4 ms·

> The alternative is Google / Android devices No, the alternative is Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself. An

by rfoo 2y ago

> The alternative is Google / Android devices No, the alternative is Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself. And at the same time, being secure, too. You just can't have this on Apple devices. On Android side choices are limited too, I don't like Google and especially their disastrous hardware design, but their Pixel line is the most approachable one able to do all these. Heck, you can't even build your own app for your own iPhone without buying another hardware (a Mac, this is not a software issue, this is a legal issue, iOS SDK is licensed to you on the condition of using on Apple hardware only) and a yearly subscription. How is this acceptable at all?

adamomada 2y ago
The yearly subscription is for publishing your app on Apple’s store and definitely helps keep some garbage out. Running your own app on your own device is basically solved with free third party solutions now (see AltStore and since a newer method I can’t recall atm)
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Those are only available in the EU, and Apple has been huffing and puffing even here.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Notice that parent never talked about publishing apps, just building and running apps on their own device. "Publishing on AltStore" (or permanently running the app on your own device in any other way) still requires a $100/year subscription as far as I'm aware.
simfree 2y ago
WebGPU and many other features on iOS are unimplemented or implemented in half-assed or downright broken ways. These features work on all the modern desktop browsers and on Android tho!
- Aloisius 2y ago
  > WebGPU and many other features WebGPU isn't standardized yet. Hell, most of the features people complain about aren't part of any standard, but for some reason there's this sense that if it's in Chrome, it's standard - as if Google dictates standards.
  - moooo99 2y ago
    > but for some reason there's this sense that if it's in Chrome, it's standard - as if Google dictates standards. Realistically, given the market share of Chrome and Chromium based browsers, they kind of do.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      I didn't like it when Microsoft dominated browsers, and I'm no happier now. I've stopped using Chrome.
      - notpushkin 2y ago
        Just curious – what are you using now?
        feisuzhu 2y ago
        I’ve been using Firefox since the Quantum version is out. It feels slightly slower to Chrome but it's negligible to me. Otherwise I can't tell a difference (except some heavy web based Office like solutions screaming 'Your browser is not supported!' but actually works fine).
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    Meanwhile, Apple has historically dictated that Google can't publish Chrome for iOS, only a reskinned Safari. People in glass-walled gardens shouldn't throw stones.
  - simfree 2y ago
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
> Heck, you can't even build your own app for your own iPhone without buying another hardware (a Mac, this is not a software issue, this is a legal issue, iOS SDK is licensed to you on the condition of using on Apple hardware only) and a yearly subscription. How is this acceptable at all? Because they set the terms of use of the SDK? You're not required to use it. You aren't required to develop for iOS. Just because Google gives it all away for free doesn't mean Apple has to.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > You aren't required to develop for iOS Do you have a legal right to write software or run your own software for hardware you bought? Because it’s very easy to take away a right by erecting aritificial barriers, just like how you could discriminate by race at work, but pretend you are doing something else,
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > Do you have a legal right to write software or run your own software for hardware you bought? I've never heard of such a thing. Ideally I'd like that, but I don't have such freedoms with the computers in my cars, for example, or the one that operates my furnace, or even for certain parts of my PC.
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      So you bought "a thing' but you can't control what it does, how it does it, you don't get to decide what data it collects or who can see that data. You aren't allowed to repair the "thing' because the software can detect you changed something and will refuse to boot. And whenever it suits the manufacturer, they will decide when the 'thing' is declared out of support and stops functioning. I would say you are not an owner then, you (and me) and just suckers that are paying for the party. Maybe it's a lease. But then we also pay when it breaks, so it more of a digital feudalism.
  - paulmd 2y ago
    > Do you have a legal right to write software or run your own software for hardware you bought? No, obviously not. Do you have a right to run a custom OS on your PS5? Do you have a right to run a custom application on your cable set-top box? Etc. Such a right obviously doesn’t exist and most people generally are somewhere between “don’t care” and actively rejecting it for various reasons (hacking in games, content DRM, etc). It’s fine if you think there should be, but it continues this weird trend of using apple as a foil for complaining about random other issues that other vendors tend to be just as bad or oftentimes even worse about, simply because they’re a large company with a large group of anti-fans/haters who will readily nod along. Remember when the complaint was that the pelican case of factory OEM tools you could rent (or buy) to install your factory replacement screen was too big and bulky, meaning it was really just a plot to sabotage right to repair? https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/21/23079058/apple-self-service-iphone-repair-kit-hands-on https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/21/23079058/apple-self-servi...
nrb 2y ago
> How is this acceptable at all? Because as you described, the only alternatives that exist are terrible experiences for basically everyone, so people are happy to pay to license a solution that solves their problems with minimal fuss. Any number of people could respond to “use Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself” with the same question.
mbreese 2y ago
> No, the alternative is Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself Normal users will not do this. Just because many of the people here can build and sign a custom Android build doesn't mean that is a viable commercial alternative. It is great that is an option for those of us who can do it, but don't present it as a viable alternative to the iOS/Google ecosystems. The fraction of people who can and will be willing to do this is really small. And even if you can do it, how many people will want to maintain their custom built OSes?
- rodgerd 2y ago
  > Normal users will not do this. J Unfortunately a lot of the "freedom" crowd think that unless you want to be an 80s sysadmin you don't deserve security or privacy. Or computers.
  - muyuu 2y ago
    the main reason the masses don't have privacy and security-centred systems is that they don't demand them and they will trade it away for a twopence or for the slightest increment in convenience a maxim that seems to hold true at every level of computing is that users will not care about security unless forced into caring with privacy they may care more, but they are easily conditioned to assume it's there or that nothing can be realistically be done about losing it
  - Unfrozen0688 2y ago
    [dead]
- notpushkin 2y ago
  I, an engineer, am not doing this myself, too. There is a middle ground though: just use a privacy-oriented Android build, like DivestOS. [1] There are a couple caveats: 1. It is still a bit tricky for a non-technical person to install. Should not be a problem if they know somebody who can help, though. There's been some progress making the process more user friendly recently (e.g. WebUSB-based GrapheneOS installer). 2. There are some papercuts if you don't install Google services on your phone. microG [2] helps with most but some still remain. My main concern with this setup is that I can't use Google Pay this way, but having to bring my card with me every time seems like an acceptable trade off to me. [1]: https://divestos.org/ https://divestos.org/ [2]: https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/
fsflover 2y ago
> No, the alternative is Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself I wouldn't bet on this long term, since it fully relies on Google hardware, and Google's long-term strategy is to remove your freedom piece by piece, cash on it, not to support it. The real alternative is GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone, without any ties to greedy, anti-freedom corporations.
wiseowise 2y ago
> No, the alternative is Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself. And at the same time, being secure, too. There are people who don't know how to use file explorer, new generation grows up in a world of iPhones without ever seeing file system. Any other bright ideas?

by rfoo 2y ago

adamomada 2y ago

The yearly subscription is for publishing your app on Apple’s store and definitely helps keep some garbage out. Running your own app on your own device is basically solved with free third party solutions now (see AltStore and since a newer method I can’t recall atm)

tsimionescu 2y ago
Those are only available in the EU, and Apple has been huffing and puffing even here.
dns_snek 2y ago
Notice that parent never talked about publishing apps, just building and running apps on their own device. "Publishing on AltStore" (or permanently running the app on your own device in any other way) still requires a $100/year subscription as far as I'm aware.

simfree 2y ago

WebGPU and many other features on iOS are unimplemented or implemented in half-assed or downright broken ways. These features work on all the modern desktop browsers and on Android tho!

Aloisius 2y ago
> WebGPU and many other features WebGPU isn't standardized yet. Hell, most of the features people complain about aren't part of any standard, but for some reason there's this sense that if it's in Chrome, it's standard - as if Google dictates standards.
- moooo99 2y ago
  > but for some reason there's this sense that if it's in Chrome, it's standard - as if Google dictates standards. Realistically, given the market share of Chrome and Chromium based browsers, they kind of do.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    I didn't like it when Microsoft dominated browsers, and I'm no happier now. I've stopped using Chrome.
    - notpushkin 2y ago
      Just curious – what are you using now?
      - feisuzhu 2y ago
        I’ve been using Firefox since the Quantum version is out. It feels slightly slower to Chrome but it's negligible to me. Otherwise I can't tell a difference (except some heavy web based Office like solutions screaming 'Your browser is not supported!' but actually works fine).
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Meanwhile, Apple has historically dictated that Google can't publish Chrome for iOS, only a reskinned Safari. People in glass-walled gardens shouldn't throw stones.
- simfree 2y ago

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

> Heck, you can't even build your own app for your own iPhone without buying another hardware (a Mac, this is not a software issue, this is a legal issue, iOS SDK is licensed to you on the condition of using on Apple hardware only) and a yearly subscription. How is this acceptable at all? Because they set the terms of use of the SDK? You're not required to use it. You aren't required to develop for iOS. Just because Google gives it all away for free doesn't mean Apple has to.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> You aren't required to develop for iOS Do you have a legal right to write software or run your own software for hardware you bought? Because it’s very easy to take away a right by erecting aritificial barriers, just like how you could discriminate by race at work, but pretend you are doing something else,
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  > Do you have a legal right to write software or run your own software for hardware you bought? I've never heard of such a thing. Ideally I'd like that, but I don't have such freedoms with the computers in my cars, for example, or the one that operates my furnace, or even for certain parts of my PC.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    So you bought "a thing' but you can't control what it does, how it does it, you don't get to decide what data it collects or who can see that data. You aren't allowed to repair the "thing' because the software can detect you changed something and will refuse to boot. And whenever it suits the manufacturer, they will decide when the 'thing' is declared out of support and stops functioning. I would say you are not an owner then, you (and me) and just suckers that are paying for the party. Maybe it's a lease. But then we also pay when it breaks, so it more of a digital feudalism.
- paulmd 2y ago
  > Do you have a legal right to write software or run your own software for hardware you bought? No, obviously not. Do you have a right to run a custom OS on your PS5? Do you have a right to run a custom application on your cable set-top box? Etc. Such a right obviously doesn’t exist and most people generally are somewhere between “don’t care” and actively rejecting it for various reasons (hacking in games, content DRM, etc). It’s fine if you think there should be, but it continues this weird trend of using apple as a foil for complaining about random other issues that other vendors tend to be just as bad or oftentimes even worse about, simply because they’re a large company with a large group of anti-fans/haters who will readily nod along. Remember when the complaint was that the pelican case of factory OEM tools you could rent (or buy) to install your factory replacement screen was too big and bulky, meaning it was really just a plot to sabotage right to repair? https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/21/23079058/apple-self-service-iphone-repair-kit-hands-on https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/21/23079058/apple-self-servi...

nrb 2y ago

> How is this acceptable at all? Because as you described, the only alternatives that exist are terrible experiences for basically everyone, so people are happy to pay to license a solution that solves their problems with minimal fuss. Any number of people could respond to “use Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself” with the same question.

mbreese 2y ago

> No, the alternative is Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself Normal users will not do this. Just because many of the people here can build and sign a custom Android build doesn't mean that is a viable commercial alternative. It is great that is an option for those of us who can do it, but don't present it as a viable alternative to the iOS/Google ecosystems. The fraction of people who can and will be willing to do this is really small. And even if you can do it, how many people will want to maintain their custom built OSes?

rodgerd 2y ago
> Normal users will not do this. J Unfortunately a lot of the "freedom" crowd think that unless you want to be an 80s sysadmin you don't deserve security or privacy. Or computers.
- muyuu 2y ago
  the main reason the masses don't have privacy and security-centred systems is that they don't demand them and they will trade it away for a twopence or for the slightest increment in convenience a maxim that seems to hold true at every level of computing is that users will not care about security unless forced into caring with privacy they may care more, but they are easily conditioned to assume it's there or that nothing can be realistically be done about losing it
- Unfrozen0688 2y ago
  [dead]
notpushkin 2y ago
I, an engineer, am not doing this myself, too. There is a middle ground though: just use a privacy-oriented Android build, like DivestOS. [1] There are a couple caveats: 1. It is still a bit tricky for a non-technical person to install. Should not be a problem if they know somebody who can help, though. There's been some progress making the process more user friendly recently (e.g. WebUSB-based GrapheneOS installer). 2. There are some papercuts if you don't install Google services on your phone. microG [2] helps with most but some still remain. My main concern with this setup is that I can't use Google Pay this way, but having to bring my card with me every time seems like an acceptable trade off to me. [1]: https://divestos.org/ https://divestos.org/ [2]: https://microg.org/ https://microg.org/

fsflover 2y ago

> No, the alternative is Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself I wouldn't bet on this long term, since it fully relies on Google hardware, and Google's long-term strategy is to remove your freedom piece by piece, cash on it, not to support it. The real alternative is GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone, without any ties to greedy, anti-freedom corporations.

wiseowise 2y ago

> No, the alternative is Android devices with everything except firmware built from source and signed by myself. And at the same time, being secure, too. There are people who don't know how to use file explorer, new generation grows up in a world of iPhones without ever seeing file system. Any other bright ideas?