←back to thread

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

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 8 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
divan ◴[01 Sep 25 00:49 UTC] 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 #
Aerroon ◴[01 Sep 25 04:25 UTC] No.45089438[source]▶
>“Hardware I own” sounds like you bought a pan and demand the right to cook any food you want.

Because I did. How come I can do what I want with my computer, but not my phone? Why are phones so inferior in this area?

My phone is more powerful than many of the computers I've had in the past, yet I need to jump through a million hoops to use it as a software development platform. Why?

replies(4): >>45089902 #>>45090490 #>>45091968 #>>45095103 #
divan ◴[01 Sep 25 07:47 UTC] No.45090490[source]▶
Your smartwatch is probably more powerful than some of your past computers too. Same with your DSLR camera. Even your smart fridge. These are specialized hardware+software gadgets designed to a particular purpose, which is very different from being a development platform. Same with a phone.
replies(6): >>45091857 #>>45092049 #>>45092761 #>>45094026 #>>45094738 #>>45094957 #
1. const_cast ◴[01 Sep 25 17:29 UTC] No.45094738{3}[source]▶
A smartphone is not a specialized hardware or software, it's a general computation device.

Its just a completely bogus argument. Its not a fucking smart fridge, come on

replies(1): >>45095735 #
2. divan ◴[01 Sep 25 19:20 UTC] No.45095735[source]▶
> a smartphone is ... a general computation device

Right, just a motherboard with CPU and memory put into small case, like in old good garage days.

replies(1): >>45102773 #
3. const_cast ◴[02 Sep 25 13:19 UTC] No.45102773[source]▶
That's not what a general computation device is and you know it. Do not play stupid or bullshit me.

For MOST people, a smartphone is their only computational device. Let me say that again. It is their _ONLY_ device.

Could you live your life using only a PS5? How about you throw away your phone and replace it with a washing machine?

The smartphone IS NOT an appliance. It is absolutely a general computational device. I can't believe this is even up for debate, it's actually blowing my mind.

replies(1): >>45106856 #
4. divan ◴[02 Sep 25 18:08 UTC] No.45106856{3}[source]▶
You're not even wrong. In your words, a "general computation device" is the device that enables you to "live your life"? How does "being their only device" make it even "general computational"?

I have no idea what your definition of "general computational device" is, but it's very clearly different from mine.

In my worldview, "general computational device" is the piece of hardware specifically designed to run any program you want. Personal computers, desktop computers, servers, and mini-computers are examples of these.

Smartphones - with the exception of a few very niche devices – have never been any of this. They didn't start as "mini-PC", they grew out of telephony – a heavily regulated industry with strict standards around the usage of frequencies, and where compliance and billing matter more than ability to tinker. The ability to "run apps" was never even on the table in pre-iPhone era. iPhone, ofc, changed it by pioneering the app market, and it was locked in from the very beginning - for security and user experience reasons. We can argue whether that was a good decision or not, but that's the short history of smartphones never being a "general purpose computational device". Modern phones are heavily optimized, specialized devices for the "daily life" tasks - camera, navigation, calls, messaging, web browsing – that also have very limited and sandboxed capability to run apps in a way that the manufacturers allowed.

So no, phones are not "general computational devices" and have never been. I'm sorry that your worldview doesn't allow listening to other people's opinions. Debating is indeed very hard without it.

replies(2): >>45109920 #>>45116409 #
5. const_cast ◴[02 Sep 25 22:26 UTC] No.45109920{4}[source]▶
Why are you arguing semantics on something which you're obviously just wrong on? Even if you're right, a semantics argument is weak - we can play around and define words all day.

The smartphone has replaced the home computer for most people. Period.

Them being locked down is a profiteering and rent seeking strategy - not a user experience one. It SHOULD be open, and we're feeling the effects when that's not the case.

> I'm sorry that your worldview doesn't allow listening to other people's opinions.

My worldview is just fine - I get frustrated when people know they're wrong and decide to play stupid instead of rethinking their reasoning.

A smartphone is not a washing machine, it's a personal computer. If you want to debate that that's fine - I don't really care if you're wrong, just know that pretty much nobody will agree with you.

replies(1): >>45110589 #
6. divan ◴[02 Sep 25 23:46 UTC] No.45110589{5}[source]▶
> I get frustrated when people know they're wrong and decide to play stupid instead of rethinking their reasoning.

Gosh, it must be hard to understand people with the stance like that.

replies(1): >>45110890 #
7. const_cast ◴[03 Sep 25 00:30 UTC] No.45110890{6}[source]▶
And, as if bestowed upon me by God himself, here comes the absolute lack of arguments. I guess if you scrape the bottom of the barrel you eventually run out of barrel!

Please, go tell someone else about how the iPhone is basically a Samsung washing machine and that's why Apple is allowed to do whatever anti-consumer behavior they want. I'm sure they'd love to hear it.

8. BlueTemplar ◴[03 Sep 25 14:41 UTC] No.45116409{4}[source]▶
> The ability to "run apps" was never even on the table in pre-iPhone era. iPhone, ofc, changed it by pioneering the app market

It was on the table, between the SymbianOS apps for Nokia or the various Java apps for other smartphones.

Meanwhile the first iPhone didn't even have 3rd party app support (or 3G capability) on release, it took around a year.

I'm not even sure I can give you the app market claim, though I presume you meant on the phone itself, rather than having to connect it to a PC ?

(Also whatever BlackBerry was doing ?)