undefined | Better HN

0 pointsribosometronome1y ago0 comments

The idea that we aren't allowed to sell limited purpose electronics seems pretty novel. A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?

0 comments

whimsicalism1y ago

I think there is a big difference between devices that don’t easily support running third party code and apple devices which they have had to spend lots of money developing multiple signing schemes, bug patches, threatening jailbreak communities, etc. just to prevent people from running 3rd party code

Spivak1y ago

Stallman literally buzzing with excitement at the prospect. Honestly if you're gonna go, you should probably go all the way in the manner you describe and level the playing field for everyone.

NotPractical1y ago

Smartphones are special, since they're practically mandatory at this point, are the primary gateway to the Internet and digital platforms for a lot of people, and are specifically designed to be general purpose computing devices (even if unnecessary restrictions on who gets to write apps for them are placed on top of that). I mean heck, even Apple all but advertises the iPad Pro (an iOS device) as a computer [*]. I don't care if Nintendo locks down their gaming console. Nobody needs a gaming console. The Nintendo Switch's OS was made solely to run games and has very limited functionality by design. (I'm also overjoyed when I see people hack it, but that's a bonus and I have no expectation of that.)

For example, the EU's DMA provides a precise definition of "digital gatekeeper" and the rules only apply to them [1]. Gaming consoles and other embedded devices are excluded.

If there were more than two real choices available, I'd feel less strongly about this. And I realize that Apple isn't necessarily responsible for there only being two options (if anything, Google may be more to blame for this). But that's just how it is.

[*] I don't know if their marketing materials ever unambiguously refer to the iPad as a "computer", perhaps intentionally, but they've run ads like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5BLs51yDQ

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%...

tadfisher1y ago

What is the downside for the consumer here? Put all the scary warnings in front that you want, just have a "developer mode" toggle that unlocks the bootloader and lets us run arbitrary code. There's a huge reverse-engineering hurdle to get over anyway, this just stops the cat-and-mouse game of having to find exploits to run code on your device.

ToucanLoucan1y ago

> What is the downside for the consumer here?

Destroying their products and flooding customer support with dozens of stupid "I know what I'm doing and your stupid machine stopped working, your product sucks! I want a free replacement" type tickets.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like very much to have the ability to do that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of good reasons, not even consumer hostile, to not let people muck about in firmware.

To be honest, and this is purely fantasy, but I would absolutely love some kind of "I am a techie" registration process that would:

- Let me access functions like customizing firmware

- Always elevate my support tickets to tier 2 (yes I turned the fucking thing off and on again, if I'm calling you I have a REAL problem)

- Always ensure I get the "grown up" interface for settings and customization

wiseowise1y ago

> A lot of the things I own have processors in them nowadays, are you suggesting the courts should require them all to create methodologies for us to run our own code on them?

Don't play coy here, you understood what he/she said.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse