The smartphone is not a mere commodity but a part of an entire social system of production between banks, telcos, software houses. Alternatives seemingly must come from outside the system... possibly Huawei from China and their HarmonyOS, which happily enough is banned in the US.

Or any sufficiently hard-boiled alternative from the inside. IMO things like custom ROMs lack sufficient vertical organization and that is why they're not so relevant (but at that point, you're basically constructing something much like a corporation once again, if not an entire society stemming out of it).

▲

like_any_other a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Alternatives seemingly must come from outside the system... possibly Huawei from China

lol: HUAWEI will no longer allow bootloader unlocking (Update: Explanation from HUAWEI) - https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-bootloader-unlocking...

(It was surprisingly hard to find any news articles covering this. Most media just don't care that one of the biggest manufacturers in the world won't let users control their own phones. So much for holding the powerful to account, or protecting liberties.)

▲

aeblyve a day ago | parent [-]

I don't think phones were ever "user-controlled", each one is designed fundamentally to connect to corporate-run wireless networks. Thus they want a say in the types of communications you do, gating certain kinds like RCS behind attestation. To that end there will be never be an alternative without some channel control.

Not totally unlike the way Bell used to strictly regulate their own user endpoints in the 20th century.

Within that stage, I could be wrong, but I would expect a somewhat freer software ecosystem there, as it is an economy oriented around manufacturing, and it is useful to write many various applications around that end.

▲

like_any_other a day ago | parent [-]

> I don't think phones were ever "user-controlled", each one is designed fundamentally to connect to corporate-run wireless networks.

And PCs connect to corporate-run wired networks. What you're saying is at best an argument for locking the only radio chip itself, at worst it's propaganda to justify stripping ownership rights from consumers - "The item you think you own can affect some corporate property, therefore the corporation will seize control of it."

Hell the ISPs, phone and wired, can already drop you as a customer, blocking your communications, if they detect you interfering with their network. So any arguments that they must also control your devices are simply lies, transparently so even if they were coming from someone with 1000-times the goodwill and honest record of ISPs.

Edit as reply because I'm "posting too fast, please slow down":

> your handset plays the role also of one of these unfree modems

No, only the cellular chip does. And non-free/locked firmware is nothing new, even in PC-land.

> but any alternative must rival what makes the telco system, for the most part, actually work.

But it worked (and still works) just fine with rootable phones on the network. So rootable phones are not in any way an "alternative" - they are the (dwindling) status quo.

	▲	aeblyve a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>And PCs connect to corporate-run wired networks A bit wrong, PCs usually connect to modems or ONTs that in turn connect to the wired telco network, which are deeply unfree. The nature of RF as a channel means your handset plays the role also of one of these unfree modems. Attempting to draw a line between the corporate part and "your part" doesn't necessarily make sense because one doesn't exist, and if it did, is always shifting, especially in different environments. I'm not necessarily "arguing in favor" of this kind of organization by describing it, but any alternative must rival what makes the telco system, for the most part, actually work. It's not enough to demand freedoms (which doesn't work), they have to be enshrined in real organization, in the social sense and material too. Today that means people have to get paid.
	▲	aeblyve a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> But it worked (and still works) just fine with rootable phones on the network. If the definition of "the network" is connecting to some LTE, sure, if it means being able to use RCS, or Google pay, or a banking app, it is much more questionable. You attempt to cut the cellular chip out as the sole telecomm relevant part, but it is a fiction. It's visible today in bandwidth constrained environments like aircraft wifi that certain types of supposedly application-level traffic are not permissible (video calls). Conversely improving the channel capacity in general will require higher control of the user environment.

▲

scarface_74 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Why are people using banks only accessible via apps?

▲

homebrewer a day ago | parent | next [-]

In my case, it is because there aren't any left that don't do this. Two banks still provide web interfaces that work through normal browsers, but only for their business clients.

This trend started in China, spread to countries like mine, and (as recent history shows) the relatively free democracies have been more than happy to copy some pretty nasty ideas from autocracies like ours — we went through your current news cycle 10-15 years ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if removing the last few vestiges of having control over your computing also came to you in another five to ten years.

	▲	scarface_74 a day ago \| parent [-]
		What country?

▲

aeblyve a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not aware of a bank that is /only/ accessible with an App (maybe that is your point?), but obviously wanting to obtain the best financial offers, interest rates, etc., trumps software freedom for most people.

Part of the story is that it only takes a /single/ major scandal RE sideloading to seriously injure a bank's reputation, even if the vast majority of sideloading use cases are legitimate.

▲

jackwilsdon a day ago | parent | next [-]

Monzo in the UK is basically app-only. They have an "emergency" web interface but it only allows read-only access (apart from un-freezing your card) and can only be used if you've used the app in the past 90 days.

	▲	tomatocracy a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Chase Bank in the UK has no web interface at all. Same for Virgin credit cards.
	▲	JustExAWS a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Then don’t use Monzo? Isn’t it a lot easier to choose one of a dozen banks that aren’t app only.

▲

JustExAWS a day ago | parent | prev [-]

What banks only offer the best interest rates an offers through apps?

I’m very much a credit card point churner and I have an HYSA. The same rates and offers are on the websites and the apps.

And how would a bank know if you’re using a website on a rooted phone?

People are complaining about the app stores when they are choosing banks which are app only - which I would never do - you should be complaining about your bank.

▲

aeblyve a day ago | parent [-]

I'm not aware of such specific cases myself, but an obvious example of new banking functionality requiring OS attestation is tap-to-pay.

▲

JustExAWS a day ago | parent [-]

Why would anyone expect Google to attest to the safety of a rooted phone for financial transactions where it is directly in the payment chain? No one in the payment chain would allow that.

	▲	aeblyve a day ago \| parent [-]
		They wouldn't, that is exactly what I am saying. A phone isn't merely a standalone "computing tool" but represents an ongoing relationship between many corporate parties. Reasoning about the phone that way, as something like a PC from the 80s being encroached on, is an error. It is derived from entwined corporate interest from the beginning. The only similarity is the payment structure, lump sum or finance to "own".