HN Reader

The government isn't going to save us, they love it and are in bed with these corporations; the more control, the better. Locked down computing, no anonymity online, the threat of losing banking/credit accounts, and authorities showing up to arrest you if you challenge the current dogma too strongly. We're so cooked.

I think it's time for us to go back to having mobile phones (texting, virtual credit cards, tethered wifi hotspots etc). separate from mobile storage and compute (mp3 players, cameras etc.).

The modern mobile ecosystem is selling games consoles when the nerds want mobile Unix workstations.

Maybe it's time for the legal requirement that every computing device or microchip more powerful than 1 MIPS and having writable storage, must support reprogramming, to prevent creating digital waste.

I'm kind of surprised by this. Google is already under a lot of heat, especially in Europe. All sorts of lawsuits everywhere because of they monopoly abuse. And they decide to pull this move?

This doesn't stop with handheld computers. If Google will be able to get away with it on phones (which is FAR from guaranteed atm), they will do it on Chromebooks. Microsoft will do it on Windows. Apple will do it on Macs. Then the hardware manufacturers will only allow "trusted" developers via TPM.

Full ownership of all our computers must be norm again. It's fine if tech companies want to charge extra to sell walled gardens and market it as extra security. But they must sell computers and software that the buyer actually owns.

The community could work around this problem by creating an open source general purpose app runtime for Android.

A user would install the runtime, signed by a developer who shared their government ID with Google, and then use the runtime to launch whatever app they want. It's probably infeasible to launch an APK from another APK, so the runtime could be based on WASIX+WebView or something.

We could call it "General Computation". Google could start a cat and mouse game of banning developers who sign the app, but at least this "war on general computation" would be obvious and ironic.

The smartphone is not a mere commodity but a part of an entire social system of production between banks, telcos, software houses. Alternatives seemingly must come from outside the system... possibly Huawei from China and their HarmonyOS, which happily enough is banned in the US.

Or any sufficiently hard-boiled alternative from the inside. IMO things like custom ROMs lack sufficient vertical organization and that is why they're not so relevant (but at that point, you're basically constructing something much like a corporation once again, if not an entire society stemming out of it).

He says one thing that isn't true. He blames Apple for standardizing the concept of not being able to install applications on your "computer" (phone).

This was the case long before Apple, and started at the carrier telco's. Apple was the one who wrestled the control of the app store from the telco's, who were even worse!

Myself and a buddy built cool fun a bartender app (recipes for alcohol drinks) for the Danger Hiptop. It was rejected by the telco (t-mobile) because they were afraid of lawsuits due to the 21+ nature of the app. We never really got a formal rejection notice, they just stopped responding to us. It was also one of those things where you had to build the app first, submit it (to Danger, who then presented it to the telco), take the risk on everything yourself, and then get silently rejected. What a mess.

I'm a little bit unclear about this, will Google's changes here also affect other android distributions like LineageOS, OxygenOS, etc? If not, then I could see that Google locking down their Android Distributions like this could breath a lot of life into some alternative distribution(s). If yes, then perhaps forks of Android or even competitors to android altogether.

13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI

So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always.

However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware.

The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software.

So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it.

Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer.

So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.

Yeah, if Google kills ReVanced, I may as well get an iPhone. What's the difference at this point. You can't even unlock the bootloader on most of the quality Android phones.

However, the crusade against the word and concept of "sideloading" is really weird. Yeah, installing from the repo is normal, and all the windows-land "download an .exe/.msi to invoke an installer" ways that then may or may not update the app are unusual and apart from an ordered process of system management.

The proper alternative to Google Play is F-Droid, not downloading/baking .apks.

Some things to advocate for to counter the direction we've been going in.

1. Termination of WIPO Copyright Treaty (prerequisite for #2)

2. Repeal of DMCA. (primarily because of Section 1201)

3. Enact and enforce, Right to ownership, Right to repair laws.

4. Enforce antitrust laws. / Break up monopolies.

What I want is a law requiring support for facilitating owners of programmable computers be able to install their own programs independently. If it's not gate-keeped, there's nothing to do. But if you choose to gatekeep because "security", you've signed up for some work to comply with the law.

If there's something like a Play Store with OS-level integration preventing unsigned applications from installing and running, FINE, that's an arguably useful security feature for regular users who have no interest in writing their own apps or consuming software outside the Play Store.

This doesn't preclude allowing the user (with admin rights) adding signing keys of their choosing.

If I want to trust Lennart Poettering's or Jonathan Blow's binaries to install/run on my computer/phone, let me install their public keys, a one-time addition gated by admin rights.

If you're not enabling me to potentially put bits of my choosing on my computer, its software better be in ROMs getting physically swapped out for "updates".

Timing of this with other privacy and computing/internet freedom pushbacks speaks volumes.

What are the implications of this for GrapheneOS? Because it’s based on android, will that project die off?

You paid $1000 for the metal, but the software is licensed and owned by Google.

You could install a free os on the phone instead and own the whole thing.

What drives me nuts is: this is for your own good right?

I can still put metal in my microwave and set my home on fire, but I cannot sideload apps.

Both Apple and Google should just bite the fucking bullet and let people install whatever they want.

Apple, for their part, should have just buried the option to "sideload" deep in the settings. They could have put up a dialog, or maybe 5 dialogs in a row, each one scarier than the last, warning the user that if someone told them to do this, they are being scammed. They could have done it every time someone installs an app from outside the App Store. Make the user wait 10 seconds or a minute between each dialog. Put the option behind their passcode, or their Apple ID password. Void AppleCare if they do it, for all I care. They could have done any of this. Anyone actually concerned about their security would have avoided it anyway.

This is what they should have done. Now it looks like regulators are going force their hand. Why Google is doing this now, of all times, is beyond me. Have they read the news lately?

The regulation should be for phones, computers, and game consoles too.

I know this isn't an unpopular opinion... whatever. I gotta vent somewhere.

So I paid $1000 for a Pixel 9 Pro 1TB, then Syncthing wasn't able to keep maintaining their android app because of Google, and now Google wants to block me from using F-Droid. Google, you've fucked me in the ass for the last goddamn time, I'm completely de-Googling over this. I refuse to subsidize the surveillance state any longer. Fucking fascists.

In a way I hope this gives more opportunities to PWAs or at least websites that consider the use case of getting "installed" (at least added to home screen).

It's a far cry from native apps and it comes with its own issues. But in my case, the vast majority of apps I use regularly have a competent mobile web interface.

This is of course limited by what the OS will allow as we see with Apple's purposefully poor support for them and Google would likely follow suit. Maybe alternative browsers could offer what's missing.

Maybe there'll be more power behind a Linux distro for Android that puts browser apps and self installs first?

People have a natural desire for ownership in some form, I'm sure we'll find a way. But things do look bleak right now.

I wonder if a "parent lock" type of measure but for external installs could work, basically allowing a user to disable the external installations (and other things) unless you enter a custom code.

For those of us who know enough there is no need to enable it.

For those that are not as technological (like elders), a familiar/friend can enable it and no matter what they try, they can't "harm" the device without asking you first.

The only ones not getting any benefit are non technological people without technological contacts, but even in those cases I'm sure shops would gladly provide that support (like the usual "setup support)

These phones should offer 3 environments: The one which Google likes, where Banking apps and Wallets reside and only verified apps can be installed into, then the normal one, where our all crappy apps run, like weather, whatsapp, and an unrestricted one, where permissions aren't required at all. Though it should be hard to install an app in the unrestricted environment, like force the use of adb for the initial install. Unrestricted should hot have access to anything running in the secure environment.

I can see a fracturing of digital convergence in my future. Corporate controlled communication device in one pocket and an open source SBC in the other. I'm not particularly into the privacy/security stuff. I just think it has all gone too far I'm not sure the value is there anymore as we all get squeezed for profits. I don't need or want most of the shit that companies are pushing. The services I used to find useful like really good search have been destroyed.

Why, oh why, is there not a smartphone – or even a similar form-factor device without the ability to phone – that lets its user run anything they want (say, a normal Linux distro)? And then you emulate Android whenever you need something that only runs on that?

Hell, I don't care if it's a generation or two behind smartphones. I don't understand why this doesn't exist when non-bleeding-edge hardware has become so mind-bogglingly cheap!

What am I missing?

You don't actually own your phone if ownership implies control over your property. You just get to pay for it. This was always the goal of our corporate/government "partnership" AKA fascism.

Can't wait for Windows 12 to have a mandatory S-Mode and a Microsoft account tied to your PII, for your protection. No anonymous writer can publish the 21st Century equivalent of the Federalist Papers and our tyranny is safe.

I saw a youtube video that the latest Pixel 10 doesn't have a physical sim card slot - only eSIM. Just when I thought the sideloading shit was bad enough.

I'm pretty sure that this combined with the announcement that in the newer pixel you will only get 200 charges before it starts to decrease the utility of your battery, and only 1,000 charges are guaranteed. So now they've got a platform where you can't install the apps you want and it has a definite end of life. Sounds like they don't even want to be in the handset business.

I’ve been eyeing the FLX1 or Jolla as a replacement for my iPhone. Anyone daily driving those?

I know it feels like this might be part of a big plan against sideloading, but from my time at Google, I’d say it’s more likely to be the idea of some exec trying to get a promo.

I wonder how feasible it would be to just start using remote desktop apps for connecting to a Linux OS. Until they ban those apps too, of course.

$1000 for a Google phone can be revised. The flagships are now well over $2000.

The classic “You will own nothing and be happy”

Eu aceito

"You'd need our keys to enter your house."

I'm going to be fucking pissed if I can't use AlfaOBD. I've saved myself thousands doing simple repairs which required that interaction.

Don't use smartphones at all, they're only bad for you and you don't need them. Do anything you can to either get away from them or start moving away from them.

[flagged]

It is time to get the government to recognise mobile phones as being full fledged computers and which require the same consumer protections. Just because you are carrying it around all the time doesn't make it any less a computer.

The canary in the coal mine is that tomorrow Windows or macOS could do the same with PCs.

Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45087396

I assume my Galaxy S20 is immune to this because it's not getting (major) updates anymore. I'll continue using it as long as I can to avoid this. Does anyone know the most recent Galaxy phone that will be safe from this? Should I get one or two extras?

Knew it was Rossmann from the title before even clicking. He genuinely always seems so miserable. Does he ever talk about positive things?

As disgusting as this decision is, hopefully it de-emphasizes the idea of mobile apps in general, which (besides CPU heavy apps like video games) are often web-apps with extra steps (React/Ionic/WebView/etc).