| |
| ▲ | jjav a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? The Atari 2600 was an immensely popular home computer for a decade(ish), but it didn't exactly spark the personal computer revolution. Why? Because it used the iphone software distribution model. You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. So it was as open as an iphone. All the actual progress happened on Apple ][, C64, the Radio Shack computers and later the IBM clones. Because, obviously, anyone could write and sell any software they wanted so the market growth went exponential. A lesson to society, there. | | |
| ▲ | vunderba a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > You could only buy licensed software (in the form of cartridges) even though technically it was of course a programmable computer. In fact just the opposite. Activision was one of the first third-party game manufacturers and Atari tried to sue them into the ground for it. It's widely believed that the massive glut of 3rd party games (with effectively zero quality control) for the 2600 partially contributed to the video game crash of 83 [1]. It's also one of the reasons Nintendo learned from this mistake and enforced everything from limitations around the total number of games a company could produce per year, to the seal of approval, etc. on their Nintendo Entertainment System. Also having grown up with the Atari 2600 - I don't know anybody who would have described it as home computer. It was a video game console first and foremost. Are you possibly thinking of the Atari ST line? [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_crash_of_1983 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_8-bit_computers | |
| ▲ | netsharc a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The original iPhone didn't launch with an app store, and they weren't even planning to have one, only to allow big providers like AT&T to write software for it. Jailbreakers and reverse-engineers figured out the API and how to compile apps for the iPhone, and then they figured out they could rent-seek 30% and created a new department in their company that provides them billions of income stream. | |
| ▲ | queenkjuul a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think that's true. Third parties produced unlicensed 2600 carts in droves. It was Nintendo that enacted strict licensing requirements. The 2600 just sucked as a computer. | | |
| |
| ▲ | wkat4242 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This is what bothers me about the whole "App Store" stuff with the EU. This entire fight about Apple being required to allow third party "App Stores" -- how about simply the user can load whatever software they want to on the device which they are the owner of? This is because the EU is not a citizens advocacy platform. They're an economic platform mainly built to smooth the cost of doing business in Europe for multinationals. They don't have our best interests at heart. They care more about a big neoliberal common market. The European project started well but mid 90s it got hijacked by hard neoliberal interests, especially the commission. | |
| ▲ | kcplate a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There is a simple solution to all of this: Google and Apple should no longer be allowed to operate any sort of "App Store" or software distribution channel. “Simple” solutions can produce unintended outcomes. You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me. You have apparently never sat down on an elderly persons PC in the early ‘00s and tried to sort out all manner of shopping toolbars, coupon widgets, and crapware that has caused their pc to slow to a crawl. It’s literally bad enough with the poor performing apps in app stores but it could be so much worse without it No thanks. | | |
| ▲ | necovek a day ago | parent | next [-] | | That's easily solved, ain't it: check the "tech savvy" box, and all "safeguards" are off? Yet instead, we are getting increasingly fewer phones with unlockable bootloaders and root access available. What gives? I've also checked out my mom's phone a year or so back: she had so many crappy apps from official store that it was barely usable. Stores do not really help. | | |
| ▲ | kcplate a day ago | parent [-] | | What possible motivation would Google or Apple have to appease such a small percentage of their user base? I’m “tech savvy” and I would never click that box. Frankly I can’t think of something more risky than installing some random piece of software on a device that I need and use everyday. | | |
| ▲ | necovek a day ago | parent [-] | | If that's the case, what is a practical difference between you having access to your device or not? You could be installing random crap from the store, or not from the store. Or you could not be installing random apps from either. I don't feel any more protected by device restrictions. Yes, containerization helps, but I like having root on my device (eg. I backup different .sqlite files from different apps through ssh to my phone). My phone has FDE, and is probably not at all less "safe" than yours. | | |
| ▲ | kcplate 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are a number of mobile phones out there that are fully open. If you need root, go buy one. You seem to have a specific need that I am quite sure that 99.999% of the mobile phone using world do not have and never will have. If I am apple, I recognize that making a phone that makes the .001% happy probably will frustrate the 99.999%. They are quite happy to give that market of maybe 150k users to someone else to keep their 1.5B users content. | | |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Outside of really niche stuff like the Pinephone there aren't. Because of things like this Android is increasingly incompatible with that use model and these days it's pretty safe to assume "phone" == "corporate administration you have no control over." | | |
| ▲ | kcplate 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | All that tells me is that there is little to no market for these wide open devices and the existing user base is not sweating the use of manufacturer app stores. No one outside of a tiny group of techy tinkerer types really cares. | | |
| ▲ | necovek 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Google Pixel phones for a while have been the phone of choice as they allowed easy root and bootloader access. Not sure if that's still the case, though, as they've been pivoting. Other manufacturers offer it as well — these options continues to exist, and while it's certainly not a high percentage of the market, some of these phones sell because of openness. Niche manufacturers usually focus on "stronger" openness (Librem, PinePhone, Fairphone...) — but they provide subpar hardware compared to mainstream top-end. Eg. most recent release in Volla Quintus (https://volla.online/en/volla-phone-quintus/) uses SoC that is half the speed of Google's Tensor G4 in both single- and multi-threading benchmarks: https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-mediatek_dimensity... So I generally go with phones which can get their bootloader unlocked and which can be rooted, to ensure I have full control of them. I did, in the past, use Ubuntu Phones (Meizu MX4, Nexus 4), HP/Palm Pre Plus and 3 (webOS with full root access), Nokia N9, Motorola A1200 etc — all as my daily drivers. I did get PinePhone, but that thing is sloooow. Since, I've switched to plain Android phones which allow you full control. | |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The idea of a smartphone you control is a little absurd, the whole point of a smartphone is to sell access to you to other people, that's where all the money is. There are plenty of devices you have full control over but they're not called phones for that reason. | | |
| ▲ | necovek 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Uhm, I see that you are playing the devil's advocate here, but I'd note that phones being bought today cost more than laptops sometimes — if that's not where the money is, could we at least get them much cheaper? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | joquarky a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I remember the turning point in one early relationship was when I uninstalled Bonsai Buddy from a friend's computer and caused a meltdown. | | | |
| ▲ | jjav a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > You want to take a device that is targeted for “everyone” and not just tech savvy people and provide no control or standard to what can be loaded on it? The very idea of it is horrifying to me. Were you horrified by the Apple ][? | | |
| ▲ | bartread a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is no argument at all. When the Apple II was released microcomputers were still very much in the realms of enthusiasts, and were beginning to make inroads into education. The Apple II was never used by “everyone” and nobody expected it to be, even towards the end of its quite long life. No question, it was a stepping stone to where we are today but you can’t compare an enthusiast/early adopter product from nearly 50 years ago to contemporary Android and iOS devices that are intended for “everyone”, in the way you’re attempting with your comment. | |
| ▲ | kcplate a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nope, but I didn’t have whole countries and millions of bad actors actively trying to steal information and act maliciously on that device either. |
| |
| ▲ | jjani a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Having to caveat it with "in the early '00s" already invalidates your thesis; it means we've managed to largely fix this issue on PC without resorting to giving away device ownership. | | |
| ▲ | bartread a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don’t think it invalidates the argument at all. I think it’s more a reflection that people mostly use other devices, like phones and tablets, for tasks they might have used a PC for 20 years ago - at least outside an office environment. That’s not to say the PC experience hasn’t improved - certainly Windows is at least more secure - but that it’s not the only factor, and I don’t think it’s the biggest factor either. One data point for you: the last company I worked for, when I joined in 2017, already >50% of external users were accessing our service via mobile devices. | | |
| ▲ | pharrington a day ago | parent [-] | | The formfactor is the biggest, possibly only, factor. The handheld formfactor works way better for most people than a huge (or even small) stationary brick, or even a laptop. |
| |
| ▲ | kcplate a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You think that companies adopting different technologies to discourage installing software that might be malicious because it hasn’t been reviewed as safe invalidates my argument? Ok, then. |
|
|
|
