4 ms·

> I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers > Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to For the components I listed, and bas

by vv_ 24d ago

> I'm asking these devices to work like normal computers > Yes I expect do be able to do all of those things if I want to For the components I listed, and based on my understanding of "normal computers" as desktops and laptops, you cannot do all of these things today. > it's my computer It's their firmware. They don't magically give up their intellectual property rights when you purchase a piece of hardware from them. What would be reasonable is providing access to datasheets, schematics, and manuals, where permitted by local laws, so that users can tinker with and develop for the hardware themselves. However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software.

realusername 24d ago
I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such, should be able to do any modification I see fit to the device, regardless if the manufacturer thinks it's a good idea or not. And yes, I also support adding laws to force manufacturers to respect my rights. > However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software. I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith (which they almost always do as there's very few legit uses on their side).
- vv_ 24d ago
  > I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith Again with the abstract. Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith." It is very likely that what you view as a "bad faith" action actually has a reasonable explanation from the manufacturer's perspective. This is especially true in cases of chain-of-trust and anti-tamper protections. > I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such Technical specifications, datasheets, and similar materials can also constitute intellectual property of the manufacturer. Without access to these, you may not be able to "do any modification I see fit," especially when phrased so broadly that it could mean almost anything. The only option I can see being somewhat feasible is for manufacturers to eventually release APIs with closed-source binaries, allowing users to create their own applications or operating systems. This would, however, require regulation to ensure that manufacturers are allowed to provide these interfaces, as in some cases even the APIs themselves may be considered intellectual property, and manufacturers may not always be legally allowed to disclose them. Although it could be argued that if this is regulated, manufacturers would select vendors that can meet these regulatory demands. The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach. However, if there were no expectation that users would continue to have access to the manufacturer's software or services, I think these issues could be resolved.
  - realusername 24d ago
    > Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith." Sure, any app not running because of artificial software restrictions (and no, I won't buy the claims of """security""" when even the manufacturer doesn't have a real picture of what's running on the phone and cannot assess it's security - or sometimes even includes built-in adware!). Another example of bad faith could be Apple removing true tone on official screen replacement. Again, I'm not against the concept of chain of trust, it's just I've never seen any software restriction which I would think justified, so a good use case might exist in theory, I'm just not aware of it. > The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach I have serious doubts that integrity checks and anti-tamper mechanisms are legal in the current environment anyways as there's no real competition in the mobile space and these are further barrier to create competitors (and were even created for this purpose in the first place in some cases, like in Android) It's definitely against current anti trust laws. These companies are just too large and too wealthy for the laws to be applied at the moment.

by vv_ 24d ago

realusername 24d ago

I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such, should be able to do any modification I see fit to the device, regardless if the manufacturer thinks it's a good idea or not. And yes, I also support adding laws to force manufacturers to respect my rights. > However, that shouldn't come with the expectation that the hardware's chain of trust remains intact or that all features will continue to function as they do with the OEM software. I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith (which they almost always do as there's very few legit uses on their side).

vv_ 24d ago
> I'm okay with that if the manufacturer doesn't remove features in bad faith Again with the abstract. Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith." It is very likely that what you view as a "bad faith" action actually has a reasonable explanation from the manufacturer's perspective. This is especially true in cases of chain-of-trust and anti-tamper protections. > I never stated that I own the intellectual property but I'm stating that I own the device and such Technical specifications, datasheets, and similar materials can also constitute intellectual property of the manufacturer. Without access to these, you may not be able to "do any modification I see fit," especially when phrased so broadly that it could mean almost anything. The only option I can see being somewhat feasible is for manufacturers to eventually release APIs with closed-source binaries, allowing users to create their own applications or operating systems. This would, however, require regulation to ensure that manufacturers are allowed to provide these interfaces, as in some cases even the APIs themselves may be considered intellectual property, and manufacturers may not always be legally allowed to disclose them. Although it could be argued that if this is regulated, manufacturers would select vendors that can meet these regulatory demands. The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach. However, if there were no expectation that users would continue to have access to the manufacturer's software or services, I think these issues could be resolved.
- realusername 24d ago
  > Provide an example of a manufacturer removing features in "bad faith." Sure, any app not running because of artificial software restrictions (and no, I won't buy the claims of """security""" when even the manufacturer doesn't have a real picture of what's running on the phone and cannot assess it's security - or sometimes even includes built-in adware!). Another example of bad faith could be Apple removing true tone on official screen replacement. Again, I'm not against the concept of chain of trust, it's just I've never seen any software restriction which I would think justified, so a good use case might exist in theory, I'm just not aware of it. > The other issues to resolve here would be anti-tamper and chain-of-trust concerns that could arise from such an approach I have serious doubts that integrity checks and anti-tamper mechanisms are legal in the current environment anyways as there's no real competition in the mobile space and these are further barrier to create competitors (and were even created for this purpose in the first place in some cases, like in Android) It's definitely against current anti trust laws. These companies are just too large and too wealthy for the laws to be applied at the moment.