6 ms·

I think we could set the bar substantially higher. Don't even bother with discussion of sideloading. Talk about bounded transactions and device control. What

I think we could set the bar substantially higher. Don't even bother with discussion of sideloading. Talk about bounded transactions and device control. What is needed is: Once I have purchased a device, the transaction is over. I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control.

nashashmi 1y ago
That bar would require infinitely good software on the hardware. Then it will be your device. Otherwise, they will constantly need to improve it. then it will be their software on your device.
- hoherd 1y ago
  Would you consider Microsoft Windows or Linux infinitely good software? The scenario described by the GP applies 100% to most personal desktop and laptop computers.
- Liftyee 1y ago
  I don't think it matters if it's their software on your device, just like it's their chips inside the box. The key is that you choose whether or not to buy the product, or install their software.
tavavex 1y ago
People always say things like these, and I wish it were that way too. Maybe if history had gone a little differently. But what's the point of defining these standards now? Is the world where this is the reality still feasible? It seems nearly impossible, unless you're an extremely wealthy and influential individual. What I'm seeing is that we never will move to a world where a device that you bought is truly "yours" anymore. Instead, we'll be renting one of the approved devices, ran by one of the tech megacorporations and overseen by your government. They will give no real way to execute any random code that you want, unless you're also licensed and vetted as a developer. They will be tightly surveilled, all information will be saved, every interaction between these devices will be controlled for the sake of security. It will be an entire web of trust, defined by the powers that be. We're seeing early attempts at it now, but we still haven't hit full centralization. But once we do, what happens then?
- Aeolun 1y ago
  Ubuntu for android?
  - tavavex 1y ago
    How's Ubuntu (or hell, any Linux distro) for mobile going to change what I outlined? It's not going to matter what OS you're running once all the important websites and services you use every day (up to and including government services) start requiring some form of attestation or other layers of security that will no doubt only be provided by a few locked-down vendors. Once that happens, your Ubuntu Touch phone will be about as useful as a Nokia 3310, at least online. After all, it's <0.01% of the market and open (therefore dangerous), Google or Microsoft or Apple aren't going to sign off on that. A natural consequence of that will be that "unsecured" devices will be stamped out, perhaps not by force, but just economically. That's the day when what I described will just become mundane reality.
    - __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
      When that happens we'll abandon the web as you described it and build a new one that better resists the cancer. Honestly there are a lot of bad decisions baked into out default stack that it's gonna be refreshing to be rid of. Not just malware and corporate overreach, but 1980s thinking that seemed fine at the time and turned out to not be. So to answer your question: Ubuntu will let you access the next web, and Android probably won't.
      - tavavex 1y ago
        Why the assumption that there will be a new web? If you're talking about developing some brand new means of worldwide communications, this seems extremely improbable if done by the 1% of the rest of us (basically, hobbyists and techy people). The internet required tens of billions of dollars worth of development and infrastructure to get to this point, how will it ever happen without the sponsorship of large centralized entities? If you're talking about leeching off the existing internet infrastructure to communicate with some brand new protocols over them, who's going to let you do that? Both companies and governments would have incentive to put a stop to this in any way possible, because it drives away customers from the manufacturers and signers of all "secure" devices and lessens the amount/value of surveilled data. It may be allowed at a small scale, but I'm not seeing how anything long-term could be established that could threaten the existing powers in any way.
tonyhart7 1y ago
"I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control." the problem is transaction not done once you own the device, you must use the ecosystem Google and Apple create this ecosystem and they own it, so even if you have 100% control of your device but you cant live without their ecosystem OS is just "half the battle", if its so easy Microsoft would not let windows mobile died
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  Right, so that's what needs to change.
  - tonyhart7 1y ago
    well, we need a platform competitor like Huawei doing for the past years but Open Ecosystem/Platform which is likely never happen tbh, since the amount of resources that required is a lot and would need monetization which would end up like at position like this
    - fsflover 1y ago
      > well, we need a platform competitor like Huawei You mean, GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone?
      - tonyhart7 1y ago
        "You mean, GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone?" not yet to diminish them who is build these Amazing tools/devices but I need to see it yet in real life hell even if you want to buy them, they literally often stock out in certain areas and we not counting technical expertise to operate the devices
        fsflover 1y ago
        Librem 5 is in stock, and it's my daily driver. These phones are niche, because in discussion like this one, everyone is constantly saying that it's impossible to escape the duopoly and we're doomed.
reddalo 1y ago
Also, let's stop using the term "sideloading", as if it's something bad or shady. It's called "installing apps".
- layer8 1y ago
  You didn’t read the article?
  - curt15 1y ago
    Of course the poster did. The question is why does everyone else prefer to use the Apple/Google-coined term rather than the standard "installing" verbiage.
Valodim 1y ago
What does this even mean? You don't want software updates? Or strictly only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time?
- ratelimitsteve 1y ago
  >only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time? wild that you seem to think this is a gotcha question. yes, all the software I want on my devices, and only software I want on my devices
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  > Or strictly only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time? Um, yes? Constant push-updates are one of the worst tech trends of the last 10-20 years.
- alex7734 1y ago
  No forced updates, no downgrade prohibition, no bootloader locking, kernel GPL compliance (with drivers that can be loaded in it, even if they are closed source), no remote attestation. The bare minimum so that I can use the device I bought as I wish, even if the manufacturer later decides to "alter the deal".
- cesarb 1y ago
  > You don't want software updates? Most of the time, software updates remove features, change things around for no good reason (breaking our workflows), or add unwanted features. We really should separate pure bugfix updates (which include security updates) from feature updates. We nearly always want the former, but not necessarily the latter.
  - EvanAnderson 1y ago
    So much this. I totally want security fixes, but I only want security fixes. I don't want UI changes, features removed or altered, or anything with my usability upset. My computing devices are tools I use to do my job and run my life. I don't want those tools changing without my consent.
Terr_ 1y ago
First thing on the list for me is dramatically reforming the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which currently makes it a federal felony to provide other people any information or tools they might use to control the devices they own, ex: > Thanks to DMCA 1201, the creator of an app and a person who wants to use that app on a device that they own cannot transact without Apple's approval. [...] a penalty of a five year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine for a first criminal offense, even if those tools are used to allow rightsholders to share works with their audiences. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/human-rights-and-tpms-lessons-22-years-us-dmca https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/human-rights-and-tpms-... _____________ In some ways, I think this is even more important than attempting to bar companies from putting in the anti-consumer digital locks in the first place: It's easier to morally justify, easier to legally formulate, and more likely to politically pass. The average person won't be totally stuck lobbing the government to enforce anti-lock rules for them, consumers can act independently to develop lockpicks. Plus it removes the corporations' ability to bully people using your tax-dollars and government lawyers.
- anonzzzies 1y ago
  The DMCA stuff is quite annoying for more reasons but all are US; my hoster and internet provider both have standard emails for DMCA and copyright violations from US companies: "We received this, we do not care if you act on it, cheers.".

nashashmi 1y ago

That bar would require infinitely good software on the hardware. Then it will be your device. Otherwise, they will constantly need to improve it. then it will be their software on your device.

hoherd 1y ago
Would you consider Microsoft Windows or Linux infinitely good software? The scenario described by the GP applies 100% to most personal desktop and laptop computers.
Liftyee 1y ago
I don't think it matters if it's their software on your device, just like it's their chips inside the box. The key is that you choose whether or not to buy the product, or install their software.

tavavex 1y ago

People always say things like these, and I wish it were that way too. Maybe if history had gone a little differently. But what's the point of defining these standards now? Is the world where this is the reality still feasible? It seems nearly impossible, unless you're an extremely wealthy and influential individual. What I'm seeing is that we never will move to a world where a device that you bought is truly "yours" anymore. Instead, we'll be renting one of the approved devices, ran by one of the tech megacorporations and overseen by your government. They will give no real way to execute any random code that you want, unless you're also licensed and vetted as a developer. They will be tightly surveilled, all information will be saved, every interaction between these devices will be controlled for the sake of security. It will be an entire web of trust, defined by the powers that be. We're seeing early attempts at it now, but we still haven't hit full centralization. But once we do, what happens then?

Aeolun 1y ago
Ubuntu for android?
- tavavex 1y ago
  How's Ubuntu (or hell, any Linux distro) for mobile going to change what I outlined? It's not going to matter what OS you're running once all the important websites and services you use every day (up to and including government services) start requiring some form of attestation or other layers of security that will no doubt only be provided by a few locked-down vendors. Once that happens, your Ubuntu Touch phone will be about as useful as a Nokia 3310, at least online. After all, it's <0.01% of the market and open (therefore dangerous), Google or Microsoft or Apple aren't going to sign off on that. A natural consequence of that will be that "unsecured" devices will be stamped out, perhaps not by force, but just economically. That's the day when what I described will just become mundane reality.
  - __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
    When that happens we'll abandon the web as you described it and build a new one that better resists the cancer. Honestly there are a lot of bad decisions baked into out default stack that it's gonna be refreshing to be rid of. Not just malware and corporate overreach, but 1980s thinking that seemed fine at the time and turned out to not be. So to answer your question: Ubuntu will let you access the next web, and Android probably won't.
    - tavavex 1y ago
      Why the assumption that there will be a new web? If you're talking about developing some brand new means of worldwide communications, this seems extremely improbable if done by the 1% of the rest of us (basically, hobbyists and techy people). The internet required tens of billions of dollars worth of development and infrastructure to get to this point, how will it ever happen without the sponsorship of large centralized entities? If you're talking about leeching off the existing internet infrastructure to communicate with some brand new protocols over them, who's going to let you do that? Both companies and governments would have incentive to put a stop to this in any way possible, because it drives away customers from the manufacturers and signers of all "secure" devices and lessens the amount/value of surveilled data. It may be allowed at a small scale, but I'm not seeing how anything long-term could be established that could threaten the existing powers in any way.

tonyhart7 1y ago

"I then have 100% control over that device and the hardware maker, the retailer, and the OS maker have a combined 0% control." the problem is transaction not done once you own the device, you must use the ecosystem Google and Apple create this ecosystem and they own it, so even if you have 100% control of your device but you cant live without their ecosystem OS is just "half the battle", if its so easy Microsoft would not let windows mobile died

BrenBarn 1y ago
Right, so that's what needs to change.
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  well, we need a platform competitor like Huawei doing for the past years but Open Ecosystem/Platform which is likely never happen tbh, since the amount of resources that required is a lot and would need monetization which would end up like at position like this
  - fsflover 1y ago
    > well, we need a platform competitor like Huawei You mean, GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone?
    - tonyhart7 1y ago
      "You mean, GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone?" not yet to diminish them who is build these Amazing tools/devices but I need to see it yet in real life hell even if you want to buy them, they literally often stock out in certain areas and we not counting technical expertise to operate the devices
      - fsflover 1y ago
        Librem 5 is in stock, and it's my daily driver. These phones are niche, because in discussion like this one, everyone is constantly saying that it's impossible to escape the duopoly and we're doomed.

reddalo 1y ago

Also, let's stop using the term "sideloading", as if it's something bad or shady. It's called "installing apps".

layer8 1y ago
You didn’t read the article?
- curt15 1y ago
  Of course the poster did. The question is why does everyone else prefer to use the Apple/Google-coined term rather than the standard "installing" verbiage.

Valodim 1y ago

What does this even mean? You don't want software updates? Or strictly only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time?

ratelimitsteve 1y ago
>only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time? wild that you seem to think this is a gotcha question. yes, all the software I want on my devices, and only software I want on my devices
BrenBarn 1y ago
> Or strictly only software updates that are 100% aligned with your wishes whatever they may be at the time? Um, yes? Constant push-updates are one of the worst tech trends of the last 10-20 years.
alex7734 1y ago
No forced updates, no downgrade prohibition, no bootloader locking, kernel GPL compliance (with drivers that can be loaded in it, even if they are closed source), no remote attestation. The bare minimum so that I can use the device I bought as I wish, even if the manufacturer later decides to "alter the deal".
cesarb 1y ago
> You don't want software updates? Most of the time, software updates remove features, change things around for no good reason (breaking our workflows), or add unwanted features. We really should separate pure bugfix updates (which include security updates) from feature updates. We nearly always want the former, but not necessarily the latter.
- EvanAnderson 1y ago
  So much this. I totally want security fixes, but I only want security fixes. I don't want UI changes, features removed or altered, or anything with my usability upset. My computing devices are tools I use to do my job and run my life. I don't want those tools changing without my consent.

Terr_ 1y ago

First thing on the list for me is dramatically reforming the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which currently makes it a federal felony to provide other people any information or tools they might use to control the devices they own, ex: > Thanks to DMCA 1201, the creator of an app and a person who wants to use that app on a device that they own cannot transact without Apple's approval. [...] a penalty of a five year prison sentence and a $500,000 fine for a first criminal offense, even if those tools are used to allow rightsholders to share works with their audiences. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/human-rights-and-tpms-lessons-22-years-us-dmca https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/human-rights-and-tpms-... _____________ In some ways, I think this is even more important than attempting to bar companies from putting in the anti-consumer digital locks in the first place: It's easier to morally justify, easier to legally formulate, and more likely to politically pass. The average person won't be totally stuck lobbing the government to enforce anti-lock rules for them, consumers can act independently to develop lockpicks. Plus it removes the corporations' ability to bully people using your tax-dollars and government lawyers.

anonzzzies 1y ago
The DMCA stuff is quite annoying for more reasons but all are US; my hoster and internet provider both have standard emails for DMCA and copyright violations from US companies: "We received this, we do not care if you act on it, cheers.".