TLDR: I don’t like the philosophy behind how Android and iOS devices are created and managed by their OEMs nearly enough to give them near total control over what I can do today or in the future with my primary computing platforms.
Its not a specific thing I can’t do that I want to do that stops me from liking it.
Its that it is a specific OS image bound to a specific hardware model that is very limited in what options or upgrades or changes are available to me.
With a Framework laptop (or most other generic models) or a generic ATX desktop tower I can replace whatever internal component if need be and then put whatever base OS on it, just because I want to do that.
With a Pixel, or Galaxy, or iPhone it runs the OS it came with and is blessed by the OEM on the hardware they compiled it to run on. Unless I am willing to accept large inconveniences in functionality and usability.
If I replace my desktop/laptop with a Pixel running Debian for desktop mode, now Google has vastly more control over what my desktop experience is going to be via their control of the hardware and host OS layer than they do today. If they decide they don’t want something being done in that Debian container in the future for some reason, then they can stop me from doing it with little recourse for me as a user.
I.E. have I completely stopped doing any type of banking on a device that isn’t running a completely locked down iOS or Android.
In my case, I never do any financial transactions (including Google Pay) on my phone. The way I’ve got it configured, my Linux laptop is much more secure and auditable. If someone gets access to my phone, even when it’s logged in, the blast radius is small.
It is not a security thing to me. It is a “I want to do what I want to do with the things I paid for” thing.
I know full well something so locked down is technically more secure, but using those platforms as my primary devices would cause a lose of device flexibility I have no interest in taking part in for the use cases of a desktop or laptop.
Those platforms have their place, just like my video game consoles. But I am not interested in making anything I consider important contingent on something that is more at the whims of the company that made it than me.
Locked down means a power imbalance. The users are then just serf and will be abused. I want users empowered and the right to repair, repurposed and upgrade. Locked down devices mean short lived disposable devices, built as ewaste, that hoover up user data when used. It’s dystopian.
Let alone where are tomorrow’s developers coming from when they are growing up in such nutrient poor environment.
I rage against this dark serfdom future, but it’s on law makers to regulate to keep consumers/user free. So I’ve monthly donated to OpenRightsGroup for over a decade and always telling people to read some Cory Doctorow.
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 1 year ago
TLDR: I don’t like the philosophy behind how Android and iOS devices are created and managed by their OEMs nearly enough to give them near total control over what I can do today or in the future with my primary computing platforms.
Its not a specific thing I can’t do that I want to do that stops me from liking it.
Its that it is a specific OS image bound to a specific hardware model that is very limited in what options or upgrades or changes are available to me.
With a Framework laptop (or most other generic models) or a generic ATX desktop tower I can replace whatever internal component if need be and then put whatever base OS on it, just because I want to do that.
With a Pixel, or Galaxy, or iPhone it runs the OS it came with and is blessed by the OEM on the hardware they compiled it to run on. Unless I am willing to accept large inconveniences in functionality and usability.
If I replace my desktop/laptop with a Pixel running Debian for desktop mode, now Google has vastly more control over what my desktop experience is going to be via their control of the hardware and host OS layer than they do today. If they decide they don’t want something being done in that Debian container in the future for some reason, then they can stop me from doing it with little recourse for me as a user.
neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Yes and no. I absolutely understand what you mean. And I was the same.
But then my tech-autism caused me to dig into cybersecurity and now I actually disagree with you.
I.E. have I completely stopped doing any type of banking on a device that isn’t running a completely locked down iOS or Android.
futatorius@lemm.ee 1 year ago
In my case, I never do any financial transactions (including Google Pay) on my phone. The way I’ve got it configured, my Linux laptop is much more secure and auditable. If someone gets access to my phone, even when it’s logged in, the blast radius is small.
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It is not a security thing to me. It is a “I want to do what I want to do with the things I paid for” thing.
I know full well something so locked down is technically more secure, but using those platforms as my primary devices would cause a lose of device flexibility I have no interest in taking part in for the use cases of a desktop or laptop.
Those platforms have their place, just like my video game consoles. But I am not interested in making anything I consider important contingent on something that is more at the whims of the company that made it than me.
jabjoe@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Locked down means a power imbalance. The users are then just serf and will be abused. I want users empowered and the right to repair, repurposed and upgrade. Locked down devices mean short lived disposable devices, built as ewaste, that hoover up user data when used. It’s dystopian.
Let alone where are tomorrow’s developers coming from when they are growing up in such nutrient poor environment.
I rage against this dark serfdom future, but it’s on law makers to regulate to keep consumers/user free. So I’ve monthly donated to OpenRightsGroup for over a decade and always telling people to read some Cory Doctorow.