I want my less tech savvy family members to be able to buy locked-to-the-company-store hardware, that they can’t run other things on, as it protects them from one avenue of scams and hacks. This protection can and will be worked around if it can be easily disabled.
Fully open phone systems consistently fail to sell enough to make a difference, which is a bit of a shame, but honestly at this point the market has spoken.
You provided an alterative solution yourself. Make protection harder to disable, so non-tech savvy users can't disable it easily, always inform them of the consequences of disabling it and make it that it's only needed in exceptional cases (there a lot of room for improvement here).
If they want to climb over the protection fence, they should be able to do it as they clearly WANT to do it. Why should you have control what they can or cannot do? (Unless they are your kids.) Should experts in other fields also be able to control over what their layman family members are allowed to do?
This would be about as useful as telling the cat why he can’t go out right now. The words would not be understood, as they won’t be by probably 90% of humanity.
> If they want to…
They don’t. Categorically. The only reason they would try is because they are being scammed with offers of getting something or cajolement entreating them to allow it.
> Why should you have control what they can or cannot do?
Me? I’m not asking for control. I’m saying that most people aren’t equipped to understand the threats they face, even in the face of explanation or warning, and their use-cases are comprehensively covered without it. My parents are old. My brother ends up with any PC he owns full of malware and viruses. The current status quo serves them and many millions of other people very well, and we need to be very cautious when arguing to rip this away in the name of our freedom - to them it only represents freedom to be exploited.
> Should experts in other fields also be able to control over what their layman family member…
Experts in other fields determine the extent of what all laypeople may do legally all the time. Or do you live somewhere that there are zero restrictions on (for example) gas plumbing or work on electrical systems?
You are overblowing it out of proportions. Majority of people are capable of understanding warnings just fine, you're not that special. When they can't, it's usually because it was communicated poorly. More often, they choose to ignore it, because of too many useless and overblown warnings.
Why aren't your family members sending money to the Nigerian prince? I bet your parents and brother are able to perform money transfer, so the tech isn't blocking it, but they don't do it.
Windows has very poor security model. It fails all security requirements I mentioned in my previous post. Needing elevated permissions to move a shortcut to a subfolder on their desktop just trains users that a lot of warning in Windows are useless.
A lot of dangerous and stupid activities are legal. Experts influence laws, but they don't have the power to prohibit laymen around them from doing legal things. Running software of your choice on your devices is legal last time I checked.
Look at non-tech related warnings targeted to laymen. Do you or your parents have trouble understanding most of these warnings?
I'm not saying better UX would help in all cases, but there's a huge heap of issues with security warnings from operating systems which, I think, are largely responsible for effects you're observing. If a warning requires that a user is tech competent, it's a bad warning.
I remember that in order to unlock the bootloader of my trusty old Xiaomi Mi 5 (I still use it to this day as a test device for development) I had to go to some website, say that I'm happy with unlocking it, agreeing to the terms and stuff and at the end be willing to wipe my device clean and have an "unlocked" written under my boot animation.
I think these would stop your average joe, but now I've heared Xiaomi has blocked unlocking your bootloader in its entirety which is a shame, they used to allow root access from inside a stock app.
That sounds to me like it used to be quite a good thing.
Chromebooks certainly used to do that too. The device would wipe and restart in ‘dev’ mode if you wanted it unlocked. It seems like a good level of protection.
> The only reason they would try is because they are being scammed with offers of getting something or cajolement entreating them to allow it.
F-Droid installed German university made QR app. Messaging app that government does not like because it disallows spying on citizens.
> The current status quo serves them and many millions of other people very well
Said you.
So well that only time I had to deal with malware and scam in one was when my parent installed QR App from Google Play and got AD served to them to confirm mobile payment.
REALLY * WELL.
> to them
To you.
> it only represents freedom to be exploited.
There is no reason that verification cannot happen in SSL style - and no layperson will create CA certificate, believe me.
> be very cautious when
Because of that Google decided that it will first introduce it in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand... wait a moment I think I seen that list somewhere...
This was created so governments can censor any application that allow people to communicate. To limit freedom of expression.
You are made into useful idiot.
The fact alone that the 'test subjects' are people living in censorship-like countries should tell you enough.
> Experts in other fields determine the extent
There is exception here - no one determines who can speak - but now Google can do so by revoking application certificate.
> rip that away
You are ripping that away - all of current democratic infrastructure now requires computer communication.
You are removing user's ability to install software, You are giving governments way to censor and spy on citizen on massive scale. You want change. You should be careful not us.
> all the time.
Not all the time - only when there is reasonable ground. You do not provide one - if you think your 'reason' is good then we should ban all communications because someone may send malware in one of links in them.
If you want apple go apple.
> Me? I’m not asking for control.
Yes you do - you asking for control to be given to governments in long run, saying otherwise is disingenuous.
I’m amused by the idea you might know my family better than me, but fun as that is, you don’t.
> If you want apple go apple.
This is the whole point - I do want Apple. I want Apple for my far less capable family members. People in this thread are asking for Apple to be forcibly changed, without understanding that most people are well served by the Apple model.
If you want open, buy open. Make it a viable market. Don’t take away the rails that ordinary people don’t even know are there.
Nothing prevents that the device is locked by you instead of the "store" or even that the device has a "safe" mode that has to be explicitly disabled by the user in a non obvious way like connecting the device to a computer and running a command or so.
The only important thing is for the bank, Netflix and co to not be able to discriminate. But again nothing would provide the bank to offer a setting for the user to restrict where it can use it's banking app if it was not discriminatory. But we know well where this goes, in the end if you don't enable it
You must allow your government issued brain chip in order to have money. But don't worry citizen - you have the choice. You can always choose to never have money.
How will we use the brain chip? Citizen, for your security, you must not ever see the brain chip software. You must trust it is perfectly secure and will not be used for nefarious reasons.
All citizens who deny the brain chip, please board the train to your designated shanty town.
Fully open phone systems consistently fail to sell enough to make a difference, which is a bit of a shame, but honestly at this point the market has spoken.