Hacker News Reader

I am thankful every time I drive that I'm able to run software of my choice in my automobile. Mazda never seemed to get around to adding Android Auto to my 2015, and yet I use it whenever I feel like, and I didn't have to pay a dealer $300 to install software!

Yeah, people flash their ECMs all the time. I don't really see how using 3rd party software to boost power in a Tesla is all that different. Just don't cover any damage caused by the tinkering under warranty. Tesla just seems salty that they're missing out on their "DLC" profits.

> There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them

To be fair, that's only for lack of skills (not blaming people for not having them, but it's the main reason)

I can flash most of my devices with the software I want, my cousin is a rally driver and he hacks into cars ECUs all the times, they are not locked by design, you need the tools and the expertise though

> Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded.

Not if the are android TVs, you can still side load apps.

Anyway they still work as normal TVs if you completely ignore the "smart" part, iOS devices don't work if you don't authenticate on Apple servers

> Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?

Tons of photos, videos and private informations are leaked everyday from iPhones

It is a false sense of security

> because a manufacturer does not adhere to your desire is by no means justification for forcing them to do so.

But it could be because it's breaking some law

In Italy ISPs are forced to let you chose between the ISP bundled modem or the one you buy and release all the information you need to make it work on their networks

If they refuse to comply, you can sue them

> In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper.

People also want to pay no taxes until the police doesn't show up when somebody breaks into their home. Same with health insurance.

I don't think this is really analogous here. The App Store's monopoly on distribution != iOS app sandboxing, the later of which all apps distributed through non jailbroken means (including AltStore) abide by. The later is what protects iOS more than the former.

> Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobiles?

Obviously yes.

> Smart TVs usually are limited by their OS and encumbered by licensing that locks down what can be loaded. This mostly is because of decoding legalities

It's because of DRM. Nothing here benefits the customer.

> Who becomes liable if your privacy, assets, or even the device, are compromised because you were able to load software not vetted?

You, the owner, of course.

> Do you want a world where you need a virus scan program for your phone?

Like on Android?

> I look at it this way, you have a choice in what you buy

You don't. That's the whole point of walled gardens, taking that choice away from you.

Umm. You choose to live in that walled garden or not, so if I choose to have “that choice” taken away from me, that’s still choice.

>> I choose to have “that choice” taken away from me, that’s still choice

This is a great example of Orwellian doublethink.

It's Stockholm syndrome.

You would have a point if Apple offered the choice between locking your device to their services or using it as you see fit. They don't.

> In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper.

Just like people "love relevant ads" that Google provides People never love gatekeepers or ads. They love secure smartphones and relevant web search results. Users enjoy the benefits a gatekeeper can provide, but they would be just as happy to get the benefits without the downsides.

It was reasonable for Apple to use gatekeeping at first. It was simple and workable. But after more than a decade, they should have something a lot better.

Like app sandboxing and web technology-based apps that can be installed from outside the App Store while maintaining the integrity of your device.

Apple is no longer acting in their users best interests, they're acting in their own. And they're exploiting their market share to do so, in an extremely anti-competitive way.

In the short-term it's a cash grab for Apple and in the long-term its a poison that will eat at the company's foundation. They should even the playing field and compete on it as they do so well.

What corporation acts solely in the best interest of the consumer? Epic isn't, certainly, with games that are profitable off addictive microtransacations to children. Additionally, they make the argument that they can reduce the processing fee by ~20% but offered consumers a cost reduction of somewhere like ~11%. They're acting in their own best interest.