[jbombadil]

> If you don't want an unlocked bootloader, just don't unlock your bootloader.

That kind of logic cuts both ways: "If you don't want a device with a locked boot loader, just don't buy a device with a locked bootloader".

Unfortunately, as consumers, we're trapped between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, I would want 100% freedom to use my device exactly as I see fit and run any software I want, without any form of curation from the manufacturer. On the other hand, there are plenty of software companies who do shitty things when given absolute freedom over what to do in a user's device (tracking / spying / etc) and I welcome buying a device where the manufacturer helps me fight some of that.

So I can absolutely see both arguments. And I think both types can coexist. I am happy my iPhone doesn't allow Meta to say "to use WhatsApp, you must install the MetaStore®, give it root and install it from there". I would not be happy with those restrictions on my desktop.

[hamandcheese]

> I am happy my iPhone doesn't allow Meta to say "to use WhatsApp, you must install the MetaStore®, give it root and install it from there".

I think the inverse is a much more credible threat, though. "Sorry, you cant sign in to your bank because you are using Linux. Please try again on windows 11 with secure boot turned on" doesn't seem far fetched at all.

[cesarb]

> "Sorry, you cant sign in to your bank because you are using Linux."

That's not an hypothetical for us here in Brazil: online banking was Windows-only for quite some time, because there was no Linux version of the invasive "security plugin" banks require for online banking (the current version of that "security plugin" has a Linux version).

[jmb99]

Not that I would agree with such a policy (I currently do online bank using Linux), but why is it not within the bank’s rights to make that restriction? If they determine (with whatever degree of accuracy) that online banking from Linux/rooted androids/jailbroken iphones is too risky, why should they be required to allow it?

[hamandcheese]

I don't think I asserted that it isn't within their rights. But this is the direction things are headed, and it is a threat to free and libre computing.

[alex7734]

> I am happy my iPhone doesn't allow Meta to say "to use WhatsApp, you must install the MetaStore®, give it root and install it from there". I would not be happy with those restrictions on my desktop.

You fix that by making root access inconvenient enough that companies can't rely on the average random user having it enabled.

For example force you to wipe the device to unlock it as another person said in another comment. Or make it so that if you don't unlock it within 7 days of the device purchase and first boot, you cannot unlock it anymore.

[jmb99]

> You fix that by making root access inconvenient enough that companies can't rely on the average random user having it enabled.

AI TikTok voice “Hey guys, if you just bought a new iPhone, make sure you remove Apple’s restriction locks so they can’t control what you install. Just follow these easy steps, but make sure you do it as soon as possible, since you’ll have to set up your phone again!”

With the comments filled with people talking about how terrible Apple is for locking down their phones, everyone’s an idiot for buying such a locked down phone so they better at least unlock the bootloader, etc.

This is not a far-fetched scenario based on some videos I’ve seen sent to me by friends.

[ziml77]

Don't forget in the video to tell them that it will allow them to install apps that get them more performance, better battery life, better cell signal, etc.

[mixdup]

I would also be happy with those restrictions on a traditional PC-class computing device (laptop or desktop). Would I personally buy one? Probably not, but I'd feel a whole hell of a lot better if my non-techie wife or mother or brother were using one and they were no more susceptible to some kind of exploit on their PC device than they were on their phone

That's the whole thing--there should be choice

[cwalv]

I could see Microsoft saying "we're only allowing apps installed through our 'store', for safety/security reasons, unless you opt out (gated by some scary warning that doing so is unsafe).

Even if they never charged a fee for running the store, I bet this would raise a lot of eyebrows.

[mixdup]

Microsoft has been going in the opposite direction. Nowadays you can post any win32 app to the store, they are loosening not tightening

[cwalv]

I haven't used it in ages, but last I looked their store was entirely pointless. I wouldn't be surprised if they just got rid of it altogether.

My point was more about how people would react if MS did such a thing (i.e. installs to come from the store by default).

[stavros]

Those restrictions aren't on your desktop, where you do have root. Why would they be on your phone if you had root on that?

[jbombadil]

They are on your desktop. Have you tried installing any game you bought through Steam lately? They all install a custom launcher / updater / stuff that ends up in startup.

[jmb99]

Literally 0 games I own on steam have any startup items. Custom launchers yes, but not startup items. A few games have kernel anticheat, but they all start with the game.

The exception is FaceIt for counter strike, but that’s not distributed through steam and is entirely third-party.

[bigstrat2003]

What? No they don't. I'm not saying that no game does this, but I play lots of games on Steam and none of the ones I play do it.

[zzo38computer]

I think that making a suitable operating system design can help with avoiding some of these problems (and others mentioned elsewhere) (I had mentioned some of my ideas about operating system design before on Hacker News). In combination with this, there is also hardware design to consider (including considerations having to do with the instruction set), and you can also have a package manager with a package repository where whoever manages the package repository will verify them (something that is already done in many systems, although the verification that is already done is often not good enough in some ways); this package repository management is not actually necessary for the security features of the system but makes it more difficult for authors of programs to work around these security features.

[cwalv]

> And I think both types can coexist.

E.g. macos