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

351–359 of 359 posts

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#351

Post by kortilla »

shadowgovt wrote: post #179
kortilla wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a stupid false dichotomy caused by a poor onboarding workflow. “Well we either make it easier for businesses or deny the right to literally every customer to own their device. It’s okay because most people won’t notice.”

You'll notice that the market is not lining up to buy the PinePhone in response to this state of affairs, so I would say that the decision has been working out well for Google. It is very much the case that most people don't care about this definition of freedom.

Very few people exercise their fifth amendment right. That doesn’t mean people are tacitly agreeing to it being taken away.

I didn’t say it wasn’t popular. I’m saying people don’t realize how badly they are exposed because the hammer hasn’t dropped.

The market for PinePhone is weak because it’s “only for the pesky open source people”. It will stay that way a long time and we better hope they survive long enough for Google to keep screwing people into a big enough market.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#353

Post by jgerrish »

pbasista wrote: post #38

> connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them. The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from…

> The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them.

Thank you for your comment and info. But be careful, this is the wrong argument here. They are still letting you use the software you choose.

We can look at this move conceptually, keeping in mind the future. Here's one possible outcome.

You need to phone in first. Imagine the phone is just an IMEI number or a serial number, or one part of a key pair. In a future regime, phoning in marks that phone as no longer "trustworthy". It's now in the digital quarantine or isolation pile. And future network services will isolate the device appropriately.

Phoning in doesn't change what software you can install. It possibly changes who you can interact with.

I don't know if the argument can be won.

We could come up with examples where people were isolated wrongly with other technologies. But there's a subtle psychological trick there about solitary confinement and forcing a family of networks and social interactions. Using that argument reinforces the network that limited us. I don't want to hurt that network. But it also limits us.

And the alternative, hidden network lockouts, is also troubling. So, lose lose I guess?

I don't think I have the power to change the story.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#355

Post by Dylan16807 »

kortilla wrote: post #350
Dylan16807 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Have you ever hear of the concept of a “gift”

If it's a normal gift, then the recipient won't have any roms or bootloaders they need to install. To get those they will need internet, at which point they can unlock the phone.

> or the even more exotic “person in a foreign country”

What's the problem? Are they buying a phone they won't get a plan for, and can't find anywhere with wifi, and they have no home internet? But they still want to unlock the boot loader because... why?

If that ultra-niche scenario is not what you have in mind, then please explain.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#356

Post by barbariangrunge »

stinos wrote: post #266
barbariangrunge wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was never able to get lineage working on my old s8

Was that due to bootloader issues or just because there's no official support (It's not actually listed on https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/#samsung ) ? FWIW I have it running on a 2nd hand s10e and it's not flawless, but still pretty good.

the s8 was a weird case. I think the s7 and s9 could be unlocked, but the s8 was locked up tight, iirc

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#357

Post by pbasista »

jgerrish wrote: post #353
pbasista wrote: post #38

> connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them. The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from…

> The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them. Thank you for your comment and info. But be careful, this is the wrong argument here. They are still letting you use the software you choose. We can look at this move conceptually, keeping in mind the future. Here's one possible outcome. You need to phone in first. Imagi…

> They are still letting you use the software you choose.

At the moment, yes.

My point was primarily about the fact that giving the customer an option to use Android software of their choice on recent Pixel phones is currently fully up to the manufacturer. Phoning in is merely a tool to achieve it.

> possibly changes who you can interact with

I am aware that identifying customers who have requested to have this option can potentially be used to mistreat them. Many mobile apps today are already trying to perform a similar form of identification. They check for non-OEM software or root access. If they detect something they do not like, they show warnings or refuse to provide some functionality. But that is, I think, another topic.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#358

Post by pbasista »

Etrnl_President wrote: post #216
pbasista wrote: post #38

> connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them. The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from…

Verizon usually unlocks the bootloader for you after the phone's real cost has been covered by your monthly bills.

Do you have some references supporting that claim?

If unlocking the bootloader on e.g. Pixel phones sold by Verizon would be as simple as asking Verizon to do it, I do not understand why there would be multiple long threads on XDA developers forum where people try to circumvent this restriction in various shady ways.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#359

Post by _ea1k »

eidolon_93 wrote: post #253
_ea1k wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes its a valid reason. I love the idea of being able to unlock the bootloader. I don't love the idea of someone else being able to do it before the phone gets to me.

> I don't love the idea of someone else being able to do it before the phone gets to me. So how do you feel about PCs then? Because most computers sold doesn't have these draconian protections and apparently that has never been an issue.

Yeah, that's fair, but unfortunately it has been a problem at times and also phones are a different world. The default expectation for phones is to be really heavily locked down.

I wish that it wasn't that way.

I'm still not going to bash the one major company that consistently comes the closest to being as open as I'd want. I'd love it to be better, but I also understand the real and legitimate reasons that it doesn't work out that way.

Try to put those concerns in direct conflict with openness and the outcome is likely to be the worst possible.

Post reply on HN