3 ms·

> Remote attestation does restrict your device from doing anything. A new attestation API can be made if you want to offer remote attestation to apps. I guess

by zb3 3y ago

> Remote attestation does restrict your device from doing anything. A new attestation API can be made if you want to offer remote attestation to apps. I guess you wanted to write "does not" here, but it's the opposite - it obviously restricts the new device from being practically useful, but what's important is that this is done not because the device has no capability to run those apps, but because it was not "whitelisted" by the app vendor, so a technically superior device might fail on the market just because of current players artificially blocking it. This is an anticompetitive practice, where you need to get "permission" to be able to run the app. And no matter how "fair" that sounds theoretically, practically this should (and hopefully will) be a subject of some antitrust ligitation. > It isn't great because it sets back the security of the industry Notice how users aren't defending that "security of the industry". Isn't it strange?

charcircuit 3y ago
>so a technically superior device might fail on the market just because of current players artificially blocking it. Technically superior products can fail. A users choice on what to buy isn't just what in the most superior product. Apps not trusting a phone is a major drawback of a phone. It's not anticompetitive that apps don't automatically trust every new phone that comes into existence. >Notice how users aren't defending that "security of the industry". Isn't it strange? Because users on average do not care about security until its too late and damage has already happened. They don't care about how to stop spam, they just get angry when they get spammed.
- zb3 3y ago
  > It's not anticompetitive that apps don't automatically trust every new phone that comes into existence. Creating a mechanism that enables such things to happen obviously is. Google knows well that: > Apps not trusting a phone is a major drawback of a phone. and Google having the dominant position created and now controls that "trust", and actively abuses it to force its unremovable spyware onto users' devices. And when the user dares to remove them, then poof - they're not " trusted" anymore.

by zb3 3y ago

charcircuit 3y ago

>so a technically superior device might fail on the market just because of current players artificially blocking it. Technically superior products can fail. A users choice on what to buy isn't just what in the most superior product. Apps not trusting a phone is a major drawback of a phone. It's not anticompetitive that apps don't automatically trust every new phone that comes into existence. >Notice how users aren't defending that "security of the industry". Isn't it strange? Because users on average do not care about security until its too late and damage has already happened. They don't care about how to stop spam, they just get angry when they get spammed.

zb3 3y ago
> It's not anticompetitive that apps don't automatically trust every new phone that comes into existence. Creating a mechanism that enables such things to happen obviously is. Google knows well that: > Apps not trusting a phone is a major drawback of a phone. and Google having the dominant position created and now controls that "trust", and actively abuses it to force its unremovable spyware onto users' devices. And when the user dares to remove them, then poof - they're not " trusted" anymore.