alt Hacker NewsWe should have the ability to run any code we want on hardware we own
Comments
> In this context this would mean having the ability and documentation to build or install alternative operating systems on this hardware
It doesn't work. Everything from banks to Netflix and others are slowly edging out anything where they can't fully verify the chain of control to an entity they can have a legal or contractual relationship with. To be clear, this is fundamental, not incidental. You can't run your own operating system because it's not in Netflix's financial interest for you to do so. Or your banks, or your government. They all benefit from you not having control, so you can't.
This is why it's so important to defend the real principles here not just the technical artefacts of them. Netflix shouldn't be able to insist on a particular type of DRM for me to receive their service. Governments shouldn't be able to prevent me from end to end encrypting things. I should be able to opt into all this if I want more security, but it can't be mandatory. However all of these things are not technical, they are principles and rights that we have to argue for.
This makes the point that the real battle we should be fighting is not for control of Android/iOS, but the ability to run other operating systems on phones. That would be great, but as the author acknowledges, building those alternatives is basically impossible. Even assuming that building a solid alternative is feasible, though, I don't think their point stands. Generally I'm not keen on legislatively forcing a developer to alter their software, but let's be real: Google and Apple have more power than most nations. I'm all for mandating that they change their code to be less user-hostile, for the same reason I prefer democracy to autocracy. Any party with power enough to impact millions of lives needs to be accountable to those it affects. I don't see the point of distinguishing between government and private corporation when that corporation is on the same scale of power and influence.
We need both options to coexist:
1. Open, hackable hardware for those who want full control and for driving innovation
2. Locked-down, managed devices for vulnerable users who benefit from protection
This concept of "I should run any code on hardware I own" is completely wrong as a universal principle. Yes, we absolutely should be able to run any code we want on open hardware we own - that option must exist. But we should not expect manufacturers of phones and tablets to allow anyone to run any code on every device, since this will cause harm to many users.
There should be more open and hackable products available in the market. The DIY mindset at the junction of hardware and software is crucial for tech innovation - we wouldn't be where we are today without it. However, I also want regulations and restrictions on the phones I buy for my kids and grandparents. They need protection from themselves and from bad actors.
The market should serve both groups: those who want to tinker and innovate, and those who need a safe, managed experience. The problem isn't that locked-down devices exist - it's that we don't have enough truly open alternatives for those who want them.
I think we really need to discuss whether IP/copyright protections were a mistake. A LOT of our "modern" problems stem from IP protections. Whether that be not being able to own media, right to repair, DRM, censorship, a lot of monopolistic behavior, medicine prices, etc. And no wonder, IP protection is government sanctioned monopoly, and it is generally recognized that monopolies are bad; is it such a surprise that government enforced monopolies are bad?
> It should be possible to run Android on an iPhone and manufacturers should be required by law to provide enough technical support and documentation to make the development of new operating systems possible
As someone who enjoyed Linux phones like the Nokia N900/950 and would love to see those hacker-spirited devices again, statements like this sound more than naïve to me. I can acknowledge my own interests here (having control over how exactly the device I own runs), but I can also see the interests of phone manufacturers — protecting revenue streams, managing liability and regulatory risks, optimizing hardware–software integration, and so on. I don't see how my own interests here outweigh collective interests here.
I also don’t see Apple or Google as merely companies that assemble parts and selling us "hardware". The decades when hardware and software were two disconnected worlds are gone.
Reading technical documentation on things like secure enclaves, UWB chips, computational photography stack, HRTF tuning, unified memory, TrueDepth cameras, AWDL, etc., it feels very wrong to support claims like the OP makes. “Hardware I own” sounds like you bought a pan and demand the right to cook any food you want. But we’re not buying pans anymore — we’re buying airplanes that also happen to serve food.
Here's the deal for you young'ns. Richard Stallman (rms) had it right on this topic and alot of people had to fight to have the limited stack we have.
It's not enough though.
All we can do is make all the decisions possible to keep an open stack as viable as possible - even though what we have now is woefully incomplete. We need to push for this within our teams, within our companies, within our governments, in civil society, and everywhere else that we can because the corporate crowding out of a free technology stack will crowd out everything else if it's allowed to.
The author doesn't seem to understand that you don't need your PlayStation 5 to travel, pay your rent, or authenticate to government services. That's the fundamental difference and why it is valuable that Android is open
I agree that there is currently no expectation for Sony to open up their OS to run just any software (such as pirated games). Nobody said that. There should be an open widely supported mobile OS because that's fast becoming about as fundamental to modern life (in my country at least) as roads and electricity are
Android being so easy to make software for is what hooked me as a teenager, after failing to develop for my previous Symbian phone. Taking that away is possible now because the alternatives are all gone. Where are you going to migrate to without making major concessions in your life? You'll have to forfeit popular messengers that your family, friends, landlord, etc. are on; no more mobile banking; extra fees to use online banking at all; extra fees to legally use public transport; no downloading of episodes or music from streaming services for offline use; no phone calls depending on your country's 2G status; etc.
100 percent agree.
I’ve given talks on how various jailbreak exploits work in order to teach people how to protect their own software but also with the suggestion that we should be able to do this.
It’s nuts that personal computers aren’t personal anymore. Devices you might not think of as PC’s… just are. They’re sold in slick hardware. And the software ecosystem tries to prevent tampering in the name of security… but it’s not security for the end user most of the time. It’s security for the investors to ensure you have to keep paying them.
The context of "ownership" is more nuanced when it comes to hardware devices - and even software.
What do you think when you say ownership?
I think - "this is totally mine. Nobody else's. I can do with this what I want. It is entirely up to me."
Do you own your passport? In fact, you probably do not. Most passports have a page stating to the effect that "this passport remains the property of <relevant authority>".
DO you own your device? I feel like I own my devices. I will defend them from theft, or loss. Because they are "mine". But ownership in a broader or legal context implies more rights that I don't think I have. I don't own the IP to the hardware and software on the device. These components have licenses to which I agree and am bound simply because I possess and use the device. These contracts restrict the things I am allowed to do. So my "ownership" also comes with certain "responsibilities" - which I personally don't believe I ever think about. But they exist.
For instance, probably somewhere in these contracts something is said to the effect that I cannot reverse engineer, reproduce and resell components or plans for these components. And myriad other things. Designed to protect the business and investment and people who invented and built them.
"Ownership" in the age of complex "finished products" that result from trillions dollar global supply changes of incomprehensible complexity is more nuanced than the idea that I found a log in the forest, and now the log is mine.
Command+F 'drivers'
0 results
These things are never thought through. Sure, Apple could unlock the whole thing, tell everyone to go nuts. Who's writing the damn drivers? Apple's certainly not obligated to open source theirs, I also can't imagine them signing someone else's. So we end up with a bunch of homebrew drivers, devices crashing, getting pwned, and the dozens of people who install a third party OS on their iPhone write furious articles that get voted up to the front page of HN.
The author makes a good point but for the wrong reason I think. The fact that companies lock down their software, and hardware (looking at you Apple), is their choice just like it is yours to give them the finger.
However, at least in Sweden, a smart phone is practically mandatory since it has become a means of identification used by banks, police, our IRS counterpart etc. Even our physical mail is slowly being digitalised, and these services practically require you to own a smart phone. You can get by without one, but it’s a real struggle.
Therefore there should be laws requiring more transparency of these devices, in my opinion.
As other comments have pointed out, this statement (one I 100% support, BTW) is a little naive. I can see how it might be unreasonable to expect companies to publish documentation, build infrastructure, etc. to support running your own code on the hardware you own (which 99% of people will never need to do).
However, I strongly believe that - should one choose to do so - you should not be stopped from jailbreaking, cracking, etc. manufacturer restrictions on the hardware you own. Companies aren't obligated to support me doing this - but why should legislation stop me if I want to try? (You can easily guess my thoughts on the DMCA.)
13 years ago, Cory Doctorow warned us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYXBJOFgeI
So basically market forces and profit optimization is at work here as always.
However, if we can still unlock the boot loader and install Lineage OS or something like that and have a way to pay for developers to release their apps on stores like f-droid we can use the hardware.
The biggest problem with having freedom to use our devices is that the model is broken for the developers who support them. You "can donate", but from the numbers I've seen it's like 1 in 1000 donate. No pay == developers can't invest their time to improve the software.
So if there is "really" a substantial number of enthusiasts that are ready to pay for the freedom they crave, then companies like Librem will have enough customers to create decent and usable products for this audience. Want digital freedom - prepare to support the people who provide it.
Yes, that might mean that we'll need to have 2 devices, 1 for "banking/government services" that is "certified" and one for our own usage. Shitty but we'll be forced to do that sooner on later. The efficiencies for the government to enforce the policies is so strong that they can't helps themselves. And corporations like to have more data to squeeze every cent from the customer.
So if there is a working business model for "freedom" we might have a partial freedom. If there isn't we'd be just a digital farm animals to be optimized for max profits and max compliance.
EU is dropping the ball here. Instead of mandating open hardware they trying to force companies to comply with random stuff, mostly censorship and spying. In theory EU can mandate open bootloaders like EU mandates USB-C charging, but they won't. Open hardware is the enemy of the EU, since that means everyone would be able to bypass the chatcontrol of the day.
It's a matter of ownership vs. licensing. You own the hardware you buy, but you license the software. I agree with the author that as long as you use that software, you should be subject to the constraints of the license.
The key is that if you choose not to run that software, your hardware should not be constrained. You own the hardware, it's a tangible thing that is your property.
Boils down to a consumer rights issue that I fall on the same side of as the author.
I recently bought an iPhone (Pro Max, on a secondary number) to have one on-hand to better tutor and troubleshoot for my parents. I just had to provide an instance of that this weekend on a phone call.
My daily driver is a recent Pixel Pro. If Google takes away the already limited additional flexibility it provides me over an iPhone, I don't see the need to provide them my money nor my attention, going forward.
Actually, I've been thinking about carrying some sort of Linux device and relegating the phone to being a hot spot for it, plus traditional calls and texts (and "necessary" apps, I guess). I don't really want to schlep more around with me, but even less so do I want to be squeezed into the box of BigCo corporate approved activities.
One of the biggest problems (if not the biggest) is that this desire is still a niche desire. If non-techie people would somehow be convinced that indeed hardware/software freedom is a basic right no matter the device we would be in a different position to pressure governments.
How can people be convinced about it is the hardest part. How do you convince people that have no idea about how technology and corporation interests work that the little device that you carry is bascially a brick at the mercy of its vendors?
Perhaps we should stop viewing iOS/Android devices as true general-purpose computing devices. They are merely gadgets, like Walkmans, portable CD players, game consoles, blood pressure meters, car infotainment systems, etc. They contain CPUs with enough power and RAM to act as general-purpose computers, but Apple and Google did not design them for that purpose. However, Windows and macOS were designed as operating systems for general-purpose personal computers, and restrictions on the software you can run are also happening there. To me, this is more worrisome than the openness of mobile OSs.
There’s something weird about it. My phone needs to be hyper secure, and a lot of companies went to monetize that and introduce insecurities with their software.
That’s why I love my iPhone, but I’m not super happy about what happens with my Mac.
There’s something in the reality that it’s the app developers not the user that are being restricted by Apple. Apple keeps the app developers from doing things I don’t like for the most part. I don’t feel very restricted.
But I don’t want my computer to become a walled garden. It’s only OK for my phone.
> An iPhone without iOS is a very different product to what we understand an iPhone to be. Forcing Apple to change core tenets of iOS by legislative means would undermine what made the iPhone successful.
Rules for thee, not for me. Every typical Apple lover's argument.
These phones are more powerful than my laptop used for engineering in college. And stop calling it side loading, it's installing software on a computer.
Installing software on a computer
The inevitable conclusion of this battle is an acknowledgment that you never really own an iPhone or android in the first place, and the companies stop selling the hardware at all. You’ll only be able to rent a device as part of your service plan.
Easier said than done. The main reason companies don't allow it is sadly for security reasons, it's a cost/benefit.
If the government would enforce laws about computer security, tech companies would not have to restrict user freedom.
Obviously this situation benefits those tech companies, but honestly the solution is not as easy as it seems.
Of course it's a different story for the right to repair and DRM.
Start with buying the right hardware. Fairphone offers more control over the hardware:
https://support.fairphone.com/hc/en-us/articles/104924762388...
This might be controversial but I'm not sure you should be able to install whatever you want on "hardware you own". Reason being (and I was trying hard to explore an "other side of the argument" and whether there was/is one) examples like Kindles, where I think originally Amazon had it as a loss leader to sell ebooks. I reckon they brought a great product into the market and established a new category (mass market ebooks and ebook readers) and if they want to restrict us from rooting it then so be it (they could not sell it at a loss if it was super easy to root and not even use it as a Kindle initially) as long as they're clear about the restrictions up-front. Thoughts? :)
Including cars, TVs, and home appliances -- those are the items I really want to hack.
I think a different perspective on this is required. This requires taking Google in good faith (for the arguments sake). The requirements are being rolled out first in countries with high amounts of scam apps. Let's assume it's causing a real issue for the people, which then is a bad look for Google because all these apps are hosted on their store. I could imagine in the future a country sueing Google for allowing these apps on the store. So due to image issues and potential future litigation, Google feels like it has to do something so they do this.
I think the real problem is that these countries are abdicating their duty to govern. Why are they not jailing these people running these scams? Or if they are in another country, using political and economic pressure on the other country to crack down?
I don't believe that Google's intentions are actually that great, but there is a real problem in these countries with scams and people's lives being harmed by them.
I didn't buy a box of transistors, I bought a "smart phone", a pocket sized computer.
The OS and hardware are parts of the whole.
So you're phrasing it wrong.
I should have the ability to run any code I want on my smart phone that I own.
And to my clear, I own my smart phone. You own your smart phone. Any EULA to the contrary should be null and void.
In my country two groups most hated by educated, civilized and self-labeled liberal people are miners and farmers. There are good reasons to not like them, especially miners (they have lot of privilege and cost a lot of money, whereas our (coal) mining industry is useless), but I came to the conclusion that the actual reason behind the hate is the fact that those two groups are able to force government to do their will, even though they are a small minority in the overall population. They achieve this by blocking streets, burning tires and causing overall mayhem, and are very consistent about it. At the same time those educated, civilized and liberal people can helplessly complain between each other, and maybe write some hateful article in the newspaper.
Forgive me this seemingly unrelated introduction, but when I read such threads I don't have much hope something will change, for similar reasons. People that care about computer user's freedom and agency will write blog posts and create hundreds of comments about how things should look like, how government and corporations want to enslave them etc. And then do nothing to give those adversaries even a smallest inconvenience. Some will create a new "privacy-oriented" and "freedom-focused" project on GitHub, naively thinking it will solve problem that is not technical at all.
Those without power always become victims. If it is all bark but no bite, no one is going to back down.
So many people paraphrasing Stallman and GPL, and so few realizing that without legal enforcement these problems will keep happening over and over again.
Yet there is more BSD and MIT code than ever.
Android is full of open source stuff. GPL3 would have prevented this. We've all been bamboozled and we are starting to realize it.
I wonder if any project will start switching license. Unlikely, but one can dream.
So a broader philosophical take,
Before the middle ages, you'd make your own product. That turned into local production, mass productio, but still devices could be desicected and analyzed how they worked. A car from the 60's as an example.
So for the most part of our society, reverse engineering was possible. It is only the last decades with closed source software that the opposite is occuring. But did 'we' ever made this a consious decision? Or our we sucker punched by progress
You don't own the hardware, it's now a license just like the software..... problem solved.
> If you want to play Playstation games on your PS5 you must suffer Sony’s restrictions, but if you want to convert your PS5 into an emulator running Linux that should be possible.
This is what Sony did with the PS3, but afaik Linux was then used as a backdoor to jailbreak the "PS3 OS" and sideload games.
I guess, this is why Sony abandoned the idea of allowing Linux on their consoles. Kind of sad, but understandable.
If I cannot degoogle my phone or maintain my apps with F-Droid, I'd need to install the Huawei HarmonyOS. Technically superior and already usable. Plus I don't care what China spies on me because they won't share their data with my home country or neighbors.
This feels like an arbitrary level of abstraction for how much control a user should have. When you buy a phone, you're buying a combination of components designed and paired for that manufacturer's software. Can the user potentially replace that software? Sure, but should they be expected to?
If they just wanted hardware, they could buy their own and piece something together, if we're exploring those kinds of hypotheticals. But buying an Apple or Android device is a different choice and I think, within that context, a user should be able to run the software they want.
Personally, I'm not demanding to enable tinkering on everything if that's raising prices, it could be as simple as having some "This unit is serviceable" label, I'd let people to value it and manufacturers to follow it.
TBH, I think most people wouldn't care, specially in USA, it is way easier and cheaper to replace than to repair, workmanship is really expensive here.
But If a manufacturer shuts down a Cloud service that bricks my device they should open the interfaces and protocols to make them functional.
As long as the hardware vendor and teleoperator are able to run arbitrary, closed-source code on baseband processors without the user even knowing that it’s happening, no mobile device is truly free (libre).
”In March 2014, makers of the free Android derivative Replicant announced they had found a backdoor in the baseband software of Samsung Galaxy phones that allows remote access to the user data stored on the phone.”
Seems like >=2026 will be the year I'll start buying stuff again that has been replaced by mobile phones during all the years (Camera, Mp3Player, etc.) With this coming, buying a flagship mobile phone simply doesn't worth for me anymore. Currently i own a S24Ultra, my next mobile phone will probably be the cheapest Chinese crap I can get, just for the mobile things i "have" to use it.
I think fighting for the ability to write a custom OS for a phone misses the point.
It should be possible to participate in the modern economy using standard technology.
To this end, I think there should be a mandate that all govt and commercial infrastructure apps offer a progressive web app with at least feature parity with proprietary phone apps.
Want me to use a phone to pay for lunch, EV charging, parking or a toll? Great. It needs to be doable with anything running firefox, safari or chrome.
IBM didn't want their PCs and OS APIs to be open and for IBM compatible clones to exist either, they were just bad competitors. I think the relative user freedom we have on PCs is quite exceptional in the truest sense of the word.
I want there to be the same openness on devices too, don't get me wrong.
The question is: What's ownership? How do I ascertain that I own a device and not, say, the guy who just robbed it from me at knifepoint?
From a government perspective, I think the issue is anonymity. In the long run, governments cannot accept ownership of a thing without being able to attribute usage of that thing. From that perspective, as much as you cannot anonymously own a warehouse, you cannot anonymously own a programmable radio device.
From the corporate perspective, it's even worse: They cannot accept you using a device freely if they license you software or data. They would probably be fine if you could prove to them that you were not violating the terms (or vice versa, they could prove when you did), but that probably has a massive impact on privacy.
Capital doesn't want you to own anything, it wants you to rent everything. In the absence of any pressure to the contrary, it will continue to turn everything into a rental or a license. Because it's a feedback loop, the more capital accumulates, the more market (and political) power it exerts and the faster it accumulates.
For a technical user, being able to install any software you like means you have full control. But another perspective is that if someone else installs the wrong software (such as if a housemate installs spyware), your phone could betray you.
Security-conscious people might actually prefer to own hardware-limited devices. An example of this is having a camera with a physical shutter, or a light that shows camera activity that can't be disabled by software.
Similarly, some people might prefer to own devices that don't allow side-loading at all, since it disables a potential vulnerability. Maybe it would be best if Google allowed this to be a configurable option when buying an Android phone. (I suppose they could buy an iPhone, though.)
We have always had the ability to make or run any application.
If we allow this, then we will never be able to make or run apps again.
Do your part in any way to stop this.
Talk about this with your family and make them aware.
I think there are two issues, that maybe we should point out to help the debate:
- As a user sometimes I want to sideload legitimate applications (the question now is why can't these apps get approved on the appstore?)
- As a user sometimes I want to be able to use different devices from different vendors, I don't want to be forced to stay on Apple because airdrop or the keychain or login with Apple or my airpods pro don't work on Android anymore.
Where do you draw the boundary between code and hardware? System code has become more like a firmware. Vendor sees it as device, not as code + hardware. It's like a TV or a cassette player. There is no code. You can bring your content and "play" it. Any additional ability that you build on your own (you want the cassette player to play DVDs?), would void the warranty. But you can buy a DVD module from the vendor that is made to fit into your cassette player.
In reality, what you are expecting is, to be able to use your common tools to modify the device. But the vendor uses some weirdly shaped screws for which you don't have tools to work with. That is the real complaint.
This reminds me of the early days of gaming consoles where modchips were a grey area. The iPhone jailbreaking exemption in DMCA was a rare win for user rights, but we've seen that precedent hasn't extended much beyond phones. The technical capability exists - it's purely policy/business decisions blocking it.
I would say also that if Google and Apple control what you can install, they are responsible for it if there is a problem.
Genuine question and some random thoughts please downvote if you think I am ranting too much: one argument played by Google on this is that they want to protect users from malware, specially for banking apps, etc. However my queations/two cents regarding this:
Banks offer web frontends and many make you use 2FA and even hardware keys, which work on phones. We have been doing e-banking even before smartphone phones existed. We still do. On our full of malware and virus windows desktops.
These mobile apps are in reality web frontends disguised as mobile apps with biometrics on top of it. Nothing else really. I develop an iOS app for a bank. It’s really like that.
Despite that I have to obfuscate the binaries, check for cydia, make sure I am not jaibtoken and all kinds of useless stuff.
When you buy a PlayStation you are buying a piece of hardware that Sony sells you at a break even or a loss so that you can buy their games. You are not buying your hardware. You are buying means to run video games on a piece of hardware Sony is selling to you.
When I buy an iPhone I am paying a lot of money for my pocket computer, my internet communicator. The margins are so big, it doesn’t even make sense to squeeze more out of them.
When I buy an Android phone I fail to see the end game except that Google wants to have absolute control over everything I do in my life.
I cannot really deny them their right to do whatever they want.
Still I can’t see really how they want to protect users by having full control. That’s a big lie.
I think the conversation needs to change from "can't run software of our choice" to "can't participate in society without an apple or google account". I have been living with a de-googled android phone for a number of years, and it is getting harder and harder, while at the same time operating without certain "apps" is becoming more difficult.
For example, by bank (abn amro) still allows online banking on desktop via a physical auth device, but they are actively pushing for login only via their app. I called their support line for a lost card, and had to go through to second level support because I didn't have the app. If they get their way, eventually an apple or google account will be mandatory to have a bank account with them.
My kid goes to a school that outsourced all communication via an app. They have a web version, but it's barely usable. The app doesn't run without certain google libs installed. Again, to participate in school communication about my kid effectively requires an apple or google account.
I feel like the conversation we should be having is that we are sleepwalking into a world where to participate in society you must have an account with either apple or google. If you decide you don't want a relationship with either of those companies you will be extremely disadvantaged.