Hacker News Reader

Comment by reorder9695 | Hacker News Reader

We need a law saying users can run exactly what software they want on their own devices. If people are worried about malware or whatever, have the apps be optionally notarised and big warning's if they aren't. I do not want any company or government telling me what software can run on my devices that I paid for and I own. This is clearly against the spirit of the DMA.

View on HN

> We need a law saying users can run exactly what software they want on their own devices.

That's absolutely the opposite of how most of EU operates. See every single EU banking application. You can't run on rooted Android. Yes, EU absolutely should focus of their own tech first and foremost.

Banking isn't the same as everything else.

you could argue about anything that it isn't the same as everything else.

is that because of a regulation?

coz where I live there is no such regulation, but banks still checks for root because of the support load concern

There's a difference between checking for root and checking for non default operating systems.

I suppose the regulation will not mention "rooted devices" but will talk about the bank's obligation for risks and mitigations

Yeah, as long as banks are held liable for you getting hacked they will want to check the integrity of your system in their programs.

And you don't want a world where banks are not liable for such things, they have to be or they wouldn't spend any resources on their systems.

What is a device, exactly? A smartwatch? A gaming console? A washing machine? A smart home controller?

If you say a general-computing device, I’d agree. It’s a slippery slope, though.

Anything what can execute software is a computer. From a tamagochi to a mainframe.

Appliances use chips that execute software, but they also delegate safety critical functionality to the software. There's hardware designs out there that depend on correct software functioning for safety or to avoid breaking the hardware, or the user, or the law. For example, cars.

> I do not want any company or government telling me what software can run on my devices that I paid for and I own.

Device manufacturers that are also service providers want nothing more than to adopt the licensing business model. The public has mostly accepted that when you buy physical media that contains digital media, you buy a limited use license to the digital media, and the physical media just happens to be the delivery mechanism. In that same sense, it could be construed that buying a mobile device grants you a license to a digital service, without which the device is useless. You technically own the device, but you license the operating system.

So the argument is: feel free to do what you want on any other operating system, if you can manage to run it, but on our OS, you'll abide by our rules. Apple has been successful at this for years, Google is well on its way there with Android, and even desktop OSs have been trending in this direction.

The last bastion of OSs that give users actual freedom are Linux, BSDs, and other niche OSs. Everything else is becoming a walled garden.

I never understood why would people want that. Apple is very clear from the start they are limiting what can run on the devices they sell. Why on earth would you buy these if you need to run arbitrary code on it??

Also this is problematic for the people who actually look at what they are buying and actually want to have only limited software allowed on the device (e.g. me).

We need a DMA 2.0, with unlocked bootloaders, freedom to install another OS, precise documentation on how to drive the hardware.

How would such a law work in practice. Should I be able to run MacOS software on Windows? What about Android apps on iOS? Windows 98 software on Windows 11?

You can try to run it, if it works it works. The point being vendors can't actively try to stop you from doing it / but silly barriers.

Im sure there are legal nuances, but thats what lawyers are for.

That's how it is right now, you can try to run whatever software you want on your device, if it works it works.

Ok: your kid which has parental control can now do everything he wants with the phone. What's next?

Why would a kid be able to bypass parental control?

The phone is theirs, is it not?

No? In virtually all cases it was purchased by the parents who also pay the bill, so it's only theirs to use. Even if they somehow bought it with their own money, parents ultimately have the final say over how they're allowed to use it until they're 18.

So you are saying that every teen under 18 who has had their phone bought by their parents doesn't consider it theirs?

Nobody is saying that. They can (and do) consider it theirs but their parents ultimately have the final say about how they're allowed to use it. Stronger protections would simply bar OEMs from imposing restrictions over how we're allowed to use our own devices.

You made the argument claiming that freedom of choice and strong ownership rights will inherently allow kids to bypass parental controls when that's obviously not the case. A device can always be locked down by its legal owner or by someone's legal guardian who has a duty of care for that person. This sort of bad faith concern trolling has gotten out of hand.

Parents get to override their kids' ownership rights in other contexts, so it would reasonably be the same in this one.

But here is the problem: just like with cryptography it's an all-or-nothing game. You can either have E2EE all of the time or none of the time. There is absolutely no mechanism that would allow your child to truly own his phone but magically allow you to take complete control of it when necessary.

Correct. The parent can truly own the phone and allow the child restricted access. It's reasonable for this to be true in a technical sense even if the child owns the phone in a legal sense.

>It's reasonable for this to be true in a technical sense even if the child owns the phone in a legal sense.

By the same metric, it's reasonable for a consenting adult to own their phone in a legal sense while the true owner is Apple (which they willfully paid for this). So in this case yes, iPhone owners are real owners even if it's a complete walled garden.

What I find unreasonable is a situation where the owner of the hardware can't back out of the arrangement (while continuing to use the hardware). Someone might initially want Apple as their sysadmin, then learn that Apple is making decisions they don't like.

Not relevant; a child consenting (or "consenting") to a parental lock on their (or "their") phone isn't the same as Apple locking down their OS. Ditto an employee using a company device.

I consent to Apple controlling my device for security reasons. Again, now what?

Great, you can have it. No need to force it on every one else

Why is it that your stance isn't the wrong one? Apple sells a device that is locked down. You buy it. You then complain that it was locked down, yet you knew this from the off. They do not sell it as a general purpose compute device. It is sold as a thing that runs apps. We don't complain when Playstations will not play Xbox or Switch games.

If you want to hack a device and get it do something other than what it was designed for, then that's the hacker spirit so go for it. But why does that mean we* all have to accept your way when we just want to run apps.

*royal we. i do not use apps as i don't trust any of you app developers to not be shady.

Exactly.

Everyone is so gung ho about running whatever they want on the very custom hardware Apple is selling.

But then complete silence about the PS5 and Xbox, which are 99% plain old PC hardware with a custom OS.

Why?

PS3 orig allowed yellow dog linux, and there was only a slight murmur when that feature was removed. to me that's worse as it is obvious it is possible, but only now not possible because vendor took it away compared to never allowing it from the start.

That's because it was there 100% for tax evasion :D

IIRC EU had a rule that "general purpose computers" had a significantly lower tax than "gaming devices" -> let users install Linux on it -> general purpose -> more money for Sony.

Probably because you can buy a gaming PC. I don't complain very often about consoles being locked down because it doesn't affect me unless there's some platform exclusive I can't play. If there was a viable alternative to iOS or Android I wouldn't care quite so much about them.

You can also buy a phone with Sailfish OS or use a Linux phone. The option is always there.

I want to buy a PS5 and install SteamOS on it and play PC games. Why can't I?

You can't buy a phone with Sailfish or a Linux phone and continue to access your banks that require apps for 3DS that check the play integrity API so compatibility layers like Sailfish has or bluestacks won't work. I'd say the inability to access my money makes it a lot less of an option.

And I can't run Firefox on my PS5 or Xbox, the limitation is purely arbitrary, not technical.

Complete silence? This is just not true.

But also, it doesn't matter, because it's a different topic. If someone wants A, it doesn't mean they are automatically wrong because they didn't also talk about B and C.

I think there is a big difference due to the requirement of phones to live a normal life. I can't access my banks without the IOS or Android app, which require me to have a phone running one of those two fairly locked down OS's, and on Android custom ROMs frequently not working due to play integrity checks. I need a phone to go to concerts using ticketmaster, I need a phone with a mobile number to receive SMS 2fa codes, I need a phone for TOTP.

I can work around most things but not the banks, therefore a phone is required to live in a modern society, therefore I am required to use either Android or IOS. I am not required to have a PS5 or Xbox. This is the main reason I am so opposed to locking down phone OS's, I only have a choice of IOS or stock Android, and I have to choose one.

The way you have set up your argument suggests you would not use smartphones if they weren't "necessary" to live a normal life. But in that case, your smartphone can simply be one of the many black boxes you use daily, such as, for example, your public transportation or credit cards, which have a literal computer inside of them you never think about. You just create various accounts, install the apps you need, and use the phone as a tool when you are required to. Once its job is done, you tuck it away and you go on about your day.

I was coming from the perspective more of I can't use alternative operating systems on it due to these issues. For example, my laptop came with Windows, I got fed up with one drive and the tracking etc so I put linux on it, which was fine. I cannot do the same with my phone due to especially the banks, I know at least some of mine are unusable if I unlock my bootloader, so something like Lineage is off the table. This is what I mean by I have no choice in it, I have to use IOS or Android.

Google is going to be the exact same from next year (approving sideloaded apps) so there is simply no choice anymore.

Do you also buy an xbox and complain you can't install steam on it?

Yes I do. Hardware should be independent from software.

You presumably own the device, not your kid

sure, if they buy their own phone.

what difference does it make to have a phone between your hands and having paid for it vs. not having paid for it? does the circuitry inside somehow know you are the "rightful" owner?

well presumably as the responsible parent you believe you are , you would know to set up the parental controls before giving the phone to your child.

But then again you seem to be confusing parental controls with Apple controlling who can make apps for a a 3rd party store

You give your kid a smart phone when you trust them with one? The standard parental control, money. They can't afford the phone or the cellular plan on their own.

As long as they don't start with Apple.

They can first force Sony to let us run anything on the PS5, then go for Nintendo and Switch, after that Microsoft and the Xbox.

All three are more generic computers than any Apple mobile device and are purely walled gardens where we can't run whatever we want.

> As long as they don't start with Apple.

I guess it's just as good as any other of the vendors you mentioned. I don't see why we shouldn't start with Apple but at the same time I don't think anyone opposes to the other companies being forced too.

At least I know I would like to run personalized software on my Switch without having to rooting it by other 'ways'.

> but at the same time I don't think anyone opposes to the other companies being forced too.

How can you say that with a straight face? The EU opposes other companies being forced to! That’s why they wrote their DMA the way they did!

>>All three are more generic computers than any Apple mobile device and are purely walled gardens where we can't run whatever we want.

No they aren't. Game consoles are designed for a singular purpose. Apple's mobile devices are not singular purpose. I guess their watch might be? but that's the closest you'd get IMO.

The Xbox, Switch and PS5 play games, but they all allow you to install apps, stream movies, buy movies, stream audio and join fitness classes.

They also have chat apps and you can stream your own games to places like twitch for others to watch. And through simple steps they all have browsers you can load web pages on.

If a mobile phone is a computer, a game console is a computer.

Before I bought our first Apple TV, my Xbox One was dutifully fulfilling its role as our household's primary YouTube and Netflix streaming machine. It wasn't playing video games at all.

So if Apple limited what you can do with an iPhone even more, then you’d be ok with the walled garden?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com