>On the other hand, being cryptographically locked-down is an optional feature. If you don't like it, buy a computer without that feature.

But that's the thing, where can I buy a phone without a locked-down operating system? GrapheneOS on a Google Pixel is basically the only option right now, and this still has problems thanks to hardware attestation in a lot of apps that the ecosystem forces us to use.

This is largely because Apple has dictated the direction of smartphones for the past two decades. All of our expectations for control over our phones are completely out of whack compared to other computers.

Somehow we managed to survive without the majority of society being scammed out of their life savings before Apple came in with the iPhone and locked down iOS, and yet now people are earnestly defending the notion that 90% of people should not even have access to the filesystem on their own device.

> because for most people a phone is not a toy (or at least, not just a toy) - it has their communications history, their bank information, their passwords, any many more. And it's really easy to steal people's phones on the subway. This isn't about freedom of computing, this is about the fact that an iPhone in BFU is nearly as secure as a GrapheneOS phone.

If that were the entire reason, the straight-forward thing would be to give the user tools to secure the phone, such as setting a password and encrypting data based on that password.

It wouldn't make sense to spent enormous amounts of resources to "secure" the phone against its own user, yet that is what they do.

I think a more honest explanation is that they aren't just securing their own corporate power, but also the power and business models of all kinds of app developers - this way, developers can sell trivial UI improvements as "premium features" or even put in deliberate anti-features and the user can't do anything about it.

Games can put in loot boxes and microtransactions, YouTube can declare that keeping a song playing and putting the phone away is a premium feature and movie rightsholders can decide the exact circumstances under which a movie may be watched.

That's all before the ubiquitous tracking and data collection.

Everyone wins, except the user...

> and just wants to be able to open LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs without having their 401k get drained.

So do I, even if I'm a tinkerer. That's what sane permission settings and - if you like - a locked bootloader are for. What you don't need for that is to restrict the owner from unlocking the bootloader.

I understood this stance more 10 years ago, but now we have many layers of fairly well documented exploit tactics and none of them rely on the app store. However forcing users to use an app store was supposed to benefit us has clearly failed.

And, somehow, the indignity of being forced into paying apple a 30% tax for a market they wholly own never comes up alongside other paternalistic arguments....

I still remember the era when jailbreaking Android and iPhones was gaining popularity among less technical people. It was eye opening to watch how many people I knew would search for a random web page and then unquestioningly follow instructions on the screen to install software from the first link they clicked.

All of this to get custom fonts in their messaging app or some other little feature they saw on someone’s phone.

I started getting a lot of requests for help from people who had broken key functions on their phones or even bricked them entirely.

Even today there’s a culture of downloading Android builds from long forum threads on XDA developers and other forums and hoping they’re not compromised.

> That the product is locked down by design is a feature, not a limitation.

And why should the entity locking down the design be the same entity as the one selling it? Is that a feature too?

You can't imagine a world where people can install different services by different providers to protect their devices? And have some actual competition? And therefore choice?

I understand this for a user’s primary phone, and agree to a large extent.

However, the article touches on ideas like using an old phone as a server. It would be nice if on first boot a user could choose if the device will be a phone or a generic device. This way, when I decide to upgrade my phone, my old would could be reset and then setup with macOS to use for wherever I want. The alternatives are to sell it, recycle it, use it as an overpowered iPod touch, or throw it in a drawer for 10 years.

If you make a bootloader unlock require a full wipe/rekey of the device, and make unlock status visible at boot, most of the "someone might unlock my bootloader maliciously" concerns go away.

Also phones are network devices on a carrier network. A long time ago, people didn’t even own their own phones. Their landlines were property of the phone company.

Apple achieved what was nearly impossible by getting iPhone capabilities on a carrier’s network. (They did another impossible feat with the iTunes Store and selling tracks for 0.99)

iPhone capabilities caught up to most people’s computing needs but at the core these are still devices that need to be approved to run on a carrier’s network with basic service contracts. So they are locked down.

Phone networks have always been crusty legacy things when you look at it from a modern computing lens

All good points. But what would be really useful and easy is allowing the iPhone to be used as a full-fledged computer on a file system completely distinct from that used to run the phone. Then my laptop is just peripherals connected to my phone.

Problem is a lot of apps require a locked-down device. You can't use a phone that isn't locked down in most of the world. And it will spread to PCs eventually.

I like iPhones because they are a little bit restricted.

But let’s be real here. They should have unified everything 5 years ago. Your phone should plugin to a screen and be a “netbook” level device and anything 13 inches and up should be running MacOS. The iPad should have a real affordable keyboard.

These limitations are no longer designed to make the product better.

If it was easy I would expect 5-10% if people would probably do it, much like alternate desktop installs

This would mean millions of devices

You mention Graphene is more secure so what exactly am I gaining from not being able to install it other than my phone being trash once it's out of support

So exactly what “proprietary standard” does Apple use as far as media, files, connectors etc?

And yet, try getting a full backup of your Google phone onto your own computer. (Without rooting/wiping the whole thing.) Heck, try getting just your text messages off (without a separate app)!

You can't. (Last time I checked.) The backup is encrypted in the cloud, and the only way to download it is to restore it to a phone.

Whereas I can just plug in my iPhone and get a full backup, complete with sqlite manifest, completely accessible. Text messages, photo library, everything.

"locked down by default"

This is not an honest portrayal of iOS. iOS is locked down period. "By default" makes it seem like there's a choice involved anywhere, and there isn't.

Oh please:

> Yes, this has the side effect of making them more money and allowing a walled garden to form [...]

I think you've mixed up 'side effect' with 'primary motivation'.

Reading your comment made me segfault a little.

You don't understand the argument of why people might want to install their own OS on a device they own. And then say you won't buy another iPhone because you don't like their software... It sounds like you _do_ understand the argument.

I greatly dislike Apple software, but I think their hardware is quite nice. I would buy apple hardware if it wasn't handy-caped by their OS.

It used to be said that Apple was a hardware company that happens to make an OS. This argument never made sense to me, because while they make good hardware they very clearly don't want people to use it.

If you steal someones phone on the subway its not going to be BFU.

> That the product is locked down by design is a feature, not a limitation.

> Yes, this has the side effect of making them more money and allowing a walled garden to form

Come on now. This is so naive. Why not lock your computer down too? If its so proconsumerist

do you like the boot's taste?

It’s only about the right to use your device as you see fit.

It is kind of silly that people buy raspberry pis to run their NAS, while they trash ther infinitely more capable iphone every couple of years.

> The snide around "clicking on links is dangerous" and locking down the bootloader is unwarranted, because for most people a phone is not a toy (or at least, not just a toy) - it has their communications history, their bank information, their passwords, any many more.

And so is their god damn computer!

The ONLY reason why we treat phones differently from computers has no relationship at all with what's at stake, it's purely because Apple felt they could get away with it for phone, while they estimated that people would stop buying macs right away if they did the same thing for computers. It's literally that simple.

> That the product is locked down by design is a feature, not a limitation.

I would say most people in tech who aren't interested in fiddling with their phones have no issue with this either and frankly intentionally prefer more locked down options, all things considered.

It's fine to criticize abusive practices that companies engage in, but I tire of the narrow-mindedness of some people who measure everything according to their personal interests. Like, expand your mind, man.

[dead]