6 ms·
We need a law saying users can run exactly what software they want on their own devices. If people are worried about malware or whatever, have the apps be optio
by reorder9695 1y ago
We need a law saying users can run exactly what software they want on their own devices. If people are worried about malware or whatever, have the apps be optionally notarised and big warning's if they aren't. I do not want any company or government telling me what software can run on my devices that I paid for and I own. This is clearly against the spirit of the DMA.
- betaby 1y ago> We need a law saying users can run exactly what software they want on their own devices. That's absolutely the opposite of how most of EU operates. See every single EU banking application. You can't run on rooted Android. Yes, EU absolutely should focus of their own tech first and foremost.
- lawlessone 1y agoBanking isn't the same as everything else.
- MaxikCZ 1y agoyou could argue about anything that it isn't the same as everything else.
- hdra 1y agois that because of a regulation? coz where I live there is no such regulation, but banks still checks for root because of the support load concern
- NewJazz 1y agoThere's a difference between checking for root and checking for non default operating systems.
- 2rsf 1y agoI suppose the regulation will not mention "rooted devices" but will talk about the bank's obligation for risks and mitigations
- Jensson 1y agoYeah, as long as banks are held liable for you getting hacked they will want to check the integrity of your system in their programs. And you don't want a world where banks are not liable for such things, they have to be or they wouldn't spend any resources on their systems.
- Almondsetat 1y agoOk: your kid which has parental control can now do everything he wants with the phone. What's next?
- hu3 1y agoWhy would a kid be able to bypass parental control?
- Almondsetat 1y agoThe phone is theirs, is it not?
- dns_snek 1y agoNo? In virtually all cases it was purchased by the parents who also pay the bill, so it's only theirs to use. Even if they somehow bought it with their own money, parents ultimately have the final say over how they're allowed to use it until they're 18.
- Almondsetat 1y agoSo you are saying that every teen under 18 who has had their phone bought by their parents doesn't consider it theirs?
- dns_snek 1y agoNobody is saying that. They can (and do) consider it theirs but their parents ultimately have the final say about how they're allowed to use it. Stronger protections would simply bar OEMs from imposing restrictions over how we're allowed to use our own devices. You made the argument claiming that freedom of choice and strong ownership rights will inherently allow kids to bypass parental controls when that's obviously not the case. A device can always be locked down by its legal owner or by someone's legal guardian who has a duty of care for that person. This sort of bad faith concern trolling has gotten out of hand.
- 9dev 1y agoWhat is a device, exactly? A smartwatch? A gaming console? A washing machine? A smart home controller? If you say a general-computing device, I’d agree. It’s a slippery slope, though.
- general1726 1y agoAnything what can execute software is a computer. From a tamagochi to a mainframe.
- yencabulator 1y agoAppliances use chips that execute software, but they also delegate safety critical functionality to the software. There's hardware designs out there that depend on correct software functioning for safety or to avoid breaking the hardware, or the user, or the law. For example, cars.
- theshrike79 1y agoAs long as they don't start with Apple. They can first force Sony to let us run anything on the PS5, then go for Nintendo and Switch, after that Microsoft and the Xbox. All three are more generic computers than any Apple mobile device and are purely walled gardens where we can't run whatever we want.
- theshrike79 1y ago[flagged]
- tomhow 1y agoDownvoting to express disagreement has always been fine on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
- etra0 1y ago> As long as they don't start with Apple. I guess it's just as good as any other of the vendors you mentioned. I don't see why we shouldn't start with Apple but at the same time I don't think anyone opposes to the other companies being forced too. At least I know I would like to run personalized software on my Switch without having to rooting it by other 'ways'.
- burnerthrow008 1y ago> but at the same time I don't think anyone opposes to the other companies being forced too. How can you say that with a straight face? The EU opposes other companies being forced to! That’s why they wrote their DMA the way they did!
- rstat1 1y ago>>All three are more generic computers than any Apple mobile device and are purely walled gardens where we can't run whatever we want. No they aren't. Game consoles are designed for a singular purpose. Apple's mobile devices are not singular purpose. I guess their watch might be? but that's the closest you'd get IMO.
- imiric 1y ago> I do not want any company or government telling me what software can run on my devices that I paid for and I own. Device manufacturers that are also service providers want nothing more than to adopt the licensing business model. The public has mostly accepted that when you buy physical media that contains digital media, you buy a limited use license to the digital media, and the physical media just happens to be the delivery mechanism. In that same sense, it could be construed that buying a mobile device grants you a license to a digital service, without which the device is useless. You technically own the device, but you license the operating system. So the argument is: feel free to do what you want on any other operating system, if you can manage to run it, but on our OS, you'll abide by our rules. Apple has been successful at this for years, Google is well on its way there with Android, and even desktop OSs have been trending in this direction. The last bastion of OSs that give users actual freedom are Linux, BSDs, and other niche OSs. Everything else is becoming a walled garden.
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y agoHow would such a law work in practice. Should I be able to run MacOS software on Windows? What about Android apps on iOS? Windows 98 software on Windows 11?
- sillylittle 1y agoYou can try to run it, if it works it works. The point being vendors can't actively try to stop you from doing it / but silly barriers. Im sure there are legal nuances, but thats what lawyers are for.
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y agoThat's how it is right now, you can try to run whatever software you want on your device, if it works it works.
- zoobab 1y agoWe need a DMA 2.0, with unlocked bootloaders, freedom to install another OS, precise documentation on how to drive the hardware.
- frizlab 1y agoI never understood why would people want that. Apple is very clear from the start they are limiting what can run on the devices they sell. Why on earth would you buy these if you need to run arbitrary code on it?? Also this is problematic for the people who actually look at what they are buying and actually want to have only limited software allowed on the device (e.g. me).