Sony has been reasonably good about enabling open-source and fixing these things in the past, so I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll try to find a way to enable the cameras on unlocked phones in the future.
In the meantime, I will only buy what ACTUALLY gives me control RIGHT NOW, namely, what is supported by LineageOS:
But I agree that the initial friction to setup LineageOS on the device is far too high for a non-technical customer, Something which could be only resolved if a devices ships with LineageOS(I think even F(x)tec, Fairphone requires the user to flash LineageOS) but then again memories of that fateful tie-up with device manufacturer which ended CyanogenMod would be fresh within LineageOS team.
Now that's the catch-22, Alternate exists but not for everyone.
Official F-Droid repo doesn't allow proprietary dependencies on which Signal depends for some messages (push?)
> supports federation and encourages alternative clients
Currently, the only featureful matrix server (synapse) uses gigabytes of RAM just for a handful of users (see also progress on dendrite and conduit). As for supporting alternative clients, Matrix ecosystem has an overdependence on 3rd party web widgets (eg. Jitsi) for client features because they are not supported by the protocol itself yet, making it harder to implement a native client with good performance and all Element features.
As i'm writing this, i realize nheko client now supports WebRTC audio-video calls when a recent GStreamer is available, congratulations on that, and good luck for the multi-platform implementation!
Is there any other example than Jitsi? I thought that was the only third party integrated in the core, and even that can be self-hosted.
Using HTTPS for transport as part of the matrix protocol is great for punching through firewalls, i'm just not convinced the rest of the web stack is well-suited to social networking usecases with a lot of information pouring in. Web engines and the DOM model were designed for static data, not for highly-dynamic information, although there's ongoing R&D around virtual DOMs to optimize those usecases.
Not that i approve Signal's attitude on this topic at all, but there are (were?) technical reasons for which they would do something else. Of course, F-Droid maintaining proper LibreSignal builds in their place alleviates the concern, and that's what Signal team famously opposed. For the uninformed, F-Droid has very serious review/build process for apps and i don't think malware was ever distributed on there (and antipatterns are listed in the UI client-side).
Which according to the GitHub discussion, the answer is: ????
Yeah, this is main reason why I avoid Signal together with Google Services usage.
How is that reasonable in a centralized client-server model? That's precisely what we find unreasonable with Twitter and others shutting down or making life hard for 3rd party clients. Why would it be more acceptable from a free-software service?
The network effect says a centralized protocol like Signal has "zero" value without reusing the same servers. All this because Signal maintainers have an ideological argument against decentralization, which received many great responses including this one from a Jabber/XMPP client developer: https://gultsch.de/objection.html
In all cases, Signal servers control who has an account, what permissions and what can be posted. You can't just extend the protocol to enrich your client by abusing Signal's servers, but you can make your client compatible with Signal protocol (interoperability). Preventing that is rather user-hostile.
The reason why I felt there's some reason to Signal's stand on forks was because forks not standing up Them having their own F-Droid repository is to the quality standards, not adhering to feature parity while consuming their resources might not go well with their funders.
Signal having its own repo on F-Droid is the viable solution for them but they don't seem have any intention of doing it.
I don't agree with Moxie's reasoning against federated technologies, TBH I prefer email over any real-time communication due to its federated nature.
F-Droid community was interested to package Signal but at the time upstream had a hard dependency on Google Play Services (which according to my/F-Droid quality standards is pretty bad), and made it clear they didn't want any unapproved builds using their servers. This would include reproducible builds from the same source code as is standard in F-Droid official repo. Still, such builds would hypothetically have the same quality standards and feature parity with upstream.
Btw it seems I had a brain fart when typing this -
>The reason why I felt there's some reason to Signal's stand on forks was because forks not standing up Them having their own F-Droid repository is to the quality standards...
The reason why I felt there's some reason to Signal's stand on forks was because forks not standing up to their quality standards...
A simple/single F-Droid patch could be enough.. Such a simple change doesn't have to be a huge maintenance burden.
Only reason someone is able to do that now is because WhatsApp, Messenger gets into some legal trouble and the media advertises Signal.
Preaching about significance of interoperable protocol and suggesting apps which use them is beyond the capacity of even those media.
Case in point: There was a chat app called Hike in India run by the son of the leading Telecom Billionaire. It had more features(free SMS, Stickers) and arguably better UX than WhatsApp according to its users(100M). But it could never gain over WhatsApp's initial market size in India(Why change what works?).
Final nail on the coffin for Hike was when WhatsApp was made available on the 4G feature phone released by a competing Telecom operator and loads of people got to experience WhatsApp on their first ever Internet enabled compute device.
Monopoly or Duopoly is a straight death sentence to innovation.
Yeah or any kind of cartel, really. It's hard enough for a small coop to fight economies of scale, but in many areas you're facing an actual mafia.
Somewhat off-topic, but what's the situation with DIY non-profit ISPs in India? If you're not familiar with the topic, you can look up NYCMesh (New York), Guifi (Spain), Freifunk (Germany), FFDN Federation (France) or Rhizomatica (Mexico). Another interesting development in the telecoms field is https://jmp.chat/ promoting and developing free-software for cellphone<->XMPP/SIP interoperability.
As for non-profit ISP, even if possible it definitely cannot be open i.e. without oversight as in the examples from other countries you've sighted. Closest I've come to community run networks I've seen are LoRA networks.
jmp looks great, Google Voice has been shutdown in India can I use jmp as a replacement?
Edit: I've submitted jmp to HN as I didn't see any large discussions on it.
That's also the case here. In France you need to declare your ISP activity to the telecoms regulator and follow some regulations. In Germany too there are regulations, but Freifunk as an activist collective ignored them in order to protect their users' privacy, and went up to the supreme court and won their right to operate a privacy-friendly ISP.
> jmp looks great, Google Voice has been shutdown in India can I use jmp as a replacement?
JMP is great from what i heard. It may not be as featureful as Google Voice yet, but there's active development and the user support (i hang out in their channel despite not being a client) is the best i've seen across the entire telecoms industry, and by far. The maintainers are very happy to work on new features and open to suggestions, but due to being a very small organization they're prioritizing obviously new features requests on a "who would pay for that?" basis.
Calyxos ships with Signal installed. I think it's an install time option? And it updates in an identical fashion.
is it possible to disable the auto-update? i'd rather see signal stop working than auto-update behind my back.
Anecdote i learned recently about Silence: it's maintained by a jurist who works for a pro-privacy non-profit in France (La Quadrature Du Net)
Google and OnePlus devices can be unlocked locally with no need to contact anyone and beg, so no one can refuse your unlock on a device you already paid for.
I've got background clipboard sync back in KDE Connect through a Magisk module. No need for an entire LineageOS ROM (would be nice if it were officially supported) if everything I want can be done another way.
VoLTE is incredibly fragile. You can often force enable it and it'll just work, but there's so much that can go wrong that I wouldn't risk it.
Contrast that with my wife's S10 that's got 11 around February.
At this point I have very little faith LG will follow through with updates for even the original two years let alone android 12.
I'm honestly considering going back to a flip phone once the Stylo becomes unusable. Sure, I'd end up losing some neat things, but the bargain we're being offered with smartphones is looking more Faustian every day.
"The three OS update guarantee applies to LG premium phones released in 2019 and later (G series, V series, VELVET, Wing) while certain 2020 models such as LG Stylo and K series will receive two OS updates.*"
Also, did TMUS just drop 3G voice / CSFB already?! o_0
So it's very unlikely that you'll be refused the unlock on a device you just purchased, and if you are then you can just return the device, but I don't like the internet requirement since that means Google's unlock code service and all the other Google applications on the phone sent out a bunch of information about my device to Google.
When I tried initially unlocking the option was grayed out and unusable. I had to find information about the internet connection requirement online.
I don't know whether OnePlus does something like that - my OnePlus 7 Pro was connected to the internet before I attempted to unlock it, but I'm receiving a OP 9 Pro today and would like to unlock it as soon as I get it without connecting to the internet or putting in a SIM card. Will see how that goes.
Pretty sad if true.
Software restrictions are one way to ensure planned obsolescence.
* Irreplaceable battery (or one that is difficult to remove by the user).
* on the iPhone, the Lightning socket and the Home button. The former starts to wear out after ca. 5 years; the Home button lasts a bit longer. Apple will repair both these for you but at this point you will be tempted to buy a new device instead because of the costs involved.
* the support for older devices is being dropped from SDKs. With time, it becomes more and more difficult to develop apps for your device. For many developers this is something completely natural and reasonable. For me it's not. I'm not asking Apple to support iPhone 4s (would be nice, but it's unrealistic), but just to let me still run and provision apps on my old MacBook with a previous version of Xcode. It used to work well in 2012, why can't I do it now? Upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, produce tons of electric waste, buy more, buy more. OK, I am buying new devices, but I care about the old ones. I won't throw away a perfectly working phone that will serve me another 10 years just because it is not considered modern enough.
EOL-ed smartphones are powerful computers, they have tons of different uses, I wish manufacturers recognized it and collaborate with their customers to reduce the amount of electrowaste.
For many it won't matter, but for many it will.
You can see a similar thing today with automobiles. Some people only buy for features and let it go after a couple years, but many others also consider longevity and repair and parts costs.
Use GrapheneOS, if you want something resembling security.
But that's not true. Every OnePlus device in the last few years allows avb_custom_key as well, Xiaomi Mi A2 does too, probably many others. And ROMs like Pixel Experience publish their custom keys too.
Perhaps the law needs to recognize that buying hardware should come with rights to the firmware. If all hardware is useless without firmware, then all hardware is useless without additional and separate rights, and that is a stupid and inefficient world in which to reside.
Does that mean concessions on how well everything is integrated (in the view of the company and some people)? Probably, but that is of minor concern imho.
I think that's an exaggeration, isn't it? Aside from the old PC industry (still surviving today), most computers were produced as a whole: whether it was Sun microcomputers and SunOS or Atari STs and GEM or Apples and MacOS, they were paired.
The development of separate and competing operating systems and computers, with interchangeable parts and well understood standards, was an innovation but a temporary one.
> and we need more freedom of choice in how our data is treated and by whom, regardless of the hardware that we own
To that end, we need operating system developers to design data-first systems, where the user is in control of their data. Moreover, the liability for data loss and leaks in service-provided cloud storage should be so high that companies will be nervous about storing your data. It's so frustrating to me the number of apps where you install them, and you can't do anything with them without having a user account - even though there's no legitimate reason for them to have a user account for me!
We should have done the same on the mobile, there is no reason why this works on computer and not on smartphones, if not commercial reasons. Why on a macbook I can install Linux but on an iPhone I can't boot whatever operating system I want? It's not a matter of security, because it's the user that chooses to change the operating system.
I'm ok with hardware vendors writing their own firmware. The problem I have is when they push updates, and take over control of my hardware.
So hw/sw codesign is fine, as long as it is sold as a hardware unit that I control.
> This is seen as the path forward in light of Moore's law dying.
At this point I care more about having control over my data and devices than about Moore's law.
I think that a good pro-market regulation would be to require that all hardware be sold with the firmware required to operate it under some sort of open source license.
Once one has bought a device, one should be able to continue operating it.
My wifes prior phone got cracks on it and it seemed to let in moist and then not drain or get dry. Something fried in it.
A camera is in the end a sensor that captures some video, why locking down that video stream? I get the algorithms, but leave the raw video stream to be used by other applications.
"If you unlock the bootloader, you may void the warranty of your device and/or any warranty from your operator. See your device’s warranty statement for details. Additionally, due to the modified device software, Sony’s repair network will likely have to replace key components before it can properly test, repair and verify your device using our repair tools and software. Consequently, if Sony performs a warranty repair, Sony will likely charge you a significant service fee for the additional costs caused by your modification of the software."
And regarding camera:
"Certain pre-loaded content on your device may also be inaccessible due to the removal of DRM security keys. For devices running recent software versions, for instance Xperia Z3, the removal of DRM security keys may affect advanced camera functionality. For example, noise reduction algorithms might be removed, and performance when taking photos in low-light conditions might be affected. The secure user data partition may also become inaccessible, and you will not be able to get any more official software upgrades if you unlock the bootloader."
I was very enthusiastic about Sony smartphones when I first read about them officially supporting AOSP, but after reading those terms I just bought cheap Android One Xiaomi instead, who supports unlocking bootloader with a single click, does not void your warranty or break your camera and you can easily re-flash original firmware.
Can someone please explain how this is legally not some sort of theft, or bait-and-switch, or ... something?
I read comments about firmware licensing, or Japan's camera noise thing. Those sound like Samsung problems, while disabling a camera sounds like an actionable user problem.
I'm fairly confident this "intent" thing is absolutely the wrong way to build a society. I would love if someone would engage with this idea and offer criticisms for/against but so far nobody has.
If you dig a hole on your property you better secure it, or else kids might fall in.
Even failing to shovel the snow and having someone trip and injure themselves is enough grounds for some sort of tort liability.
To a lesser extent it’s true in Canada and the UK too I believe.
If so I think it is void in Europe. You probably still have to fight but you should stand a chance if you have some resources and want to fight.
One basic pillar of contract law basically everywhere is that one can not be bound by a contract that they didn't read, even if they signed it. Usually these cases involve coercion or not knowing the language. If nobody can read the EULA because it's 10 pages of densely written legalese, can they even be bound by it?
Since BigCo deliberately made their EULA harder to read than necessary, that probably counts as "acting in bad faith" which is an entirely different legal avenue for the EULA to be void.
Adding a 30 minute wait before someone can use your product or your website would ruin the customer experience, and would encourage at least some companies to question which clauses are actually needed.
Wait, there has to be more nuance to this, right? Like, I can't just sign a contract and say "I didn't read it" when a term I don't like comes into force. Is there a precedent for where that line is?
If you could have read the document but didn't, that is your own fault and the contract stands. Only if you couldn't have read the contract, or you clearly could not understand it does the contract not apply.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a native speaker but I have spent way too much time on EULAs and groklaw and stuff when I was younger and my honest conclusion is a competent lawyer can probably make a planet size hole in a contract without most of HN noticing: many because they don't read it (I'm here now), many because English is not their first language an even among those who know English well(I used to be in this camp), legalese is almost a separate language.
This question then rests on: Can the user reasonably be expected to read 10 pages of dense legalese?
I think the real-life answer is an obvious NO. Current law generally assumes YES, except in cases where it doesn't. You see how there's some conflict here which I expect to be clarified by some court soon.
> Approved firmware versions
> This device will only operate with
> firmware versions that have been
> approved for use by your wireless
> carrier and the device manufacturer.
> If unauthorized firmware is placed on
> the device it will not function
> If nobody can read the EULA because it's 10 pages of densely written legalese, can they even be bound by it?
I explained to you that the premise of your question was flawed. I didn't comment on any other considerations beyond that.
And more to the point, Samsung is under no obligation to allow bootloader unlocking at all, much less ensure that it continues to provide any specific set of functionality.
The alternative here isn't "Samsung stops disabling the camera when the bootloader is unlocked," it's "Samsung stops allowing bootloader unlock."
This is always the game with Android phones - you have to do your research to understand whether you can install your own software on them, and what might be lost if you do so. If you don't want a bunch of headaches, just buy a Pixel series straight from Google.
Besides, we don't have to be happy with the status quo, we can legislate for bootloader unlocking to be allowed.
Unfortunately, that's not the world we actually live in. This thread is in response to the (great?) grandparent who suggested:
> On the surface this seems blatantly illegal: after the sale is made the no-longer-owner removes functionality
Our governments may theoretically have the power to force vendors to provide functionality like this to end users, but it's hard to imagine that actually happening (can you imagine how hard Apple would lobby against unlocking iPhones, for example?).
The only thing we can do is stop buying devices from vendors who exhibit such user-hostile behaviors.
If a car fails, people can die. If a phone fails, it normally doesn't have a huge impact.
If a car disables itself, because the central electronics were messed with by laymans, not some repair shop, it is in my opinion totally okay, as it would otherwise endanger humans.
But for a phone/other non-critical electronics, there is in my opinion no reason why its functionality should be reduced, just because you did something harmless like unlocking the bootloader. (In this case, the camera could still make photos, just without the fancy patented/copyrighted algorithms)
I suspect that my next phone will be one of these: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
I will likely continue to carry my 12 pro max 512GB for a while as my primary camera/use old school apps, but my linux phone will be how people reach me/where I store my media and files.
I purchase ~5 iPhones/year for my family (soon to be 6) and upgrade them every year (selling the old hardware). I refuse to participate in their closed ecosystem if they insist on shipping malware.
Would it be nice to switch to whatever your preferred messenger is? Absolutely. But some people won't make the jump, and this allows you to switch more completely to the Linux phone.
Edit: reading the article about SONY (https://www.xda-developers.com/sony-xperia-android-pie-unloc...), DRM keys seems to be a more likely cause, which drcursor's comment also mentions.
This is usually just a trivia, but in these cases it’s informative on what length makers feel obligated to go to protect that shutter sound part. Which is, not much in general.
If you use a foreign SIM card it won’t follow that rule, same for some of the capture modes, etc.
I can't remind a similar law on any East Asian country though.
India looks same implementation:
However reading the article about SONY (https://www.xda-developers.com/sony-xperia-android-pie-unloc...), DRM keys seems to be a more likely cause...
I get that Samsung reserves the right to say "its been rooted and is now longer certified "safe" by us, but BREAKING the functionality of the device that I paid for and own is vandalism.
My guess is that their camera supplier has a secret blob that they want to retain encrypted...
If you don't have a blocker like pihole or something similar, it is unusable on mobile.
I have considered membership in the CalyxOS Institute where you get a Google Pixel 4a phone all set up with CalyxOS. Something similar with the most modern hardware would be better, but the situation with Samsung, is what it is.