4 ms·

It doesn't seem right to blame this on just Apple. In developing countries Android is more common. The reason I think things are more locked down in apps/silos

It doesn't seem right to blame this on just Apple. In developing countries Android is more common. The reason I think things are more locked down in apps/silos on mobile is part of a general trend to restrict more and more what people can do with their stuff. See Microsoft requiring an online account to use Windows. UEFI. DVD/Blu-ray players not allowing you to skip ads. Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. Cars sending your driving data to insurance companies.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
> Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. This was wildly exaggerated; Switches cannot be bricked remotely. Nintendo can ban you from online services, but that has been around... for decades. The warning in the Terms of Service is saying that if you use unauthorized tools, there's no guarantee of compatibility. Updates as far back as the Wii had this warning. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FYdNU73Ew9qIdV4PwhOvPbznnlmkmkSlheBxuBfiV89s.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D8c66be69d57245b5d9c581570d1f290e17c719e9 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...
- bobajeff 1y ago
  What's it's "meant" to say and what it says according to the law are two distinctly different things. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Nintendo%27s_May_2025_Policy_Updates https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Nintendo%27s_May...
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    > Without limitation, you agree that you may not (a) publish, copy, modify, reverse engineer, lease, rent, decompile, disassemble, distribute, offer for sale, or create derivative works of any portion of the Nintendo Account Services; (b) bypass, modify, decrypt, defeat, tamper with, or otherwise circumvent any of the [functions or protections of the Nintendo Account Services]. You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part. It's hard to feel sympathetic when literally everything above is illegal anyway, under the CFAA and DMCA. To me, this is a "we could brick your console if you do illegal stuff," which is nothing new (you can't steal an iPhone without Apple bricking it). This is also, presumably, why Nintendo believes they can get away with it - there's no way you can possibly sue without exposing yourself. Also, note that this specifically targets Nintendo Account Services. This isn't you casually modding or even cheating; this is you hacking your console, and then using that entry point (your console's unique authentication certificates) to try and get into Nintendo's infrastructure. Even the people hacking Switch 1 knew that if you probe the CDN in a way even slightly unusual, you get permanently banned instantly. I'm not saying I like it; I'm saying that it's irrelevant to any decent customer who isn't planning to be taking inventory of Nintendo's online endpoints.
    - bobajeff 1y ago
      Whatever their thinking the result is the same you don't have ownership over the thing you bought.
      - gjsman-1000 1y ago
        In that case, we've never even showed up to the battle, there's been copy protection and ROM encryption since arcade cabinets. https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24481/which-software-was-the-first-to-use-copy-protection https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24481/whi... We're arguably in a better place than we used to be, in some respects. Consider the Capcom CPS2 - an arcade cabinet that self-destructs when the battery expires or is removed for any reason. Now that's unthinkable and actually anti-consumer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_System_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_System_II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCtXZM8iG-o&pp=ygULQ2FwY29tIENQUzI%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCtXZM8iG-o&pp=ygULQ2FwY29tI... My point is... the Nintendo Switch 2 doesn't really stand out as exceptional in any regard compared to historical practices that we culturally already accepted.
        bobajeff 1y ago
        Arcade cabinets aren't/weren't consumer products. Nintendo switch 2 is a consumer product. AFAICT, Nintendo can't brick GameCube, N64, SNES, NES, Gameboy etc. remotely.
        gjsman-1000 1y ago
        If can receive a firmware update over the internet; you bet it can be bricked remotely, or otherwise upgraded to be capable of remote bricking. That applies to any and all devices, including those already sold. For that matter, I've lost track of all the times Linux distributions have done remote bricking, albeit by accident.
concinds 1y ago
Your examples have nothing to do with the web, but the author does criticize Google severely for hindering web apps early on to favor Android apps (before mostly changing tack with the rise of ChromeOS). When tech went mainstream in developing countries, it was on mobile, and the native app platform was more capable than the web platform therefore the true "web" didn't take off (even non-app text webpages). The fact remains that Google is the only one trying to fix that, and giving the web a chance to not die and be supplanted by native apps.
- bobajeff 1y ago
  The web is being locked down too. See Google's proposals like the Web Environment Integrity API. Already, Google blocks sign-in's from 'embedded browsers' (webkit or electron-based browsers). The Encrypted Media Extensions API along with proprietary Content Decryption Module already lock out all but large company's from making a compatible browsers.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    > Web Environment Integrity API Dead proposal, two years ago. > Blocks sign-ins from 'embedded browsers' I would too; browser automation tools are a spam farm's favorite tool. > Encrypted Media Extensions API along with proprietary Content Decryption Module Previously it was just called Silverlight and Flash. The demand isn't going away; but EME+CDM is definitely more open than it used to be.

gjsman-1000 1y ago

> Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. This was wildly exaggerated; Switches cannot be bricked remotely. Nintendo can ban you from online services, but that has been around... for decades. The warning in the Terms of Service is saying that if you use unauthorized tools, there's no guarantee of compatibility. Updates as far back as the Wii had this warning. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FYdNU73Ew9qIdV4PwhOvPbznnlmkmkSlheBxuBfiV89s.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D8c66be69d57245b5d9c581570d1f290e17c719e9 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...

bobajeff 1y ago
What's it's "meant" to say and what it says according to the law are two distinctly different things. https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Nintendo%27s_May_2025_Policy_Updates https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Nintendo%27s_May...
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  > Without limitation, you agree that you may not (a) publish, copy, modify, reverse engineer, lease, rent, decompile, disassemble, distribute, offer for sale, or create derivative works of any portion of the Nintendo Account Services; (b) bypass, modify, decrypt, defeat, tamper with, or otherwise circumvent any of the [functions or protections of the Nintendo Account Services]. You acknowledge that if you fail to comply with the foregoing restrictions Nintendo may render the Nintendo Account Services and/or the applicable Nintendo device permanently unusable in whole or in part. It's hard to feel sympathetic when literally everything above is illegal anyway, under the CFAA and DMCA. To me, this is a "we could brick your console if you do illegal stuff," which is nothing new (you can't steal an iPhone without Apple bricking it). This is also, presumably, why Nintendo believes they can get away with it - there's no way you can possibly sue without exposing yourself. Also, note that this specifically targets Nintendo Account Services. This isn't you casually modding or even cheating; this is you hacking your console, and then using that entry point (your console's unique authentication certificates) to try and get into Nintendo's infrastructure. Even the people hacking Switch 1 knew that if you probe the CDN in a way even slightly unusual, you get permanently banned instantly. I'm not saying I like it; I'm saying that it's irrelevant to any decent customer who isn't planning to be taking inventory of Nintendo's online endpoints.
  - bobajeff 1y ago
    Whatever their thinking the result is the same you don't have ownership over the thing you bought.
    - gjsman-1000 1y ago
      In that case, we've never even showed up to the battle, there's been copy protection and ROM encryption since arcade cabinets. https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24481/which-software-was-the-first-to-use-copy-protection https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/24481/whi... We're arguably in a better place than we used to be, in some respects. Consider the Capcom CPS2 - an arcade cabinet that self-destructs when the battery expires or is removed for any reason. Now that's unthinkable and actually anti-consumer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_System_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_System_II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCtXZM8iG-o&pp=ygULQ2FwY29tIENQUzI%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCtXZM8iG-o&pp=ygULQ2FwY29tI... My point is... the Nintendo Switch 2 doesn't really stand out as exceptional in any regard compared to historical practices that we culturally already accepted.
      - bobajeff 1y ago
        Arcade cabinets aren't/weren't consumer products. Nintendo switch 2 is a consumer product. AFAICT, Nintendo can't brick GameCube, N64, SNES, NES, Gameboy etc. remotely.
        gjsman-1000 1y ago
        If can receive a firmware update over the internet; you bet it can be bricked remotely, or otherwise upgraded to be capable of remote bricking. That applies to any and all devices, including those already sold. For that matter, I've lost track of all the times Linux distributions have done remote bricking, albeit by accident.

concinds 1y ago

Your examples have nothing to do with the web, but the author does criticize Google severely for hindering web apps early on to favor Android apps (before mostly changing tack with the rise of ChromeOS). When tech went mainstream in developing countries, it was on mobile, and the native app platform was more capable than the web platform therefore the true "web" didn't take off (even non-app text webpages). The fact remains that Google is the only one trying to fix that, and giving the web a chance to not die and be supplanted by native apps.

bobajeff 1y ago
The web is being locked down too. See Google's proposals like the Web Environment Integrity API. Already, Google blocks sign-in's from 'embedded browsers' (webkit or electron-based browsers). The Encrypted Media Extensions API along with proprietary Content Decryption Module already lock out all but large company's from making a compatible browsers.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  > Web Environment Integrity API Dead proposal, two years ago. > Blocks sign-ins from 'embedded browsers' I would too; browser automation tools are a spam farm's favorite tool. > Encrypted Media Extensions API along with proprietary Content Decryption Module Previously it was just called Silverlight and Flash. The demand isn't going away; but EME+CDM is definitely more open than it used to be.