We should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own

I know I'm going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I genuinely think it's OK for a device manufacturer to say: "we are building this device to run this software. If you don't want to run this software, then don't buy this device. There are plenty of other devices out there that will run other software, you can buy one of those if you want to run other software - our devices are designed to only run our software, and we're only going to support that".

I think that's a huge difference from the sideloading issue, though. Which is effectively saying "you must purchase all your software for this device from us, even if it's not our software, and even if it's available elsewhere for less".

I get how one statement creates the monopoly that allows the other statement, but I think they are still two separate statements.

>There are plenty of other devices out there that will run other software, you can buy one of those if you want to run other software - our devices are designed to only run our software, and we're only going to support tha

except in about a hundred million examples where the niche software that is running on the niche hardware has no viable alternative.

In The Real World when you have a component that breaks somewhere, and the manufacturer of the thing either fails to help or no longer exists you contract a third party to retrofit a repair module of some sort, or you do the work yourself to get the thing working.

How does this principle apply when the producer of the thing booby traps it with encryption and circuit breakers?

Software is special, comparing it to other industries never works well.

> There are plenty of other devices out there...

No there isn't, and one of the main problems.

+1. Smartphones aren't a monopoly. GrapheneOS is a thing. More companies can build hardware for it if there's demand. Not every piece of hardware needs to be general purpose computer.

I've been delighted to get my parents on iPhone+iPad for simplicity (and they have too). It feels this crowd sometimes assumes every barrier put in place is anti-consumer, but it's not. Blocking access to sensors, limiting background runtime, blocking access to other app's data, limiting it to reviewed apps... are all great things for most people. Most people don't have the technical literacy to have "informed consent" prompts popping up every 5 minutes, and most of them know it too. Most folks don't mind trusting Apple to make the tougher technical calls for them, and actually appreciate it.

Make cool hacker centric hardware. Make cool easy to use, locked down, and foolproof hardware. Both can and should exist.

I agree that there's a difference between just not supporting the device running other software, and actively preventing the device from running other software. The latter doesn't serve anyone.

There are if you are willing to have two devices. One secure phone for banking, phone calls, etc. And a portable linux device for installing whatever you want on. Where installing malware doesn't risk losing all of your money.

> secure phone for banking

Secure from the owner doesn't equal security in general.

I know of no reasonable, modern Linux devices besides the Starlite tablet and potentially the Furiphone. And boy, have I looked and looked. But the second has not been around long enough to be reviewed by a reputable entity.

There is exactly one device produced in the entire US that can legitimately run graphene is in a usable way.

Not a monopoly my ass.

> Make cool hacker centric hardware. Make cool easy to use, locked down, and foolproof hardware. Both can and should exist.

Yes, what a splendid idea! Let me just invest a few billion I have lying around here. And maybe after that we can all take a spaceship to Mars and colonize it!

Get real.

Also, doesn't even fucking matter. Guess what, let's say I do invest the 10 billion dollars to make said device.

Will my bank allow it? No. Why? Because Google says so. Google says "no, that's not attested"

It doesn't matter if I make one device, two devices, or one trillion devices. Its still ALL Google. They decide everything.

That means there are infinitely more devices produced in the US that can run graphene than can run iOS. Seems like a weird metric.

What? Can you elaborate? This makes no sense to me.

There's only one device currently produced in the US which can run grapheneos. Grapheneos is the only custom rom which can get even an ounce of attestation.

There are many devices produced which can run iOS.

Zero iOS devices are produced in the US. Production is all China/India.

You very obviously know that's not what I meant, please do not play stupid.

I mean a device available to US consumers. The Google Pixel is ALSO not made in the US.

You were specific. Don't start throwing around insults for reading what you wrote and pointing out it seemed like a weird statement.

There's more than 1 device that run's GrapheneOS so the comment didn't make sense unless adding some extra constraints like where it's produced (which you did). I assumed you were being specific, not just making false statements. My bad.