Hacker News Reader

To play the devil's advocate, why should I treat every appliance that happens to have a microprocessor in it as a general purpose computer with root access? Personally, I want some of my devices to have some of the same traits as appliances. I like my phone to just work, always. I don't want to even be able to misconfigure my phone in such a way that it doesn't work right.

Don't get my wrong, for my PCs this isn't the case. I still like to be able to tinker, even if it means I can screw stuff up. But it's not that unreasonable to be offered a phone without full customization (or without it being easy), just like it is with microwaves, TVs, automobiles, etc.

Granted, this is a very subjective issue. Some people want little Linux PCs with root access in their pockets, and for good reason. I'm just not one of those people. End devil's advocate.

OK, let's say you don't have control of your phone (or similar computer-like device) that's designed to run only one software application. If you discover that your phone is spying on you, or contains another defect, you have no way to repair it. You can only throw it away - that is the highest level of ownership/control you can exercise... That's your only reset button. You cannot reuse the general platform within. I would call that a waste, and certainly a reason to expect better. (Reset buttons are highly under-rated.)

Different people are happy with different levels of control that largely depend on their level of expertise and resources. For example, to someone with a flash programmer, many devices are already very open. To someone with an SD card or a USB port, a bootloader is more empowering.

Again, while I can see the case for single-purpose software, there could be a hardware override. For example, important/necessary firmware for the primary use-case could ship on an SD card with a write-protect switch, but be replaceable. Most desktop owners never replace their own hard drive, but that feature comes in quite handy to the computer techs who are expected to, or if the included software eventually fails and needs to be reset.

That all applies to appliances, right? If your microwave is spying on you, all you can do is crack open the case on your own (analogous to hardware hacks or jailbreaking) or throw it out. My point is that, for some people (even some technology enthusiasts), configurability/extensibility is a low priority for certain devices. And as for the people for whom configurability/extensibility is a top priority, I would just recommend they not buy the locked down devices unless they're hoping to find or invent a way to circumvent the locks.

Yes, I am also recommending to people to not buy devices that they do not feel come with enough control. Phones are at the forefront of the convergence, but I will invariably want to be able to override (and audit) the software in my microwave too if I have any reason to believe it could harm me. For example, if microwaves started coming with voice interaction, requiring a microphone and an Internet connection, I would want to control the whole stack to be confident that it was not being used to invade my privacy (or overcook my meal), and to feel in control.

Edit: I should also note that adding the possibility of control doesn't cost anything extra from the perspective of those who wouldn't use the higher levels of control. The same simple interface would only have a "more control" (aka settings) button, as usual, and as platforms converge the low-level support pretty much comes for free (for example, if phones used x86_64 instead of ARM, USB boot would be implied). The desktop is a pretty good model actually.

This is exactly what we're trying to get away from with "appliance as a computer". The desktop is a good model for creators like most of us but it's horrible if you're selling it.

The issue is, if you provide a "more control" button there will be a lot more people who imagine themselves competent enough to use than actually are. And they're going to break their appliance. What do you think happens when they do something stupid and break their appliance? Simple; they blame the vendor being an incompetent piece of garbage.

This is the main reason that Windows, even today, has a reputation of being unstable while OSX has the opposite. I suspect OSX probably has a higher bug-per-loc but Apple tries to create a culture that doesn't "tweak" so they strip out most of the "user doing something stupid" crashes.

Personally, as long as I can do whatever I want on my desktop, I'm fine if I can't run a web server on my smart phone.

> Reset buttons are highly under-rated.

I would say they're overrated by the tech crowd. They cause a lot of support trouble for anyone who provides one.

Actually, resetting a device solves most problems, as was repeatedly made fun of by the appropriately-named (for your comment) "IT Crowd":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Ph8zwpNyI

If I may only have one button in life, please, please, let it be reset (I think it already is).

"They cause a lot of support trouble for anyone who provides one."

I can't picture anyone working int tech who's ever had support trouble because of the existence of one, unless the end-user chooses to use it during a firmware update.

I agree with you on feature phones - but if you have a smartphone and use it as such, not having control on it can be really frustrating.

It's not just about gaining root and tinker, it's about using it as a smartphone. Then again if you use your phone like a feature phone (smartphone or not), it's probably fine for you.

Ok, excellent points there.

Do you mind clarifying how you feel about Samsung phones in particular? They do have a semi-usable bootloader (cyanogenmod, clockwork mod, etc. work pretty well) but getting the graphics, touchscreen, accelerometer, sound, camera (pictures/video) and any other drivers to work in cyanogenmod can be just as much work after that first initial success (the bootloader).

Without good drivers, a bootloader is only half the solution, in my opinion.

I'm picking on Samsung because their phones are very, very common. But HTC is no better at publishing drivers. In fact, only the Google Nexus line has published drivers so that the software stack can be replaced to a degree.

Sony have also been very engaged with the open source community, with their own developers contributing on the XDA developers forums, participating in the AOSP[1], and they were the first outside Google to let anyone (not operator-locked) to unlock the bootloader with an official tool[2]. But everyone seems to ignore Sony phones for some reason. "Open friendly" does not seem to be a priority to customers, even ones who want to hack their phones.

[1] https://github.com/sonyxperiadev/device-sony-c6603

[2] http://unlockbootloader.sonymobile.com

I have had a very hard time trusting Sony since the removal of the OtherOS/Linux support on the PS3 (which was not their first hard-line opposition to owner control that came to my attention by then). Since then, I have tried to avoid even simple Sony wares (headphones, etc) - even if the hardware was sexy - on the theory that they were the sort of company that would sue the sort of person I consider myself to be (specifically, someone who is likely to hack any phone or game system I buy).

Maybe others feel that way too. I don't know how much that would matter to the average phone user, but it might uniquely matter to the sort of people who are looking for an open boot process.

I never understand this blind hated for Sony. The OtherOS thing was a reaction to the Geocrap clown. The people who design the phones have nothing to do with that anyway. The Xperia phones are awesome and Sony is actually one of the few well behaved manufacturers in the Android ecosystem.

Respectfully, it doesn't make me feel any better to lose a major feature because it was a reaction to Geohot (who can be obnoxious). It's probably also too long a conversation to get into in-depth however, but I don't actually think what Geohot did warranted that reaction. Like I said, I am the type of person who would do exactly that, so Sony - based on observation, not malice - does not appear to be the kind of company I would prefer to support. I appreciate what the phone crew is doing too, and that's worth acknowledging, but I still recognize that their work, while immediately interesting to me, also puts food in the mouths of people who do not have what I consider to be my long-term interests at heart. That is not blind hatred, it is rationality and voting with my dollar. I have a strong desire to reward people who reward me. If the Sony execs convince me they have my interests at heart, I will put my money on the table again. For now, I think they've got enough from me, and I'd rather not fund my prosecution.

> I appreciate what the phone crew is doing too, and that's worth acknowledging

Isn't it better to vote with your wallet? If you don't buy it, they'll think "well that open strategy didn't work, so let's try the closed thing Apple and Samsung are doing, those sell like hotcakes"

Having spent money in the past, I have voted for Sony and regretted it. I am still washing the taste out of my mouth. Trust is earned, and we are not square. My threshold has not yet been reached (maybe others are more ready to forgive). If they interpret my distrust as you say, that would be unfortunate and inaccurate - but if I were to ignore the history of my encounters, I could make the corresponding argument: they might interpret it as acceptance of those behaviors. I can only guess about the future, but at least I can learn from the past.

Yes, opening the boot process while providing no drivers, or binary-only drivers for a specific kernel, or blob-based firmware, are common tactics to deflate the expectation that control is a necessary feature of ownership. I can understand that sometimes the NDAs weave all the way down to the silicon manufacturers though, so it can be like pulling teeth to get anywhere at times.

Notably, Google and Apple are both in good positions to promote control-in-ownership, if not FOSS, but only Google has taken that stance.

Even without drivers, if hardware manufacturers were serious about delivering control with the hardware, they would prioritize providing as much of the same documentation they would have needed for internal development as possible, along with the device, to speed up community efforts to support hardware they may not be able to support themselves.

I can understand it if their hands are tied (they could say if so, for example), but I consider the the HTC and Samsung (and Archos) bootloaders half-hearted. They are selling Android devices, and the early Android community was very excited about the prospect of a Linux phone (like they are about an Ubuntu phone or a Firefox phone, and were about the Neo Freerunner). They are understandably disappointed and vocal (and persistent, hacking them every which way)... It feels like the bootloader efforts from most manufacturers is more an attempt to deal with the negative PR than to deliver meaningful control, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

Blackberry user here: Can't you just root the subsidized phone and install a clean version of android?

Each phone may have different hardware and need different drivers, so hardware support can be hit-or-miss. If the phone manufacturer provides an acceptable version (possible), and the carrier allows their update (never seen it personally), then that might be an option, but even then (assuming the equivalent of root access) - in all likelyhood - it would still be half a phone (from incomplete hardware support). A lack of drivers is only slightly less immediate an obstacle than the lack of an open bootloader. In fact, it's often the bootloader that prevents that type of side-loading (won't boot something not signed by the carrier, even with the right drivers) and development of alternatives (chicken vs egg), so it usually amounts to the same obstacle. If I could truly reset the software, I could replace it... I blame Djikstra for bad-mouthing GOTO. Resetting hardware is just an unconditional jump. :)

But for the major, "headline" devices, like the Samsung Galaxy series or the HTC Nexus Whatevers, surely Android has good support for those already, right?

http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html

"All configurations of Nexus S and Nexus S 4G can be used with Android 4.1.2. On those devices all the hardware is functional."

That's the only compatibility I've seen offered by on the vanilla Android.