[tux1968]

Yes, that is a real problem. But it doesn't justify arguing uncritically or unrealistically in other areas. I think people should be free to do anything they want with their own devices. They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate.

There are legitimate concerns being addressed by these feature restrictions.

[Ajedi32]

> demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire

IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want.

Unfortunately, they've already done a lot of things to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. SafetyNet, locked bootloaders, closed-source system apps, and now they're (maybe) trying to layer "you can't install apps we don't approve of" on top of that.

[tux1968]

> IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want.

That's exactly how it is. You're free to get your soldering iron out, or your debugger and reverse engineer anything you want. I don't mean to argue unfairly, but all we're talking about here is the relative ease with which you can do what you want to do. How easy do they have to make it?

As for their software, as delivered, there are literally an infinite number of ways that it stops you from changing it. Maybe you want everything in Pig Latin, or a language you made up yourself. Do they have to design around this desire? Do they have to make this easy to do?

[Ajedi32]

I don't necessarily think they should have to design anything to make it easier, just not actively design things to make it harder.

[Ajedi32]

Though actually... I've recently become more sympathetic to the idea that software developers should be forced to take active steps to make software they distribute easy for users to modify, because software is both essential to modern life, and uniquely able to act against consumer interests in a way that's almost completely unprecedented for other goods in all human history.

A couple decades ago it would have been impractical if not impossible to make a TV, sell it to a bunch of people, and then remotely update it a few years later to start showing unkippable manufacturer-installed video ads every time you power it on. Or create a car that requires you to pay money to the manufacturer every month in order to use the seat heaters. Or build a tractor that detects if you repair it using parts not made by a specific manufacturer and shuts itself off if you do.

But now, in the age of software, all of these abuses are not only feasible to implement, but easy. And it all comes down to the fact that the software that controls these devices cannot be easily modified by the user who purchased them, or by anyone other than the company that originally manufactured them. It's a local monopoly. Were software developers required to distribute the source and build tools along with the compiled code, I suspect a vibrant modding community would spring up around any product of sufficient popularity which would make such abuses much more difficult to get away with. (Why pay a monthly subscription for my seat heaters when I can just buy a $5 software mod that permanently enables them? And why bother developing such an anti-feature in the first place if you know users will easily bypass it?)

[1718627440]

> You should be able to install your own operating system

So you draw the line between the bootloader and the OS. Other people draw the line between the OS and applications. Most (nearly all) people can't write either, so for them it is just part of the device.

> you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate.

I paid for it, and I allow it to be legal in the jurisdiction I (partly) control. So it is not only theirs anymore.

[tux1968]

Yes, and it should be 100% legal for you to hack it. Get the soldering iron out, and the debugger, and alter it to your hearts content. You bought it, you own it. But the supplier should be under no obligation to make any of that easy for you.

Just like they shouldn't be required to offer it in pink if that's your favorite color. It's up to you to paint it yourself. And if you want to load random apk's, you'll have to do whatever it takes to figure that out too, up to creating your own hardware and software.

[1718627440]

I think you misunderstood me, the software is part of the device I paid for and own.

If I tell someone to install a light switch in my living room and then it occasionally switches states when someone presses another switch at my outside wall and occasionally refuses working, I don't feel like they fulfilled their contractual obligation. Same with smartphones and software.

I would agree with you if I would want additional features, like if I want a filesystem, but there is no filesystem manager yet, or if I want to install a package, but there is no package manager, or the package manager uses another format. But here there is a package manager and the package has the right format, so I tell the device to install it and it just doesn't solely because I am called John Brown and not Alphabet Inc. . That is not right.

[tux1968]

You bought the device as delivered. They built it in the best way they know how. If you don't like it you're free to try to change it. But they're under no obligation to make it easy for you.

If the light switch you bought, has a little daylight sensor on it, and turns off when the sun is out, and that's what it does.. you may not like that light switch. You might want one that "does what you want, because you paid for it!" but then you should have purchased a different one, or made a light switch you actually liked. Of course you are free to get the soldering iron out, and try to change the light switch. But the manufacturer is under no obligation to make it easy for you to change the way it works.

That is fair, and right.

[froggit]

> If the light switch you bought, has a little daylight sensor on it, and turns off when the sun is out, and that's what it does.. you may not like that light switch. You might want one that "does what you want, because you paid for it!" but then you should have purchased a different one, or made a light switch you actually liked.

Not sure this analogy works as it gives prospective light switch buyers a choice of different light switch types. What google is doing seems more like forcing EVERY light switch to have daylight sensors, thus forcing you to save power (even if you're pro-global warming and just trying to do your part for the cause), then telling people with vision problems relating to suboptimal indoor illumination or suffer from sunlight frequency melting disorder or think they've got some other random "daylight makes life suck" bullshit to create a student/hobbyist account.

[tux1968]

That's really a different issue. There may be only one light switch vendor, and then you're stuck with what they offer, too. There is room in the market for more manufacturers. I'd definitely buy from one who offered a truly open source and customizable option. But I wouldn't get it for my grandmother, she's much better served by what Google offers already.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate.

I don't think the distinction exists the way you're trying to describe. If I should be allowed to install any software I want, surely that includes any .apk I want? Conversely, someone could make the exact claim one step down the chain and argue that you don't get to tell them how their firmware should work and if you want to install your own OS you should just go buy a fab, make your own chips, write your own firmware, and make your own phone. And that's absurd, because users should be allowed to run their own software without being forced to ditch the rest of the stack for no reason.

[tux1968]

No, I don't think you have the inerhent right to install any apk you desire, if their OS is designed to prohibit it. You should be free to try to alter their OS any way you want, but they should not have to make it easy.

And the argument is the same lower down the stack. You shouldn't be able to tell someone how to design their firmware.

The only problem is where the law prohibits us from trying to undo these restrictions, or make modifications ourselves. It's government that restricts us, and we should focus our efforts there.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> No, I don't think you have the inerhent right to install any apk you desire, if their OS is designed to prohibit it. You should be free to try to alter their OS any way you want, but they should not have to make it easy.

> And the argument is the same lower down the stack. You shouldn't be able to tell someone how to design their firmware.

Earlier, you claimed,

> They should be able to install any software they want.

but it sounds like actually you only mean that users should be allowed to futilely attempt it, not that there should actually be allowed to run software at will. If the firmware only allows running a signed OS, and that OS only allows running approved apps, then the user is not able to install any software they want.

[tux1968]

I want maximum freedom, for everyone. That includes developers. We should be free to produce the software as we see fit. If that means we think that our users are best served by having devices that are locked down against scammers etc, then we should be free to produce locked down devices like that.

And as users we should be free to buy only devices that respect maximum capabilities and customization.

There is a tension between these goals, and it's difficult to resolve, so that everyone gets most of what they want. Google seems to be doing the right thing mostly though. Providing both the locked down device, and making provisions for people who want the non-standard option too.

Anyone who thinks they can do better, should enter the market and give us something better. I'd like more options for completely open and hackable phones.

[direwolf20]

There's a very easy way to achieve maximum freedom: punish people who take away other people's freedom. To achieve maximum freedom, the one freedom people must never be allowed to have is the freedom to take away other people's freedom. Google must be punished for every software module they wrote whose sole purpose is to make you less free.

[tux1968]

They didn't make you less free. They protected your phone from scammers. On top of which, nobody twisted your arm and made you buy from them, you're free to change the phone any way you want, get the debugger out and change it. You have everything you need, it's your phone, change it any way you want; and they have the freedom to not help you.