store from the telco's, who were even worse!
Myself and a buddy built cool fun a bartender app (recipes for alcohol drinks) for the Danger Hiptop. It was rejected by the telco (t-mobile) because they were afraid of lawsuits due to the 21+ nature of the app. We never really got a formal rejection notice, they just stopped responding to us. It was also one of those things where you had to build the app first, submit it (to Danger, who then presented it to the telco), take the risk on everything yourself, and then get silently rejected. What a mess.
mathiaspoint · 6h ago
The problem was the belief we all had that smartphones would mean phones become computers the way we think of them.
In effect fewer people use computers now than used to. They're all online but not empowered the way we had hoped. It's all vice with none of the good parts.
pengaru · 5h ago
What I want is a law requiring support for facilitating owners of programmable computers be able to install their own programs independently. If it's not gate-keeped, there's nothing to do. But if you choose to gatekeep because "security", you've signed up for some work to comply with the law.
If there's something like a Play Store with OS-level integration preventing unsigned applications from installing and running, FINE, that's an arguably useful security feature for regular users who have no interest in writing their own apps or consuming software outside the Play Store.
This doesn't preclude allowing the user (with admin rights) adding signing keys of their choosing.
If I want to trust Lennart Poettering's or Jonathan Blow's binaries to install/run on my computer/phone, let me install their public keys, a one-time addition gated by admin rights.
If you're not enabling me to potentially put bits of my choosing on my computer, its software better be in ROMs getting physically swapped out for "updates".
dmfdmf · 4h ago
You don't actually own your phone if ownership implies control over your property. You just get to pay for it. This was always the goal of our corporate/government "partnership" AKA fascism.
Can't wait for Windows 12 to have a mandatory S-Mode and a Microsoft account tied to your PII, for your protection. No anonymous writer can publish the 21st Century equivalent of the Federalist Papers and our tyranny is safe.
butterlettuce · 6h ago
The classic “You will own nothing and be happy”
OutOfHere · 6h ago
Actual ownership is what contributes to happiness. It is the most crucial part that does.
zahlman · 5h ago
This theory predicts a massive happiness gap between renters and homeowners, but I'm unaware of any studies showing this.
OutOfHere · 5h ago
As someone who has both owned multiple residences and rented multiple residences, I can confirm that ownership brings substantial happiness and renting brings substantial stress. The primary exception is when renting is cheap, but that is no longer the case since raises do not keep up with rents. With ownership, particularly in the absence of a mortgage, one can just choose to not have a job for long stretches, and this is basically impossible when renting unless one is exceedingly wealthy. As such, the clause that a mortgage adds unhappiness is an important one.
zahlman · 5h ago
Sure, but that's demonstrably more to do with the actual financial position than the ownership status. If you own the house and no longer pay a mortgage then you're ipso facto wealthier — although you presumably do still pay property tax.
During the period of the mortgage, while rent wouldn't necessarily be cheap, it would be cheaper than the TCO of the house. The overall financial consideration is complex and pro-ownership dogma is just dogma: see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ. More importantly in my opinion, though (and especially for single childless people), rental housing is available in smaller and finer-grained quantities.
bitmasher9 · 6h ago
Ownership is one part of happiness, in that it increases physical security.
solaire_oa · 5h ago
As disgusting as this decision is, hopefully it de-emphasizes the idea of mobile apps in general, which (besides CPU heavy apps like video games) are often web-apps with extra steps (React/Ionic/WebView/etc).
gspr · 5h ago
Why, oh why, is there not a smartphone – or even a similar form-factor device without the ability to phone – that lets its user run anything they want (say, a normal Linux distro)? And then you emulate Android whenever you need something that only runs on that?
Hell, I don't care if it's a generation or two behind smartphones. I don't understand why this doesn't exist when non-bleeding-edge hardware has become so mind-bogglingly cheap!
What am I missing?
Magnusmaster · 1h ago
There is such a smartphone. But then you can't use your bank's app because it uses hardware attestation to ban alternative operating systems, and most banks require the app for 2FA or don't have a functional web portal at all. It's going to be even worse once governments roll out age verification apps that use hardware attestation.
So I paid $1000 for a Pixel 9 Pro 1TB, then Syncthing wasn't able to keep maintaining their android app because of Google, and now Google wants to block me from using F-Droid. Google, you've fucked me in the ass for the last goddamn time, I'm completely de-Googling over this. I refuse to subsidize the surveillance state any longer. Fucking fascists.
microflash · 6h ago
"You'd need our keys to enter your house."
specproc · 5h ago
I guess this is the thing, they're not our houses. I'm increasingly of the perspective that phones are just a tax, an entry requirement for a hostile society.
Spent a week with it uncharged in my drawer recently, that was great, should try that again.
ksec · 5h ago
It is really wired when I learned a few years ago the landlord has a spare key to my rented flat and could go in whenever he wants. And this sounds like it.
franktankbank · 6h ago
I'm going to be fucking pissed if I can't use AlfaOBD. I've saved myself thousands doing simple repairs which required that interaction.
add-sub-mul-div · 6h ago
I assume my Galaxy S20 is immune to this because it's not getting (major) updates anymore. I'll continue using it as long as I can to avoid this. Does anyone know the most recent Galaxy phone that will be safe from this? Should I get one or two extras?
rafram · 6h ago
Knew it was Rossmann from the title before even clicking. He genuinely always seems so miserable. Does he ever talk about positive things?
potamic · 6h ago
Acquainting people with consumer rights is a very positive thing! Why do you think otherwise?
jondwillis · 6h ago
What sort of positive things would you have him talk about?
zenonu · 6h ago
Have you ever publicly fought for consumer or other rights? Please link to where you've made a difference in the world.
rafram · 6h ago
That’s a silly response. I don’t think Rossmann is really a force for good. He kvetches about New York incessantly for years, moves to Austin with much fanfare about how much better and more free Texas is, now kvetches incessantly about Austin. When manufacturers don’t open their devices enough, he complains; when they do, he complains. No matter the subject, he is impossible to please.
ninjagoo · 6h ago
So your answer is no? you haven't publicly fought for any rights? And yet feel entitled to publicly dump on those who do? Basically an ad hominem attack on Rossmann? [1]
You don't need to be a pop star to have an opinion on Beyoncé.
(And no, I haven't publicly spoken about American consumer rights, but I have been interviewed in the "newspaper of record" as a representative of an organization that works to end a genocide. If that counts!)
ninjagoo · 4h ago
> And no, I haven't publicly spoken about American consumer rights, but I have been interviewed in the "newspaper of record" as a representative of an organization that works to end a genocide. If that counts!
That does count, yes. It also doesn't change the fact that publicly posting such a strong negative view of Rossmann context-free amounts to an ad-hominem, unless you link that negative opinion to a good reason on why his take on Google's harmful actions shouldn't be a topic of discussion. Otherwise it just comes across as an attempt to suppress his views or get people to discount his views.
A tactic you're likely familiar with, from being a target of it. Which makes it all the more surprising that you would wield it yourself, against a consumer advocate no less.
xerox13ster · 5h ago
> No matter the subject, he is impossible to please.
Did you look yourself in the eyes though your black mirror as you wrote that?
He’s taking real action, you’re online slinging shit.
Which one of you is less of a force for good?
slashtab · 5h ago
“Ignorance is bliss”
on_the_train · 6h ago
Yup, cpt Drama is of course right there. It's disingenuous at this point. He doesn't care, he's just sweeping up tech drama
However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management.
The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.
Note how the term 'side loading' is already weighted against you doing it, it is supposed to make you feel you're doing something that is borderline illegal even if it is still possible and that you are bypassing safeguards that would stop you from doing this stupid thing if you only took the proper route.
This was before it had a download manager or file manager and using your computer to manage your phone was the norm.
The term predates Android anyways, goes back to the 90s I think.
No comments yet
Hell, people used to use iTunes to manage the apps on their iPhone and organize their Home Screen.
It also allows you to patch other apps to make them work the way you want.
On my computer, I can choose to containerize applications I run with something like docker, flatpak or snaps; run them in a VM, under a separate user, in a chroot... or, not! I can get them from the Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/... archive or... not! Or I might compile it from source and run it directly or... not!
Based on source of the app I decide how much I trust it and thus decide on the encapsulation strategy for it (sometimes, none).
Yes, I understand having full control of your system has some minor downsides (you can mess things up more easily), but you can usually do that anyway (just fill up your phone storage with photos and see how your phone behaves).
Especially after people paying so much money for the devices, it's ludicrous that they are not allowed to make their own decisions and install what they want. Ownership, user rights, and privacy have been kicked in the face. If you can not install whatever software that you want, then people should be signing only rental agreements.
It is also more the reason to push Linux smartphones[1]. Android is not doing anything special, that people could not get or create for Linux phones.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_mobile_pho...
The worst part of these walled garden ecosystems is that it's introducing people to computing in a way that makes these restrictions of freedom seem natural and normal. The antithesis of the 80s home computer boom.
Can you not do this on Samsung phones? I was considering buying a used s22 ultra as an iPhone user to explore more freedom and pirate apps, etc. Is andoid really this locked down now? I have heard that quite a bit, but can't you sideload or install any apps you want on Android? Why do you need to unlock the bootloader?
Sideloading doesn't require rooting the device.
And yeah majority of phones simply won't let you do that anymore
Disagree entirely. Google Play refused to download some app on my phone because it thought the specs weren't good enough for whatever reason even though it worked fine on my previous weaker phone.
I found the APK, I downloaded it, and just installed it. Why would I want to first download some other middle-man to deal with any of this shit? Ideally there would be no "store" at all on my phone.
Editing to add this from the front page of HN right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45082595 (F-Droid site certificate expired)
And Maemo/MeeGo were basically normal Linux distributions. Right now, SailfishOS is a worthy successor. It runs on a fairly decent number of devices and is quite ready for daily usage. Following the Nokia tradition, offline maps are outstanding. There's also a proprietary Android emulation layer that works really well for most applications, in case that is needed.
SailfishOS and Jolla could challenge the duopoly if a critical mass of developers migrated to the system. Right now, there's a fairly small technical userbase that has nonetheless produced lots of great indie applications. I can't believe I had Linux in my pocket with the N770 in late 2005 and, right now, mainstream options are so locked down.
There are of course caveats, but with a larger userbase things would get ironed out. Still, in the Sailfish forum there are American users that employ their devices as daily drivers.
(Never mind clunkier but more straightforward solutions like a libre device/OS using wifi from a mifi)
Nokia was dead man walking since the first iPhone dropped and Nokia employees of that time will tell you the same as they also wrote here before.
Even before Microsoft took over, Nokia's corporate structure, culture and management was too slow, bureaucratic and cumbersome to modern SW development, to be able to turn the giant ship around and catch up with what Apple and Google have already launched, let alone overtake them. It was game over for them already, Microsoft or no Microsoft.
But the company treated it as a side project due to internal politics. They didn't want to bother Symbian.
A classic innovator's dilemma problem. Then Microsoft (Elop) came in, killed the N9, and shifted to Windows.
Says you, not the market. You are free to disagree, but history proves you wrong. If N770-N9 were such good devices for the gen-pop, they would have beaten iPhone sales to the moon and show Apple that they were wrong, but they weren't. The average user is not your tech savvy HN user who likes to tinker with mobile FOSS Linux devices, and iPhone's success proved this.
>[...] due to internal politics.
That's exactly what I said. Having better tech is useless if your corporate management, product execution and marketing is shit. That's why Apple and Google won, and Nokia, Motorola, and et-al lost on the free market.
Maemo/MeeGo could have >10% marketshare in some EU countries, just like desktop Linux does right now. The N9 was a very elegant device, ready for the masses, and good enough to become a third mobile platform.
The N9 was incredibly elegant and easy to use. The hardware was well crafted, and the card-based UI was outstanding. All applications were well integrated. For example, any messaging application would add its protocol to your contact list, instead of having everything fragmented in apps. Offline maps were second to none. It took a decade for iOS and Android to catch up.
It shipped with native support for a variety of VoIP protocols, including Google Talk (Jingle) and Skype. The OLED screen was stunning on the dark mode UI. Mozilla provided a great mobile Firefox port, and there was a native terminal just in case you wanted to ssh to machines or do something from your phone. Tethering or even using Linux running on your phone from a bigger screen worked really well, in 2011.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2011/10/22/2506376/nokia-n9-review
Who cares, is nobody bought it? You need sales to make money because you need money to pay wages and shareholders. Otherwise you're preaching to the choir. The graveyard of history if full of great products and great ideas that didn't catch on for various reasons related to sales, timing, marketing and execution.
It doesn't matter if the N9 was good or not in the minds of the tech savvy HN crowd, what matters is that the iPhone beat them on the free market.
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent" and Steve Jobs understood this better than anyone.
Yes, previous management messed up before that point too (they did not ship N700 with GSM chip and marketed it as "internet tablet" so as not to jeopardize their Symbian phone sales, only adding it to N800 and beyond, and then Apple turned their iPod Touch into iPhone and stole their lunch), but they finally figured out a great phone, and then... pivoted.
The N9 was sold out in Scandinavia, and it was outselling Lumia (Windows) in Q4 '11. That's fairly good for something that had no marketing and it had already been labeled as a dead platform. Around 2 million N9 devices were sold. That's on the same order of magnitude as any Google Pixel generation.
What could have happened if the device had been phased out is something we can only hypothesize about, but I don't think it's fair to claim it was a fringe device nobody cared about.
If only Scandinavia was as relevant as the US, UK, Asia and rest of the EU for a product to stay in development and in production to remain internationally relevant and competitive to the iPhone.
>Around 2 million N9 devices were sold.
My LLM research says 1-1,5 Million MeeGo powered Nokia N9 devices were sold by 2011, versus 93 Million iPhones and 237 Million Android devices out of which Samsung had 94 million, similar to Apple at the time. The N9's 1,5 Million wasn't even close, it was orders of magnitude less than Apple or Samsung.
So the writing was on the wall by then. How can you even think that they had a chance to be competitive after the numbers of 2011? Based on those numbers they were right to pull the plug back then at the time, the finances spoke for themselves, there was no way for Nokia to turn the ship around in their favor. The line was just going down and even more down.
HP Pre 3 was a similar situation where it was pulled after it was shipped to retailers and operators, but before it went officially on sale — they still sold well even with unsupported system.
There were many rugpulls like these, and while they technically make these products flops, they were also not given a fair chance either.
Your point was that Nokia had nothing that could compete with the iPhone. You have now been shown this to be patently untrue and that Nokia was killed by an incompetent board bringing in a MS transfuge.
Stop trying to move the goal post. You are just wrong. That’s ok, you will survive. Everybody who lived through it could have told you by the way. The first iPhone was a pretty poor device and it wasn’t before the 3 that things started to improve. There was plenty of space to compete.
Apple didn't invent walled gardens, and walled gardens are not illegal unless you do what the EU did and change the law.
What is going to bite Google on the ass here is selling users an "open" platform and then using anticompetitive tactics to yank those supposed freedoms away.
Look at Microsoft's Xbox platform. It was created, advertised and sold to the public as a walled garden with no legal repercussions at all, because walled gardens are not illegal.
On the other hand, Microsoft created Windows as an open platform and sold it to the public as such. When Microsoft tried to use anticompetitive tactics to maintain control of the platform they sold as "open", they were found guilty of antitrust in jurisdictions around the world.
Google made the choice to sell Android as open. "Sideloading" apps was the only way to install apps at all for the first couple of years. The decision to sell Android as "open" only to yank those freedoms away will have legal consequences again here.
The problem here is that the people who announced the "open" platform option were lying to everyone in order to gain market share.
You can still lament the wider societal scale impacts of increasing controls. If both Google and Apple become walled gardens, then what exactly is left? And people need smartphones to get through daily life, interact with banks and government offices.
And I bet Windows is going to head down the same path. ID-verified-by-default, only government and corporate-approved apps installable, AI surveillance running in the background analyzing your every click (for your safety) etc. You see, we need that to catch the bad guys.
I'm actually pro-app store as long as it's helping apps to be malware-free. But I'm 100% against shutting out side-loading. Side-loading was never common let alone a common vector for malware, at least not that I've ever heard. But what it is, apparently (or we would not see these Google shenanigans), is a long-term threat to Google's own app store.
Some idiot executive decided this.
Except that it isn't. Epic v Apple proved this on the Apple side.
The fact that (according to Google) only 50% of Android malware comes from sideloading should also make you question where the other 50% is coming from. (Hint: a lot of it is from the Play Store)
The only similar claim I can find is they said is you're 50x more likely to encounter malware from internet-sideloaded sources than from the Play Store, but that's rather different.
Was the iPhone the first device to come with that concept?
on the original iphone the only "apps" you could have were websites, as apple hated the carrier approach
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_(video_games)
Far from it.
Before Apple, carriers and handset makers 100% controlled what you could install. "App stores" like Verizon's Get It Now, BREW, and Nokia’s operator portals existed, but they were fragmented, clunky, often exploitative, and comparatively laughable in scope and scale.
Apple did what seemed impossible at the time, which was to persuade/cajole/force carriers and handset makers to give up their roles as gatekeepers. They created a single global marketplace with mostly-predictable rules and simple discovery, which finally allowed indie developers to reach users directly just as easily as global behemoths.
Verizon wanted you to have to pay a fee every time you used their software to transfer an image from your phone to your computer, or vice versa.
(editted to add repository and package manager points)
The amount of legalism that's been brought in by both sides, Apple/Google and the regulators, layered in lies (we need to approve the software, register the developers, to protect the user from software), is divorced from the reality of the hardware-software relationship. This has led us down a path where everyone is debating the topics that Google, Apple, and revolving door regulators choose rather than the underlying reality.
There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel.
The Atari 2600 was an immensely popular home computer for a decade(ish), but it didn't exactly spark the personal computer revolution. Why? Because it used the iphone software distribution model. You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. So it was as open as an iphone.
All the actual progress happened on Apple ][, C64, the Radio Shack computers and later the IBM clones. Because, obviously, anyone could write and sell any software they wanted so the market growth went exponential.
A lesson to society, there.
The 2600 just sucked as a computer.
“Simple” solutions can produce unintended outcomes.
You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me.
You have apparently never sat down on an elderly persons PC in the early ‘00s and tried to sort out all manner of shopping toolbars, coupon widgets, and crapware that has caused their pc to slow to a crawl. It’s literally bad enough with the poor performing apps in app stores but it could be so much worse without it
No thanks.
Yet instead, we are getting increasingly fewer phones with unlockable bootloaders and root access available. What gives?
I've also checked out my mom's phone a year or so back: she had so many crappy apps from official store that it was barely usable. Stores do not really help.
Were you horrified by the Apple ][?
The Apple II was never used by “everyone” and nobody expected it to be, even towards the end of its quite long life.
No question, it was a stepping stone to where we are today but you can’t compare an enthusiast/early adopter product from nearly 50 years ago to contemporary Android and iOS devices that are intended for “everyone”, in the way you’re attempting with your comment.
I think it’s more a reflection that people mostly use other devices, like phones and tablets, for tasks they might have used a PC for 20 years ago - at least outside an office environment.
That’s not to say the PC experience hasn’t improved - certainly Windows is at least more secure - but that it’s not the only factor, and I don’t think it’s the biggest factor either.
One data point for you: the last company I worked for, when I joined in 2017, already >50% of external users were accessing our service via mobile devices.
If you don't see the patterns of absolutely pathetic authoritianism, which most people cheered on during covid policies times, you're not going be very effective at opposing this crap.
This is a fine distinction. And it will happen and should happen because there are always gaps. Without a way to fill them, you're left with a subpar experience.
And while many people are fine with it on their iPhones, I can't really imagine not having ReVanced apps, Molly, or a dozen other little fixes.
Who gets to decide what the main channel is?
For a lot of people here, F-Droid is their main way of installing programs on phones.
The only downside is that free Apple accounts must renew their certificate in AltStore (while connected to their computer's home network) once a week, or else it'll all be deactivated and you'll have to reinstall AltStore and YTLitePlus from scratch. But you can pay $99 for a year-long developer account, set a recurring reminder to renew, or worst case YTLitePlus makes it easy to export your settings so you can quickly restore it after reinstalling.
[1] https://github.com/YTLitePlus/YTLitePlus
Yes, it blocks ads but it also skips sponsored segments and other chaff with a SponsorBlock integration. Then it fixes all the little UI annoyances across apps, for example letting you filter out low-view videos and live streams from your TikTok feed.
It turns mass market apps into something that an HN user would make for themselves.
It is actually pretty hypocritical they’re adding such tech to their apps while fighting so hard against people that want to block the ads they serve…
Wait, let me take out my word 97 CDs to read the "sideloading instructions" booklet. Oh wait, what was considered a normal install Same on mobile phone in symbian era. It's not "sideloading", it's a "normal install".
oh, those things you literally load from the side? :P
/s
Free lunch is over yo.
I'm not sure what you want.. You want access to their service, they offer a premium.
You don't want to pay, at the same time you are not will to boycott them for moral reasons, so you instead you attempt to circumvent it by using ad blockers..
LMAO. Nope they won't. They'll go to tiktok or some other platform where you'll surprise pikachu face have to watch ads. Ads powers internet. Someone has to pay server cost at the end of the day- either pay with your dollar or your attention. There's no other option.
You wanna pay someone else, feel free- vimeo, and a zillion other platforms exist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_video_platforms
And as the parent already said, "I may as well get an iPhone".
I myself use iphone cause I like the hardware quality (over android). I pay for youtube premium cause I like the service (over apple music for example)...
You can bellow as much as you want that you are losing a "free service" but nothin is free buddy at the end of the day. You get what you paid and youtube premium is one of the few services I find worth paying... Not worth it, you say? Feel free to bounce to a zillion other video platforms - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_online_video_platforms .
The hypocrisy...
Now? I feel like I'm sitting on gold by keeping these cheap dumb devices around.
You can still buy equivalent dumb phones, but they aren't any more open than the rest of the rabble.
Laptops are a different story, although I believe part of that battle was already lost when the Intel SSM and AMD equivalent came around. We'll see how things go when banks start to require you to enable (In)Secure Boot just to be able to log in through a browser on a PC.
Debanking was a crypto scammer problem more than anything else.
The modern mobile ecosystem is selling games consoles when the nerds want mobile Unix workstations.
Kinda sad that it's KaiOS the FirefoxOS fork. One can only wonder what would have happened if Mozilla kept with the project till now. There is huge wave of people wanting less absorbing devices nowdays.
I've been more neutral about this in the past, but the current and future integration of LLMs (and other ML models) into the base operating system will mean these mobile phones do less of what the user wants and more of what the user does not want.
Secondly, Apple is in the process of becoming an adtech company and will not provide an alternative to Google.
Thirdly, Google may be forced to divest Android and the mobile business. If so, the buyer is likely to be as bad, or worse, because they'll have to figure out how to pay for the whole thing.
I guess you can get a mobile hotspot and a dumb phone separately. Looks like 5G Wifi 6 APs are available for ~$100.
For example, university students whose main use for a computer is editing documents could comfortably get by with nothing but a nice-ish phone, a monitor, and a Bluetooth KB+mouse.
also, FYI (and for the sake of non-native English readers), it's "unrealistic". ["irrealistic" relates to irrealism, a literary technique that departs from reality]
if it came out today with say 16gb of RAM and used the new Android VM feature I would buy it instantly
It could have been a decent concept if the Tegra 3 chipset wasn’t a little underpowered and the onboard storage so slow.
On new stuff, a Bluetoothu keyboard and mouse more or less solve input, and USB-C should solve video out (and input if you want). Modern phones should be powerful enough for basic desktop use, I just don’t think people want it.
I do most of my light/routine server management via SSH from my phone, plus keeping a version control checkout of my documents that I do actually work on in vim (yes, the limited keyboard is annoying but it's fine for light work). At a previous job, the former extended quite far; I could get paged in the middle of the night, connect to the VPN, SSH into the server, triage, and frequently diagnose and even fix the problem without having to actually get out of bed.
As compared to your personal laptop? Or is the 'personal' qualifier that makes you say that?
...A smartphone, yes.
> especially since doing work-related stuff on your personal smartphone seems dangerous
It was my work phone, not my personal phone.
Controlled BGP enabled switches too.
Fixed database replication issues.
They're more powerful than plenty of computers from not too long ago
https://www.punkt.ch/repofiles/14440-MP02%20backing%20up%20c...
Even just my personal CardDAV account has close to 200 contacts.
All phones have these days is "the app ecosystem" which is designed and optimized just to rent you out to corporations. Exposing yourself to it is almost always a loss.
I never left. Well, my flip phones have had cameras in them, but. On the other hand, "virtual credit card"? What?? And what good is proper "mobile storage and compute" if I don't at least have a laptop-sized screen and a proper physical input device?
Apple stopped selling all iPod hardware, including iPod touch, for a reason.
This legal reality is showing itself more and more in the practicalities of actual using "smartphones". The only real solution is what op said, make the modem completely separate from the computing device.
So how about we just stop making "mobile phones" and just sell what they are: pocket computers. And that name immediately tells legislators what's appropriate hardware control, namely: none. If you buy a pocket computer, you can now do with that computer whatever you want, and the company that makes the hardware has no say over that, and the company that makes the OS has no legal basis for locking you out of anything. And if those are the same company, then the EU can finally go "how about no, you get to break up or you will never sell anything in our market again".
I called my mom yesterday (to her landline), and then I sent a text message to my friend from a parking lot to let them know I'd be there soon.
You won't have modern mobile banking or cellular communications in a device without binary blobs or "trusted" compute modules you cannot inspect.
It's time for an antitrust breakup of Google (and Apple).
These two companies control mobile computing like a dictatorship. This is a sector where most people do all of their computing. This isn't gaming or a plaything - it's most people's lives and trillions of dollars of business activity. All gatekept by two companies.
Here's what needs to happen:
1. We need government mandated web installs of native apps without scare walls ("this app is dangerous and may delete your files") and enabled by default without labyrinthine settings to enable.
2. We need the ability to do payments and user signups without Google or Apple's platform pieces. We should not be forced to lock ourselves into their ecosystems.
3. Google search and Chrome cannot be the defaults on mobile platforms. We need the EU-mandated browser / search picker.
4. First party applications should not be treated as first class while third parties are left to dry. Google and Apple should not be allowed to install their platform components by default - a user must seek them out.
5. No more green text / blue text bubbles. All messaging must be multi-platform and equivalent with no favoritism.
6. Google and Apple wallets should not be the defaults, but rather the user should have the ability to configure their bank, PayPal, Cash App, or whatever payment provider they choose.
Look up remote attestation.
That's like the tiny moments of freedom that Winston Smith has in 1984 before he is captured and tortured.
We live in a mobile computing dictatorship. There isn't time, money, or energy for millions of people to do this.
And so we are taxed, corralled, and treated like cattle. Google and Apple own smartphones and nobody can do anything about it.
The only solution is government dismantlement of the Google/Apple monopoly. That starts with mandates for web installs of native apps by default, without hidden settings menus or scare walls.
1. Termination of WIPO Copyright Treaty (prerequisite for #2)
2. Repeal of DMCA. (primarily because of Section 1201)
3. Enact and enforce, Right to ownership, Right to repair laws.
4. Enforce antitrust laws. / Break up monopolies.
I've given up hope of politically-appointed prosecutors ever doing a thorough and effective job of this. Sure there are some high-profile cases (AT&T, Standard Oil, Microsoft (almost), Google (maybe), etc) but the vast majority go unprosecuted.
There are really only two ways to fix the antitrust disaster:
1. Private right of action (like RICO) for the Sherman Act -- let nonprofits and individuals file the charges. This takes the implicit pardon power away from politically-appointed prosecutors.
2. Graduated corporate income tax, which creates a natural diseconomy of scale. The income tax code already contains a decades-old mechanism (search for "common control" in the IRC) to prevent evasion using shell-company shenanighans. It's very well tested, it works, and it has been working since the 1980s -- mainly to prevent US persons from evading the extra requirements for owning controlling interests in foreign corporations.
If you're really interested in it, I suggest subscriber to https://www.thebignewsletter.com/
“It’s a big club and you ain’t in it”
This has not always been the case. And still isn't in plenty of locales and companies. The S&P 500 of 2025 doesn't define immutable universal laws.
A user would install the runtime, signed by a developer who shared their government ID with Google, and then use the runtime to launch whatever app they want. It's probably infeasible to launch an APK from another APK, so the runtime could be based on WASIX+WebView or something.
We could call it "General Computation". Google could start a cat and mouse game of banning developers who sign the app, but at least this "war on general computation" would be obvious and ironic.
It would be challenging for Google to argue that the app should be banned entirely, as it's basically a web browser with extra APIs, like TCP/UDP sockets.
This is "one weird trick" thinking, but there's no tech-based counter if the device manufacturer is determined enough.
I know you have “let’s reprogram old phones” in mind, but approximately nobody does this even when it’s an option. If you don’t like phones being locked down, then argue that on its own merits; e-waste is not a good argument.
Every shitty iPhone could still be a MP3 player, home control or something else. But no, its Garbage because your only way to install is by going online and hoping that your critical apps are still in a useful version in the app store.
Besides, when the options on the market range from "impossible" to "damn hard to reprogram", can you blame the market for not taking advantage of that? I'm certain a law that would allow waste recycling companies to unlock any phone, even without password or receipt, would lead to phones or phone motherboards being reused in a variety of lower-volume products.
Approximately nobody is going to be reprogramming their 8 year old iPhones to "prevent creating digital waste", especially when the CPU is unbearably slow and the batteries are well worn out. Say reprogramming is important for user freedom or whatever, but claiming it's going to make a meaningful difference in reducing e-waste is always going to be a spurious justification.
An iPhone doesn't have to be an iPhone forever, and end-users don't have to be the ones doing the conversion. All we need is a law that would stop phones from going to a landfill and instead actually get them recycled as general computing devices.
The market can figure out the rest. If manufacturers today are willing to deal with antique toolchains and expensive programmer gear to save a few cents on microcontrollers, imagine what they could do with cheap boards running Android or iOS.
The average person has no need for "IoT sensors", whatever that means.
>thermostats
Seems unlikely given that most HVAC systems in north america operates off 24V wires, so you'd to add some sort of electrical relay switch on top for it to work. That alone is going to kill most of the savings. Moreover is your heating system really something you want to DIY? Sure, it's all fun and games to spend an entire weekend setting up your own home surveillance system from repurposed phones, because if it fails nothing really bad happens. A thermostat is something that you don't want randomly failing because your phone decided to randomly bootloop or turn into a spicy pillow.
>home intercoms
Most people would just use their phones
>mobile data modems
What's wrong with tethering off your phone? Why bring an extra device?
>smart TV dongles
Assuming your phone even supports 4K output in non-mirroring mode (you really want to watch TV shows in 1080 x 2400 that your phone's screen runs at?), this seems like a suboptimal solution given that you'll need a usb-c hub for it to work, and will be missing niceties like supporting a TV remote. All of this hassle, just to save $30 for a fire TV, or $100 for a SBC.
- IoT sensors are a thing, whether the "average person" needs them or not. Think remote weather stations, car counting cameras, GPS trackers...
- "Smart thermostats" exist, surely you could just copy whatever they're doing with ease. And let's not limit ourselves to DIY here.
- Every block of flats I've been in here has had an intercom system, some even have video transmission. Sounds like a job for old phone hardware, no?
- Carriers still sell USB modems, and I guess they know what they're doing.
- A hardware manufacturer could surely just build in a USB-C to HDMI converter. A DP-to-HDMI chip is a common enough component already.
And just to repeat, I don't want regular people to start making these things out of old phones en masse, I want businesses to have that opportunity. You're arguing against a strawman.
Something tells me that your average municipal government or enterprise isn't going to want a hodgepodge fleet of phones as IOT sensors. Most of the applications you describe don't even need to the phone to be reprogrammed. There's a dozen apps that allow your phone to be repurposed as cameras or GPS trackers today, what's holding back their adoption?
>- "Smart thermostats" exist, surely you could just copy whatever they're doing with ease. And let's not limit ourselves to DIY here.
Yeah but how much is this custom hardware going to cost, especially when you don't have economies of scale? You can get a sleek looking smart thermostat for $150-200. Most people will take that over a tangled mess of wires that a DIY solution is going to look like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ahmed_Mohamed_Clock_by_Ir...
>- Every block of flats I've been in here has had an intercom system, some even have video transmission. Sounds like a job for old phone hardware, no?
So you're going to be gluing a phone next to your door? Sounds like a great way to lose an old phone.
>And just to repeat, I don't want regular people to start making these things out of old phones en masse, I want businesses to have that opportunity. You're arguing against a strawman.
No, you're arguing against a strawman. If you read my initial comment you'd see it states in no uncertain terms that I'm skeptical of the argument that it'll meaningfully reduce e-waste, not that there's going to be exactly zero people repurposing their phones.
> There's a dozen apps that allow your phone to be repurposed as cameras or GPS trackers today, what's holding back their adoption?
Personally I think it's the lack of control over devices that's hindering these apps. A common modern phone doesn't let you replace the system UI with some purpose-built app, it doesn't let you run without a battery, it doesn't even let you disable all notifications. The result just isn't up to snuff unless the user/device manufacturer has full access to reduce the system to just the parts they need.
> If you read my initial comment you'd see it states in no uncertain terms that I'm skeptical of the argument that it'll meaningfully reduce e-waste, ...
And you haven't provided any meaningful counterargument so far. You still seem to be under the impression that reusing phones means hobbyists "gluing phones" places, but that's far from what I'm advocating.
The average person doesn't have any need for "computer nodes". Just because some homelabbers want to create a k8s cluster off their 10 year old phones, doesn't mean any significant proportion of phones are going to be salvaged in that manner.
I also didn't mention any use of k8s which I don't make use of or using rpis as nodes on a computer cluster ("homelab"), so you are extrapolating in a very weird direction.
By nodes I meant, say robotic applications, simple room surveillance camera, baby monitor,audio streaming, multimedia/tv remote control, where a rpi/custom hw could be perfectly be replaced by an old phone, since it comes with imu, cameras, audio, touchscreen, wifi, storage, etc.
For the family that has a techie willing to jump through a dozen hoops to set those up, sure it might mitigate some e-waste. However I doubt that's applicable to most or even 10% of people. Moreover I don't see how an unlocked OS is necessary for most of the applications you mentioned. Why do you need an unlocked bootloader to turn a phone into a camera/baby monitor? Aren't there a dozen apps that basically serves that purpose? Finally, as the saying goes, "[insert OSS project] is only free if you don't value your time". Sure, you can spend an entire weekend turning your old phones into cameras, installing frigate on a docker container somewhere, and adding a coral TPU to do object recognition. Or you can pay $50 for a 2-pack of wyze cameras which have cloud connectivity and object recognition out of the box, and is in a far better form factor than a smartphone.
The point isn't that exactly zero phones will be diverted from landfill, just that approximately zero phones will be.
They certainly DON'T. I don't know where this estimate is coming from, but it's inarguably wrong
And saying this in a forum literally named after the act of hacking and repurposing devices is quite bold.
I have old devices still laying around in the hope one day I could reuse them for something, anything useful, I simply can't get myself to throw away something which seemed magical a few years ago.
5% of all iPhone users having a home button does not mean that only 5% of iPhone SE purchasers are keeping their phones, since the population of iPhone SE purchasers is smaller than the population of iPhone users.
Let's be conservative and say about 10% of iPhone users ever bought an SE. If SE users now make up about 5% of the iPhone user base, that would mean that about half have kept their devices -- an order of magnitude off from your 5% claim.
What happens when Apple stops putting new macOS versions out for the M1, which by all accounts is as far better computer than my old Sandy Bridge Thinkpad, but will become completely useless far earlier?
You're accusing me of "unscientific thinking", but you're basically making an argument from ignorance? You haven't provided any rebuttals to my argument, and you're basically arguing "we haven't tried so if you try to argue against it you're WRONG".
The ways performance is reduced is when processing power may be throttled (eg Apple battery gate) or because a newer App or Os has high requirements.
But that kinds of threats must be theoretically established and acknowledged - which I think is ultimately inevitable but could be delayed or hastened by human actions. The point is, you could be seen as throwing pointless tantrum about your toys until it happens.
It’s already cumbersome to run your banking app (and other „required“ apps) on a custom ROM with all the attestation going on. I assume these distributions will bleed users and see a reduction in new ones due to higher entry barriers.
Or any sufficiently hard-boiled alternative from the inside. IMO things like custom ROMs lack sufficient vertical organization and that is why they're not so relevant (but at that point, you're basically constructing something much like a corporation once again, if not an entire society stemming out of it).
lol: HUAWEI will no longer allow bootloader unlocking (Update: Explanation from HUAWEI) - https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-bootloader-unlocking...
(It was surprisingly hard to find any news articles covering this. Most media just don't care that one of the biggest manufacturers in the world won't let users control their own phones. So much for holding the powerful to account, or protecting liberties.)
Not totally unlike the way Bell used to strictly regulate their own user endpoints in the 20th century.
Within that stage, I could be wrong, but I would expect a somewhat freer software ecosystem there, as it is an economy oriented around manufacturing, and it is useful to write many various applications around that end.
And PCs connect to corporate-run wired networks. What you're saying is at best an argument for locking the only radio chip itself, at worst it's propaganda to justify stripping ownership rights from consumers - "The item you think you own can affect some corporate property, therefore the corporation will seize control of it."
Hell the ISPs, phone and wired, can already drop you as a customer, blocking your communications, if they detect you interfering with their network. So any arguments that they must also control your devices are simply lies, transparently so even if they were coming from someone with 1000-times the goodwill and honest record of ISPs.
Edit as reply because I'm "posting too fast, please slow down":
> your handset plays the role also of one of these unfree modems
No, only the cellular chip does. And non-free/locked firmware is nothing new, even in PC-land.
> but any alternative must rival what makes the telco system, for the most part, actually work.
But it worked (and still works) just fine with rootable phones on the network. So rootable phones are not in any way an "alternative" - they are the (dwindling) status quo.
A bit wrong, PCs usually connect to modems or ONTs that in turn connect to the wired telco network, which are deeply unfree.
The nature of RF as a channel means your handset plays the role also of one of these unfree modems.
Attempting to draw a line between the corporate part and "your part" doesn't necessarily make sense because one doesn't exist, and if it did, is always shifting, especially in different environments.
I'm not necessarily "arguing in favor" of this kind of organization by describing it, but any alternative must rival what makes the telco system, for the most part, actually work. It's not enough to demand freedoms (which doesn't work), they have to be enshrined in real organization, in the social sense and material too. Today that means people have to get paid.
If the definition of "the network" is connecting to some LTE, sure, if it means being able to use RCS, or Google pay, or a banking app, it is much more questionable.
You attempt to cut the cellular chip out as the sole telecomm relevant part, but it is a fiction. It's visible today in bandwidth constrained environments like aircraft wifi that certain types of supposedly application-level traffic are not permissible (video calls). Conversely improving the channel capacity in general will require higher control of the user environment.
This trend started in China, spread to countries like mine, and (as recent history shows) the relatively free democracies have been more than happy to copy some pretty nasty ideas from autocracies like ours — we went through your current news cycle 10-15 years ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if removing the last few vestiges of having control over your computing also came to you in another five to ten years.
Part of the story is that it only takes a /single/ major scandal RE sideloading to seriously injure a bank's reputation, even if the vast majority of sideloading use cases are legitimate.
I’m very much a credit card point churner and I have an HYSA. The same rates and offers are on the websites and the apps.
And how would a bank know if you’re using a website on a rooted phone?
People are complaining about the app stores when they are choosing banks which are app only - which I would never do - you should be complaining about your bank.
For those of us who know enough there is no need to enable it.
For those that are not as technological (like elders), a familiar/friend can enable it and no matter what they try, they can't "harm" the device without asking you first.
The only ones not getting any benefit are non technological people without technological contacts, but even in those cases I'm sure shops would gladly provide that support (like the usual "setup support)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always.
However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware.
The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software.
So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it.
Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer.
So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
Wow, that's in Talks at Google. Listening to the Q&A is just so weird. The audience (I assume Google employees) are openly advocating for digital freedoms and the classic hacker ethos. Crazy how much the Overton window has shifted. I wonder where those people are now.
It's a far cry from native apps and it comes with its own issues. But in my case, the vast majority of apps I use regularly have a competent mobile web interface.
This is of course limited by what the OS will allow as we see with Apple's purposefully poor support for them and Google would likely follow suit. Maybe alternative browsers could offer what's missing.
Maybe there'll be more power behind a Linux distro for Android that puts browser apps and self installs first?
People have a natural desire for ownership in some form, I'm sure we'll find a way. But things do look bleak right now.
You could install a free os on the phone instead and own the whole thing.
Correct. They are paying for the physical device and the license to use the installed software.
My Samsung phone is not linked to my Google account and I don't have a Samsung account. I have no WhatsApp/Facebook/Meta account. I don't use Apple devices or have an Apple account.
Possibly the only apps on my phone that have an account linked with them are Telegram and AnkiDroid.
You didn’t buy a physical book, you bought the paper, but the words are owned and licensed by the publisher.
You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it.
Wrapping the bs in a thin veneer or “software” doesn’t magically make it okay.
You are overly restricting yourself.
Now we have the first sale doctrine for many physical items. It’s not being applied to digital goods since we buy a license to the thing instead of a copy of the thing itself; or so the companies want to argue.
Correct.
> You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it.
No. The physical media is transferable and the implied license carries with it. You just can’t make a copy and then retain it if you give the original copy away.
No comments yet
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-356...
by strcat, Graphene OS founder https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44679100
I'm done with Google. On every front they are being assholes. The DOJ should have exploded Microsoft into bits and pieces back in the day the way they handled AT&T so that Google would fear the same.
What the future holds is unknown however.
Many more national services require an original OS to function, even if I don't personally use them yet https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android...
City hall should have information on its website why do you need an app?
Kids school app sounds like the worst idea. What information are you missing by not downloading it?
If you can. In order to be able to login to my bank's website I need a OTP which is generated by... can you guess? Yes, their app. Which I can now only run if my Android settings meet their standards. The other day it took me half an hour to access my banking because the app kept complaining that my device wasn't "secure", until I figured out the magic combination of settings to undo to make it work (including for third party apps that should be none of the bank's business).
They should just use one of those. These banks are assholes. They're trying to get you to download the app for advertising, marketing, and data collection purposes. Not security.
Most apps work fine though, including all Swedish banking and authentication apps I've tried.
Hostility is hostility, and when limited to choosing among devices that are a pain in my ass, Pixel no longer has any advantage. Google is converting Pixel into leverage for the rest of their products. Bye.
And even after that, the Apple ecosystem is even more closed down than Android.
Of android just becomes iOS but worse, then just use iOS. Currently android is iOS but different. But for many years now it seems Google has been shooting for iOS but worse.
Also Apple does a better job at standing up to government bullshit (where Google tends to stay suspiciously silent). So when they are on equal ideological footing, Apple as a consumer product company wins against the Google surveillance apparatus.
Basically: Apple is a better Apple if Google wants to turn itself into even more of a pathetic Apple wannabe.
Everything suggests that they will be able to support the new Pixel models.
> We've received the Pixel 10 we ordered and have confirmed it supports unlocking, flashing another verified boot key and locking again.
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115102473921005918
4 and 5 are no longer supported (not covered under normal release channels) but you can still download images under legacy extended support.
This is a complete and total ripoff. Everyone knows it.
Just pointing out that the deal with Google is implicit in the piece of metal you bought - and with some phones you have at least the choice of a free system. It’s more of a choice than I have with my iPhone.
Mobile phones are not, and have never been, general-purpose computers. If you think they're locked down now, you'd be completely astounded to learn what the industry was like pre-iPhone/pre-App Store.
This is just letting them win. And if you think the forced pushing for control over what we can do with our computers will simply leave Linux alone, I don’t know what to tell you.
The steam deck is great, but it’s not build for those things.
And there is no reason to cede ground on entire form factors. This behaviour will not stop at phones (or tablets, or smartwatches).
And they're far from pocketable. My Legion Go is in its case in my backpack when I'm on the go.
Honestly netbooks and ultra portable mini notebooks of yore were more portable and useful for a general on the go portable PC. The gaming handhelds are better from a gaming perspective with their far more powerful graphics power and built in controller grips but the general computing experience is pretty crap.
Even if you do that, it won't work in many cases because even in the government agencies, there are some that have gone app-only mode.
You can't access it via browser? Maybe there's a few fintechs that are app-only (think robinhood, at least initially) but it's not like all banks only offer access via smartphones.
>public transport
???
Even if you do own such a device, they don't need to know that.
Or they don't and tell you to use a different bank.
Their website is very limited and for account recovery only.
My main banks, Fidelity and a local credit union, both offer websites that let me do anything I want with my money from a website. No spyware apps needed.
I would navigate to downloadmoreram.com. I would NOT download moreram.exe and run it. Would you? Fuck no!
Seriously, take a step back and consider why they're pushing the app so much. Why do businesses do things? Money. Its all very simple, we just have to be honest with ourselves.
Banks may offer a physical device but that's another device you have to being with you, and it's not supported by all services anyway.
While not required the same way as water or air is required, it's super limiting and inconvenient to live in Sweden and not have access to the BankID app (either on Android or iOS).
Landlord would rather leave shops empty than rent it at lower price. In order to combat rental restaurants cut cost by having QR Code ordering system.
The uses of QR Code, whether it is for payment or information makes Smartphone mandatory in those places.
Spending Money online with VISA or master now requires Mobile App log in for Authentication. Government Digital Log in System now also default to Apps.
I may be missing a few things, and there will be many more things to come that moves to Mobile Apps only direction.
The latest neobank might require an app, but I'd be surprised if you couldn't find any bank in your country that allows you to spend money without using mobile apps.
Ask if you can order/pay without using the QR code. I'd be surprised if venues didn't have a paper menu as backup.
For newer restaurants, I really wouldn't bet on this being a thing. Or if they do, it's the ones they had before they updated their menus to QR codes, and thus might not be accurate any more.
It's like being blind and asking for the braille menu. Sure, they should have one, but don't bet on them having one.
And even if you know what you want and can pay in cash, even if they're legally bound to take your money at that point, you're working against the current and on some level being a (principled) ass to the staff serving you, who probably had no say in the system they're now having to deal with. It wouldn't even surprise me if some of these places have gone no-cash to the point of not having any place to put your cash after you've paid.
The actual solution is probably 'go somewhere else', but we all how that might go.
I would walk out.
Apple, for their part, should have just buried the option to "sideload" deep in the settings. They could have put up a dialog, or maybe 5 dialogs in a row, each one scarier than the last, warning the user that if someone told them to do this, they are being scammed. They could have done it every time someone installs an app from outside the App Store. Make the user wait 10 seconds or a minute between each dialog. Put the option behind their passcode, or their Apple ID password. Void AppleCare if they do it, for all I care. They could have done any of this. Anyone actually concerned about their security would have avoided it anyway.
This is what they should have done. Now it looks like regulators are going force their hand. Why Google is doing this now, of all times, is beyond me. Have they read the news lately?
The regulation should be for phones, computers, and game consoles too.
I know this isn't an unpopular opinion... whatever. I gotta vent somewhere.
It feels so transparent that their concern isn't actually user safety here.
Play integrity doesn't protect anything, disallowing side loading has no security benefits. Thats just a lie, a convenient piece of propaganda to convince you to advocate against yourself.
There is no security on the play store. Can apps ask for way too many permissions? Yes. Are they open source? No. Are builds reproducible? No. Does Google check the code? No. Is it almost all adware and spyware? Why, yes!
Google does not give a flying fuck about the quality of the play store and anyone who disagrees is legitimately delusional. Have we looked at the play store? Seen what's recommended?
I mean, for fucks sake you can't download a goddamn calendar app without it asking for phone permissions and showing you popup ads.
Look - Google allows malware on the playstore because they have to. They make money off of ads sold on the playstore and advertisments in apps. Google has ZERO incentive to stamp malware. But they have every incentive to prop it up.
I don't need Grandma to download an unsigned binary from the internet to compromise her. Get fucking real dude. I call her, ask her to install anydesk, and remote control her device, all Google approved.
I can still put metal in my microwave and set my home on fire, but I cannot sideload apps.
Full ownership of all our computers must be norm again. It's fine if tech companies want to charge extra to sell walled gardens and market it as extra security. But they must sell computers and software that the buyer actually owns.
For another example, Mint Mobile now charges $3 per eSim to swap devices. So now you're paying for something that used to be free, and that is likely a preview of what we have to come.
If I move the sim, I have to go through similar bullshit as I would if I wanted to move an eSIM (attempts to upsell the plan, charge for the “service” of moving the sim, etc, etc.)
At this point, I don’t see any disadvantages for eSIM, since the backported the enshitification to physical sims.
Also the two are not in conflict. People are getting promoted for things that advance company goals. They are following rational self-interest of the company.
This was the case long before Apple, and started at the carrier telco's. Apple was the one who wrestled the control of the app store from the telco's, who were even worse!
Myself and a buddy built cool fun a bartender app (recipes for alcohol drinks) for the Danger Hiptop. It was rejected by the telco (t-mobile) because they were afraid of lawsuits due to the 21+ nature of the app. We never really got a formal rejection notice, they just stopped responding to us. It was also one of those things where you had to build the app first, submit it (to Danger, who then presented it to the telco), take the risk on everything yourself, and then get silently rejected. What a mess.
In effect fewer people use computers now than used to. They're all online but not empowered the way we had hoped. It's all vice with none of the good parts.
If there's something like a Play Store with OS-level integration preventing unsigned applications from installing and running, FINE, that's an arguably useful security feature for regular users who have no interest in writing their own apps or consuming software outside the Play Store.
This doesn't preclude allowing the user (with admin rights) adding signing keys of their choosing.
If I want to trust Lennart Poettering's or Jonathan Blow's binaries to install/run on my computer/phone, let me install their public keys, a one-time addition gated by admin rights.
If you're not enabling me to potentially put bits of my choosing on my computer, its software better be in ROMs getting physically swapped out for "updates".
Can't wait for Windows 12 to have a mandatory S-Mode and a Microsoft account tied to your PII, for your protection. No anonymous writer can publish the 21st Century equivalent of the Federalist Papers and our tyranny is safe.
During the period of the mortgage, while rent wouldn't necessarily be cheap, it would be cheaper than the TCO of the house. The overall financial consideration is complex and pro-ownership dogma is just dogma: see e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H9LL7A-nQ. More importantly in my opinion, though (and especially for single childless people), rental housing is available in smaller and finer-grained quantities.
Hell, I don't care if it's a generation or two behind smartphones. I don't understand why this doesn't exist when non-bleeding-edge hardware has become so mind-bogglingly cheap!
What am I missing?
Spent a week with it uncharged in my drawer recently, that was great, should try that again.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
(And no, I haven't publicly spoken about American consumer rights, but I have been interviewed in the "newspaper of record" as a representative of an organization that works to end a genocide. If that counts!)
That does count, yes. It also doesn't change the fact that publicly posting such a strong negative view of Rossmann context-free amounts to an ad-hominem, unless you link that negative opinion to a good reason on why his take on Google's harmful actions shouldn't be a topic of discussion. Otherwise it just comes across as an attempt to suppress his views or get people to discount his views.
A tactic you're likely familiar with, from being a target of it. Which makes it all the more surprising that you would wield it yourself, against a consumer advocate no less.
Did you look yourself in the eyes though your black mirror as you wrote that?
He’s taking real action, you’re online slinging shit.
Which one of you is less of a force for good?