Comment by reorder9695
8 months ago
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.
> 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.
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
1 reply →
Banking isn't the same as everything else.
you could argue about anything that it isn't the same as everything else.
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?
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?
16 replies →
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.
3 replies →
Why would a kid be able to bypass parental control?
The phone is theirs, is it not?
3 replies →
You presumably own the device, not your kid
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.
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?
1 reply →
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.
1 reply →
So if Apple limited what you can do with an iPhone even more, then you’d be ok with the walled garden?
1 reply →
[flagged]
Downvoting to express disagreement has always been fine on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171