| ▲ | loloquwowndueo 2 days ago |
| You paid $1000 for the metal, but the software is licensed and owned by Google. You could install a free os on the phone instead and own the whole thing. |
|
| ▲ | yupyupyups 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| No, people pay for more than just "metal". We pay to access services which society expects us to have access to, a society which is increasingly becoming more unhospitable to those who lack that access. There is no moral obligation on our part to let two large corporations use that against us, by spying on us and robbing us. |
| |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > people pay for more than just "metal" Correct. They are paying for the physical device and the license to use the installed software. | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not sure which two large corporations you are referring to, but I'll take a guess. My Samsung phone is not linked to my Google account and I don't have a Samsung account. I have no WhatsApp/Facebook/Meta account. I don't use Apple devices or have an Apple account. Possibly the only apps on my phone that have an account linked with them are Telegram and AnkiDroid. |
|
|
| ▲ | _aavaa_ 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Ridiculous argument. You didn’t buy a physical book, you bought the paper, but the words are owned and licensed by the publisher. You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it. Wrapping the bs in a thin veneer or “software” doesn’t magically make it okay. |
| |
| ▲ | b_e_n_t_o_n a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You need their permission to copy it. You actually don't own the words. | |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You do not need permission to read a book in your hands, lend it to a friend or sell it at your local bookstore. You are overly restricting yourself. | | |
| ▲ | MereInterest 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You are correct that no such permission is required to use, lend, or resell a book. It would be unethical for a seller to impose a requirement for such permission. By the poster’s analogy, it is similarly unethical to impose a requirement for permission prior to the owner’s use, lend, or resale of a computer. Since Google sells computers that cannot later be used without Google’s permission, Google is imposing such an unethical requirement. | |
| ▲ | _aavaa_ a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That was not always the case. See older books that have legal hocus pocus written on the first page stating that you cannot resell this books without the express written consent of the publisher. Now we have the first sale doctrine for many physical items. It’s not being applied to digital goods since we buy a license to the thing instead of a copy of the thing itself; or so the companies want to argue. | |
| ▲ | const_cast a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes that's his entire point. | |
| ▲ | isaacremuant a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Books can be made illegal. Stop giving in to authoritianism by licking proverbial boots and using their excuses for them. | |
| ▲ | GeoAtreides a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | ah, metaphors, gen z worst and least understood enemy |
| |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You didn’t buy a physical book, you bought the paper, but the words are owned and licensed by the publisher. Correct. > You will need their permission to read it under an approved light, to sell it again, and even it lend it. No. The physical media is transferable and the implied license carries with it. You just can’t make a copy and then retain it if you give the original copy away. | | |
| ▲ | johnnienaked 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What you are allowed to do is governed by whatever laws are written. | | |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent [-] | | This sounds like agreement. Otherwise I’m not sure what the meaning of this reply is. | | |
| |
| ▲ | _aavaa_ a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Incorrect. You own that entire physical copy, not a license to it. | | | |
| ▲ | lelandbatey 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah yes, copyright, where in its furthest future form says "though shall not remeber or recall anything anyone owns unless you pay for it again". I cant wait to pay Disney to remember movies from my childhood once we have a neuralink. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | fluidcruft 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Could you? From what I understand Google is hell-bent on making that difficult nowadays as well. https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-356... |
| |
| ▲ | ylk 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Android 16 no longer provides device trees for Pixels as part of the Android Open Source Project. It's important to note it doesn't provide those for any other devices. There are no other OEMs providing similar AOSP support. [...] by strcat, Graphene OS founder
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44679100 | | |
| ▲ | fluidcruft 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Way back before I made the jump to a Nexus S, I was maintainer of a CyanogenMod port. Granted there were other challenges involved with that (bypassing locked bootloaders with kernel module exploits) but I am well aware of what's involved. What Google is doing is a fucking waste of people's time for no reason whatsoever. And it's not just on the AOSP front--it's clearly a strategic platform decision. I'm done with Google. On every front they are being assholes. The DOJ should have exploded Microsoft into bits and pieces back in the day the way they handled AT&T so that Google would fear the same. | |
| ▲ | fluidcruft 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, so? Pixel becoming no better than the competition isn't exactly the selling point you hold it out to be. | |
| ▲ | gruez 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | AFAIK the impact of that is overblown, because "device trees" are just files that can be extracted from the stock ROMs. Moreover drivers and kernels are still provided by google, albeit in code dump format (no git history). |
| |
| ▲ | lawn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | GrapheneOS still works fine (support for Pixel 10 will most likely come). What the future holds is unknown however. | | |
| ▲ | randunel 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | My banking app, my city hall's app and my kids' school app for parents wouldn't work on non-google OS for "security" reasons. Many more national services require an original OS to function, even if I don't personally use them yet https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-app-android... | | |
| ▲ | uallo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Complain to them, give them a bad rating in the Play Store. This is likely caused by using the obsolete SafetyNet Attestation API as outlined here: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu... | |
| ▲ | codedokode 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I never install banking apps (not secure - no second factor, spyware risks) so I don't think it is important to have them. What is important is a phone that no other party can remotely control. | | |
| ▲ | conradfr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Because your bank doesn't force you to verify yourself on the mobile app to log in on desktop ... yet. | |
| ▲ | speckx 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Curious. Do you use the bank's website via a browser from a computer? What about in-person banking? Do you go to the bank? | | |
| ▲ | codedokode a day ago | parent [-] | | Website from desktop + SMS code is used as a second factor for login and for confirmation of operations. So the attacker would need to hack a desktop to read information and both devices to actually steal money. Or they would need a phone and a card number to login without password. I am surprised why so many people use banking apps on phones. The apps often use SMS or even push notification (because it's cheaper) for confirmation and once you got access to the phone you can do whatever you want. Also banking apps tend to spam users with distracting notifications, and they often require extended rights, for example to scan other apps, to access contact list etc. For example, one of Russian banking apps includes an antivirus. > What about in-person banking? Rarely. Last time I went in-person, I found that the bank switched to a model (don't remember how it's called) where the office looks like a cafe with tables and employees come between them with laptops and there was really long waiting time so I got an impression that they don't want people to come in-person. Although I had some fun overhearing an angry customer complaining that his card was blocked for receiving transfers and immediately withdrawing large sums of money. He wasn't able to explain the source of the money or provide any documents but got a promise that his card would be unblocked. Luckily there are still banks with traditional offices. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Use your banks website. Installing a banking app is asking for trouble. City hall should have information on its website why do you need an app? Kids school app sounds like the worst idea. What information are you missing by not downloading it? | | |
| ▲ | randunel 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Use your banks website. Installing a banking app is asking for trouble. My bank enforces 2fa and the app must be used to log in their website. SMS is an alternative for logging in, but NOT for 3dsecure. > City hall should have information on its website why do you need an app? Certain functionality, such as reporting city hall relevant violations (parking on pavement being an example), absolutely requires using their app to submit the photos. > Kids school app sounds like the worst idea. What information are you missing by not downloading it? All announcements are exclusive to the app. Trips, injuries, etc. | |
| ▲ | jbstack 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Use your banks website. Installing a banking app is asking for trouble. If you can. In order to be able to login to my bank's website I need a OTP which is generated by... can you guess? Yes, their app. Which I can now only run if my Android settings meet their standards. The other day it took me half an hour to access my banking because the app kept complaining that my device wasn't "secure", until I figured out the magic combination of settings to undo to make it work (including for third party apps that should be none of the bank's business). | | |
| ▲ | const_cast a day ago | parent [-] | | There are numerous TOTP services that we know are perfectly secure. They should just use one of those. These banks are assholes. They're trying to get you to download the app for advertising, marketing, and data collection purposes. Not security. | | |
| ▲ | tomatocracy a day ago | parent [-] | | This is in part driven in turn by regulations like PSD2 in the EU requiring "Strong Customer Authentication". Most banks seem to have decided that a TOTP-style challenge does not meet the requirements of the regulation (this may even be an explicit ruling, I don't know). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lawn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's very unfortunate. Most apps work fine though, including all Swedish banking and authentication apps I've tried. | | |
| ▲ | worldsayshi 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Oh, really, Swish and BankID works on Graphene OS? | | |
| ▲ | lawn a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes. I only had to enable some permissions when I copied BankID to the new phone but otherwise everything seems to work. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fluidcruft 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If Apple made iOS more customizable (i.e. replacing launchers etc) I wouldn't see a reason to keep with Android. I certainly don't see any reason to replace my Pixel with another Pixel at this point (been fiercely loyal to the Nexus/Pixel line since Nexus S). Hostility is hostility, and when limited to choosing among devices that are a pain in my ass, Pixel no longer has any advantage. Google is converting Pixel into leverage for the rest of their products. Bye. | | |
| ▲ | lawn a day ago | parent [-] | | Why would you move to Apple when you're upset that Google is copying what Apple has done for many years? And even after that, the Apple ecosystem is even more closed down than Android. | | |
| ▲ | const_cast a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Because the android ecosystem and android devices like the Pixel have a lot of disadvantages - we just look past them because of the customizability and openness-ish of android. Of android just becomes iOS but worse, then just use iOS. Currently android is iOS but different. But for many years now it seems Google has been shooting for iOS but worse. | |
| ▲ | fluidcruft a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because using Android is always extra friction in my life. I have tolerated it because of the ideals of Pixel and Android (which Google has slowly and deliberately evaporated). Also Apple does a better job at standing up to government bullshit (where Google tends to stay suspiciously silent). So when they are on equal ideological footing, Apple as a consumer product company wins against the Google surveillance apparatus. Basically: Apple is a better Apple if Google wants to turn itself into even more of a pathetic Apple wannabe. |
|
| |
| ▲ | OutOfHere 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | (deleted) | | |
| ▲ | Klonoar 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | GrapheneOS project people were literally in comments here in the past month or so indicating they’re in talks with another device maker to have an alternative to the Pixel. | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | lawn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's with this annoying and false narrative that it's all over for GrapheneOS? Everything suggests that they will be able to support the new Pixel models. > We've received the Pixel 10 we ordered and have confirmed it supports unlocking, flashing another verified boot key and locking again. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/115102473921005918 |
| |
| ▲ | ekianjo 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Only on specific models | | |
| ▲ | subscribed 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Currently from 6 to 9a inclusive. 4 and 5 are no longer supported (not covered under normal release channels) but you can still download images under legacy extended support. | | |
| ▲ | ekianjo a day ago | parent [-] | | What I mean is, only Pixel phones. That's like a very small part of the whole range of Android devices. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | RadiozRadioz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Part of the issue is that phone manufacturers actively make this difficult. Hardly bootloaders are unlocked, barely any drivers are freely available, all the hardware is so tightly intertwined & locked in that you can still brick these things with no recourse (though this has improved). Not to mention 3rd party apps that have built with dependency on Google Play Services which needs to be replaced, banking apps with "security" attestation - using free software on a phone is magnitudes more hostile than doing so on a PC. |
|
| ▲ | codedokode 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You couldn't - many phones do not support installing third-party OS and do not have public specifications. So your options are either become a product or do not have a phone. |
|
| ▲ | bill_joy_fanboy 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Your comment makes it sound like this is reasonable. It is not. This is a complete and total ripoff. Everyone knows it. |
| |
| ▲ | loloquwowndueo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Oh I agree it’s entirely unreasonable. But that’s what you signed up for - it’s okay to be angry, I would too, but pretending that’s not what the deal was from the start is pretty naive. | |
| ▲ | spacebacon 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everyone knows it’s a complete and total ripoff however people like that with good narratives write the laws all day. |
|
|
| ▲ | orbital-decay 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not realistically possible because hardware makers collude with Google and keep their specs secret from anyone who isn't using Google's software. (among a myriad other reasons) |
|
| ▲ | oh_my_goodness 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| No matter how dystopian things get, there's always somebody rooting for the dystopifiers. |
| |
| ▲ | loloquwowndueo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Indeed. But that someone is not me. Screw Google! Just pointing out that the deal with Google is implicit in the piece of metal you bought - and with some phones you have at least the choice of a free system. It’s more of a choice than I have with my iPhone. | | |
| ▲ | oh_my_goodness 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I totally dig it. Saying it's the consumer's fault is just your unique way of protecting us. Groovy. |
|
|
