Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

fitzsim.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 359 posts

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#341

Post by deno »

sbuk wrote: post #251
suavesito wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My viewpoint is not that it is fair or not for the carrier doing so. But that restricting freedom from a users device and software should not be allowed. This means that if the carrier decides to sell devices via some kind of credit it cannot take away the freedoms of the user (and future owner) of the device, but the carrier can decide simply to not sell devices via some credit.

Arguably, if it’s bought with credit, it’s not yet the user’s device. The ‘owner’, is the creditor.

This is how a lease works not credit. If you take something on credit then you are the sole owner, you just become liable for the payment.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#342

Post by hulitu »

_23sd wrote: post #325
mort96 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought a laptop from Dell and found the Windows install had been tampered with; there were all sorts of adware and trial software installed. Luckily, since the boot loader wasn't locked, I could install my own, clean OS.

I don’t think that’s the point, when you get a device from Aliexpress that’s been tampered by the retailer (as opposed to the OEM), the bootloader will already be unlocked and you could install a clean OS. That’s okay if you are the one buying the device and somehow trust that the retailer hasn’t messed with the hardware as well, but it doesn’t help the manufacturer that wants to stop retailers from messing with the…

OEM or retailer it is the same thing: the device has been compromised.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#343

Post by Gigachad »

dingledork69 wrote: post #335
Gigachad wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is honestly the most overblown issue I've ever seen on HN. How many people are buying a brand new in box pixel to install a custom OS on and do not have an internet connection anywhere, not even a free public wifi? I'd be shocked if this impacts even a single person. At this point it's being angry for the sake of it.

It's possible to care about issues that infringe on people their rights even if they do not affect you personally.

And then there is getting outraged on behalf of an imaginary person who might possibly be affected. A person who I doubt actually exists.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#344

Post by Sophistifunk »

Seems likely they simply don't sell enough full-cost unsubsidised phones direct to consumers to warrant a separate firmware for that stream. Not surprising, phones are expensive these days, and almost everybody is on a contract for their SIM anyway, so why not get it from the carrier?

I don't, but I know I'm the weirdo. The only other people I know who buy phones outright are my brother because he keeps dropping them and smashing them, and a mate who buys my old iPhones when I upgrade every 2 years or so because he knows I look after them.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#345

Post by bhelkey »

kuschku wrote: post #317
bhelkey wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To unlock your device you need an unlock code This appears strictly worse than Google.

It's precisely the same as with Google, just that Google does it directly via an API call and Sony does it with you manually typing the code.

Having to find a website, find identifiers from ones phone, go through the form, and enter the unlock code is a non trivial barrier to entry.

There is a huge difference between the two approaches.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#346

Post by Zuiii »

bhelkey wrote: post #345
kuschku wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's precisely the same as with Google, just that Google does it directly via an API call and Sony does it with you manually typing the code.

Having to find a website, find identifiers from ones phone, go through the form, and enter the unlock code is a non trivial barrier to entry. There is a huge difference between the two approaches.

Yeah, sony's is the better approach because it doesn't force me to connect the device to the internet. Both are deplorable practices.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#347

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

flexagoon wrote: post #272
ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #108

Disgusting. Google has taken the fraud of Android to a new level. The great "open-source" OS that was supposed to free us all from vendor and telco tyranny has spectacularly failed to do so, and to cripple fully-owned hardware in this manner just adds further insult. Say what you want about "socialist" countries in Europe, but I don't think this kind of bullshit would stand in France. Based on laws they've passed ove…

> I don't think this kind of bullshit would stand in France France allows carrier locking, just like every other European country.

Indeed, but from Wikipedia:

"In France, SIM locks are not prohibited. However, the mobile operator must inform the consumer of the existence of a SIM lock, and the subscriber has the right to request that the lock be removed at any time. No later than three months after the subscription of the contract, the mobile operator must "systematically and free of charge" provide the subscriber with a procedure to deactivate the SIM lock. Proposal to shorten the time that operators may charge a fee for removing the SIM lock prior from six-month to the three-month deadline."

The stupid thing, at least in the U.S. is that carriers lock phones if the user is UNDER CONTRACT. This is backward; who cares if the user takes the phone to another network, when he has to continue paying the contract? This actually benefits the original carrier.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#348

Post by Zuiii »

neximo64 wrote: post #339
stefncb wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if I live somewhere remote without internet access? Such a simple thing as using the phone shouldn't be impossible.

How does a phone work in a place without any reception/internet?

local wifi? local lte? The degree to which HN fails to consider most environments other than SF is appalling.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#349

Post by _heimdall »

windowsrookie wrote: post #306
_heimdall wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple got caught artificially degrading performance and battery life after a period of time. That really isn't "planned obsolescence" so much as irt is "planned crippling" Planning for a device's software to be unsupported after a certain period of time, ideally a predefined time made clear up front, is totally reasonable though. Thatjust gets to the question of whether you own a functional phone or a block of hardwa…

That is not correct. Apple got caught degrading performance because the batteries were degrading. This was when Apple was so focused on thinness that they used very small batteries. After a couple of years the batteries were not able to supply enough power to the SOC under full load, so Apple had to underclock the SOC to prevent the phones from crashing. *I'm not saying that was OK. Apple absolutely should have expla…

Did apple ever actually release details on specifically what they were seeing and how underclocking "fixed" it?

Lithium cells can have increased voltage sag, but they should have well over 1000 cycles before any noticeable decrease in capacity of voltage potential. Even then the total capacity might drop on the order of 5-15% and the voltage say shouldn't be impacted.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#350

Post by kortilla »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #112
kortilla wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. Have you considered that the delay between getting the device and getting it connected could be well outside of the return window or people could be purchasing them in countries without such consumer rights? Smartphones aren’t only for the developed world.

Who buys a brand new phone but also has no internet connection for weeks? Do they have all the apps they need pre-downloaded? I don't think that's a big group.

Have you ever hear of the concept of a “gift” or the even more exotic “person in a foreign country”? It’s shocking that the connectivity addiction is so strong that you’re even asking this question.
Post reply on HN