5 ms·

Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight. And I fear it may be counter-productive, because all the effort put into asking Google to make it a little less p

by palata 6mo ago

Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight. And I fear it may be counter-productive, because all the effort put into asking Google to make it a little less painful to install an unverified app is not put into the real fight. IMHO, it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS. What should be forbidden is to prevent people from installing an alternative OS on their hardware. But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it. When I buy an Android phone, I should be able to unlock the bootloader, add custom signing keys, install whatever OS I choose, and relock the bootloader. Interestingly, currently this is possible on Google Pixels, but not on most other Android devices. When I use an Android phone, a company building an app should not be allowed to ban my OS "because it is not the Google OS". That is, using Play Integrity or whatever they do to ban alternative OSes should be forbidden. But again, this is not entirely Google's fault: the companies choose to add those checks in their ** app. And it is a bigger problem there, because while I can install an alternative OS on my Android device (e.g. GrapheneOS or LineageOS), I can NOT install an alternative client for e.g. my bank. Back to side-loading: really it's mostly a problem for F-Droid on Stock Android, as far as I can see. And really, people who care about using F-Droid would probably be happy to use an alternative OS, if it was reasonably possible. We should fight for that.

storus 6mo ago
ARM doesn't have any initialization/boot standard enforced on phone manufacturers so everyone is doing their own and never upstreams anything. It's a general ARM problem. PC with some lucky coincidence avoided that fate and we got used to it. RISC-V is in even worse shape than ARM as the fragmentation is even at the CPU instruction level. Both ARM and RISC-V have some discussions/proposed standards but nothing enforced anywhere.
- palata 6mo ago
  Interesting insights, thanks! If I may ask: is that a reason to prevent me from unlocking, adding custom keys and relocking the bootloader? It feels like you are talking about the implementation details below that. I don't really mind if it is different, I just want a common API, and it seems like whatever is done on the Pixel phones is totally fine. Why not make that mandatory for all manufacturers?
- fsflover 6mo ago
  Nevertheless, postmarketOS manages to run Linux without Android on quite a few phones.
  - fsflover 6mo ago
    Link for the downvoters: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices.
codedokode 6mo ago
This should apply not only to phones. Every device with CPU and programmable memory should allow user to reprogram it. However, the user may waive this right for purpose of theft protection.
- palata 6mo ago
  Agreed. And it does not mean that they should open source everything. If I buy a connected fridge, they should give me a technical way to flash my own OS on it. Maybe I will lose most functionality by doing that, and maybe it will be a lot of work for me to get the OS working properly with the fridge. But it should be possible.
echelon 6mo ago
> Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight. Respectfully, no. There are no mainstream OS alternatives. You're standing up to fight for 0.000001% of users and leaving everyone else stuck. Fighting to win our phones back is fighting for the 99.99999%. These devices are the most important part of everyone's digital world. Certainly the non-technical folks. You can't even order food at restaurants anymore without them. You can't date or socialize as a young person without one. It's becoming your state-issued ID. It's everything. And two companies control everything you do. They need to be stripped of all of their power to constrain these devices. Once you buy the device, it's yours. These belong to society. Not the two giant monopolies that won a battle decades ago and forever get to sit atop their pile of gold like dragons. They should never be able to dictate the world downstream, and certainly not with the authority they have today. Web installs. No scare walls. No hidden menu settings. First class distribution and support for web sans app store. No ability for these companies to strong arm. They're taxing all of human innovation. Any time you want to reach someone, they stand in the way. They ask for 30%, they mandate the tech, the updates, they divorce you from choosing payments, login, your ability to talk to your customer. As a consumer this means new tech companies can't start and grow big and fight the incumbents. The incumbents can move anywhere and dump on it. They can put a ceiling on outside innovation and copy or acquire it on the cheap. All of tech is becoming a lock and shackle authoritarian regime with permanently fixed leaders, ossified tech, and banana republic fleecing of everything new. This is bad for consumers and freedom and innovation. Respectfully - no. You're wrong. These companies need to be slapped hard by every regulatory body in the world. They shouldn't have freedom. They should have responsibility they're fearful of. And they should have competition. Competition is good. Capitalism should be hard. Apple and Google should be sweating, not coasting. This should be a responsibility, not a fish in barrel situation.
- palata 6mo ago
  I feel like you missed my point. I am fighting for the 100% (and you are not, as you say). We should all own our devices, and owning a device means that we can install whatever OS we want on it. The beauty of it being that if you can install whatever OS you want on it, then the problem raised by the article does not exist anymore. Today, if you own a Pixel, you can just install GrapheneOS and it will mostly work. Why just "mostly"? Not because of GrapheneOS. Because of some goddamn companies (usually banks) who want to lock you into the Google flavour of Android. If you own another device, maybe you could install LineageOS or /e/OS, but chances are that you won't be able to relock the bootloader, so you will lose the security model of Android. For many people, this should mean that it's not a reasonable option. But that's not LineageOS' or /e/OS' fault: it's the manufacturer's fault: they are locking you into the Google flavour of Android (which many times also means their own flavour based on top of the Google flavour). And on many other devices, you just cannot install an alternative OS at all, so you are stuck with the Stock OS. You are essentially saying "it is fine that 99.99999% of the people are locked into their manufacturer flavour of Android, as long as we can keep using F-Droid" (because really, the changed discussed here mostly affects F-Droid, and it would be debatable whether or not F-Droid's design is fine or not). I disagree, it is not fine. When we buy an Android device, we should be able to install an alternative OS, period. All of us.
MathMonkeyMan 6mo ago
I agree with you, but even with the ability to install your own OS properly, you can't necessarily use some of the hardware. As I recall from Ubuntu Touch, they had to build a system that was a thin wrapper around Android so that they had access to firmware blobs. I guess that would still be ok as long as the hardware component manufacturers don't start to require authentication from the OS. That would be along the same lines as the fight you're describing.
- palata 6mo ago
  I think that for the first step, we need to make sure that AOSP forks can work. And those can just copy the binary blobs. Don't get me wrong: I like all alternatives. But the most realistic alternative to Stock Android is based on AOSP. In good approximation, today nobody would want anything else. If we get there, then the next step is to get open source firmwares. But I don't know much about that and it feels like it is a much harder fight. Hardware manufacturers probably strongly believe that they will lose their competitive advantage if they open source their firmwares, and I don't know how true that is.
eatsyourtacos 6mo ago
Sorry but what a ridiculous take. There are two phone options in the western world: iphone and android. 99.99% of the people aren't' going to even fathom they could install their own OS on a phone or whatever. There is a clear MONOPOLY on phones and to even further take away the right to just install something on it is crazy. I already hate Apple for that, but there's no recourse in the monopolistic & capitalistic US and now it's going to be 100% gone. "it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS" Not when they are a MONOPOLY.
- palata 6mo ago
  When you buy an Android phone, the Stock OS you get is AOSP (the open source Android base) + Google stuff + Manufacturer stuff. Now it sounds like you don't know about it, but if you take only AOSP and run it on your phone, you will not immediately notice that it is not "a normal Android you expect". There are alternatives based on AOSP, e.g. GrapheneOS, LineageOS, /e/OS. To 99.99% of the people, those would count as Android. The difference between e.g. a FairPhone Android and a Samsung Android is not smaller than the difference between FairPhone Android and /e/OS. What I am saying is that we should fight for those alternatives to run properly. Right now you may have heard that "it is not a full replacement because some things don't work". First, few things "don't work" (fewer than you may expect). Second (and more importantly), those few things that "don't work" are not the responsibility of those alternative OSes. It's precisely because Google + Android manufacturers prevent them from working that they don't. I don't think it is such a ridiculous take. Rather, I feel like you just have no idea about how it works, and therefore you cannot imagine how there are alternatives to the situation you know.
- kuhsaft 6mo ago
  I’d say that it’s more of a cartel. The mobile network operators, the mobile device manufacturers, the mobile OS developers. They all work together in their consortiums to make money together. It’s a bit obvious when you look at the supply chain where “competitors” supply each other with parts. RF hardware is heavily regulated by governments, so a truly open-for-consumer hardware solution won’t exist.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6mo ago
"But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it." Google is (a) restricting "Android" functionality through trademark and software licenses with manufacturers and (b) paying the manufacturers, e.g., through placement agreements and revenue sharing agreements Given Google's actions in this regard, why would a manufacturer want to allow hardware purchasers to remove Android and install an OS of their own choosing, e.g., one that does not enable Google data collection, surveillance and ad services and generates no revenue for the manufacturer The idea of regulating manufacturers that partner with Google seems far-fetched, not serious. For example, I don't see HN comments suggesting Apple should be prohibited from interfering with buyers who want to remove iOS and install another OS in its place Meanwhile the control, privacy, etc. problems with these corporate OS are avoidable right now by choosing different hardware, specifically hardware that allows installation of open source OS that a concerned buyer can edit, compile and install themselves
- palata 6mo ago
  Not sure what you are trying to say. My point is that technically, we have good alternatives. I am not talking Mobile Linux: we have Android alternatives that are indistinguishable from Stock Android to normal people... except for a few pain points. We need to fight to address those pain points, in order to have good alternatives. What this article is trying to do is not trying to address those pain points at all, it's trying to change something in the Google flavour of Android. At the end of the day, it will still be the Google flavour of Android. > why would a manufacturer That's why I say we need to fight for regulating it. Technically, nothing prevents it. It's just that the manufacturers don't want or don't care. And it's not just manufacturers: banks that ban your OS if it's not "the Android signed by Google" are part of the problem as well, and we need to regulate that.
- xphos 6mo ago
  I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should be seperate companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is. OSs are few in number and are special pieces of software supported by extreme network effects and locking in effects. Its virtually impossible to abandon mainstream OSs even in the desktop world which is much more permissive their are basically 2 OSs. You can count Linux as a third but its not a serious market share competitor yet! EU and France might change that. But essentially total OS control allows a type of anti competitive behavior that is unavoidable. You either need 10s of options which are different in the services which isn't viable because modern OSs are some of the most complex pieces of software in existence. Your only other option is to regulate them like the power company because its not practical to build your own grid to have fair pricing and access
GoblinSlayer 6mo ago
Do corporations dream about cyberpunk dystopia?

by palata 6mo ago

storus 6mo ago

ARM doesn't have any initialization/boot standard enforced on phone manufacturers so everyone is doing their own and never upstreams anything. It's a general ARM problem. PC with some lucky coincidence avoided that fate and we got used to it. RISC-V is in even worse shape than ARM as the fragmentation is even at the CPU instruction level. Both ARM and RISC-V have some discussions/proposed standards but nothing enforced anywhere.

palata 6mo ago
Interesting insights, thanks! If I may ask: is that a reason to prevent me from unlocking, adding custom keys and relocking the bootloader? It feels like you are talking about the implementation details below that. I don't really mind if it is different, I just want a common API, and it seems like whatever is done on the Pixel phones is totally fine. Why not make that mandatory for all manufacturers?
fsflover 6mo ago
Nevertheless, postmarketOS manages to run Linux without Android on quite a few phones.
- fsflover 6mo ago
  Link for the downvoters: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices.

codedokode 6mo ago

This should apply not only to phones. Every device with CPU and programmable memory should allow user to reprogram it. However, the user may waive this right for purpose of theft protection.

palata 6mo ago
Agreed. And it does not mean that they should open source everything. If I buy a connected fridge, they should give me a technical way to flash my own OS on it. Maybe I will lose most functionality by doing that, and maybe it will be a lot of work for me to get the OS working properly with the fridge. But it should be possible.

echelon 6mo ago

> Respectfully, I think this is the wrong fight. Respectfully, no. There are no mainstream OS alternatives. You're standing up to fight for 0.000001% of users and leaving everyone else stuck. Fighting to win our phones back is fighting for the 99.99999%. These devices are the most important part of everyone's digital world. Certainly the non-technical folks. You can't even order food at restaurants anymore without them. You can't date or socialize as a young person without one. It's becoming your state-issued ID. It's everything. And two companies control everything you do. They need to be stripped of all of their power to constrain these devices. Once you buy the device, it's yours. These belong to society. Not the two giant monopolies that won a battle decades ago and forever get to sit atop their pile of gold like dragons. They should never be able to dictate the world downstream, and certainly not with the authority they have today. Web installs. No scare walls. No hidden menu settings. First class distribution and support for web sans app store. No ability for these companies to strong arm. They're taxing all of human innovation. Any time you want to reach someone, they stand in the way. They ask for 30%, they mandate the tech, the updates, they divorce you from choosing payments, login, your ability to talk to your customer. As a consumer this means new tech companies can't start and grow big and fight the incumbents. The incumbents can move anywhere and dump on it. They can put a ceiling on outside innovation and copy or acquire it on the cheap. All of tech is becoming a lock and shackle authoritarian regime with permanently fixed leaders, ossified tech, and banana republic fleecing of everything new. This is bad for consumers and freedom and innovation. Respectfully - no. You're wrong. These companies need to be slapped hard by every regulatory body in the world. They shouldn't have freedom. They should have responsibility they're fearful of. And they should have competition. Competition is good. Capitalism should be hard. Apple and Google should be sweating, not coasting. This should be a responsibility, not a fish in barrel situation.

palata 6mo ago
I feel like you missed my point. I am fighting for the 100% (and you are not, as you say). We should all own our devices, and owning a device means that we can install whatever OS we want on it. The beauty of it being that if you can install whatever OS you want on it, then the problem raised by the article does not exist anymore. Today, if you own a Pixel, you can just install GrapheneOS and it will mostly work. Why just "mostly"? Not because of GrapheneOS. Because of some goddamn companies (usually banks) who want to lock you into the Google flavour of Android. If you own another device, maybe you could install LineageOS or /e/OS, but chances are that you won't be able to relock the bootloader, so you will lose the security model of Android. For many people, this should mean that it's not a reasonable option. But that's not LineageOS' or /e/OS' fault: it's the manufacturer's fault: they are locking you into the Google flavour of Android (which many times also means their own flavour based on top of the Google flavour). And on many other devices, you just cannot install an alternative OS at all, so you are stuck with the Stock OS. You are essentially saying "it is fine that 99.99999% of the people are locked into their manufacturer flavour of Android, as long as we can keep using F-Droid" (because really, the changed discussed here mostly affects F-Droid, and it would be debatable whether or not F-Droid's design is fine or not). I disagree, it is not fine. When we buy an Android device, we should be able to install an alternative OS, period. All of us.

MathMonkeyMan 6mo ago

I agree with you, but even with the ability to install your own OS properly, you can't necessarily use some of the hardware. As I recall from Ubuntu Touch, they had to build a system that was a thin wrapper around Android so that they had access to firmware blobs. I guess that would still be ok as long as the hardware component manufacturers don't start to require authentication from the OS. That would be along the same lines as the fight you're describing.

palata 6mo ago
I think that for the first step, we need to make sure that AOSP forks can work. And those can just copy the binary blobs. Don't get me wrong: I like all alternatives. But the most realistic alternative to Stock Android is based on AOSP. In good approximation, today nobody would want anything else. If we get there, then the next step is to get open source firmwares. But I don't know much about that and it feels like it is a much harder fight. Hardware manufacturers probably strongly believe that they will lose their competitive advantage if they open source their firmwares, and I don't know how true that is.

eatsyourtacos 6mo ago

Sorry but what a ridiculous take. There are two phone options in the western world: iphone and android. 99.99% of the people aren't' going to even fathom they could install their own OS on a phone or whatever. There is a clear MONOPOLY on phones and to even further take away the right to just install something on it is crazy. I already hate Apple for that, but there's no recourse in the monopolistic & capitalistic US and now it's going to be 100% gone. "it should be fine for Google or Apple to do whatever they want with their OS" Not when they are a MONOPOLY.

palata 6mo ago
When you buy an Android phone, the Stock OS you get is AOSP (the open source Android base) + Google stuff + Manufacturer stuff. Now it sounds like you don't know about it, but if you take only AOSP and run it on your phone, you will not immediately notice that it is not "a normal Android you expect". There are alternatives based on AOSP, e.g. GrapheneOS, LineageOS, /e/OS. To 99.99% of the people, those would count as Android. The difference between e.g. a FairPhone Android and a Samsung Android is not smaller than the difference between FairPhone Android and /e/OS. What I am saying is that we should fight for those alternatives to run properly. Right now you may have heard that "it is not a full replacement because some things don't work". First, few things "don't work" (fewer than you may expect). Second (and more importantly), those few things that "don't work" are not the responsibility of those alternative OSes. It's precisely because Google + Android manufacturers prevent them from working that they don't. I don't think it is such a ridiculous take. Rather, I feel like you just have no idea about how it works, and therefore you cannot imagine how there are alternatives to the situation you know.
kuhsaft 6mo ago
I’d say that it’s more of a cartel. The mobile network operators, the mobile device manufacturers, the mobile OS developers. They all work together in their consortiums to make money together. It’s a bit obvious when you look at the supply chain where “competitors” supply each other with parts. RF hardware is heavily regulated by governments, so a truly open-for-consumer hardware solution won’t exist.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6mo ago

"But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it." Google is (a) restricting "Android" functionality through trademark and software licenses with manufacturers and (b) paying the manufacturers, e.g., through placement agreements and revenue sharing agreements Given Google's actions in this regard, why would a manufacturer want to allow hardware purchasers to remove Android and install an OS of their own choosing, e.g., one that does not enable Google data collection, surveillance and ad services and generates no revenue for the manufacturer The idea of regulating manufacturers that partner with Google seems far-fetched, not serious. For example, I don't see HN comments suggesting Apple should be prohibited from interfering with buyers who want to remove iOS and install another OS in its place Meanwhile the control, privacy, etc. problems with these corporate OS are avoidable right now by choosing different hardware, specifically hardware that allows installation of open source OS that a concerned buyer can edit, compile and install themselves

palata 6mo ago
Not sure what you are trying to say. My point is that technically, we have good alternatives. I am not talking Mobile Linux: we have Android alternatives that are indistinguishable from Stock Android to normal people... except for a few pain points. We need to fight to address those pain points, in order to have good alternatives. What this article is trying to do is not trying to address those pain points at all, it's trying to change something in the Google flavour of Android. At the end of the day, it will still be the Google flavour of Android. > why would a manufacturer That's why I say we need to fight for regulating it. Technically, nothing prevents it. It's just that the manufacturers don't want or don't care. And it's not just manufacturers: banks that ban your OS if it's not "the Android signed by Google" are part of the problem as well, and we need to regulate that.
xphos 6mo ago
I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should be seperate companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is. OSs are few in number and are special pieces of software supported by extreme network effects and locking in effects. Its virtually impossible to abandon mainstream OSs even in the desktop world which is much more permissive their are basically 2 OSs. You can count Linux as a third but its not a serious market share competitor yet! EU and France might change that. But essentially total OS control allows a type of anti competitive behavior that is unavoidable. You either need 10s of options which are different in the services which isn't viable because modern OSs are some of the most complex pieces of software in existence. Your only other option is to regulate them like the power company because its not practical to build your own grid to have fair pricing and access

GoblinSlayer 6mo ago

Do corporations dream about cyberpunk dystopia?