The vast majority (+99%?) of mobile phone users don't have the skill set or desire do it themselves.
Which is irrelevant when they have to go out of their way to lock the devices down. Using user ignorance as a justification could be easily turned against you to take away all control you have.
Why would a phone manufacturer spend all the extra time and money to develop a platform with this level of accessibility for such a small segment of sales?
They don't. They just have to make it possible for me to load whatever I want on the device. Instead, they take the active stance that the user is the enemy and utilize software and hardware locks to prevent that. It takes extra time and money to implement that.
DOS/Windows gave people more control over their computers. people had the software locally and could install anything they wanted. anytime.
This would have happened for ANY OS that wasn't tied to a big-iron vendor. As I recall, this was (and continues to be) true for Macs as well.
same with my iphone.
No. Unless you jailbreak, the software you run on it has to pass a vetting by them. If they pull it later, you'd better hope you don't lose the copy on your PC/Mac.
with android the app install process is in the cloud and controlled by google
Are you sure you haven't mixed up Apple and Google? Last I checked, you weren't forced to go to the Marketplace to install software except on a few obscenely locked down devices from AT&T.
Basically, you have tons of different devices you need to support, all with different hardware, resolution and features. [...] It's a nightmare.
Sort of like developing for the PC, right? I know, we should all move to vendor-locked consoles.
As much as I dislike Apple, iPhones are a solid platform. They have a few different versions of the OS (there needs to be progress, right?), but that's it. Much better for developers and for users.
Well, when you've got such a tight-fisted control freak attitude it's not hard to ram everyone into a few boxes.
While Windows Phone 7 has definitely taken a better approach than before, they also haven't considered this issue.
Microsoft basically dictated every bit of hardware used at the level of the OS. There are some minor differentiating features, but they're all basically the exact same hardware with different attachments (displays, speakers,) plastic cases and vendor logos.
Ah, there's the lynchpin. If you hadn't noticed, there's been a concerted effort in the mobile industry to make sure that even "if [you] wish", you can't. The point is to make you dependent on them, even when you could easily solve the problem yourself.
As oppposed to an FCC "run by conservatives for conservatives" where we get, what, exactly?
I would much rather have Corporations control the internet by providing ISP services that have any government at any level involved.
So you think the only options are "Government Abuse" and "Corporate Abuse"? Perhaps you shouldn't sit idly by while corporations take over the government, like you're so willing to let them do.
Man, you're just an irrational idiot. I don't know why I'm responding to you.
Don't be a tool. This isn't an either-or situation where we get either oppressive government control or oppressive corporate control. Ground rules simply need to be laid that the corporations can operate in which bar them from abusing consumers.
Simply declaring them Title II carriers would help, since they'd be blinded as to the content and unable to bill piecemeal or throttle abusively. As it is Verizon, AT&T et. al. will get their way and we'll be left with a broken wireless internet that serves entirely the desires of the corporations providing access and not the people who actually use it.
Why people get pissed off when somebody offers an alternative NOT MEANT FOR THEM?
Because companies like Google tout shit like this as "the future of computing." They don't intend for there to be options outside of this. This goes double for people who buy in only to find that, later on, there's a bunch of stuff they can't do.
Who knows, I got into computing because the computer my parents had wasn't deliberately crippled. What's some kid going to do when he tries to explore but the system is designed to stop him in his tracks?
Give the guys a break, at least they're trying something different (not different as in Apple different)
I'd give them a break if it wasn't virtually guaranteed that 3rd parties are going to disable the unlock option.
but did you actually read the thread you're replying to?
I did.
They are talking about installing an OS on a completely-un-locked-down notebook.
Which will probably be the only one of its kind, since Google expects 3rd parties to pick this up and release hardware with it and -they- will probably go through the motions to lock the device down, then suggest doing so was for "security."
while this concept may be foreign to some people who use slashdot -- most computer users aren't interesting in installing an operating system other than the one that comes with their computer.
Using the ignorance of the average user as an excuse to engage in excessive lock down is hardly justification, especially when the lock down takes the perspective of the user being an enemy equal to that of a hostile 3rd party. At best it is justification for strong security defaults, but should always offer an accessible "out" for anyone who wants it.
Because it shows that, given a sample of users that might actually use a device loaded with ChromeOS, a fair number of people will be geeks and tinkerers who will do things not expected by the vendor. Especially if this is "the future of computing" as so many people blather about, people not interested in being stuck in a tiny box will try to find their way out.
The assumption being made here is that any commercially available hardware running ChromeOS will be in any way as open as the Cr-48 is. I suspect it will be far more like the G1/Nexus* hardware vs. every other Android based handset, in that Google provides you an easy out while all of the 3rd parties put extra effort into keeping you inside the box.
Irrelevant. All my phone needs is to communicate via the protocol used for the network and have some means of authenticating. Given a SIM and a compliant radio, the carrier can STFU and GBTW.
My phone not being locked down has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
It's always been MeeGo. Currently the N900 runs Maemo, which has been around since the 770 back in 2005. Whether or not that trend continues depends on who uses it. Nokia hopefully will continue it on whatever successors running MeeGo appear. No guarantees for other vendors.
I like it better on the N900, where I add a repository and install a package. My warranty is still intact, even. In any case, all phones should do at least what the Nexus One does.
Assuming that is the only basis upon which it was used. However the vast, vast majority of iPhones I've seen used with work systems are personal devices and as the first poster noted once a phone is Jailbroken it can lie to you about everything.
So they may be jailbreaking what is most likely their personal device, and they could easily load a hack that made it go "yeah I'm not jailbroken."
Nonsense, for fans of lock down "common sense" means that you do like the vast majority of people and leave control of the device to whoever locked it down. You're just a consumer, you shouldn't be doing that. You're supposed to visit the AppStore and consume.
It's a broken, twisted, and borderline abusive view on the world but that's what we have.
Not trusting users and going to extraordinary lengths to lock down and DRM your hardware + software are different things entirely.
Actually they go hand in hand. After all, DRM and lock down are employed explicitly when you don't trust your user (to jump to a competitor/not use your services/block advertising.)
It's possible to not trust users and still let developers and hackers have access to the innards. Just make the access relatively obscure an put up a big "Here be Dragons" sign.
It is totally possible, I have no illusions that non-Google 3rd parties will allow for it in the slightest.
But why should I have to buy a development device to get a device that isn't locked down? What if someone buys one and for some reason they decide to explore computers (like I did when I was younger) and find that the vendor has decreed they are somehow "second class" and are not allowed?
I consider the iPhone's level of lock down to be acceptable on a phone or PD
I don't, so you can imagine my opinion of blatantly user-hostile systems like this. But make no mistake, this is the larger target for virtually every mobile device manufacturer. Google is just establishing a basis, leaving the final lock down to the vendors. I refer to my prior post regarding that.
And I expect that to carry zero weight with 3rd party hardware vendors, who will undoubtedly lock the platforms down and, if they're like Motorola, they'll sign the kernel so you absolutely can't load other OSes.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is irrelevant when they have to go out of their way to lock the devices down. Using user ignorance as a justification could be easily turned against you to take away all control you have.
They don't. They just have to make it possible for me to load whatever I want on the device. Instead, they take the active stance that the user is the enemy and utilize software and hardware locks to prevent that. It takes extra time and money to implement that.
This would have happened for ANY OS that wasn't tied to a big-iron vendor. As I recall, this was (and continues to be) true for Macs as well.
No. Unless you jailbreak, the software you run on it has to pass a vetting by them. If they pull it later, you'd better hope you don't lose the copy on your PC/Mac.
Are you sure you haven't mixed up Apple and Google? Last I checked, you weren't forced to go to the Marketplace to install software except on a few obscenely locked down devices from AT&T.
Sort of like developing for the PC, right? I know, we should all move to vendor-locked consoles.
Well, when you've got such a tight-fisted control freak attitude it's not hard to ram everyone into a few boxes.
Microsoft basically dictated every bit of hardware used at the level of the OS. There are some minor differentiating features, but they're all basically the exact same hardware with different attachments (displays, speakers,) plastic cases and vendor logos.
Ah, there's the lynchpin. If you hadn't noticed, there's been a concerted effort in the mobile industry to make sure that even "if [you] wish", you can't. The point is to make you dependent on them, even when you could easily solve the problem yourself.
And this invalidates his point here, how?
As oppposed to an FCC "run by conservatives for conservatives" where we get, what, exactly?
So you think the only options are "Government Abuse" and "Corporate Abuse"? Perhaps you shouldn't sit idly by while corporations take over the government, like you're so willing to let them do.
Man, you're just an irrational idiot. I don't know why I'm responding to you.
Don't be a tool. This isn't an either-or situation where we get either oppressive government control or oppressive corporate control. Ground rules simply need to be laid that the corporations can operate in which bar them from abusing consumers.
Simply declaring them Title II carriers would help, since they'd be blinded as to the content and unable to bill piecemeal or throttle abusively. As it is Verizon, AT&T et. al. will get their way and we'll be left with a broken wireless internet that serves entirely the desires of the corporations providing access and not the people who actually use it.
I'm sure this would work over far more than just 3G. Any network connection would suffice, especially if running UEFI.
Because companies like Google tout shit like this as "the future of computing." They don't intend for there to be options outside of this. This goes double for people who buy in only to find that, later on, there's a bunch of stuff they can't do.
Who knows, I got into computing because the computer my parents had wasn't deliberately crippled. What's some kid going to do when he tries to explore but the system is designed to stop him in his tracks?
I'd give them a break if it wasn't virtually guaranteed that 3rd parties are going to disable the unlock option.
I did.
Which will probably be the only one of its kind, since Google expects 3rd parties to pick this up and release hardware with it and -they- will probably go through the motions to lock the device down, then suggest doing so was for "security."
Using the ignorance of the average user as an excuse to engage in excessive lock down is hardly justification, especially when the lock down takes the perspective of the user being an enemy equal to that of a hostile 3rd party. At best it is justification for strong security defaults, but should always offer an accessible "out" for anyone who wants it.
I find it hard to believe that Google didn't fully expect this to happen.
Because it shows that, given a sample of users that might actually use a device loaded with ChromeOS, a fair number of people will be geeks and tinkerers who will do things not expected by the vendor. Especially if this is "the future of computing" as so many people blather about, people not interested in being stuck in a tiny box will try to find their way out.
The assumption being made here is that any commercially available hardware running ChromeOS will be in any way as open as the Cr-48 is. I suspect it will be far more like the G1/Nexus* hardware vs. every other Android based handset, in that Google provides you an easy out while all of the 3rd parties put extra effort into keeping you inside the box.
Irrelevant. All my phone needs is to communicate via the protocol used for the network and have some means of authenticating. Given a SIM and a compliant radio, the carrier can STFU and GBTW.
My phone not being locked down has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
You aren't looking at it from the skewed perspective of a carrier or vendor like Apple.
They may, but the vendors are banking on their ignorance.
Sure, but you aren't the kind of customer that companies selling locked down devices want.
It's always been MeeGo. Currently the N900 runs Maemo, which has been around since the 770 back in 2005. Whether or not that trend continues depends on who uses it. Nokia hopefully will continue it on whatever successors running MeeGo appear. No guarantees for other vendors.
I like it better on the N900, where I add a repository and install a package. My warranty is still intact, even. In any case, all phones should do at least what the Nexus One does.
Assuming that is the only basis upon which it was used. However the vast, vast majority of iPhones I've seen used with work systems are personal devices and as the first poster noted once a phone is Jailbroken it can lie to you about everything.
So they may be jailbreaking what is most likely their personal device, and they could easily load a hack that made it go "yeah I'm not jailbroken."
Nonsense, for fans of lock down "common sense" means that you do like the vast majority of people and leave control of the device to whoever locked it down. You're just a consumer, you shouldn't be doing that. You're supposed to visit the AppStore and consume.
It's a broken, twisted, and borderline abusive view on the world but that's what we have.
Actually they go hand in hand. After all, DRM and lock down are employed explicitly when you don't trust your user (to jump to a competitor/not use your services/block advertising.)
It is totally possible, I have no illusions that non-Google 3rd parties will allow for it in the slightest.
But why should I have to buy a development device to get a device that isn't locked down? What if someone buys one and for some reason they decide to explore computers (like I did when I was younger) and find that the vendor has decreed they are somehow "second class" and are not allowed?
I bet you think Google is the only one with this attitude, right?
I don't, so you can imagine my opinion of blatantly user-hostile systems like this. But make no mistake, this is the larger target for virtually every mobile device manufacturer. Google is just establishing a basis, leaving the final lock down to the vendors. I refer to my prior post regarding that.
And I expect that to carry zero weight with 3rd party hardware vendors, who will undoubtedly lock the platforms down and, if they're like Motorola, they'll sign the kernel so you absolutely can't load other OSes.