4 ms·

Just take a step back and think about how absurd what you just said was. After market mods aren't easy to do in any industry. We don't force Ford to support li

Just take a step back and think about how absurd what you just said was. After market mods aren't easy to do in any industry. We don't force Ford to support lifted F150s or aftermarket radios. You're basically saying "This is a dog, and I'm mad its not a cat and it can't be easily changed." When you can just get, you know, a cat.

helloycombinat 6y ago
You clearly missed his point
grishka 6y ago
Where do you get a mobile device that's not a walled garden? It's just that Google's is designed with a gate slightly ajar. Continuing with your pet analogy, it's as if you could only get a dog or a cat, and it only eats food made by one specific manufacturer. You can convince the cat to eat almost whatever you have, but the dog won't budge. Want a parrot or a hamster? Tough luck. I wholeheartedly agree with the OP article. You made a device, then you sold it. You shouldn't get to control it after sale because you no longer own it. Plain and simple. I don't care about manufacturer "supporting" something. I bought it, it's mine now, I'm on my own, and please don't get in my way of modifying the thing I bought because I have the right to do so.
- curiousgal 6y ago
  Pixel phones come with an unlockable bootloader so...
  - grishka 6y ago
    That's what I refer to when I say about "gate slightly ajar". The thing is, you only unlock the bootloader that boots the main OS kernel, on EL1. There are more higher-privileged exception levels in an ARM CPU, and Google makes use of those to implement anti-consumer features like the dreaded SafetyNet or DRM. Your main OS is considered "untrusted", and you never get to run any custom code with highest possible privileges, a.k.a TrustZone — only Google and phone manufacturer do. Magisk is a dirty hack which will stop working whenever Google feels like flipping the switch to make use of their TrustZone firmware.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  You're positing an example but not refuting mine - again, tell me, how is a cat supposed to be a dog? > I wholeheartedly agree with the OP article. You made a device, then you sold it. You shouldn't get to control it after sale because you no longer own it. Plain and simple. Apple didn't just "make a device" though. They don't make just hardware - they make software w/ hardware. The product is the whole experience. Expecting them to change how they design their product for the masses (that LOVE THEM), because you can't do exactly what you want, is wrong. > I bought it, it's mine now, I'm on my own, and please don't get in my way of modifying the thing I bought because I have the right to do so. YOU CAN do what you want with it. If you were perhaps smarter, you could hack into it and make it do whatever you want. You can throw it right off a bridge if you want! Congratulations. But Apple IN NO WAY is required to make it EASIER for you to throw it off a bridge. Sorry.
  - grishka 6y ago
    My point is, Apple purposefully engineered the product to give them more access to it than you'll ever get. It took them extra effort to do this, it's easier to make a device/OS without DRM than with it. You can't exactly hack it because that would require millions of dollars worth of equipment and some very specific knowledge. I'm not renting it. I'm not licensing it. I'm buying it. > Expecting them to change how they design their product for the masses (that LOVE THEM), because you can't do exactly what you want, is wrong. That would empower their users. Developers would be actually making MORE apps for the platform because they would have the confidence that they'll be able to get that app into the hands of users one way or another. I've seen some stories of someone doing a lot of work making an app only to have it rejected because its very idea didn't resonate with the review team. There's nothing they can do to bring it into compliance — countless hours of work were wasted.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      In other words - the engineered a product that is much harder to break, is more private, and is harder to hack. All things most customers want. > I'm not renting it. I'm not licensing it. I'm buying it. I buy a cat. I can't complain about it not being a dog. I bought it. I didn't "license" the cat, I didn't "rent" the cat. But I still can't make it into a dog, despite the fact that I own it. Go ahead, hack it, if you can. All the power to you. That's your right. You can't impose your absurd dev geek worldview on everyone else. That's just wrong. If you want, make a competing device. But you won't. The App store doesn't need more apps. No one complains about lack of apps on the app store. Androids are flooded with crap apps - I'd rather keep it the way it is.

helloycombinat 6y ago

You clearly missed his point

grishka 6y ago

Where do you get a mobile device that's not a walled garden? It's just that Google's is designed with a gate slightly ajar. Continuing with your pet analogy, it's as if you could only get a dog or a cat, and it only eats food made by one specific manufacturer. You can convince the cat to eat almost whatever you have, but the dog won't budge. Want a parrot or a hamster? Tough luck. I wholeheartedly agree with the OP article. You made a device, then you sold it. You shouldn't get to control it after sale because you no longer own it. Plain and simple. I don't care about manufacturer "supporting" something. I bought it, it's mine now, I'm on my own, and please don't get in my way of modifying the thing I bought because I have the right to do so.

curiousgal 6y ago
Pixel phones come with an unlockable bootloader so...
- grishka 6y ago
  That's what I refer to when I say about "gate slightly ajar". The thing is, you only unlock the bootloader that boots the main OS kernel, on EL1. There are more higher-privileged exception levels in an ARM CPU, and Google makes use of those to implement anti-consumer features like the dreaded SafetyNet or DRM. Your main OS is considered "untrusted", and you never get to run any custom code with highest possible privileges, a.k.a TrustZone — only Google and phone manufacturer do. Magisk is a dirty hack which will stop working whenever Google feels like flipping the switch to make use of their TrustZone firmware.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
You're positing an example but not refuting mine - again, tell me, how is a cat supposed to be a dog? > I wholeheartedly agree with the OP article. You made a device, then you sold it. You shouldn't get to control it after sale because you no longer own it. Plain and simple. Apple didn't just "make a device" though. They don't make just hardware - they make software w/ hardware. The product is the whole experience. Expecting them to change how they design their product for the masses (that LOVE THEM), because you can't do exactly what you want, is wrong. > I bought it, it's mine now, I'm on my own, and please don't get in my way of modifying the thing I bought because I have the right to do so. YOU CAN do what you want with it. If you were perhaps smarter, you could hack into it and make it do whatever you want. You can throw it right off a bridge if you want! Congratulations. But Apple IN NO WAY is required to make it EASIER for you to throw it off a bridge. Sorry.
- grishka 6y ago
  My point is, Apple purposefully engineered the product to give them more access to it than you'll ever get. It took them extra effort to do this, it's easier to make a device/OS without DRM than with it. You can't exactly hack it because that would require millions of dollars worth of equipment and some very specific knowledge. I'm not renting it. I'm not licensing it. I'm buying it. > Expecting them to change how they design their product for the masses (that LOVE THEM), because you can't do exactly what you want, is wrong. That would empower their users. Developers would be actually making MORE apps for the platform because they would have the confidence that they'll be able to get that app into the hands of users one way or another. I've seen some stories of someone doing a lot of work making an app only to have it rejected because its very idea didn't resonate with the review team. There's nothing they can do to bring it into compliance — countless hours of work were wasted.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    In other words - the engineered a product that is much harder to break, is more private, and is harder to hack. All things most customers want. > I'm not renting it. I'm not licensing it. I'm buying it. I buy a cat. I can't complain about it not being a dog. I bought it. I didn't "license" the cat, I didn't "rent" the cat. But I still can't make it into a dog, despite the fact that I own it. Go ahead, hack it, if you can. All the power to you. That's your right. You can't impose your absurd dev geek worldview on everyone else. That's just wrong. If you want, make a competing device. But you won't. The App store doesn't need more apps. No one complains about lack of apps on the app store. Androids are flooded with crap apps - I'd rather keep it the way it is.