Because I did. How come I can do what I want with my computer, but not my phone? Why are phones so inferior in this area?
My phone is more powerful than many of the computers I've had in the past, yet I need to jump through a million hoops to use it as a software development platform. Why?
That said, a camera with a fully open software stack would be fun.
Then I shouldn't be able to install software on it at all. For any given device either its functions are fixed, or they're modifiable at the sole discretion of the owner. There should be no middle ground.
Why?
Think about music rights ownership - there are mechanical rights, performance rights, sync rights, derivative rights, etc. I'm not defending music industry ownership system, but it shows clearly that binary view of ownership is far from reality.
You own the flat, but you can't remove the wall. You may own the house, but you can't build a factory there due to zoning regulations. You can own electric car, but you can't put diesel fuel there.
I see that main disagreement here is whether phones are "general purpose computers" or not. I have no idea why anyone would call these ultra-packed cameras on steroids a "general purpose computer". Framed like this, this is a debate about OP demanding private companies to transform their product into something very different and urging governments to step in. And the thing is those products exists – Libreum 5, Ubuntu Phone or PinePhone phones, or already mentioned Maemo/MeeGo phones (N900/N9/N950). If they were a better product on the market, we would have them everywhere, but industry and market decided otherwise (PinePhone was discontinued just couple of weeks ago, sadly).
What are we talking about exactly? Ownership as in IP, or ownership of a copy?
>You own the flat, but you can't remove the wall.
Of course I can, as long as the wall is internal and non-structural. Everything inside the inner surfaces of the external walls is mine.
>You may own the house, but you can't build a factory there due to zoning regulations.
Well, zoning laws exist because plots of land don't exist in isolation, and affect each other. If I choose to run software X on a computer I own, how does that per se affect anyone else, that I should not be allowed to do so? Not that I should be punished if I do it, but that I should be stopped technologically from being able to attempt it? As I see it, there should be a very compelling reason to infringe on property rights in such an invasive way.
>You can own electric car, but you can't put diesel fuel there.
Literally what's stopping you from opening the charging port of your electric car and pouring in a can of diesel if you really want to? Or, for a more realistic example, what's stopping you from modifying your car by installing a diesel generator in the backseat that continuously charges the battery as you drive?
>I have no idea why anyone would call these ultra-packed cameras on steroids a "general purpose computer".
If you really wanted, you could build an APK yourself to use an Android phone to host a website. Is it good idea? I don't know. That's for you to decide. But in what way is a device that's capable of doing this not a "general purpose computer"? What more does it need?
>Framed like this, this is a debate about OP demanding private companies to transform their product into something very different
No. Phones are already this. They have processing elements, memory, stored programs... They're just computers. No one should get to decide what my computer runs over me. If I want to run something I should be able to run it, and if I want to stop something from running I should be able to stop it. Whether that causes problems for myself is my own business. I don't understand what's so complicated about this, or why anyone would argue against this.
About your claim that ownership as a concept is black and white, and no middle ground should be allowed.
> I don't understand what's so complicated about this, or why anyone would argue against this.
It's hard to understand the world if you see things through a binary lens - no ownership vs full ownership, or total support vs outright rejection. A more useful framework is to see what people support, reject, and tolerate.
For example, I totally support open-source hardware and software, and would love to see more of it. But I also tolerate proprietary hardware and software stacks, for many reasons. I'm definitely not rejecting the concept of private companies making hardware that runs their proprietary software and taking control over decisions about what software should run on their hardware.
From your comments, I see that you also support what I support, but you're totally rejecting the idea of hardware that runs proprietary software or not allowing you to run your own. So these calls for the government to step in and force private companies to disallow that concept are something I definitely can't support.
It's certainly more useful for those who want to take what's yours.
>I'm definitely not rejecting the concept of private companies making hardware that runs their proprietary software and taking control over decisions about what software should run on their hardware.
What "their" hardware? It's not their hardware, it's your hardware! You didn't lease it, you didn't borrow it; you bought it outright. On top of that, it's running on your electricity. If you let someone else tell your hardware what it is or isn't allowed to do, you're just a fool. Congratulations, you paid money to give a conglomerate of corporations permission to run software on your premises, on your dime. What a deal! Hey, wanna buy my game console? Just put it in your home with access to the Internet and once in a while I'll let you play a game on it, provided it's been "idling" enough for my tastes.
>but you're totally rejecting the idea of hardware that runs proprietary software
No I'm not. I'm not even arguing that we should be able to change the OS. Honestly, I don't think that's that important. But we shouldn't accept not being able to even install any application software we want. What's even the point of it being a computer at that point?
Why not ?? They have even more built-in 'peripherals' and are much more portable than a desktop !
Also, PinePhone wasn't discontinued, only PinePhone *Pro* was.
It doesn't have to be easy or convenient, but it shouldn't be impossible.
Its just a completely bogus argument. Its not a fucking smart fridge, come on
Right, just a motherboard with CPU and memory put into small case, like in old good garage days.
For MOST people, a smartphone is their only computational device. Let me say that again. It is their _ONLY_ device.
Could you live your life using only a PS5? How about you throw away your phone and replace it with a washing machine?
The smartphone IS NOT an appliance. It is absolutely a general computational device. I can't believe this is even up for debate, it's actually blowing my mind.
I have no idea what your definition of "general computational device" is, but it's very clearly different from mine.
In my worldview, "general computational device" is the piece of hardware specifically designed to run any program you want. Personal computers, desktop computers, servers, and mini-computers are examples of these.
Smartphones - with the exception of a few very niche devices – have never been any of this. They didn't start as "mini-PC", they grew out of telephony – a heavily regulated industry with strict standards around the usage of frequencies, and where compliance and billing matter more than ability to tinker. The ability to "run apps" was never even on the table in pre-iPhone era. iPhone, ofc, changed it by pioneering the app market, and it was locked in from the very beginning - for security and user experience reasons. We can argue whether that was a good decision or not, but that's the short history of smartphones never being a "general purpose computational device". Modern phones are heavily optimized, specialized devices for the "daily life" tasks - camera, navigation, calls, messaging, web browsing – that also have very limited and sandboxed capability to run apps in a way that the manufacturers allowed.
So no, phones are not "general computational devices" and have never been. I'm sorry that your worldview doesn't allow listening to other people's opinions. Debating is indeed very hard without it.
The smartphone has replaced the home computer for most people. Period.
Them being locked down is a profiteering and rent seeking strategy - not a user experience one. It SHOULD be open, and we're feeling the effects when that's not the case.
> I'm sorry that your worldview doesn't allow listening to other people's opinions.
My worldview is just fine - I get frustrated when people know they're wrong and decide to play stupid instead of rethinking their reasoning.
A smartphone is not a washing machine, it's a personal computer. If you want to debate that that's fine - I don't really care if you're wrong, just know that pretty much nobody will agree with you.
Gosh, it must be hard to understand people with the stance like that.
Please, go tell someone else about how the iPhone is basically a Samsung washing machine and that's why Apple is allowed to do whatever anti-consumer behavior they want. I'm sure they'd love to hear it.
It was on the table, between the SymbianOS apps for Nokia or the various Java apps for other smartphones.
Meanwhile the first iPhone didn't even have 3rd party app support (or 3G capability) on release, it took around a year.
I'm not even sure I can give you the app market claim, though I presume you meant on the phone itself, rather than having to connect it to a PC ?
(Also whatever BlackBerry was doing ?)
As this is HN - a very thoughtful and technically astute demographic - it’s very unlikely that your parent, or others reading, own a “smart fridge”.
Apple and Microsoft are constantly working on fixing the issue with their appstores and requiring app signing in more places. The way industry going is to lock down more of laptops, than allowing phones to be like computers.
It kind of started because phones interact with phone networks and the network companies didn't want hacked software mucking up their networks. I realise the baseband part is separate from the rest of the phone but it's always been that way with every cell phone I've had over 30 years, that they are part locked down.
Whereas none of the regular computers and laptops have been especially locked down.
It would be cool if you could just connect your laptop to a radio and connect to cell networks but I don't think any of them allow that?