7 ms·

I just ran genuine 64bit Linux on a non jailbroke iPhone! I have waited so so so long for this. Finally. Thank you EU regulators!!

isodev 2y ago
The things we could have had if it wasn’t necessary to use regulation to force Apple into doing the right thing.
- 9dev 2y ago
  The things we could have if we finally accepted regulation is important for markets not hostile to consumers.
- sschueller 2y ago
  The things we had. Full and complete service manuals to TVs, VCRs and cars. Access to parts etc. and actual ownership of what we purchased. We had all that. It was taken away.
  - seanthemon 2y ago
    Accessibility goes in, shiny new toy comes out Humans go ooo, accessibility never comes back again..
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
      I implore you to not trivialise and belittle “humans” for not always prioritising what you personally would like them to. Different people have different preferences, and that can and does can happen intelligently, not just the result being “wooed” by marketing or whatever.
      - freehorse 2y ago
        However you call it, it is essentially trading one's freedom for convenience. Yes it is a result of more general social dynamics rather than mere advertising, it even follows the political trends of our times. But it is time to realise the price we pay for this sort of convenience, and that it does not come for free. Advertising does not tell that.
        walterbell 2y ago
        In our quantified society, we might need some numbers to characterize relative freedom and convenience.
      - klabb3 2y ago
        I mean that could be true only if you don’t account for the obvious reality that the lockdown of hackability, serviceability, access to parts is deliberate. Personal preferences matter little in a duopoly industry. Sure, you could argue that other aspects are more important than serviceability, but it’d be insane to argue that people want less serviceability. So in short, we were better off in this aspect before. 100%.
        macintux 2y ago
        Serviceability is not an unalloyed good. There are always tradeoffs.
        cgriswald 2y ago
        From the point of view of the consumer, serviceability is negatively unalloyed. That is, it can always be removed without an associated (positive) tradeoff for the consumer.
        paulmd 2y ago
        > the obvious reality that the lockdown of hackability, serviceability, access to parts is deliberate. I mean yes, it literally is, the law requires that smartphones incorporate a killswitch capable of resisting a device format/reload of the OS. This was seen as a consumer benefit in 2014, and did succeed in bringing muggings and phone theft down by as much as 80%. https://www.pcworld.com/article/440002/10-things-to-know-about-the-smartphone-kill-switch.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/440002/10-things-to-know-abo... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/11/london-smartphone-theft-drops-after-kill-switch-introduction-iphones https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/11/london-sm... https://www.pcworld.com/article/431818/drop-in-smartphone-thefts-after-killswitch-introduction.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/431818/drop-in-smartphone-th... This is what the sibling means about tradeoffs: people at the time wanted the tradeoff of fewer muggings. The killswitch was seen as a benefit, and largely Apple is in fact just responding to the legislative requirements pushed upon them. And if you have to have a killswitch that can resist a OS reformat… there has to be some component pairing mechanism that works underneath the OS layer, naturally. That is the sensible way to implement it, otherwise you'd just swap in a new motherboard and hey, phone's working again. Or strip the phone for parts. The idea of parts being anti-theft/strip-resistant is pretty much inherently in contradiction to right-to-repair. And again, I think people probably understand that... but never forget that theft-resistance was a legislative initiative pushed over the objections of Apple and other phone vendors at the time, having some unforeseen consequences. People actually did want this, people lobbied for this, as much as modern readers may not believe it. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/is-the-smartphone-kill-switch-really-bad-for-business-in-california/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/is-the-smartphone-kill-swit...
      - coldtea 2y ago
        [flagged]
        skhunted 2y ago
        The topic at hand is not about a preference that most people would not find objectively good or bad. Why is this particular preference bad enough that one should feel bad for having it? Without statements supporting this view your post doesn’t make much sense.
        kragen 2y ago
        [flagged]
        lolinder 2y ago
        This subthread could exist verbatim in any comment thread because it's devoid of substance. "Some positions are better than others", "why?", "because {poignant but vague analogy}". Why specifically is it bad for people to prefer devices that are small and tightly integrated to devices which are repairable but make trade-offs to get there? I own a Framework laptop for its repairability but would warn anyone interested in it that the battery life won't work for all use cases. It's a trade-off that I've made that doesn't make sense for everyone.
        kragen 2y ago
        it isn't
        coldtea 2y ago
        >Why specifically is it bad for people to prefer devices that are small and tightly integrated to devices which are repairable but make trade-offs to get there? For repairability, upgradability, hackability, the environment, waste, tighter vendor control, and so on... Do you need more reasons?
        2y ago
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >Full and complete service manuals to TVs, VCRs and cars. Access to parts etc. To be fair, most electronics these days are so tightly integrated (literally IC, Integrated Circuits!) that there's not much you can do even with a full on schematic. Long gone are the days of bigly electronics parts connected by a spaghetti nest of wires and third grade soldering.
    - duhast 2y ago
      Phones, laptops, GPUs and many other modern highly integrated electronic products are repairable. Look it up, there are tons of videos on YouTube of people doing component level repairs. Leaked schematics make a huge difference here.
      - derefr 2y ago
        > Look it up, there are tons of videos on YouTube of people doing component level repairs. Leaked schematics make a huge difference here. I've watched these videos — and the people you're referencing doing this are rarely using any kind of schematics at all to repair modern digital-logic boards. And not for lack of accessibility! Modern logic-board designs consist of a few proprietary ICs, plus generic labelled support components (e.g. VRM caps, surface-mount resistors and diodes, etc.) You can repair these boards, but these repairs fall into three categories: 1. bad solder joints or broken traces — which mostly just requires looking at the board carefully to notice these. 2. bad generic support components — which in theory you can determine the need for by testing with various multimeter modes across the individual component's legs; but more often you just notice that what the component is in line with isn't working, and "swap out to see if that fixes it." And which where such a swap-out can be done by just looking the part to figure out what it identifies itself as; then de-soldering it and soldering on a replacement. 3. bad proprietary ICs — which you determine by tapping the signal lines leading from/to the IC on an oscilloscope; and which you "fix" by buying other for-parts copies of the board, de-soldering those ICs off of the sacrificial parts boards, and soldering them onto the "almost good" board. In none of these cases would referencing a schematic help! They're all effectively "context free" repairs — see, probe, think, do. (A schematic can in theory help you to find test points to differentially diagnose 1 vs 2 vs 3 in the case where a board is failing mysteriously... but once you have some experience in board repair, you can get 80% of the same information by just staring at the board for a minute.) --- Of course, if you're repairing a power supply, or an audio receiver, or some still-half-analogue electronic appliance from the 1970s — then yeah, schematics help. But these types of systems do still come with those schematics! (You just need to buy the thing directly. You aren't getting a schematic for an "embedded" PSU with a computer; but you do get the schematic if you buy that same PSU at retail at a Shenzhen parts-mall. And you get forwarded that same schematic [and more] if you make an industrial order of 10000 of them, too.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
carlosjobim 2y ago
What real world problem did this solve for you?
- ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
  Entirely irrelevant.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    That response tells a lot, doesn't it?
    - ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
      Yes: being able to do what we want with the things we bought is reason enough.
- sangeeth96 2y ago
  It's a step in the right direction, being able to squeeze all the perf out of these devices to run proper full-fledged OS' that Apple seems to not want to do. It's okay to get excited over stuff like this and I'd bet a lot of good shit that solves your real world problems started from hobbyist adventures (see this little project called Linux).
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    I'd say Linux created far more problems than it solved, and would count as one of the largest net negatives in the economy of the technology sector historically. I think it's fine to get excited, but there's also getting too excited if there's no rational need for the software. Which I can't really see, since there always have been other devices to buy. Like if I need to do spreadsheets I will get a device made for that, not demand that regulators force Apple to let me install Excel on my phone. Hackers and Europeans framing this as some kind of civil rights or human rights issue is to me abut as ridiculous as if regulators would force every restaurant to make their menu gluten free. Which will probably happen soon, since the mental children are at the helm.

isodev 2y ago

The things we could have had if it wasn’t necessary to use regulation to force Apple into doing the right thing.

9dev 2y ago
The things we could have if we finally accepted regulation is important for markets not hostile to consumers.
sschueller 2y ago
The things we had. Full and complete service manuals to TVs, VCRs and cars. Access to parts etc. and actual ownership of what we purchased. We had all that. It was taken away.
- seanthemon 2y ago
  Accessibility goes in, shiny new toy comes out Humans go ooo, accessibility never comes back again..
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
    I implore you to not trivialise and belittle “humans” for not always prioritising what you personally would like them to. Different people have different preferences, and that can and does can happen intelligently, not just the result being “wooed” by marketing or whatever.
    - freehorse 2y ago
      However you call it, it is essentially trading one's freedom for convenience. Yes it is a result of more general social dynamics rather than mere advertising, it even follows the political trends of our times. But it is time to realise the price we pay for this sort of convenience, and that it does not come for free. Advertising does not tell that.
      - walterbell 2y ago
        In our quantified society, we might need some numbers to characterize relative freedom and convenience.
    - klabb3 2y ago
      I mean that could be true only if you don’t account for the obvious reality that the lockdown of hackability, serviceability, access to parts is deliberate. Personal preferences matter little in a duopoly industry. Sure, you could argue that other aspects are more important than serviceability, but it’d be insane to argue that people want less serviceability. So in short, we were better off in this aspect before. 100%.
      - macintux 2y ago
        Serviceability is not an unalloyed good. There are always tradeoffs.
        cgriswald 2y ago
        From the point of view of the consumer, serviceability is negatively unalloyed. That is, it can always be removed without an associated (positive) tradeoff for the consumer.
      - paulmd 2y ago
        > the obvious reality that the lockdown of hackability, serviceability, access to parts is deliberate. I mean yes, it literally is, the law requires that smartphones incorporate a killswitch capable of resisting a device format/reload of the OS. This was seen as a consumer benefit in 2014, and did succeed in bringing muggings and phone theft down by as much as 80%. https://www.pcworld.com/article/440002/10-things-to-know-about-the-smartphone-kill-switch.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/440002/10-things-to-know-abo... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/11/london-smartphone-theft-drops-after-kill-switch-introduction-iphones https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/11/london-sm... https://www.pcworld.com/article/431818/drop-in-smartphone-thefts-after-killswitch-introduction.html https://www.pcworld.com/article/431818/drop-in-smartphone-th... This is what the sibling means about tradeoffs: people at the time wanted the tradeoff of fewer muggings. The killswitch was seen as a benefit, and largely Apple is in fact just responding to the legislative requirements pushed upon them. And if you have to have a killswitch that can resist a OS reformat… there has to be some component pairing mechanism that works underneath the OS layer, naturally. That is the sensible way to implement it, otherwise you'd just swap in a new motherboard and hey, phone's working again. Or strip the phone for parts. The idea of parts being anti-theft/strip-resistant is pretty much inherently in contradiction to right-to-repair. And again, I think people probably understand that... but never forget that theft-resistance was a legislative initiative pushed over the objections of Apple and other phone vendors at the time, having some unforeseen consequences. People actually did want this, people lobbied for this, as much as modern readers may not believe it. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/is-the-smartphone-kill-switch-really-bad-for-business-in-california/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/is-the-smartphone-kill-swit...
    - coldtea 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - skhunted 2y ago
        The topic at hand is not about a preference that most people would not find objectively good or bad. Why is this particular preference bad enough that one should feel bad for having it? Without statements supporting this view your post doesn’t make much sense.
        kragen 2y ago
        [flagged]
        lolinder 2y ago
        This subthread could exist verbatim in any comment thread because it's devoid of substance. "Some positions are better than others", "why?", "because {poignant but vague analogy}". Why specifically is it bad for people to prefer devices that are small and tightly integrated to devices which are repairable but make trade-offs to get there? I own a Framework laptop for its repairability but would warn anyone interested in it that the battery life won't work for all use cases. It's a trade-off that I've made that doesn't make sense for everyone.
        kragen 2y ago
        it isn't
        coldtea 2y ago
        >Why specifically is it bad for people to prefer devices that are small and tightly integrated to devices which are repairable but make trade-offs to get there? For repairability, upgradability, hackability, the environment, waste, tighter vendor control, and so on... Do you need more reasons?
        2y ago
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >Full and complete service manuals to TVs, VCRs and cars. Access to parts etc. To be fair, most electronics these days are so tightly integrated (literally IC, Integrated Circuits!) that there's not much you can do even with a full on schematic. Long gone are the days of bigly electronics parts connected by a spaghetti nest of wires and third grade soldering.
  - duhast 2y ago
    Phones, laptops, GPUs and many other modern highly integrated electronic products are repairable. Look it up, there are tons of videos on YouTube of people doing component level repairs. Leaked schematics make a huge difference here.
    - derefr 2y ago
      > Look it up, there are tons of videos on YouTube of people doing component level repairs. Leaked schematics make a huge difference here. I've watched these videos — and the people you're referencing doing this are rarely using any kind of schematics at all to repair modern digital-logic boards. And not for lack of accessibility! Modern logic-board designs consist of a few proprietary ICs, plus generic labelled support components (e.g. VRM caps, surface-mount resistors and diodes, etc.) You can repair these boards, but these repairs fall into three categories: 1. bad solder joints or broken traces — which mostly just requires looking at the board carefully to notice these. 2. bad generic support components — which in theory you can determine the need for by testing with various multimeter modes across the individual component's legs; but more often you just notice that what the component is in line with isn't working, and "swap out to see if that fixes it." And which where such a swap-out can be done by just looking the part to figure out what it identifies itself as; then de-soldering it and soldering on a replacement. 3. bad proprietary ICs — which you determine by tapping the signal lines leading from/to the IC on an oscilloscope; and which you "fix" by buying other for-parts copies of the board, de-soldering those ICs off of the sacrificial parts boards, and soldering them onto the "almost good" board. In none of these cases would referencing a schematic help! They're all effectively "context free" repairs — see, probe, think, do. (A schematic can in theory help you to find test points to differentially diagnose 1 vs 2 vs 3 in the case where a board is failing mysteriously... but once you have some experience in board repair, you can get 80% of the same information by just staring at the board for a minute.) --- Of course, if you're repairing a power supply, or an audio receiver, or some still-half-analogue electronic appliance from the 1970s — then yeah, schematics help. But these types of systems do still come with those schematics! (You just need to buy the thing directly. You aren't getting a schematic for an "embedded" PSU with a computer; but you do get the schematic if you buy that same PSU at retail at a Shenzhen parts-mall. And you get forwarded that same schematic [and more] if you make an industrial order of 10000 of them, too.)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

carlosjobim 2y ago

What real world problem did this solve for you?

ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
Entirely irrelevant.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  That response tells a lot, doesn't it?
  - ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
    Yes: being able to do what we want with the things we bought is reason enough.
sangeeth96 2y ago
It's a step in the right direction, being able to squeeze all the perf out of these devices to run proper full-fledged OS' that Apple seems to not want to do. It's okay to get excited over stuff like this and I'd bet a lot of good shit that solves your real world problems started from hobbyist adventures (see this little project called Linux).
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  I'd say Linux created far more problems than it solved, and would count as one of the largest net negatives in the economy of the technology sector historically. I think it's fine to get excited, but there's also getting too excited if there's no rational need for the software. Which I can't really see, since there always have been other devices to buy. Like if I need to do spreadsheets I will get a device made for that, not demand that regulators force Apple to let me install Excel on my phone. Hackers and Europeans framing this as some kind of civil rights or human rights issue is to me abut as ridiculous as if regulators would force every restaurant to make their menu gluten free. Which will probably happen soon, since the mental children are at the helm.