←back to thread

2071 points K0nserv | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.427s | source | bottom
Show context
divan ◴[] No.45088415[source]
> It should be possible to run Android on an iPhone and manufacturers should be required by law to provide enough technical support and documentation to make the development of new operating systems possible

As someone who enjoyed Linux phones like the Nokia N900/950 and would love to see those hacker-spirited devices again, statements like this sound more than naïve to me. I can acknowledge my own interests here (having control over how exactly the device I own runs), but I can also see the interests of phone manufacturers — protecting revenue streams, managing liability and regulatory risks, optimizing hardware–software integration, and so on. I don't see how my own interests here outweigh collective interests here.

I also don’t see Apple or Google as merely companies that assemble parts and selling us "hardware". The decades when hardware and software were two disconnected worlds are gone.

Reading technical documentation on things like secure enclaves, UWB chips, computational photography stack, HRTF tuning, unified memory, TrueDepth cameras, AWDL, etc., it feels very wrong to support claims like the OP makes. “Hardware I own” sounds like you bought a pan and demand the right to cook any food you want. But we’re not buying pans anymore — we’re buying airplanes that also happen to serve food.

replies(8): >>45088441 #>>45088609 #>>45088627 #>>45088697 #>>45089438 #>>45089444 #>>45089818 #>>45091879 #
1. saurik ◴[] No.45088441[source]
It being difficult is different from it being possible. If a company wants to raise $50m to read all the documentation and build an alternative OS to run on this crazy piece of hardware, as the consumer I still benefit. If you'd prefer, let's stick with repair? I also need all of that information to be able to repair my phone, but again, it wouldn't necessarily be ME who repairs my own phone: I take it to a third-party expert who has built out their own expertise and tools.

(Hell: I'd personally be OK without "documentation"... it should simply be illegal to actively go out of your way to prevent people from doing this. This way you also aren't mandating anyone go to extra effort they otherwise wouldn't bother with: the status quo is that, because they can, they thrown down an incredible amount of effort trying to prevent people from figuring things out themselves, and that really sucks.)

replies(2): >>45088608 #>>45103444 #
2. fastball ◴[] No.45088608[source]
> $50m to build a modern OS from scratch

heh.

replies(2): >>45088860 #>>45091933 #
3. fijiaarone ◴[] No.45088860[source]
Nobody would invest $50 million to enter a trillion dollar market.
4. ACCount37 ◴[] No.45091933[source]
In practice, it'll look more like what PostmarketOS or Asahi Linux madmen are doing - porting Linux onto the platforms where the sun doesn't shine.

Of course, having any kind of documentation or driver sources that could be referenced would make it much easier, and much less taxing on sanity.

5. jhatemyjob ◴[] No.45103444[source]
I feel like adding more laws for this kind of stuff won't really stick. Like a pie-in-the-sky sort of thing. We can hem and haw about what the government should do all we want but like... I mean, the Digital Markets Act certainly made a HUGE impact. And the GDPR is definitely a net positive for society.

I think the thing you brought up at the beginning is the most practical path forward, someone with the technical know-how and business acumen needs to start a company. Apple and Google are quite weak now, and there are lessons to be learned from the Librem 5 and PinePhone. If enough people try, someone will eventually break through.

replies(1): >>45107492 #
6. jhatemyjob ◴[] No.45107492[source]
The Epic suit certainly opens some interesting avenues as well.