←back to thread

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

(hugotunius.se)
2071 points K0nserv | 6 comments | 31 Aug 25 21:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
marcus_holmes ◴[01 Sep 25 01:00 UTC] No.45088460[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>45088471 #>>45088540 #>>45088544 #
scosman ◴[01 Sep 25 01:14 UTC] No.45088544[source]▶
+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.

replies(1): >>45094960 #
1. const_cast ◴[01 Sep 25 17:52 UTC] No.45094960[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45095536 #
2. scosman ◴[01 Sep 25 18:55 UTC] No.45095536[source]▶
That means there are infinitely more devices produced in the US that can run graphene than can run iOS. Seems like a weird metric.
replies(1): >>45095568 #
3. const_cast ◴[01 Sep 25 18:59 UTC] No.45095568[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45096577 #
4. scosman ◴[01 Sep 25 21:02 UTC] No.45096577{3}[source]▶
Zero iOS devices are produced in the US. Production is all China/India.
replies(1): >>45102743 #
5. const_cast ◴[02 Sep 25 13:17 UTC] No.45102743{4}[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45139904 #
6. scosman ◴[05 Sep 25 15:47 UTC] No.45139904{5}[source]▶
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.