username190

For what it's worth, on most computers I've daily driven with Linux, tweaking the bios has been the norm. At minimum, I've had to disable secure boot on most distros.

I agree with the idea that it _should_ work decently without - but as of now, that is not the status quo.

Apologies, I wasn't sure what to title the submission; I linked to this specific URL because it's served as a pop-up (and is automatically blocked by most browsers) on LG's bootloader unlocking page[0], which details that process specifically.

I appreciate the heads up, and I'll keep in mind the "level playing field" next time I post.

[0] https://developer.lge.com/resource/mobile/RetrieveBootloader...

I wasn't sure exactly what to title this submission, since there was no clear title on the page (which is just a link to a pop-up window); I think the more interesting discussion here is around property ownership, versus the "I'll never buy from you again" comments.

Would we accept that we couldn't update to Windows 10, or switch to Ubuntu, on our laptops, because the Compaq brand was discontinued in 2013?

IMO, the sales & service model of mobile devices has been focused on centralized top-down control, which can often serve to harm the user more than it helps them; especially in cases like this. There's a lot of variability in a statement like that though—why I thought it would be an interesting discussion topic.

Apple has never been good in this department, according to the folks I've talked to within mobile carriers.

Even Google, a nearly $2T company, operates an MVNO ("Google Fi") that does not work properly on the iPhone, because Apple has not added Fi's GID to the correct list.

Jailbroken users can (in theory) add Fi's GID to T-Mobile's "carrier bundle," and things like Wi-Fi calling, 5G connectivity, etc will work instantly.

> There was already a battle between AT&T and people who dared connect phones they actually owned to the phone network, and it ended well for the general public and badly for AT&T.

The now reformed SBC/AT&T is doing something similar - only devices on this list[0] can connect to their VoLTE network. Without registering for VoLTE, the phones will not be able to connect to the network.

Even if a phone has full VoLTE compatiblity (the OnePlus 6 series, for example), if the manufacturer does not work with (read: pay) AT&T for certification, it will not be allowed on their network.

This is illegal under California SB822[1], which among other things prohibits the blocking of "nonharmful devices" on networks - but AT&T, along with the other major carriers, are currently acting like this doesn't exist until they're forced to by abide by it by a court of law.

[0] https://www.att.com/idpassets/images/support/wireless/Device...

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

I'm not convinced by this - if you look at an iPhone 13's screen, it's entirely separate from the face ID hardware. https://i.imgur.com/D63HrIT.png (screenshot from [0])

On iPhones X through 12, if you kept the Face ID hardware and only changed the display, Face ID would continue to work. On the iPhone 13 series, if you keep the Face ID hardware and change the display, Face ID stops working.

The chip which people are removing seems to serve only to identify the display - nothing to do with the Face ID system. Apple has been using this chip for years to disable "true tone" display functionality when the screen was swapped (unless it was programmed by a proprietary tool, only available to first-party repair shops) - they're now also tying it disable Face ID.

[0] https://youtu.be/8s7NmMl_-yg?t=253

This is already an issue Apple has with their own Apple ID 2-factor authentication; in order to authenticate, you must either accept the prompt and receive the code on a current Apple device, or (secondarily) recieve a code via SMS.

Frustratingly, there is no option to add a TOTP code (like most other services, including Google, offer) or to disable SMS 2FA as a backup (despite its known security issues).

I say this mostly because I assume Apple would use your Apple ID credentials as a way to log in to these services on a Windows or Linux machine, as they do currently with the "Sign in with Apple" flow.

iMazing[0] can analyze an iTunes (or Finder in macOS Catalina and later) backup to determine whether Pegasus is present.

[0] https://imazing.com/

Apple's ad program being referenced is present in its App Store, News, and Stocks apps, as far as I know. That said, Apple also uses their platform to push advertisements for their services/credit card, via push notifications [0], as well as in the settings app[1].

[0] https://9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/11/IMG_0...

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/poegzl/i_was_just_...

IMO Action should be taken against Google here, not the average user (about 70% of whom use Chrome).

Throttling based on user agent (Firefox, WebKit Safari, etc) would be a bad thing if you ran YouTube and wanted to encourage people to use Chrome - it would likewise be bad if you ran a website like HN.

Users have power when they have control - Google is taking that away, and that's why antitrust legislation makes sense. But users lose power when their choice of browser (in a market where there are only 2-3 choices) makes their web experience artificially worse.

This is only possible on Firefox Nightly, and you have to install them by making a Mozilla account and creating extension collections[0].

This is frustrating to do, when the desktop site didn't allow me to add a mobile-only extension[1] and I had to figure out how to do so by modifying HTTP requests. This is a reversion from older Firefox versions, where you could install any extension via the web store as you would on desktop.

[0] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/google-search...

DisplayPort != DisplayLink.

DisplayLink hardware isn't known to be super stable - since it all runs through USB, things can get slow or laggy, and can sometimes be subjected to bandwidth limitations (at the port, the controller, etc).

DisplayLink also uses software encoding, I believe - theoretically this shouldn't be an issue for the CPUs in this machine (they can handle something like that pretty easily), but there is a noticeable performance difference versus connecting them directly via HDMI or via a TB3 <-> DisplayPort connector.

You're also reliant on DisplayLink's drivers, which haven't always been the best on macOS. I've heard that this was fixed more recently, but haven't tested.

Nope, even before February they won't let you use the device, unfortunately. They're shutting down "incompatible" (non-whitelisted) devices and shipping out anything from $50 to used flagship replacements (pre-activated, so as soon as you receive the new one, your existing one will be shut off).

Unfortunately T-Mobile isn't a great option for this phone either, because the phone lacks band 71 (T-Mobile's only nationwide low-band). It may work well in some areas, but have no coverage in others. Verizon has a sort of pseudo-whitelist; you probably will have to activate a whitelisted phone and then swap the SIM, but it may work.

https://www.att.com/idpassets/images/support/wireless/Device...

> will a tower with a band 66 antenna give this modem some of the central band 4 subset, or will it try to negotiate a channel that this can't access?

Here in the US (and likely in other places), carriers use MFBI[0] to solve this issue - it lets them broadcast both AWS-1 (as B4 and B66) and AWS-3 (as B66 only).

This first came into use when AT&T wanted to use B17 (Lower 700MHz blocks B-C) for their LTE network, rather than B12 (Lower 700MHz A-C). This prevented users from bringing their phones to smaller carriers (T-Mobile and US Cellular), who had significant 700A holdings. The FCC eventually pushed ATT to use both B12 and B17.

> little-used ATT bands

This phone likely wouldn't work on AT&T anyway - despite California's SB822 [1] forbidding it, they whitelist only specific devices on their network, and can go as far as soft blocking your account if you have one that is incompatible. I've linked the compatible phone list[2] below.

SB822's net neutrality provision has already been upheld in court (AT&T subscribers lost "data-free TV" on AT&T owned platforms because of it), but it remains to be seen whether other provisions (bans on tethering restrictions or device whitelisting, for instance) will be upheld as well.

That said, one nitpick I'd have is that these bands aren't necessarily "little-used" - B14 is FirstNet spectrum, and AT&T is currently rolling it out to a point where it reaches 99% of the population indoors. That's a strong commitment, and the band's support for HPUE means it can support coverage further than others at a similar frequency. B30 is WCS, which AT&T uses for capacity in a lot of places - but at 2300MHz it's not particularly useful for coverage. B17 is irrelevant due to MFBI and B29 is supplemental downlink (only useful for capacity).

It's important to think about the carrier aggregation combos that this device supports too - for folks who live in cities, carrier aggregation means a significantly more usable experience when the networks are congested. I don't see a supported list for that modem online, but it would depend on which are enabled in firmware anyway.

> 600 MHz T-mobile band 71, which has a wide rollout but poor device support.

As for T-Mobile; Band 71 is necessary in a lot of places, because they've been spectrum constrained for a long time. Until the 2017 auction for this 600MHz spectrum (which was rebanded from Digital TV service), they had no nationwide low-band holdings (unlike AT&T, who held many 850MHz Cellular licenses from decades ago, and Verizon, who won nationwide licenses to the 700MHz Upper C block in 2008). In 2015, they picked up licenses in the the Lower 700MHz range, mostly exclusive to A block - but they acquired almost none in US Cellular markets (much of the midwest, and parts of the northeast/northwest).

It's difficult to build out a network on midband alone - cell sites must be spaced far closer, and in-building coverage is very poor. This was one of T-Mobile's main limiting factors for a long time, and they didn't truly resolve it until that 2017 auction.

T-Mobile had a reputation for a long time for dropping service as soon as you entered a large building - this is why. Physics mean that lower frequencies are useful to telcos because they travel further, while higher frequencies are useful because they can carry more data.

The post-auction DTV transition wasn't short - it happened over 9 or 10 phases, which extended from 2018 until early 2020 (and were then extended again, due to the pandemic). This is part of why phones seem to have poor support - the 600MHz band is not widely used for cellular outside of the US and Canada even today, so it's common on popular phones made for those markets[3], but not in more niche devices like the PinePhone.

[0] Multiple Frequency Band Indicator (https://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=551) [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... [2] https://www.att.com/idpassets/images/support/wireless/Device... [3] https://www.tmoband71.com/