| |
| ▲ | tux1968 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. Do you want to install spyware on your girlfriends phone? Maybe that's your idea of complete freedom, but the fact that Google makes it harder, is a good thing, not a bad thing. If you don't like their choices, you should be able to install other software you do like. There should be completely free options that people can choose if they desire. But the majority of people just want a working phone, that someone like Google is taking great pains to make work safely and reliably. | | |
| ▲ | yjftsjthsd-h 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. There is a difference between making a choice because there has to be something there (setting a default wallpaper, installing a default phone/sms app so your phone works as a phone) and actively choosing to act against the user (restricting what I can install on my own device, including via dark patterns, or telling me that I'm not allowed to grant apps additional permissions). > For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. There's a difference between not implementing something, and actively blocking it. While we're at it, making it harder to programmatically send SMS is another regression that I dislike. > Do you want to install spyware on your girlfriends phone? Maybe that's your idea of complete freedom, but the fact that Google makes it harder, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Obviously someone else installing things on your phone is bad; you can't object to the owner controlling a device by talking about other people controlling it. > If you don't like their choices, you should be able to install other software you do like. There should be completely free options that people can choose if they desire. But the majority of people just want a working phone, that someone like Google is taking great pains to make work safely and reliably. Okay, then we agree, right? I should be able to install other software I like - eg. F-Droid - without Google getting in my way? No artificial hurdles, no dark patterns, no difficulty that they wouldn't impose on Google Play? After all, F-Droid has less malware, so in the name of safety the thing they should be putting warning labels on is the Google Play. | |
| ▲ | microtonal 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem is that step by step ownership of your device is taken away. First most phones stopped supporting unlocking/relocking (thank Google for keeping the Pixel open), now the backtracked version of this, next the full version, etc. | | |
| ▲ | tux1968 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, that is a real problem. But it doesn't justify arguing uncritically or unrealistically in other areas. I think people should be free to do anything they want with their own devices. They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate. There are legitimate concerns being addressed by these feature restrictions. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > You should be able to install your own operating system So you draw the line between the bootloader and the OS. Other people draw the line between the OS and applications. Most (nearly all) people can't write either, so for them it is just part of the device. > you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate. I paid for it, and I allow it to be legal in the jurisdiction I (partly) control. So it is not only theirs anymore. | |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. Unfortunately, they've already done a lot of things to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. SafetyNet, locked bootloaders, closed-source system apps, and now they're (maybe) trying to layer "you can't install apps we don't approve of" on top of that. | | |
| ▲ | tux1968 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. That's exactly how it is. You're free to get your soldering iron out, or your debugger and reverse engineer anything you want. I don't mean to argue unfairly, but all we're talking about here is the relative ease with which you can do what you want to do. How easy do they have to make it? As for their software, as delivered, there are literally an infinite number of ways that it stops you from changing it. Maybe you want everything in Pig Latin, or a language you made up yourself. Do they have to design around this desire? Do they have to make this easy to do? |
| |
| ▲ | yjftsjthsd-h 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate. I don't think the distinction exists the way you're trying to describe. If I should be allowed to install any software I want, surely that includes any .apk I want? Conversely, someone could make the exact claim one step down the chain and argue that you don't get to tell them how their firmware should work and if you want to install your own OS you should just go buy a fab, make your own chips, write your own firmware, and make your own phone. And that's absurd, because users should be allowed to run their own software without being forced to ditch the rest of the stack for no reason. | | |
| ▲ | tux1968 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, I don't think you have the inerhent right to install any apk you desire, if their OS is designed to prohibit it. You should be free to try to alter their OS any way you want, but they should not have to make it easy. And the argument is the same lower down the stack. You shouldn't be able to tell someone how to design their firmware. The only problem is where the law prohibits us from trying to undo these restrictions, or make modifications ourselves. It's government that restricts us, and we should focus our efforts there. | | |
| ▲ | yjftsjthsd-h 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > No, I don't think you have the inerhent right to install any apk you desire, if their OS is designed to prohibit it. You should be free to try to alter their OS any way you want, but they should not have to make it easy. > And the argument is the same lower down the stack. You shouldn't be able to tell someone how to design their firmware. Earlier, you claimed, > They should be able to install any software they want. but it sounds like actually you only mean that users should be allowed to futilely attempt it, not that there should actually be allowed to run software at will. If the firmware only allows running a signed OS, and that OS only allows running approved apps, then the user is not able to install any software they want. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | m4rtink an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The whole point of using Android for most users is that they have no other choice if they need a mobile phone. Google killed every other competition via dumping and shady business practices. Sure, you can go to iOS, but that is even more closed and restrictive, not to mention the devices are overpriced. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | firegodjr 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 100%. If I buy something, it's mine. I should be able to resell it, modify it, or generally work on it however I see fit. Licensed digital media bound to platforms is different (barring some kind of NFT solution?) but an OS that my phone cannot function without (and that cannot be replaced in many cases) absolutely must be under my jurisdiction. | |
| ▲ | mturilin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What makes it “yours”? You paid for it but Google still has the control. I understand that you prefers things to be different (as do I) but the reality is that we don’t have control over devices we paid for. | | |
| ▲ | pastage 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You might choose to not have control. The reason people protest is because we should have more control over the things we own. Sure this might create a better market for alternatives but it is worse for most people. F-droid is spectacular. | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What makes it “yours”? The law. The contract. The money I paid. > the reality is that we don’t have control over devices we paid for So, the reality is that a company is exerting ownership rights on things they don't own. If that is exclusive, then that is called theft. | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What makes it “yours”? You answered the question here: > You paid for it If you paid for hardware, legally that makes it yours. > Google still has the control Therein lies the problem. Google should not exercise such control over devices which are yours, not theirs. | |
| ▲ | eptcyka 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Microsoft got penalized for way less. |
|
|
