Not even mentioning the hardware bits, I have been collaborating with postmarketOS for a while now, and believe that the main thing we need to make those devices longer-lasting would be an unlockable bootloader by law.
This sounds so logical (why cannot I run, by voiding the warranty, any code I want on my machine, whatever it is?), yet apparently so hard to make openly illegal, since the problem is barely acknowledged in general.
User-replaceable batteries by law might be a better first step. Heck, maybe even some standard sizes for mobile device batteries (and while we're at it, also EV batteries... some sort of standard 'battery module' used by most/all vehicles would hugely help reuse/repair/recycling/upgrades).
User-replaceable has nothing whatsoever to do with right to repair.
Zero, zip, nada.
A right to repair law might mandate that any device with a battery also have the battery sold, by the manufacturer, for a reasonable period of time. That gives you a practical right to repair the device by replacing the battery, and it's well-defined.
"User replaceable" is not well defined. Does it mean you need to be able to do this with no tools at all? If not, what tools make it not 'user replaceable'? That no glue is used? Solder?
My watch is literally a cell phone, and I don't welcome law which might make it bulkier or more awkward, to mollify people who want a plastic hinge to pop out their smartphone battery and swap in a new one in the field.
The battery in my smartphone (and watch!) can be replaced by the manufacturer. Right-to-repair is about making sure that the owner of a device can do things themselves or from a third party, without licensing from the manufacturer: so selling consumable parts to all comers, providing some manuals maybe. It is not about whether you have the manual dexterity or special tooling to perform the replacement! If you want to optimize around that part being very easy, buy a product where it is, like the Dragonbox Pyra.
But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable.
A battery is a consumable and should be user-replaceable. It might be a bit fiddly, with tiny screws and fragile connectors, but shouldn't require heat guns and chemicals to remove adhesives...
(And if we're about to replace billions of vehicles with EVs, perhaps consuming the entire planet's supply of lithium, we should be thinking very carefully about how those batteries will be constructed, replaced, reused, recycled - and ensuring that we don't let capitalism create EVs that after a few years are almost as disposable as few-year-old iPhones...)
Louis Rossman has a distinction about this - the difference between right to repair and user-replacable. I can't find the video but the argument is this:
Louis does not want to impede on Apple's ability to make devices smaller or more compact, as that is what the vast majority of customers prefer. Louis, as an independent repairman, has spent 10s of thousands of dollars on the appropriate tools to repair these devices at an incredibly small scale. The problem comes when he needs to buy a replacement part he is physically unable to get the part. Apple, in some cases, will forbid the supplier from selling the part to anyone but Apple.
It's not a question of difficulty. Louis is equipped with every tool and all the time of the world, but Apple is directly impeding his ability to repair customer devices by refusing him access to the parts. That is in large part what his bill aims to change - not to force Apple to go back to 90s style clip on batteries.
> Louis does not want to impede on Apple's ability to make devices smaller or more compact, as that is what the vast majority of customers prefer.
The vast majority of apple customers have Stockholm syndrome, or at least don't know what they're missing.
The first gen MacBook pro had a battery that just popped out and could be replaced. It extended the life of the computer, and was practical because you could carry an extra battery for long trips. You could say their customer wanted to lose the battery, but I doubt that's true. More likely, people who dislike the user hostile design stop being customers.
> But there's not much point having the right to repair if products are designed to be non-repairable and spare parts are unavailable.
There is some nuance you are missing here. Mandating some design decisions, such as "user replaceable batteries" limits the products that make be made and sold and unfairly adversely affects users with different priorities (such as water proofness, durability or bulk.)
However, there are design decisions that we should outlaw because they impose an unreasonable burden on repairability. I think it is reasonable to prohibit companies from attempting to detect non-OEM or refurbished components and bricking devices. I think it is also reasonable to prohibit companies from usong IP laws to legally attack refurbished component suppliers and third party repair services.
I think pressure to make devices more repairable could he accomplished by mandatinf inclusion of standardized repairabilitu scores so the consumera have better information available when making purchasinf decisions.
Fiddly doesn't cover devices that need to be environmentally sealed. People want devices that can survive a drop into water or even devices designed to be submerged. Making a device with environmentally sealed, and having hatches, covers, etc., is very difficult. Without making the product really bulky.
My guess is people just want to be able to take their device to a repair shop and have the battery replaced.
My biggest gripe is that you cannot find OEM batteries from the manufacturer. The batteries I have replaced (through some effort) have been generally a disappointment. Particularly laptop batteries. The replacement market for laptop batteries is a scam.
An extreme example of this would be the CPU - should it be repairable as well? What if the SRAM cache needs to be replaced? Should they be forced to backtrack and make that a slotted component in the next generation of motherboards, costing performance for user repairability? Or is the list of components arbitrarily determined by some administration-appointed regulatory agency?
This is taking it to an absurd extreme though, which is not really how laws work. We would be better off with a right to repair on some sort of reasonable macro scale and letting a few court cases figure out where the line is, because its definitely not nano scale chip features.
My point is that no congresspeople would sign off on a law that would stifle innovation to such a degree. Customers should be given the tools to make better decisions regarding the repairability of products if they so choose to factor that into their purchasing decision, but if it means outright stopping purely positive improvements like faster CPUs then it's both harmful to consumers and not a law that would pass congress.
A lesser extreme is the southbridge/northbridge and how CPUs are becoming SoCs. If that fails, you pretty much have to buy a new CPU, when previously you could technically replace it if you wanted. Would have such a version of the R2R law prevented this?
A reasonable compromise would probably be to require that discrete parts be available for sale, hopefully with some reasonable price standard, not requiring that devices be designed to have more parts. If it's economical for the manufacturer to move to a SoC, fine. They should at least let people buy them. Any R2R law should incentivizes manufacturers not to make disposable unrepairable products, because business is about making money, generally opposed to acting responsibly in the best interests of the public and the world. Again, opinion.
The R2R proposals, at least in the form that Louis Rossmann is pushing for, doesn't prevent anybody from making hard to repair or non-repairable products. Nor does it require companies to make trade secrets publicly available. As far as I know, it doesn't even force companies into creating any documentation that enables a third party to repair their products.
There is obviously that "loophole" where a company can still deliberately make a product difficult or impossible to repair just by virtue of that product's design. However, if the law is implemented, any covered devices that can be repaired, regardless of how hard it is to repair, will be repairable by third parties without having to deal with legal gray areas just to be able to acquire tools, parts, and information that they will need to do those repairs.
User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist.
A better solution is that the manufacturer must provide battery replacement services at a cost specified at the time of purchase and only allowed to increase at the rate of inflation.
> User-replaceable battery means that entire product categories like wireless earbuds e.g. Airpods cannot exist.
Acceptable, why turn an entire device into ewaste for a single component dying, especially one with a known limited service life, like a battery.
10 year warranties minimum on all electronics. Regardless of size and fragility. Any electronic device that can't last 10 years in service is unnecessarily contributing to ewaste and should not be allowed.
User replaceable batteries to avoid using battery life decay as a means to drive sells of "new" versions, something that causes e-waste.
To be honest, don't stop at batteries. Any component in a device that can not last 10 years while retaining atleast 75% of its "ability" must be user serviceable, no exceptions.
User serviceable is defined as any service a user can perform where the OEM will replace the device at no charge (not even shipping) if the device breaks during or because of the user servicing it during normal warranty.
Replacing a device under warranty resets the 10 year timer. To discourage OEMs halfassing it for 5 years and hoping for low warranty claims.
We can not allow companies to treat the earth like a garbage can.
So basically, drive the cost of all products up to the point that only rich people can afford them, and disenfranchise an entire slice of the population.
If you want to have the ability to purchase ten year warrantied devices, that is a separate issue. And no one, no one, is going to 'reset' your ten year warranty at the time of repair/replacement. Never going to happen.
How long do the batteries in those things last? If it makes it to 2 years then they're doing much better than any of my wired ear buds where the wire's or contacts usually break and are probably responsible for less waste.
Mine are about four years old, I got them not long after they came out. I’ve upgraded my iPhone but I’m still using the AirPods. Battery capacity is probably about 60% of new.
They’re easily the longest lasting in ear headphones I’ve used.
It would take some legislative creativity but why not put in some exceptions for tiny, or waterproof products etc. There are always exceptions in the real world. I fix all my phones but am fully willing to accept that I might not be able to cleanly install a gasket like the factory and lose some protection after I open it.
Specify a minimum 'size' of battery that must be replaceable. Size might be physical dimensions but I have don't know enough to specify a meaningful metric.
Um, user replaceable means just that -- the user can replace it, nothing of warranty and nothing about an OEM replacing if you broke something while replacing it.
Since the battery is just glued in instead of having a special vendor specific fitting, one could argue that they are easier to replace since you only need to supply the correct voltage.
Of course some vendors didn't like that and put chips on their batteries.
… that’s unique r&d for some companies. Why does it need to be standardised?
Apple batteries are typically much smaller than what is in androids, because their chips are less power hungry… same goes for Tesla, their cars are more efficient… so standard battery packs would harm their overall product
Don’t buy a device with a non replaceable battery if you don’t want one… why do you need the government for that?
The DMCA exception only means that the manufacturer can't sue you for unlocking a device they meant to be unlockable. So, of you find a way to do it, it is not a crime to hack a device you own.
Right to repair laws are (would be) a whole different beast, it would mean the manufacturer would have to sell the devices unlocked or provide the unlock method themselves.
In other words, DMCA exception removes a legal hurdle for repeatability, but Right to Repair legislation would remove the technical hurdles (and some other legal hurdles).
Whoa there, that's stretching 'right to repair' particularly because everyone has a different opinion about what it should affect and how far it should extend. For example, Louis Rossmann's right to repair direct ballot initiative only focuses on repairing the hardware since that has a much higher chance of actually passing with support from both parties in congress, and doesn't actually jeopardize the fabric of entire markets like the game console market.
It's meaningless if hackers can't bypass the security, which is true more and more as the companies get better with their security. What we need is bootloader unlocking provided by the manufacturers.
How was it that the US version of the Note 9 (with a Qualcomm SoC) had a locked bootloader while the EU version (with an Exynos SoC) had an unlocked one? Is that still the case?
These exemptions have to be renewed every 3 years. The 2018 exemptions for "jailbreaking" phones and tablets are still in force, but they will expire if not renewed.
This was changed in the last cycle or so so if there aren't people challenging petitions they get semi-automatic renewals. Honestly, for unlocking bootloaders (note I initially wrote this comment in the mental context of carrier unlocks and then immediately went and edited it as I realized) we probably never needed the exemptions anyway, as there is a standing exempting for interop (which still does most of the work: the argument for the extra exemption is to provide one last step for the end-user as in 2009 it wasn't clear they could run the result, but currently everyone things they should be).
There's work happening to make these permanent. [1] Until that happens, there are tireless volunteers and organizations lobbying for these exemptions every 3 years.
Isn't the article you linked referring to carrier unlocking? Because there are indeed laws regulating that (i.e., stating that after 2 years from the purchase all phones must be unlockable, or stuff like that), but in that case it's just a matter of having the modem run on all carriers IIRC.
I have a stack of smartphones I bought for 15$ but cannot legally unlock because I haven't paid simple mobile for a year of service on each. They're still fun and useful but not fully.
The radio firmware is something that is at another level. Even if you end up unlocking the bootloader, that doesn't give you access to the radio firmware, that is proprietary and needs to be signed, and cannot be modified. It's basically seen by the OS as a modem to which they talk trough AT commands (yes, they are still in use), the same thing that you would obtain by plugging in an USB modem to a normal PC.
For Wi-Fi you can tweak the driver, if you want. But you can do the same with a network card that you buy for a couple of dollars so what's the point? Transmitting on the 2.4Ghz is something everyone can do if he wants.
It's nonsense what you said. There nothing evil you can do by unlocking a phone. In Android an unlock triggers a factory reset, that will prevent accessing people personal data (and it's not really necessary if you have disk encryption, that every modern phone has as a default), so the concern of accessing people data doesn't exist.
The concern about: but then a criminal can steal your phone and use it. Yes, there is. We can require to unlock the phone requesting a code from a website of the manufacturer so they can prove that you bought the phone, as some manufacturers do. But in reality, does it make sense? You can nowaday get a phone that is more powerful than the PC that I used 5 years ago for 200$, I mean 8 core CPU, 8Gb of RAM, 256Gb internal flash, in the following years the price will probably go even lower. Should I care? They only thing that I care is that whoever stoles the phone cannot access my personal data, and this is achieved by the disk encryption, everything else to me is useless, I would just buy another phone, but in reality is more probable that I will loose or break my phone that someone steals it.
> The radio firmware is something that is at another level. Even if you end up unlocking the bootloader, that doesn't give you access to the radio firmware, that is proprietary and needs to be signed, and cannot be modified. It's basically seen by the OS as a modem to which they talk trough AT commands (yes, they are still in use), the same thing that you would obtain by plugging in an USB modem to a normal PC.
Who's to say this? What if i'm Apple and my ''partner'' radio chip manufacturer (cough qualcomm cough) doesn't give me access to changing the bootloader? Why wouldn't 'forced unlocked bootloader' also apply to Apple-owned devices?
This is not always true. There are chips where the radio DSP cores have their program loaded into main memory and it's unsigned. You talk to them with mutexes and shared memory pages. There is also no legal basis for requiring radio controllers to have signature enforced firmware loading.
He's being sarcastic. It's think of the children but with electronics and PII.
There is also no legal basis for requiring radio controllers to have signature enforced firmware loading.
If someone actually tried to write their own radio firmware and made a mistake, there very soon would be.
Messing around with radio transmission is not a game. Make enough noise on the wrong frequency and now you're interfering with communications for emergency services responding to a disaster or air traffic control guiding flights in crowded airspace, with a very real danger of loss of life. And there is no way for anyone to stop you until they've physically tracked down the source of the bad transmission, which can take hours.
I am very much in favour of rights to repair and against almost any restriction on what individuals can do with their own hardware, but giving people who don't know what they're doing unrestricted access to a radio transmitter on that basis is a bit like giving everyone in your city a button that detonates the nuke because you believe in a right to bear arms. At some point, you need to draw a line and say only qualified people past this point, or very bad things start to happen.
Note that for engines the EPA has been cracking down on all the mods that bypass software emission controls. The fines (though rare from what I know) have been large to small scale people selling such things. You can probably still make/mod your own engine by yourself, but if you sell and engine mod software you better meet emissions - I suspect that they will crack down on "free" open source mods as well which will kill collaboration (unless those involved are extremely careful to meet emission standards).
The FCC hasn't cracked down - yet. As other have pointed out that is probably because they don't see a widespread problem and so the politics aren't worth it. I'm sure someone reading this is involved with radio, I hope they take the warning (I believe their response will be a form of we already know)
Indeed. Not a lot of people are interested enough to experiment with radio transmission and fortunately the ones who are tend to be keen hobbyists who understand how the systems work and take care not to break things for everyone else.
The kinds of outage that can be caused by rogue transmitters are rare. Often it's a hardware failure that is to blame when they do happen. Hardware failures are also rare but when you might have millions of transmitters within a small city, sometimes you discover that rare is not the same as never!
There is always the possibility of malicious or negligent interference if an operator has the ability to modify their transmitter's behaviour sufficiently though. I would personally be OK with limiting the sale or use of equipment with those capabilities to only people who have shown they are competent, for much the same reasons that I am personally OK with restricting the use of cars to people who have passed a test. It obviously doesn't prevent all failures but it certainly lowers the risk of failures that could endanger many other people.
People do this all the time with routers. The FCC has been trying to require firmware signing but it has been pushed off for now because there is very little demonstrable harm.
I can go buy a bunch of passives off of ebay and make a noisy oscillator that will kill everything for a couple blocks but nobody seems to do it.
I have seen the "very little demonstrable harm" you mentioned with my own eyes in real time. It was little more than serendipity that saved lives that day. If someone did do what you described then IMHO they would be recklessly endangering the lives of others and should be treated accordingly.
1. How far off the bell curve do we need to go? Do we trade all rights to do anything for diminishing returns in safety?
2. These modifications are happening right now. Bad instances are usually caught by EMS system tests or by people reporting gaps in cell coverage, etc, and are generally purpose build jammers. There are not many instances of frequency overlap. For most goods, especially consumer telecommunications equipment, other bands are protected by the fact the equipment is given a specific range to operate in anyway.
I am having difficulty working out what your position is here. Before you were talking about taking out multi block areas. Now you're talking about consumer equipment that is prevented from interfering with other frequencies. I was objecting to the former -- wherever you choose to draw your line, clearly interfering with safety-critical communications over a wide area should be well past it. The latter is a prudent step for mass market consumer goods.
You're new here, so I will gently point out that this isn't Reddit and it certainly isn't Slashdot. Asking everyone for proof of everything or implying that they are shilling is boring and unconstructive.
I've been on HN for more than a decade. You can check my comment history to see that I contribute sensibly. I have no reason to make anything about this up, but I'm obviously not going to doxx myself by providing the kind of proof that would be convincing. You're free to take me at my word or to disbelieve me, but if you aren't interested in substantial discussion in good faith, please consider simply ignoring a comment and moving on to something that interests you more.
OK. You might like to consider adopting a less confrontational tone when commenting on HN in that case, as it generally doesn't go down well here.
The answer to your question is that I once spent some time working with a network operator and on a day when I happened to be around their operations centre there was an active incident like this.
If memory serves, it turned out that the rogue device was a relatively new model that a customer had bought and was trying to use normally but something wasn't reliably operating within spec. That model would have had to pass certification to be permitted on the network but apparently this specific unit had drifted and as a result it was dumping bad data all over a control channel that was in use across a large geographical area, causing severe disruption to connectivity for everyone.
At that time some safety-critical services were using this network for communications in the field so this kind of outage was a very big deal. There were multiple vehicles with detection equipment on the road, systematically trying to narrow down the source of the interference, but of course they had trouble coordinating with the operations centre themselves because of the same disruption. I don't know everything that was going on, but I did learn that in my country there is a legal power to gain access to premises in this kind of situation and it sounded like the required formalities and officials were being arranged just in case.
As I recall, it took most of an afternoon to track down the source of the interference and get it switched off. In the end it was mostly dumb luck that it was found. I didn't quite follow what happened but possibly a detection vehicle that was out of contact with the operations centre had decided to patrol in its area until it could find another way to call in and while it was doing that it drove right past the building where the rogue unit was located and its detection equipment lit up like a Christmas tree.
The customer was entirely innocent and had no idea it was their unit causing all the trouble nor any reason they should have known. I don't know exactly what happened to that model, the manufacturer or the certification process it had managed to pass despite the defect. For sure there were serious repercussions.
This all happened some time ago and the protocols and networks have since changed but the physics hasn't. That's why I have such strong views about regulation and only allowing people who know what they're doing to have full control over transmission equipment. As the above incident shows, things can still go badly wrong even without that. If there had been a major incident requiring coordination between first responders in the field during that downtime it could have been disastrous. Minimising the risk of similar failures due to carelessness by someone who didn't fully understand their equipment and the systems and protocols they were working with just seems like common sense to me.
Which assertion is that? My contention since my very first comment has always been that messing around with radio transmission when you don't know what you're doing is dangerous. My anecdote was an illustration of what actually happened when incorrect transmission broke a system for real, how dangerous the situation became, and how difficult it was to fix.
Maybe you disagree but I think the fact that the cause of the incorrect transmission was a hardware fault in that particular anecdote is relevant only if we don't think a user with the ability to freely modify firmware as we were discussing could cause exactly the same effect either negligently or maliciously. Otherwise, the argument being made is merely that not many people actually modify firmware in dangerous ways, in which case I refer you to the nuclear analogy in my original comment.
The problem is, the kinds of problems caused by modification of the radio and a manufacturing mistake can be totally different and so things that you encountered you wouldn't see if someone simply modified it to operate on a different frequency. Therefore, your story which hinges on this difference not existing doesn't hold up.
Actually, if you had reconfigured a device badly and it had ended up signalling incorrectly on a network's control channel as a result, the situation I encountered is exactly what you would have seen on that day. Do you understand what a control channel is and why it is relevant here?
I'm thinking of if the radio had a component failure/missing and the wave it produced was either amplified or modified to be something like a square wave. It would be hard to do the latter with a simple software mod but easy with hardware.
The point is that exactly the same outcome could be caused by intentional modification. As I said in my reply to bluGill earlier, the goal is not to eliminate all risk of interference, but to reduce the risk as much as reasonably possible by controlling the potential sources where you can. Given that interference potentially causes catastrophic loss of life in this scenario, not to mention inconvenience to huge numbers of people, that seems like a good idea.
Put another way, you're not trying to prevent people who know what they're doing and follow robust processes from developing radio transmitters, even though in extreme cases such as my anecdote that might still not be enough to prevent a system failure. Nor can you realistically stop a sufficiently resourceful adversary from using radio interference as a form of attack. What you can do is stop an enthusiastic newbie who read an article about radio once from accidentally causing people to die because their experiment meant emergency responders at an incident down the street couldn't talk to each other except face to face.
Of course they can. But usually they don't, not for something like this.
I have been witness to the kind of search I mentioned. Usually it happens because of a freak hardware failure, not a malicious act or negligence. Unfortunately the innocence of all involved does not reduce the severity of the potential consequences. As I said, this stuff is not a game.
I don't think that is the case of any smartphone SOC. Even for questions about power management you tend to implement radio function with a dedicated hardware, so that for example the CPU can go to sleep and be waked up when a phone call arrives (for examaple). It would be too expensive to have the main CPU implement the 4G radio in software, they don't do so, it would also require precise timing that a non real time OS cannot provide.
Typically you have the modem that has its own microcontroller inside that runs its own firmware, that is encrypted. On Android phones you have a partition for the radio firmware, that you should really never touch (since doing so you can brick your device). Of course there will be a shared memory area between the radio and the main CPU to talk, but that is only for communication, then the radio microcontroller has its own RAM to implements its functions.
The MT6737 is a chip that works as I have described. The baseband is fully accessible. Even for other more common chips, like the Qualcomm ones, the AT command set is actually synthesized with shared memory as I detailed. These coprocessors are not microcontrollers, they are realtime application processors and may have MMUs.
Android phones triggers wipe on unlock. So use unlock bootloader to stole data simply don't work.
Besides that, some phone will add a unremovble giant red exclamation mark on boot screen to notate the phone being unlocked to warn you `the phone is already unlocked, don't trust it unless it is done by you.`
Would be nice if they provided a way to backup your phone before unlocking the bootloader, or at least put a warning that your phone is about to be wiped. I have personally lost data because of this, and there really is no way to backup an android device without having unlocked the bootloader first.
I though either way it true? There are some apps designed not to being backup without a trace. For example: some 2FA apps are designed to stay exactly on one machine for security reasons (They are meant to replace traditional 2fa device). Being backup easily compromises the requirements.
Are you missing an /s or are you saying that it shouldn't be done because it would enable e.g. use of radio hardware that goes against radio regulation?
If you're really expressing concern, what do you think of e.g. modem modules for regular computers or SDR hardware?
No, even if this is not the optimal response to the issue it's at least a popular concern to cite.
Our ubiquitous radio devices only work because the invisible commons that is the radio spectrum noise floor is aggressively and totally managed. Intentional emitters can only be sold after testing to ensure that their output is within regulated power levels and frequencies. It is trivial for an end user with a high-power transmit-capable SDR or amateur radio to unintentionally, unknowingly, and invisibly pollute this resource, denying nearby devices (scaled to your transmit power and depending on the frequency/bandwidth) the ability to communicate. This could be some noise on your neighbor's FM car radio, or it could be the communicators used by emergency services.
Honestly, I think radio spectrum management is one of the greatest success stories of the 20th century - if air or water pollution were as effectively regulated the world would be a very different place! To be clear, I don't think that smartphones with unlockable bootloaders, likely reusing the stock radio binary blob, are actually going to bring about the apocalypse and set us back to the telegraph era.
There was a process where Apple or Samsung or whoever brought that device with their bootloader to an expensive laboratory to get their CE mark, and that process proved that combination of hardware and software to be compliant with regulations. That process may have involved modifying some hardware filters and EMI shields, and almost certainly involved adjusting parameters in radio firmware/software, which are subsequently fixed for the lifetime of the product. If you give end users the ability to modify these parameters, you're inviting them to break the law. While enforcement is currently highly effective by requiring this certification process for OEMs, it wouldn't scale if you give everyone the ability to modify their certified emitters. You at least have to consider the possibility that someone could create a "High Power Radio" app or OS that would make smartphones running it have higher-power, faster access to cell towers and cause nearby devices to lose connection; no one wants that outcome.
Personally, I think the harm caused by preventing this through locked bootloaders and disposable smartphones is a tragedy. However, I don't know what a comparably effective alternative would look like, and the current state of affairs has both inertia and the backing of major institutions with strong conflicts of interest, and will continue to be very hard to advocate against.
> However, I don't know what a comparably effective alternative would look like
I don't know what the current state of affairs is with regards to radio modem firmware, but I would think that if radio-controlling software should be certified (as following regulation), that should be limited to the firmware, and the modem should only accept firmware updates cryptographically signed by the manufacturer (and possibly the regulator). The firmware should provide an interface that only permits legal use through technical means. IOW, regulation should be limited to the hardware module and the software running inside it. It shouldn't be possible for software residing on any other part of the device to run afoul.
If that's impossible for some reason (which I don't think it should be), then I would argue that other alternatives like focusing on prosecuting violations (like the app and OS you mentioned) or modifying the regulations so they can be contained within the firmware while still meeting goals should come before any idea of locking down whole devices for the regulation of a specific module.
Also,
> You at least have to consider the possibility that someone could create a "High Power Radio" app or OS that would ...
If that's possible then, it's possible now. I mean, you don't even have to consider phones. Bootloaders and OSes in regular computers are open source and unlocked. If that's a problem that can arise from unlocked devices, then it already would have been a problem since long ago.
Additionally, the discussion was not whether there should be unlocked devices, which there already are. The discussion was whether locking should be illegal.
Yet people frequently aim laser pointers at aircraft.
If it ever seeped into the public consciousness how easy it is to disrupt RF communications, you can bet your callsign that some group of clowns would start doing it for their own amusement.
> Are you missing an /s or are you saying that it shouldn't be done because it would enable e.g. use of radio hardware that goes against radio regulation
Great question. I'm intentionally not answering it because I am not sure what I think. There are valid points on both sides. In part what I think depends on how evil evil people get.
AFAIK, anything phones can do on a hardware level can be done on more open platforms. What could unlocking phones enable evil people to do? What's one of these valid points of the other side?
Im imagining kids watching "turn youe phone into a jammer prank your friends" videos...
I still support full freedom though. The problem can be handled via prosecution of offenders.
Most phones secured bootloaders are hacked in less than 6 months if there is sufficient interest in the model. So if treatment of this as a huge security threat that makes other rights moot is valid then most of us should be able to return our improperly secured phones before their warranty is up.
Not the case, it takes significantly longer... if it happens at all.
Much longer. It took until 2019 for checkra1n to become a thing to unlock Apple A7 to A11 devices. Apple A11 is a 2017 SoC.
A12, A13, A14 remain uncracked today.
In Android lands, bootloaders starting from quite some years ago are quite solid too, with no bypasses except when the device maker provides you the possibility to unlock it.
None of which is relevant to the premise that someone is going to do [insert something evil here - perhaps involving the radio]. Because if any device is cracked after any period of time then someone wanting to do [insert something evil] will just buy that device in order to do it.
That's not always true. If it's possible to shave pennies off the BOM by having the radio driven by, or sharing memory with, the main CPU -- and it is possible -- there will be phones in the wild with that configuration.
Yes the radio can be on the same physical chip, but still they are two different systems. Unlocking the bootloader you get the ability to run an unsigned kernel on the main CPU, but still it doesn't give you access to the radio part, that has a completely different firmware (stored on a partition of the same flash memory, yes, but you see it as a black box) that is signed and checked and you cannot modify it. See it as the microcode of the CPU, something that is loaded at boot time but you cannot alter, patch, or even see what it does.
The kernel can only talk to the modem trough AT commands, the same commands that you would use with a 4G USB modem that you plug into any computer. The fact that are physically on the same SOC doesn't implicate nothing in terms of security.
In fact there are no security implication on unlocking a bootloader, if there were, well we would be in trouble since it's a relatively easy operation, that in most cases it's a matter of running a command from a CLI tool, and the only drawback is voiding the warranty.
There are very low cost devices such as those Allwinner or Mediatek produce that are more popular in non-US, non-EU markets that do not have the barriers you are describing.
Many SoCs let you burn a hash for the second stage bootloader. If your threat model includes this then build a copy of uboot that will only load kernels signed with your keys and burn the hash into the fuses of your device.
Make it require a connection to a computer and disallow the stock OS from running at all when the bootloader is unlocked. I think those two hurdles should be more than enough to satisfy security concerns.
That are the current choices. That could change in the future, it has changed in the past. At one time not of the right Christian sect was in the list, today nobody cares - just one example that I won't get into trouble for mentioning.
I absolutely agree with you on bootloader. I wanted to try PostmarketOS and found several Moto G4 play (well supported by pmOS) in the used market but alas Motorola has arbitrarily removed unlock codes for older devices from their website! Since Motorola was giving unlock codes by revoking warranty officially, there were no attempts to unlock it elsewhere and so all older Motorola phones which haven't been unlocked earlier are useless for any aftermarket use.
As for this law,
Considering repairability is the easiest and most accessible way to address e-waste and that phones, computers are a major contributor, There doesn't seem to be a rational explanation behind their exclusion other than briefcases exchanged courtesy of Trillion dollar fruit company.
Well, smartphones must be updated to include better spyware.
And newer computers are also better locked down to allow better surveillance.
So, the older ones can't break down fast enough!
You don't want a repairable computer so creeps install, like, a Linux distro. You want disposable TPM machines with Windows 11 Home Edition and unstoppable "telemetry".
To be fair, TPM's are really cool from a hardware perspective. They're HSM's which can fundamentally change what threat models on your OS look like.
Unfortunately, the purpose here will be to use the fact that most users use a non-free OS to turn these TPMs against the user in order to make DRM harder to break.
> Unfortunately, the purpose here will be to use the fact that most users use a non-free OS to turn these TPMs against the user in order to make DRM harder to break.
Stallman[1] and others[2] have talked about just this issue for over a decade now.
Stallman has quite a particular view on security, e.g. [1]. I think it is important to understand where he’s coming from.
I think the last 30 years have shown that, in some sense, even competent computer users can’t really be trusted to keep their systems secure. I’m not saying that the only solution is to have a totally locked down system, but I’m also not saying that having an HSM is a bad thing.
I understand that the M1 Macs get improved security from the more iPhone-like architecture but that the system is still somewhat hackable (eg there is a possibility of running Linux). So it would appear that one can have one’s cake and eat it. I think hardware security modules are mostly orthogonal to having a hackable system and companies like apple must be persuaded somehow to leave systems openable through other means.
Really though, if we're talking about "completely secure" computers, or even something approaching that, no one can be trusted to keep any system secure. So why not at least let users have some freedom while taking care of the most obvious exploit routes?
I see the value in using a TPM to protect a disk encryption key; but also the downside of it being harder for me to recover data when the TPM fails before the disk (or if the motherboard fails and the TPM is tamper resistant and doesn't want to be moved to another board, etc). For me, data recovery is more important.
Boot time security sounds kind of useful, but I don't have time or desire to audit and sign everything I run, and Microsoft doesn't either; they have historically signed all sorts of garbage that undermines the system security, and I expect that will continue.
I think this is why you don't store the encryption key of the disk directly in the TPM but a "key to unlock the key" - that way you can enter a recovery code or something to access if the TPM or something in the boot path fails. I don't know how the encryption mechanics work in detail but it has to work like that somehow for Bitlocker recovery to function. I know under Linux LUKS you can have up to 8 keys and each will allow access to the disk.
Trusted Platform Module, or TPM, is a unique hardware-based security solution that installs a cryptographic chip on the computer's motherboard, also known as a cryptoprocessor.
This chip protects sensitive data and wards off hacking attempts generated through a computer's hardware. Each TPM holds computer-generated keys for encryption, and most PC's nowadays come with TPM chips pre-soldered onto the motherboards.
I've been using laptops with TPM for a decade now. Never enabled the damn thing because if it failed, I'd be completely locked out of my computer. I'm not a CIA agent, I'm not a threat to any state, I don't even work for some big corp, why do I need that level of security?
TPM does not necessarily lock you out in case of problems. It depends on the software. In Purism laptops, it just warns you if something unexpectedly changes. (see the link in my other comment)
I don't trust storing keys in the hardware. The hardware can fail and you loose everything, or the hardware can have backdoor. It's not difficult to make and memorize a strong password in the end to use it for disk encryption.
I feel like there's a large subset of people who don't understand what TPM does, so just assume the worst and hand wave about how it [somehow] causes [random bad thing].
Stallman[1] and others[2] wrote about TPMs nearly 15 years ago, and the former revisited the topic in 2015.
Trusted Platform Modules can be used enforce app DRM, ensuring that only "approved" apps are able to run on a system.
That's already the reality for iPhones and iPads. We see desktops converging on this reality with systems like Apple's M1 which won't run unsigned binaries at all, and makes it difficult to nearly impossible to run apps that weren't first approved by Apple through their notarization process.
Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of Purism's work in this space.
Is an open and flashable TPM something rights holders would be comfortable with? Or would they treat it like SafetyNet treats an Android phone with an unlocked bootloader?
The main point (and only differential) of a TPM is protecting secrets against the person with physical possession of the device.
About every time something like this is placed on a consumers product, it is to exploit the consumer some way, so, no it's just bad.
There is the very rare exception of it being a product intended for the owner to lend it to other people, and the very common exception of it being disabled by default, but being cheaper to include on every product than just the business ones. But well, Windows 11 Home edition computers are neither of those.
A TPM is a chip on some motherboards that serves two purposes:
1. Using something not too dissimilar from blockchain/git repo hashes to attest to the the execution stack (BIOS, bootloader, kernel, userspace).
2. Providing cryptographic primitives that are only unlocked when the stack exactly matches a particular value.
It's a handy tool for avoiding spyware, as any change in the attestation chain gets immediately flagged. It is also, in principle, useful for tying DRM keys to a particular execution stack that's known to be trusted... although it's very worth noting that the TPM's threat model does not include an attacker having physical access to the hardware.
Right, for configurations where the tpm automatically releases keys, they can be sniffed. It can be configured to only release it's secret once a correct password is given. It also rate limits I believe.
It's been a while since I looked at the technology, but the basic premise is very simple. The TPM basically keeps around a stack of hashes. The BIOS pushes a hash of the bootloader onto the stack. The bootloader pushes a hash of the kernel onto the stack. Then there's a handful of ring 0 cpu instructions for pushing and popping all but the bottom-most entries of the stack that allow the kernel to do whatever it wants, including pushing hashes of application code, hashes of passwords (as in your example), or opening up a similar ability to push/pop upper levels of the stack to the application.
The only check the TPM does when deciding whether to allow the key in one of its registers to be used is whether the stack is in a particular configuration. The TPM doesn't (and in fact can't) directly require passwords (since it has no direct line of communication to the user). However, the BIOS, bootloader, kernel, etc... can all be configured to mix user-provided information like a password into the hash they push into the TPM.
TPM keys are protected by policies. A policy can be based on the system state (hashes), a password, or both. There are also complex policies using the Extended Authorization feature. If you don't care about platform state or configuration, then you can just set a key policy with just a password. The TPM will lock you out if you make too many incorrect guesses.
With a physical bus reset attack you can also set PCR values without any authentication, which essentially breaks attestation. Also only some TPMs have anti tamper features and security certification (best ignore the ones that don't).
TPM used for secure boot, (hypothetically) used to block installing non-windows OS, means the owner is forced to using an OS that has telemetry.
That is the argument I suppose OP was making. The secure boot locking is hypothetical, but it is often feared. I get why, because it seems like something Microsoft would love to do.
I figured the TPM was part of secure-boot validation. But given some extra thought, it is clear that verifying a signature does not require any secrets.
A TPM is just a bit of memory that is "hacker proof" so you can store a private key with a guarantee that it can't leak out. You can then sign, encrypt, or decrypt using the key.
They were controversial because it was originally thought they would be used to lock parts of your computer away from you, being used to do DRM and the like. At the end of the day the chips were hard to use, slow, and flaky enough that it didn't really pan out. A lot of the braindamage came from a secondary feature where you could theoretically create "secure enclaves" where the entire execution chain down to the bare metal was signed to prevent viruses and rootkits from executing. In theory this is neat, but in practice it's basically impossible on PC hardware and caused a lot of problems. This functionality is the reason BitLocker had the reputation for randomly locking you out of your machine, even though it doesn't use the feature directly. The configuration registers were maybe a mistake.
I know it's super easy for anyone to Google, but I feel like at least one reader will find this useful since I didn't see it mentioned anywhere in the discussion thread: TPM stands for Trusted Platform Module.
("TPM is an international standard for a secure cryptoprocessor, a dedicated microcontroller designed to secure hardware through integrated cryptographic keys." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module)
A TPM is much more than "just a bit of memory". It is a cryptographic coprocessor, with its own microcode and its own security domain.
And I don't think a fully-secured future for PC's is as impossible as you think. The primary reason this is impossible right now is because TPM's aren't ubiquitous (none of my machines came with one installed). That problem will be solved by Windows 11.
Secured for the benefit of Microsoft or DRM providers, not necessarily for the benefit of the end user.
Unless they're willing to allow the end user to override the wishes of the vendor (and without any diminished functionality), TPM is just another way to turn computers into appliances.
The fundamental problem with the secure enclave on PC is that to make it work you have to basically lock out all of the untrusted hardware on the box, which is pretty much all of it. So while you are doing your secure computation nobody is servicing the PCIe bus. The graphics card drivers aren't getting any CPU cycles. Ring buffers on your network cards aren't emptied. From the perspective of everything else on the machine the whole thing just crashed.
If your computation is quick you might be able to get away with this sometimes, but the potential for problems is almost unlimited. The fact that the TPM itself is pretty slow throws another monkeywrench into the plan.
In order for it to work the whole system needs to be designed from the bottom up to support it, which means you need to touch every layer of the PC stack. It's a lot of work. It is a lot easier on something like a cellphone where you can control the hardware from top to bottom and don't have to consider the case where someone installs additional hardware to suit their needs.
It's what Apple calls a "secure element", essentially a mini-HSM or multi-feature smartcard. "Put keys on it and it lets you use it with a PIN and rate limit" seems to be the main use case (they can implement FIDO2 with that too for instance).
These things are very useful for authentication and have been on business laptops for this very reason forever.
> In support of the Windows 11 system requirements, we’ve set the bar for previewing in our Windows Insider Program to match the minimum system requirements for Windows 11, with the exception for TPM 2.0 and CPU family/model.
So I can install Windows 11 previews, then when the definitive version comes out I would need to downgrade if I don't have a TPM hardware (or if I don't want to enable it for not loosing the possibility to dual boot Linux)? It's nonsense.
I want the old Windows back, couldn't Microsoft just stop making OS and support Windows 7 forever? The last Windows version that just worked, buy a license and use it, no updates every 6 months, no requirement for secure boot, TPM and stupid stuff, no apps, or whatever other stupid thin they invented.
TV manufacturers are responding, often clumsily and based on their self-interest (data collection), to what consumers want.
Trying to find a dumb TV is like trying to find a car without a built in radio. You're welcome to leave it switched off.
Smart TVs are dumb if they aren't connected to the internet. Some may be slow. Some may have a poor interface. I'd worry about solving for that rather than expecting manufacturers to cater to a very niche group.
The worry I have with these TVs is that basic functions like channel seeking or brightness controls now rely on a computer running Android. It feels like a 1000-fold increase in complexity and risk for something to hobble the TV part of the TV. Say the CPU overheats due to poor heat design after 3 years--it doesn't seem like manufacturers have a dumb mode to fall back on. Similarly, I'd be very worried if a car's radio prevented the car from driving.
It is sad that wanting a simple, modular display that we can upgrade peripherals around is niche these days. In a way, car makers took a step in the right direction with more radios adopting CarPlay & Android Auto, acknowledging that their own radios can't outsmart an evolving mobile ecosystem.
The TV of my childhood took so long to warm up, you'd be standing there for at least 5 seconds wondering if it had turned on at all before seeing something. Usually it was the click of a relay and the hum of a capacitor soaking up a field that was the real clue.
> TV manufacturers are responding, often clumsily and based on their self-interest (data collection), to what consumers want.
No, they're not. They're collaborating to eliminate choice. The vast majority of the market being taken by smart TVs is a theoretical result of the market. The fact that no manufacturers slip in to clean up the 5% of the market who are willing to pay a slight premium not to have a smart TV is evidence of tacit collusion.
I didn't make a claim about how typical I am. If you don't know non-technical people who don't like smart TVs, you rarely talk to people about their TVs (which is not unusual.) This is akin to the oft-repeated claim on HN that nobody but people on HN cares about privacy.
What people are is utterly powerless, and living in a kleptocracy that allows markets to be funneled in particular directions by eliminating all alternative choices.
Part of it might be that consumers want smart TVs, but it's definitely the case that consumers are very price-sensitive when it comes to TVs, and that selling ad space (and selling/leveraging data gained by stalking your users—why this shit is legal is beyond me) on an integrated OS lets you sell at, or even under, the cost to deliver the hardware, and remain profitable.
This is also why it's really, really hard to build a Roku competitor starting from 0, without a lot of starting capital. You won't be able to match them on price, and also won't yet have the scale to subsidize your own devices with ad sales, so you'll need to sell at a loss (remember: you also need to get onto shelves in stores to compete, and they'll have harsh price requirements, calibrated by what your ad- and spyware-subsidized competitors are selling for, if you want shelf-space with an unknown brand) for quite a while.
They are not. Smart TVs are slow as hell. I don't want a TV that has "to boot" and takes time to turn on because it has to load a full Android OS, takes 10 seconds to load the channel guide, have a ton of buttons that you didn't ask to open Netflix or other services for which I don't have a subscriptions to press by mistake (and each time you loose 10 seconds or so of the programs you where watching).
Really, I find modern smart TV too lagging, it's like you press a button on the remote and the TV responds even 1 seconds after, it gives you the impression that the remote is not working properly, but it's not there the problem.
A TV has to do one thing, and do it well, let me watch some TV programs, from external sources or from the aerial, with a good image and sound quality (but the last one it's impossible to find on any TV these day and you need always an external sound system). I don't need Netflix or other video streaming services, if I need that I just plug a media center PC in the HDMI port, why complicating the TV with stuff that still doesn't work well and it's slow as hell?
Speaking about car radios... car radios these days are horrible. They present you DAB radio as the primary choice, that has an terrible sound quality. FM reception is still bad. The quality of the speakers either as bad. And I'm taking about the car radio of a Mercedes car that costs 40k euros. The stock car radio of my 2010 Volkswagen Golf is far better, better sound quality, better radio reception, better responsiveness of the radio (physical knobs and buttons that I can operate without looking at them VS unresponsive touch screen interfaces that are dangerous to use when you drive).
And the worse thing? You cannot update the radio in every modern car. They destroyed the market of aftermarket car stereos, how can you replace the radio if it's not only a radio but it's the interface that you use to control all the car functions?
I just want a TV that actually responds quickly to button presses. With the latency you experience hitting the volume buttons or navigating menus on flat screen TVs, it feels like they haven't touched the hardware since 2002, and with the computing gains over those nearly 20 years you'd think a TV could at least turn instantly on and off like a desktop monitor by now.
You can! You just need to replace your Smart TV every couple of years to keep up with the software updates.
The expensive LG TV I bought ~5 years ago was snappy and fast when I got it, but today it's extremely slow and unresponsive. That's my fault for being a bad consumer and not buying the latest model every year.
On a serious note, I wonder if there's a jailbreak scene for smart TVs? It'd be awesome to be able to replace their spyware garbage with a basic OS that only lets me change inputs, or maybe something like Kodi if I'm feeling fancy.
There was a really interesting article posted to HN a few months ago now, detailing a deep dive into the firmware of a new Samsung smart TV and what would be required to jailbreak it and run your own firmware.
Smart TVs are dumber than a dumb-TV if they aren't connected to the internet. My Samsung TV stays disconnected from the internet, but to change the input between devices I have to scroll past ads that were preloaded onto it in 2018. If I accidentally press the channel up/down buttons on the remote it switches inputs, takes 10 seconds to realize it isn't online, and then tells me "Samsung TV Plus is not available".
Someone says this every time smart TVs get discussed, but has anyone ever cited a verifiable case of it actually being done, noting that it would clearly be illegal to do it in much of the world?
Now, if we're talking about the danger of devices incorporating their own wireless communications and phoning home on a network of their manufacturer's own choosing without the knowledge or consent of the owner, that is a serious risk, and one that IMHO should be mitigated by regulating it out of existence before it has any chance to become established practice.
So I just had a rather annoying experience. I own two Samsung Smart TVs, which honestly gave me the heebie jeebies to purchase. With that said, at the end of the day I decided that as long as I didn't hook it up to the net, I'd be good to go. I've been using them for a few years, and have felt pretty comfortable with the situation, so imagine my surprise when I sit down to watch something on the living room tv (which I don't use all that often) and my show is interrupted by a notification that "SmartHub" had updated.
After digging around in settings for a moment, I realized that one of my next door neighbors had installed an open router with internet, and my tv had silently automatically connected to it and began doing its normal internet stuff. I have no idea how long it was connected like that.
After looking though the settings and a few Google searches later, I realized there was no actual way to disabled the wireless connection on that TV. It expected an internet connection, and intended to get one. Ultimately, I managed to get it to stop what it was doing by letting it connect to my router and then blocking it via access control. I then followed up by going into "IP Settings" and setting that to manual, while leaving all the values at 0. It complained, but allowed me to keep the setting.
Anyhow, figured I'd share, since I imagine quite a few people here are also not keen on a smart tv connecting to the net, given some of the history surrounding them.
There are a million things TV manufacturers could do that would be a problem but I think we should be focusing our attention on what they actually are doing.
Hardcoding DNS for example which makes Pi-hole ineffective. That is increasingly happening and should quite rightly be criticised.
I think we should be focusing our attention on what they actually are doing.
It's absolutely necessary to try to anticipate the future, because the future always becomes the present. If we don't try to anticipate, we will be stuck with whatever is given to us. Like the introduction of ads on Android TV.
> Smart TVs are dumb if they aren't connected to the internet.
Until manufacturers start selling TV's that don't work at all if they're not connected.
Or, as is the case with my Samsung TV, they could just be arbitrarily annoying until you do connect - pepper the user with requests to connect and put up modals everywhere until they finally relent.
Mine does this, and also when I disconnect CarPlay, it immediately turns on the radio at full blast.
My "smart" TV does the same thing: whereas on older dumb TVs, when I told it to sleep, it worked 100% of the time, on my newer TV, it works 30% of the time.
Sometimes it decides to switch to Tuner input (even after I've disconnected the antennae! Argh!). Sometimes it just leaves the whole display on, with no input.
Finally, one time in 20, when I try to turn on my TV, it just gets into a reboot loop.
Everything about having Android TV is objectively worse for my use cases than my old dumb TV, which just displayed the most recent input and turned off when I told it to.
I don’t want to pay a premium for dumb TV though. Just like a laptop without crapware is more expensive because the crapware actually subsidizes it, a dumb TV can be more expensive.
But if you pick a good (quick, without annoying UI, allows USB upgrade and offline configuration and so on) smart TV and just don’t connect it, I think that’s probably a better idea than getting a commercial monitor for example.
I bought a mid-range Vizio about two years ago. Vizio has progressively made its OS more and more laggy every few months and filled it to the brim with unblockable ads. Software updates would regularly break things for a few days/weeks at a time until the changes get rolled back.
When Apple came out with their new Apple TV, I bought one, connected that to my TV, and disconnected my TV from the internet. Now life is good since the Apple TV is buttery smooth and does not have ads.
The TV shows ads? In menus? Or while watching TV channels? Or at startup? Or, when? I’d pull the internet cable in a heartbeat if I saw an ad on it, and I’m on my second smart TV for the last 10 years (although my current one is 7 years old).
I mean I don’t actually use any of the “smart” stuff. No Apps or anything. Not sure why anyone would want to? I watch my TV channels on the built in receiver (90% or more of what I watch is regular scheduled TV, I love my old fashioned TV channels!), and I cast stuff to it when I want to stream Netflix or sports.
When I switch apps (e.g. Youtube, Netflix, Plex, etc.), the switcher has several rows of media that I must scroll past. That media usually comprises of media that I am not subscribed to and would have to pay to access (e.g. mostly random shows or movies). There were no ads (from Vizio) once I was inside of an app.
I don't subscribe to TV/cable/satellite. I only have Youtube Premium (ad free Youtube videos; not Youtube TV), Netflix, Amazon Prime TV, Nebula, and a local Plex server.
Last update for Android TV did the same to me (before I did the same thing as OP, appletv + factory), kept showing ads for shows on apps I didn't have installed
You know what I would pay for is flashable firmware for my TV that, for example, removes the 'google' / 'smart' parts from it.
Currently I just have my tv at stock settings with no network connection but it keeps annoyingly asking for a network connection.
What would be my dream is the apple TV + xbox utalising hdmi-cec to auto turn on and auto switch to the correct source then turn off when done so I didn't even need the tv remote
Monitors have other purposes of TVs, the things that are important on a monitor are not the same on a TV, and a good monitor doesn't necessary mean that it's a good TV or vice versa.
See the same difference in the audio world: there is monitor/studio equipment that has the purpose of reproducing the sound as closely as possible to the original media, and then there is listening equipment that is meant to make the sound more enjoyable for the listener.
Monitors also doesn't include a TV receiver. While that can be an advantage in countries like mine for people that wants only to look at internet content since if you have a TV with a receiver you have to pay a tax, it doesn't work for people that just want's to watch TV, meaning connecting the power and aerial cable to the TV and use it. You need an external decoder, that needs to have a separate remote control, you then need two power outlets, more cables, you then have to install the decoder somewhere, it's not as clean as having it integrate in the TV itself.
I think especially at my grandma, that doesn't have internet, and wants a TV that is as simple as possible, press 1 on the remote and the TV turns on at the channel 1. Press volume up/down and the power button. Nowadays it's difficult to find TV with that requisite, modern remotes have a ton of buttons what will bring up functionalities that then are difficult to exit, especially for an 85 years old woman that never used a computer or a smartphone or anything other than a TV and the landline phone.
Monitors are more expensive for the size and lack features people expect. There is typically no remote control and you're not going to get component or composite inputs.
I use a monitor as a TV but it doesn't have optical out just a horrid horrid headphone jack so I had to buy a HDMI switch and universal remote just to mimic what a TV does.
I find Sony TVs to be pretty quick. I use it them in conjunction with Apple TV, and I never have to deal with the TV itself, and it is quick to turn itself off and on via HDMI CEC.
They are not the high end models either, I have a $630 one from 2016 and a $600 one from 2020.
My Roku-built-in TV is usable in maybe 3-4 seconds—when it's in sleep mode. A cold boot (say, if it's lost power for any reason) does take tens of seconds.
Meanwhile, my dumb LCD TV from ~2008 only does cold boots and comes up in maybe 2 seconds, no matter what.
I assume Roku does not have the sufficient resources to properly equip their products with the necessary hardware to cope with their software, resulting in a compromised product that manifests as slow start times.
Unfortunately, I do not see how some of these smaller players can come close to being competitive with the big players seeing how small the profit margins are on physical devices.
Unless they have a reputation for very high quality, I assume there are lots of compromises being made on the hardware side to be able to compete on price.
> I assume Roku does not have the sufficient resources to properly equip their products with the necessary hardware to cope with their software, resulting in a compromised product that manifests as slow start times.
I dunno—this TCL Roku TV's the best-performing smart TV I've used, including some very expensive ones. It's really fast except for cold boots (again: these only happen if the power's actually been interrupted, or, rarely, on updates). Roku's OS helps, since it's way less resource-hungry than, say, Android-derived operating systems. I've done some work with Roku devices so I've used lots of them, and even the very low-end ones have always performed really well. The OS is weird, but you can't say it's not (relatively) resource efficient and responsive.
... I do have a much-worse brand of Roku TV that is badly under-powered. It sucks. It's the brand that replaced TCL at our local Costco—Hisense, it's called. Looks almost the same, costs almost the same, but is terrible. Fine if you treat it as a dumb panel and just use stuff plugged in to it, but terrible if you intend to use the built-in Roku OS for anything other than switching inputs. Frequent (apparent) out-of-memory crashes, many less-well-made (but major) streaming "apps" are laggy, and so on.
Its not just Roku. Every single TV sold is like this from every single manufacturer. They are all slower and shittier at being a TV screen than my 720p screen from like 2005. What's with that? It's like a giant cabal of an entire industry deciding that their customers aren't worth the hardware, no matter of its some Walmart only entry level TV or the top of the line thousands of dollars screen from a major brand. The only way to get a competent TV is to not even buy retail, but buy the same exact panels without the dumb hardware from the commercial market.
I am sure there are plenty of qualified people doing the necessary due diligence to figure out which features, or perception of features, customers are willing to pay for.
I doubt the executives at Sony, Samsung, LG, Vizio, Hisense, etc are sitting there and consciously choosing to keep people away from fast, dumb TVs for the hell of it. It is a cutthroat business with razor thin margins, no one is obviously making much money, so after all these years, I would surmise they are making decisions that allow them to stay in business after all these years.
Personally, I am biased towards Sony, and I am happy with the speed of the two consumer line TVs I have purchased. However, I only use them in conjunction with Apple TV, so I have no idea with changing channels or inputs or any of that is like.
You would think that somewhere in the market there is a price point that means you get more powerful hardware in the TV. It really seems like the TVs at the entry level have the exact same hardware as TVs that cost 5 times as much or more. Surely that markup should afford hardware that is slightly faster and still produce a profit margin. If people are willing to pay 5x more for a panel their eyes can barely percieve the differences in, surely they'd be happier with a smoother UX experience compared to a competitors offering.
> I doubt the executives at Sony, Samsung, LG, Vizio, Hisense, etc are sitting there and consciously choosing to keep people away from fast, dumb TVs for the hell of it. It is a cutthroat business with razor thin margins, no one is obviously making much money, so after all these years, I would surmise they are making decisions that allow them to stay in business after all these years.
Again, at least part of why this is happening is they can't sell ads and spyware-data with dumb TVs. Features that consumers want may be a factor, but I can guarantee you (as in: I've had some actual insight into the industry) that a big reason is that they can monetize their customers' data and eyeballs with smart TVs, and so undercut any competitors who choose not to do that. Price matters a lot to TV buyers, so this is effective at driving sales (and so, keeping your product on store shelves, and avoiding a product death-spiral).
Sometimes they will seek out nearby open WiFi networks to join. There’s concern that in coming years with the spread of 5G availability that smart TVs may start packaging a 5G modem and connecting to cell networks, bypassing the need to be connected to a WiFi network.
Because 5G is intentionally marketed as having this functionality. It helps by allowing more efficient low-speed connections, and simpler radio design for very simple implementation. It also has 'slicing' which would make it much easier to provide a wide 5G network to e.g. all LG devices without LG building towers.
As I understand it, the standard allows a single tower to offer different quality of service levels so operators can sell cheap low bandwidth connections to IoT manufacturers. TVs wouldn't have modems before because no TV manufacturer wanted to pay for a full 3G or 4G connection.
It's supposed to enable much-cheaper options for IoT applications. If the cost of the chip + the cost of low-bandwidth access drops below the profit gained by ensuring all your TVs can always reach an unfiltered network, they'll start adding them.
Because getting the data about what people are watching plus maybe input from microphone/camera is more valuable than a contract with mobile carriers that would give good prices to vendors.
So one Reddit post with zero evidence that has since been deleted? While I understand the distrust I'll take some repeatable evidence (which would be excedingly easy to do) over a random, now deleted Reddit post.
False. You would need to buy (or just randomly happen to have) a smart TV model that exhibits this characteristic, which would be very difficult to find, as there is a very wide spread of smart TV models and features, and obviously this "feature" wouldn't be advertised. This is neither easy nor free.
You're also clearly moving the goalposts. You first asked for evidence, and then discarded the evidence because "it wasn't good enough".
Nor is this capability either technically difficult to implement, illegal, easily-noticed by the average consumer, or abnormal for companies like Samsung, which already engage in highly-intrusive ad-surveillance activities[1].
While I am rather cynical about manufacturers of all sizes and their attitudes towards customers, I agree with the GP.
If this is a common thing, this should be easy to replicate. If it is one unverified reported incident in the whole world then... I have to be skeptical.
Don't get me wrong though, my innate cynicism expects this or similar via 5G to be coming in the near future. But it doesn't appear to be happening yet.
> False. You would need to buy (or just randomly happen to have) a smart TV model that exhibits this characteristic, which would be very difficult to find, as there is a very wide spread of smart TV models and features, and obviously this "feature" wouldn't be advertised. This is neither easy nor free.
If the reddit poster had provided model numbers, not just "Samsung TVs" this would become trivial to verify. They however did not. They also didn't provide any proof other than "it deffo happened guys".
> You're also clearly moving the goalposts. You first asked for evidence, and then discarded the evidence because "it wasn't good enough".
Again, as I stated in my reply while I understand your skepticism and distrust of the industry my standard of evidence is somewhat above one random guy on reddit with no verifiable evidence.
It depends strongly on the brand. LG is well known to be good in that situation. I bought one on the recommendation of HN comments and it seems to work great to me.
Not something I would install to my grandma. Really, she doesn't of course have internet, just the old analog landline phones, doesn't know how to use a computer or a smartphone or anything like that, I want a TV that is simple, just press a button and it powers up on the specified channel.
Next year they will switch off DVB to migrate to DVB-T2, and of course I must buy her a new TV (using a decoder it's not an option, too complex having to manage two remotes controls), and it seems that nobody produces dumb TVs anymore...
Yea a monitor is not a bad idea but they don't come in very large sizes or are way overpriced. Also if you'd want a decent speaker build in, monitors are not always the best
Some (Sony) pop up random nag screens in the middle of the movie or show you're watching. Even if that show is being streamed on a different smart device or you are watching OTA TV where internet is completely unnecessary.
Some brands/models can't even be setup without an internet connection and setting up accounts (and sometimes credit card information). Eventually, they'll probably have their own independent 5g connection.
I can't remember the brand. I think it was one of the cheaper Roku tvs produced by a Chinese company I saw when I was looking for a replacement for my parents (reminds me of the issues with Onyx Boox devices).
At this point, I just assume everything is spying.
(Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to harvest your data, I guess.)
Our TV started to complain that the Wifi module was unplugged (which apparently is on the main board). Problem: This happened regularly with a dialog box. 'Solution': Put a Wifi dongle in the USB port.
I think the worst thing about projectors is their noise. I heard lasers are a bit better here, but I only saw a model that was as noisy as the others, while the image wasn't that much or even at all better. That was in the quality segment that use DLP for image modulation. Did this improve in recent years?
Hmm, can't say I've been bothered by noise on any projector. Primarily because the audio system or headphones drown it out. Cooling design hasn't changed much from what I've seen but newer projectors are quieter.
Keeping an insulated box at a constant temperature with refrigeration has been something that was reliably possible over a century ago, so it puzzles me what the electronics/computers in a fridge would be necessary for, besides decreasing reliability and planned obolescence.
My late 30s Frigidaire has no electronics at all...
That's 'cool' (pun intended), they'll be hacked while still in the cardboard shipping container. Tizen is about as leaky as it gets.
Anyway, GP asked if there were fridges running Android, yes there are. Even if they are not being sold by Samsung in the present, it is a safe assumption that not all of these have died in the line of duty.
It's a pity that this law has apparently been so watered down, and basically just cements the status quo. Spares for dishwashers and washing machines are already available, and 10 years doesn't really sound that long for big appliances.
I don't see whether the law addresses the problem of overpriced spares. For example, I don't see why an original Miele heating element for a washing machine costs 100€, while an unbranded compatible part costs less than 20€.
I can understand (in a very vague, general sense) why spare parts might be relatively expensive – it's probably fairly expensive to make, store, and maintain a distribution network for the parts, i.e. the price isn't just for the price of the part, but the entire system (e.g. customer support) to send it to a customer in response to their request. I'm _sure_ there's also an 'original manufacturer' premium too, and maybe that _is_ in fact most of the difference compared to 'unbranded compatible' parts.
Spare parts are expensive because they’re priced to willingness to pay which is usually “if it’s significantly less to repair than replace, repair”. $100 part + $200 labor is cheaper than a new $500 machine. Repair let’s tend to have much much higher margin for manufacturers than the original machine.
Auto manufacturers manage this quite well. Some more than others, but if you bought something like a Honda or a Toyota back in the '80s or '90s, you can still find affordable OEM parts for it today, and the manufacturer will still service things like electronics clusters.
Why not expect something similar from a much simpler and less dangerous $1-10k appliance?
In my province, landlords cannot terminate a periodic tenancy except for a small number of causes, but they are free to change the rent price to whatever they want once a year. Result: if the landlord wants you gone, they just tell you your 2k per month rent is increasing to 20k per month and voilà, gone!
No user protection is effective unless it comes with some sort of price cap. This is why GPL requires the source code to be made available "for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source". Otherwise, a company could use GPL'd code in their product and say they are more than happy to give you a copy of the source code for 100 billion dollars.
NJ statewide has is no cap on increases in rent, but there is a requirement for good cause to terminate a lease. An unconscionable or unreasonablerent increase is illegal
In my experience with Apple parts they are roughly in line with my expectations based on a) the price of the computer, and b) not being designed for any part to be replaced independently. These aren't great factors of course, but I'm not sure the problem is expensive parts.
I've usually found logic boards to be ~1/3-1/2 of the price of the machine, which considering they have the RAM/SSD soldered on, feels like ~1/3-1/2 of the value of the machine to me. Similarly, screens are often in the same sort of ballpark and I'd say that matches my expectations.
If you start from "how much does a motherboard cost" or "how much does a screen cost", that's going to miss a lot of the legit costs of additional components, higher quality components, or laptop form factor costing more.
Yeah, but if the only problem with your motherboard is a $3 IC that got fried and everything else is fine does it make sense to have to buy an entire new motherboard?
Dear god that's a stretch of the word "researcher" if ever I've seen one. Yes, that article would take some "research" (as in, finding stuff) but nope, the person writing it wouldn't be a "researcher" for it.
They'd be a journalist. At 9to5 or such probably.
I’m not sure it is. What verb does someone do when they collect and collate data about products at consumer reports, tom’s hardware, or even the low bar of linus tech tips?
I’d say while the primary role may be journalist at most of these types of orgs, there is definitely a role for people who focus on the research side of things, and if you’re actively running experiments and benchmarks, you are definitely moving out of the realm of simple observation. I certainly would like to benefit from the data of which phone is cheapest to repair. iFixit already does the research to grade repairability of devices.
Indeed, though effective regulations requiring phone manufacturers and app developers to stop trying to lock your data into their device or software wouldn't be a bad thing either. The ability to back up your own data on your own terms would be a good start. Some recent legal changes, such as the GDPR in Europe, have attempted to guarantee this access when services have your data. But apparently having your own device lock you in is still OK for some reason.
Apple isn't the only manufacturer doing this. It's also quite common among PC manufacturers. And consumers aren't exactly provided this information openly to weigh this as a factor. The market cannot currently solve this problem because there's not enough transparency.
Do they? I think most consumers assume if a 40 cent part breaks on their computer they will pay 40 cents plus labor plus some part markup - the same way car, HVAC, and other repairs work.
That's why when people's computers break they take them to get repaired in the first place. Otherwise, consumers would just be tossing their broken devices and buying a new one.
If you're fairly well-heeled you certainly have the privilege of forgoing repairs and just buying new ones. Lots of tech enthusiasts who cycle through devices every year probably aren't bothered. But normal people who don't get excited at the prospect of purchasing a new 3 or 4 figure device appreciate being able to get their machine back in working order for a few hundred max.
I don't know for a fact if in isolation this is a problem or not a problem.
But from the perspective of the compound problem of getting repairability on track, this is an element within that compound that is lacking the drive of customer attention.
Given the awful environmental cost of "disposable tech", everyone should care about reducing waste and extending the working life of our hardware if only for that reason.
Of course it's also bad for society that we have so little effective competition in tech markets now that users think substandard products and user-hostile behaviours are normal. The race to the bottom is bad for everyone, and everyone being sold those products is being abused in the name of profit, whether or not any given individual is aware of how much it is happening to them or understands that better alternatives exist.
Just because you don't care that the environment is suffering, and resources are being wasted, because instead of fixing things people throw them away doesn't mean that helping to mitigate those problems doesn't benefit you.
Or to use a crude analogy: just because babies don't care about having their nappy (ie diaper) changed doesn't mean it doesn't help them.
Even if they are overpriced, I still want them available. If for no other reason, to ensure that battery replacement is possible. My last two phones were fine when I retired them, except for the battery. In the laptop world, I have kept some of my old devices in service for a long, long time by getting cheap battery replacements on ebay.
Want direct data devices locked down and proprietary (TPM and apple T2).
Want devices directly tied to the user. Want to prevent “hacks” that detect snooping or other low level background “proprietary” services that may be running.
The fact that people are barely talking about this and everyone just accepted it as a new way forward makes me sadder than anything else regarding the future.
I'm starting to think we are the odd ones from the bunch for questioning total state/corporate control over our communications/computation.
"Mr Xi oversees the party and its 92 million members — that might sound huge compared to Australia’s population of 25 million, but it is less than 7 per cent of China’s 1.4 billion people."
Its actually much less innocent than it looks like. Add an additional 100-150M for Communist Youth, a subsidiary organization and 150-250M for Mao Judend, a subsidiary for kids. Its called totalitarianism for a reason.
I want to be all positive here and say "maybe it is just a stopgap while they work on solving those issues in a later stage"... but I'm most likely completely wrong.
I'm partially in the same boat there... but I also see that most other brands do the same thing in perhaps a different variation.
Generally most of them just shift the problem around; i.e. for Samsung devices you can sometimes have good access to OEM replacement parts, but support and lifecycle in general is so short that it doesn't really matter in the long run. Or sometimes you get both but the performance is bad. Or you get both and good performance but the price is bad. Or everything is 'just right' about the product, but then the platform is lacking and there is no buy-in from the larger community or consumer market.
Sometimes it seems there is no 'total' solution, except in a few niche markets.
hopefully the beginning of this movement not the end, good to see the need for this recognised in legislation, as someone who would like to see more progression along this route this is a meaningful event.
Tokenism at it's finest. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse after Brexit and the election of Boris Johnson as prime minister. I don't know what the Conservatives managed to slip into people's breakfast cereal but they're riding high in the polls despite food shortages due to exiled lorry drivers and the exposure of deception by the Minister Of Health during the COVID crisis.
thank goodness those never need repairing and aren't essential, heavily-used pieces of hardware /s
This is as toothless/pointless as passing a law that says you have the right to a discrimination-free workplace, except that racism and sexism are ok. These exclusions make the law useless for most people.
"From Thursday, manufacturers will have to make spares available to consumers, with the aim of extending the lifespan of products by up to 10 years, it said"
Whoah. Can you imagine trying to make sure your iphone 4 still worked today?
I'm all for right to repair, but that seems a bit excessive, no?
It is protectionism of their business model for customer support, which is a profit center in many modern companies by now. They are not honest about that so you can call that fraud.
There's absolutely no way you could convince a judge that this was fraud. You can't just pick some legal term that sounds familiar and say that's what's going on. These terms have very specific meanings based on extensive case law.
Right, so not to put words in varispeed mouth. But their claim is that Right-to-repair that doesn't give you the Right to repair what they want the right to repair is deliberately deceptive and, thus, fraudulent.
The damages would be that the product that they wish to repair are irreparable.
I don't know what to tell you apart from that's not what 'fraud' is in practice. Things being not what you want and someone having spent money does not equal fraud. You can't just pick a legal term and interpret it as literal English without any knowledge of the actual precedent around it.
I don't know if you think the entire legislation is the words 'right to repair'? It obviously isn't - it's far more nuanced than that.
> You can't just pick a legal term and interpret it as literal English without any knowledge of the actual precedent around it.
That's exactly what you are doing. You responded to somebody typing literal English with an spurious debate about a legal term no one asked about and is different depending on what jurisdiction you live in.
This is a brilliant move to sever the powerful farmers from the impotent programmers and electronics repair shops on this issue. Expect to see this repeated around the world.
translation: this "right to repair" law appears to exclude everything you'd actually want the right to repair.
Rather a lot of the right to repair fight in the US comes down to ECUs and data formats and readers for things like OBD ports on vehicles, or firmware for your farm equipment, or lots of other things that certainly have computers in them.
Here, a computer might be interpreted as a laptop or a desktop, not an embedded system "with a computer in them".
Anyway, the list is very short and exclusive (for now?): "For now, the right to repair laws only cover: Dishwashers;
Washing machines and washer-dryers;
Refrigeration appliances;
Televisions and other electronic displays"
IME washing machines, dishwashers, washer-dryers all have relatively good repairability and good parts availability already (fridges too, though I've less experience of that). You even see them being scored on repairability or repair costs.
Have they addressed a problem that is largely absent?
It's hard to choose to repair when a secondhand replacement is as cheap though. Replaced a plastic pipe, and a hose on my dishwasher, delivered cost ~£50; same as a newer secondhand dishwasher. But at least I've kept it out of the waste stream for a couple more years.
Source: fixed all the white goods in my house several times over. I don't have anything recent though, so more recent products might be worse. There is a lot of part reuse, which is good.
I live in a London new-build flat. Mine and several of my neighbours washing machines gave out at the same time, all in the same month, all roughly 3 years in. These came with the flats of course.
I would repair it, but having watched a YouTube video on how it's done, the cost in tools, parts and effort (it's a full disassembly) to make the relatively simple repair I cannot justify over buying a better model of my choosing.
Right-to-repair laws aren't about you personally repairing every item you need. It means you have the freedom to buy the support and maintenance you need from the entire market, rather than being beholden to expensive options "blessed" by the original manufacturer.
I know what it means. I'm an engineer though and a practical person so I -will- choose to repair something myself where practical, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
Unfortunately, although the parts to repair the washing machine are inexpensive, the design means a sizeable labor effort (and thus cost) to get at the problem part, so repairing it isn't practical, even for a repair shop, because it's hours of work.
The fact that several of my neighbors had the same machine fail at the same time suggest it's designed to fail early.
Between that and being designed to make a simple bearing change several hours of work, is was designed to be thrown away, not repaired, by anyone.
I'm not sure how it works with something someone else bought, but the Consumer Rights Act might cover this situation, especially if it's a manufacturing fault. Washing machines would be reasonably expected to last at least 10 years, so you'd be entitled to a free repair, a like-for-like replacement or a 70% refund. Maybe soak to Which? or Citizens Advice (or a lawyer of you have one).
The current British government is a pathetic joke, why would anyone expect them to handle even the simplest things competently, let alone something complex?
Unless your problems can be solved by shouting “Vaccines! Vaccines” Boris Johnson literally has nothing to offer you (unless you’re a tory donor or his mistress of course).
I don't want a right to repair if that means a bulky phone/laptop with terrible water sealing.
Typing from a 4 year old non-repairable phone (Samsung S8).
If you want a repairable phone, good, but don't take away my choice of slim water resistant phones.
Get off my lawn HNers keep on complaining about big screens, non removable batteries, and lack of headphone ports, but nobody cares because people actually want those things.
What I want, is to be able to find a repair shop locally that would repair the glass on my Oneplus 8 Pro that I smashed in the first week of owning it. It fell all of 4 inches from the arm of the sofa onto the side table, and smashed because of shitty design wrapping the glass round the edge which was totally unnecessary.
Oneplus will repair it for £200 for the part PLUS tax PLUS shipping PLUS labour and I'll have to ship it out of the country somewhere and wait a number of weeks they won't disclose to have my phone back. Heck, they won't even tell me how much the labour cost _might_ be.
If they'd sell the parts and allow one of the many phone repair shops in the UK to fix it, I could have it within an hour or two for little more than the cost of the screen itself.
This isn't about making your devices shitty, fat and not-waterproof, it's about enabling people with the wills and the skills to buy the tools and the parts to do the job.
Heck, under a good right-to-repair, I could buy the screen myself and fit it if I wanted.
So many people miss the point of right-to-repair. It's not about making things less this or less that, it's simply about giving you the RIGHT to buy the parts you need and the tools you need to repair the thing you own.
If you're in the UK and an expensive phone really did break just from falling 4 inches after one week, I'd be tempted to try returning it to the seller. There must be a credible argument that it's unfit for purpose if it can be broken that easily due to a design flaw. It's not as if you carelessly dropped it from a pocket at waist height onto a concrete floor or something.
I tried, it was from Amazon and neither they nor Oneplus cared how or why it happened, I tried arguing that it was ridiculous that it happened but again, deaf ears, so I just let it be.
For that kind of money, you might want to get a bit of advice on the right words to use before giving up. The thing about "Your statutory rights are not affected" is that your statutory rights are not affected, whether they care or not.
Even if you decide not to fight this one, please consider informing one of the major consumer rights organisations so if there is a design flaw and others are experiencing the same problem the manufacturer can't bury their head in the sand and try to avoid responsibility. Other big tech firms have allegedly done this in the past and bad publicity is often what brings them round in the end.
Although I understand, and I have done so in the past and won, after speaking with both OnePlus and Amazon I came away feeling that it was my fault.
I had a case on the phone which I removed just an hour earlier because it was dirty underneath, and wit lockdown and working from home I wasn't leaving the house, I saw no need to put it back on, felt like Karma.
Yes I believe the design contributed significantly to it breaking, it just wasn't the time for me to add more stress trying to fight it.
I'm a strange way, it was a good thing, I'm a perfectionist, and having a broken screen put me off wanting to use my phone, that's a good thing in a weird way.
That's totally fair enough. You have to pick the fights you think are worth taking, and if it's just going to cause you stress then maybe this one simply isn't. I hope you manage to sort your phone out one way or another.
It seems to me that it is a purely propaganda that these things are mutually exclusive. Like how all smartphone manufacturers had phones that were fine with removable batteries, but then suddenly that was gone from literally every brand in the world because it is so powerful for planned obsolescence
People want thin phones. A non-removable battery allows for thinness you simply cannot get otherwise.
And while you can argue about whether thin laptops are necessary, for people who carry their phones in their pants pockets, an extra couple millimeters gone is genuinely a meaningful difference.
Yes, they made thinner phones but they made more huge and heavy. Nowadays it's nearly impossible to find a phone that has a screen smaller than 6". I mean, to me it's too much, it can even fit in some of my pockets!
Give me back the old phones, removable battery, more thick, but more compact in the end, and more easy to carry around. The bigger screen it's in the end useless to me.
>A non-removable battery allows for thinness you simply cannot get otherwise.
I doubted this so I looked up dimensions. Samsung Galaxy S6 from 2015 is 6.8mm thick, with removable battery. S10 from 2019 is 7.8mm thick. So your theory doesn't seem to match reality.
In any case, it's apples-to-oranges and doesn't mean anything. Cell phones can have functionality added that takes up the difference in thickness -- e.g. keeping the phone the same thickness instead of it getting even thicker.
But main point is, they're thinner basically by definition. There are necessarily more layers of materials.
Oh yeah seems I saw an incorrect site, S5 was the last one with removable battery.
Of course there are some tradeoffs but it just doesn't seem so significant that EVERY brand refuses to offer even one model with a removable battery. There are definitely some people that want it despite the tradeoffs. As other commenters said, people have huge phones now and use cases. So I think manufacturers have a special interest in maintaining the situation for planned obsolescence.
I don't think it has anything to do with planned obsolescence.
I've had an iPhone battery replaced 3 times now. It's not a big deal to have the store do it for me, nor is it that expensive.
The bigger use case for swappable batteries is to have a spare, but these days people just carry an external battery pack with them that's the capacity they need, which is far more flexible (hold 10 full charges if you need, not just 1!) as well as not tied to any particular model.
So I just don't see any special interest -- it's just giving people the thinness they want.
Funny how I was replacing my old phones with replaceable batteries every year, yet I am replacing the newer ones with non replaceable ones only every 3, 4 years.
Hint: it's not the non-replacable battery why people upgrade phones.
Opposite for me, I still hold onto my old phone with replaceable battery for when my new phone dies and i cant swap in a fresh one. Still works after 7+ years
You will still have a removable backplate on your hermetically sealed phone. All Right to Repair means is that companies will be unable to enter part exclusivity deals with manufacturers.
we can have both. iPhones are quite easy to repair everything, but iPads aren't. They're glued together, and they really don't need to be. Lot of design decisions that have nothing to do with making the product better but just making it hard to repair.
This sounds so logical (why cannot I run, by voiding the warranty, any code I want on my machine, whatever it is?), yet apparently so hard to make openly illegal, since the problem is barely acknowledged in general.