upvote
I still remember the era when jailbreaking Android and iPhones was gaining popularity among less technical people. It was eye opening to watch how many people I knew would search for a random web page and then unquestioningly follow instructions on the screen to install software from the first link they clicked.

All of this to get custom fonts in their messaging app or some other little feature they saw on someone’s phone.

I started getting a lot of requests for help from people who had broken key functions on their phones or even bricked them entirely.

Even today there’s a culture of downloading Android builds from long forum threads on XDA developers and other forums and hoping they’re not compromised.

reply
The Linux community settled very quickly on the model of a Linux distribution, distributed via FTP, as a safe place to acquire on OS. Some got very popular.

Is there anything like that in the Android world? I'd love an alternative Android distro the supports writing notes with the S-Pen from the lockscreen. Where does one find such a thing?

reply
I understood this stance more 10 years ago, but now we have many layers of fairly well documented exploit tactics and none of them rely on the app store. However forcing users to use an app store was supposed to benefit us has clearly failed.

And, somehow, the indignity of being forced into paying apple a 30% tax for a market they wholly own never comes up alongside other paternalistic arguments....

reply
Can you elaborate on "fairly well documented exploit tactics"? My impression is that most of these are either social engineering, for which we need to hire better designers, or complicated chains of hard-to-find primitives only accessible to state actors.

There's definitely problems but the solution isn't to make the iPhone a general purpose computer. We definitely need to defend the existence of general purpose computing at a time where regulation is likely to begin encroaching on it, but the promise of the App Store is "pay a 30% tax and any app you download here will be safe." In my mind, at least, that's the promise, and perhaps one solution to the situation would be to erect consequences to breaking that promise.

reply
A 30% tax and no freedom to install what you want better come with protection from state actors lmaooo. Otherwise what could be worth such a heavy-handed (and under a rational state, illegal) method?

Especially when the app store is nos filled with gambling apps and social media built to exploit children....

reply
If you make a bootloader unlock require a full wipe/rekey of the device, and make unlock status visible at boot, most of the "someone might unlock my bootloader maliciously" concerns go away.
reply
Fair point, but that solution doesn't address the market for theft, so there's a tradeoff there.
reply
If you put the icloud-lockout stuff early enough in the boot chain (which I believe is the case on apple silicon macs already?), that seems like a solvable problem too. I can understand why apple hasn't put the engineering effort into making something like this happen, but I don't think it's because they can't make it happen.
reply
And it is not stopping people from steal IPhones as they can resell parts as usual.
reply
I like iPhones because they are a little bit restricted.

But let’s be real here. They should have unified everything 5 years ago. Your phone should plugin to a screen and be a “netbook” level device and anything 13 inches and up should be running MacOS. The iPad should have a real affordable keyboard.

These limitations are no longer designed to make the product better.

reply
I moved to a beach town and found out the tides app only exists on my Apple Watch. I went through 10 iOS apps that didn’t work properly or wanted me to pay subscription before giving up. I just don’t understand… do they not use their own products or something?
reply
If you steal someones phone on the subway its not going to be BFU.
reply
> The snide around "clicking on links is dangerous" and locking down the bootloader is unwarranted, because for most people a phone is not a toy (or at least, not just a toy) - it has their communications history, their bank information, their passwords, any many more.

And so is their god damn computer!

The ONLY reason why we treat phones differently from computers has no relationship at all with what's at stake, it's purely because Apple felt they could get away with it for phone, while they estimated that people would stop buying macs right away if they did the same thing for computers. It's literally that simple.

reply
And yet, try getting a full backup of your Google phone onto your own computer. (Without rooting/wiping the whole thing.) Heck, try getting just your text messages off (without a separate app)!

You can't. (Last time I checked.) The backup is encrypted in the cloud, and the only way to download it is to restore it to a phone.

Whereas I can just plug in my iPhone and get a full backup, complete with sqlite manifest, completely accessible. Text messages, photo library, everything.

reply
[dead]
reply
It’s only about the right to use your device as you see fit.

It is kind of silly that people buy raspberry pis to run their NAS, while they trash ther infinitely more capable iphone every couple of years.

reply
The iPhone is designed to be a good smartphone, not a good NAS. It is silly to expect anyone to compromise the design of a mass market product to support some esoteric MacGyvering entirely unrelated to the original product.

Should we all expect Toyota to design their ECUs to be used as a NAS?

reply
It's not about "design", because the iPhone is perfectly capable of running arbitrary code, it just refuses to do so if you're not Apple.

The situation is such that the legal owner of the device has less power over it, post-sale, than the company that made it.

That reason alone, the imbalance of power, should be enough to support abolishing those restrictions, preferably by law.

To be clear: this is something that should be beyond market forces, and it should apply to anything that is sold to consumers and can run code. The end goal should be that no user remain less powerful, in terms of code execution and access to content, than the manufacturer.

reply
[dead]
reply