181–190 of 329 posts
It's very clear that the consumer is getting a worse experience than what is technically possible. There is no good phone-slash-laptop, purely because it's less profitable than locking down the devices and selling them separately.
Allow me to tell you about Samsung DeX. The real problem is that there is no market for it.
Apple's latest monitor is more powerful than the NEO, it has: * A19 Pro CPU (the NEO only has the A18 Pro) * 12GB of RAM (the NEO only has 8GB of RAM) * 128GB of NAND storage for iOS (ok this is less than the NEO) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Studio_Display#Technical...
You didn't mention the part that it costs five times as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 iPhone is designed to be a good smartphone, not a good NAS. It is silly to expect anyone to compromise the design of a mass market product to support some esoteric MacGyvering entirely unrelated to the original product. Should we all expect Toyota to design their ECUs to be used as a NAS?
I think my next phone is going to be a fairphone or something for this reason.
I really don't understand the argument here. 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, but given that the vast majority of users wouldn't do anything different with their phones if a shell was present, this is in my opinion not that large of an effect. The snide around "clicking on links is da…
I really don't understand the argument here. 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, but given that the vast majority of users wouldn't do anything different with their phones if a shell was present, this is in my opinion not that large of an effect. The snide around "clicking on links is da…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 iPhone is designed to be a good smartphone, not a good NAS. It is silly to expect anyone to compromise the design of a mass market product to support some esoteric MacGyvering entirely unrelated to the original product. Should we all expect Toyota to design their ECUs to be used as a NAS?
Conveniently, the way they designed the phone allows them to charge 30% of every transaction that happens on the device…
But that’s beyond the point. The point is that the iphone is a capable device, that probably can run macos, and it’s a waste that we’re not allowed to.
I really don't understand the argument here. 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, but given that the vast majority of users wouldn't do anything different with their phones if a shell was present, this is in my opinion not that large of an effect. The snide around "clicking on links is da…
> 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 really don't understand the argument here. 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, but given that the vast majority of users wouldn't do anything different with their phones if a shell was present, this is in my opinion not that large of an effect. The snide around "clicking on links is da…
> 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'.
I really don't understand the argument here. 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, but given that the vast majority of users wouldn't do anything different with their phones if a shell was present, this is in my opinion not that large of an effect. The snide around "clicking on links is da…
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.
I really don't understand the argument here. 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, but given that the vast majority of users wouldn't do anything different with their phones if a shell was present, this is in my opinion not that large of an effect. The snide around "clicking on links is da…
>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 large…
Only a tiny amount of apps force you into hardware attestation, and these are mostly around banking, mobile payments and the like. So just use a separate, locked down device for those (where the anti-fraud protection of a locked-down system can be a benefit) and your more open day-to-day device for mostly everything else. A hidden advantage is that the dedicated device for secure uses is not something that you're forced to carry with you; you can leave it in a secure place instead.