←back to thread

2071 points K0nserv | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
tern ◴[] No.45088697[source]
Not to mention, it's an authoritarian attitude, talking about forcing companies to support arbitrary software stacks
replies(4): >>45088780 #>>45088911 #>>45088976 #>>45090727 #
immibis ◴[] No.45088976[source]
Is it authoritarian to stop other people from being authoritarians?
replies(1): >>45090059 #
tern ◴[] No.45090059{3}[source]
If I make a product and I don't specifically help you do certain things with it, is that authoritarian?

Regardless, we're talking about products here—"authoritarian" is a word reserved to situations where the threat of force is involved.

In this specific example, forcing a company to do something is authoritarian (because they will be fined or jailed if they do not comply with the rules). Corporations are not, as a rule, authoritarian—they may, however, do things that are not to your benefit or liking.

replies(1): >>45094790 #
1. const_cast ◴[] No.45094790{4}[source]
> If I make a product and I don't specifically help you do certain things with it, is that authoritarian?

If were referring to products necessary to function in society, YES! Obviously yes, a big exclaiming yes, yes with no room for debate.

A car, but you can't drive anywhere but to work. Electricity, but you can't use it to listen to radio that criticizes our dear leader. A TV, but you can't use it to watch anything other than military parades.

A phone, but you can only use it to perform government approved actions on government approved software.

replies(1): >>45142948 #
2. tern ◴[] No.45142948[source]
> A phone, but you can only use it to perform government approved actions on government approved software.

Are you not more or less arguing for this?

But you're right to point to a nasty problem, the solution to which is not obvious: "what do you do when society begins to rely on something created by a corporation, which is not accountable to a populace?"

Turning the corporation into a mini government may not have the effects you want