And once you gave voice to your wit, the conversation diverged from the larger issues 
2 Likes
@Kyle_Rankin, 100% agreed; the mobile market is controlled by an apparent duopoly and it’s a serious problem for society.
My sense of it though is that we’re looking at a monolith; I don’t quite believe that Apple and Google are so separate. Rather, we’re observing a legacy of DARPA and various intelligence agencies, going back to the founding of the Internet and further.
Used passively, mobiles have served to map the world (geospatial intelligence / omniscience). Used actively, they’ve served to manipulate our behavior …
To say the least, I think we deserve better than this. Although, as long as we decide to use/adopt one thing or another, out of sheer pragmatism, we’re doomed to end up in this situation over and over again.
Generally speaking, we need to be more principled and conscientious of our purchasing decisions. This means convenience should not be our primary drive. Otherwise, entities like Google, Amazon and Apple can end up running our lives.
To me, it’s awfully hypocritical to curse these companies while also using their services & products–if you are, I think you should examine yourself and devise an exit. Otherwise, it’s pretty silly to complain, because demonstratively, they don’t care about you and I. In fact, they’ve only intensified their disgusting, monopolistic, fascistic behavior.
To hell with them I say. They have nothing without your participation. Dump 'em.
1 Like
easier said than done. doing that requires ALSO dumping that part in each of us that is fascistic in nature. not really easy to do without the proper “motivation” and understanding of where this leads otherwise …
I’m not sure why you say “The end result will be that whether or not you are allowed to install and run software on a computer you own, would no longer be up to you” using the future tense: for many people this is already their reality (the worst part is that they’re happy about it).
you’re missing the different between Digital currency (edit: meaning digital transactions) and crypto currency,
as an example, more dollars were “printed” last year ($5tn stimulus) than had ever been “printed” before. yet surprisingly little paper was used.
The issue is if you take a look at companies like Nets, WorldPay, Mastercard they have incredibly large networks, and facilitate transfer of currency, - so they are accepted everywhere, it’s the same as saying Paypal is accepted in most places. you don’t need cash, all your transactions can be digital. - until they because you’re banned by the transaction facilitator - e…g master card and visa won’t do transactions with you any more, or your paypal account is locked and your funds held hostage.
It’s not just wanting (or not wanting) crypto-currency, there is a huge social issue coming up, and this is especially true whilst we look at banking as a “service” and not a utility.
(meaning the networks that master card/visa supply are essential. and it should not be the case that they can “shut you off” (especially just for not agreeing with your politics.)
It’s a fundamental problem that we need networks (like master card/visa) to participate in society, but the ability to participate in society may be removed (without trial or recourse) by a private entity… - it’s not seen as an issue yet because we still have physical cash, but as we (want to?) move to an increasingly cashless society relying on digital transactions this issue (along with plenty of others) will grow…
5 Likes
This makes no sense, Apple and google = bad, because they have app stores, and to stop using those app stores you have to search out install procedures, and trust “unlisted repositories”
at the same time Purism = good because their app store (https://puri.sm/faq/do-you-have-an-app-store/) is different? but a majority of the population won’t see it like that, they see you as the gatekeeper, what is in the app store is curated content, yes, feel free to go outside (on your own!) where you take your own risks and need to be able to understand the software. (so almost exactly the same as android?)
The obvious nod to Parler makes no sense either, (there is just as much chance of a linux app being removed from the PureOS “software store” as from the play store or app store. - it’s still just the decision of one person/team/company to allow/disallow/revoke software.
The real question is would you have kept Parler in your easily found pre-linked software store. or left your customers going out linking to random repos on the internet, or installing software from potentially dodgy sources?
The real de-platform of Parler came from their service providers (AWS) - and again there is just as much chance of this happening to any app delivered through the pureOS store (if they break their hosting providers T&Cs, or indeed equal change of the pureOS store itself being pulled by the hosting provider if you host content that breaks your providers T&Cs…
For sure open source software is an important part of a free society where view can be expressed freely, BUT, it is not a big part of the answer to obvious duopoly provider issues that are clearly seen between Apple/google in application delivery or AWS/Azure etc in hosting content servers.
(e.g. if Parler had been built using purism servers, -using physical hosting provided by AWS, based their platform completely on open source software etc. It wouldn’t have stopped AWS pulling their plug…
2 Likes
That is an interesting take on the subject, but I certainly don’t see it that way. App Stores on Linux distros are a nice convenience but in no way a requirement. There have been app stores on linux distros for many years, but I rarely use them because they have often tended to be clunky. App stores on Apple and Linux phones are much more ingrained in the experience. Apple has apparently again blocked side-loading and while Google tacitly allows it, you have to go to settings and allow content from untrusted sources. Realistically, even on Android, the fact that you must be aware of the setting and that you are allowing something untrusted is enough to preclude many of taking that route.
On a Linux computer (there is the implication by many in these forums that the Librem 5 is a computer that happens to also be a phone) the idea of downloading and installing applications outside the distro-provided store is less of an impediment. Although there are clearly both long-term Linux users as well as just people interested in getting a different type of phone (possibly without any prior Linux experience), at least in the short term with Librem 5 I expect even those without Linux experience will probably be forced to learn how to do some things outside the previous phone experience in order to maximize the utility of the Librem 5. For example, there have been some solutions to issues posted previously that required (usually simple) commands in a terminal.
So while it seems (to me) clear that Purism wants a vast variety of users of the Librem 5, not just Linux users in general, I think a higher percentage of the users will be able and willing to considering going outside the provided store for applications.
As I can agree that Purism could theoretically curate the store in the same manner that Apple and Google do, I think that is unlikely. First, I don’t think that Purism has the same financial incentives. Apple certainly gets a good cut of the revenue from purchases on their store. I suspect Google does as well, but probably not as much as google. Many of the apps on the Librem 5 store will be open source and (hopefull) free (and without ads). While Purism is somewhat new to the phone arena, they are not so new in the Linux and open source arena so there is a history to look to. I think they have shown themselves to be pretty good citizens in the open source arena. For example, phosh and libhandy are open source (originally from Pursim I believe) but there are numerous videos available talking about using both on the Pinephone (an alternative Linux phone to the Librem 5). So I don’t expect them to kick out applications from the store the way Google and Apple do.
Whether Purism decides in the future that they should in their infinite wisdom decide to prevent certain applications which might provide content that they don’t think you should be allowed to see, we will just have to wait and see. So far though, I am not aware of anything that indicates that.
Sure, I agree with all of that.
but… lets not forget that linux is the kernel, not the fluff on top. and android runs on the linux kernel, So android “technically” has all the same that pureOS provides (except you need to change a single setting.)
To the “average users” (clearly not the target of Librum5) there is very little difference between changing a setting to allow un-trusted sources to allow you to go outside the app store eco-system packaged with the delivered software, or downloading packages running commands, deciding if you can trust 3rd parties, accepting their keys on your device, adding new entries to your sources list (assuming you want updates)…
My statement that this blog makes no sense is because it is couched in the context that running your own apps on Android is somehow really difficult and filled with difficult choices and scary warnings. (but there are similar choices and scary warnings when you add new keys as a part of adding a new entry to sources.list.)
For the “average user” (app-wise) the Librum5 is not offering them anything that they wouldn’t otherwise have gotten with just changing a security setting.
1 Like
Depends on which “Linux” we’re talking about. The previous post was clearly using the word in the sense “GNU/Linux”, including the fluff on top, which makes all the difference.
Not today, but absolutely in the future. So let me address this point too.
As I wrote in the previous post, Android is the thing that limits choices, less the hardware it runs on. So you should be looking at PureOS, not the Librem 5. So what’s the difference here if PureOS is shipping the Purism store?
Well, the difference is that if you want to sell a device with PureOS but with some other store - or multiple stores, or a store switcher, no one will stop you. So if one store removes the app they want, they may not even notice.
If you try to do the same with Android, Google may revoke your Play Services license. Given that a huge number of applications are relying on the closed source Play Services, no one will have much success with that. Look at Amazon or Huawei. So for the majority of users, they will absolutely be locked out if their app goes missing.
That makes a difference.
3 Likes
Here’s my contribution that should only lightly step into politics. It’s my view that it is only kismet that the application in question was one of dubious moral value. The larger issue is how quickly a service, an application, was found to be undesirable and shut down. Any third party, regardless of political disposition, must be concerned.
One must recognize the massive anti-trust problems that vendors in this space are vulnerable to. Apple did it to MacAmp long ago. Microsoft championed the 3E game (embrace, extend, extinguish). Surely Google and Apple recognize the value in this approach. It’s big bank takes little bank and there’s plenty of money that goes into ensuring that “little banks” can only operate as long as they don’t force the bigs to compete in a fair, but regulated, market.
This is why, in my opinion, we see so much around “free” market propaganda. Free, unregulated, markets are naturally self-destroying. And those that would benefit the most are the ones that would want to see it destroyed. Customers benefit from competition. But not when competition destroys itself leaving a monopoly or duopoly.
And that’s where, I believe, Kyle’s post is an important exercise in grasping how quickly a (rightful) pariah was extinguished. What if next time it’s a union busting exercise? What if next time it’s killing off a business because the platform vendor has decided they want that market space for themselves? Next time, we may not be so lucky in having the victim being an insurrectionist platform. And that’s where I too am vexed.
1 Like
“count no man happy untill his end is known.” < https://classicalwisdom.com/philosophy/count-no-man-happy-end-known/
You’re baiting the waters, and then complain that the fish are coming to the surface. 
Anyway, your article points out some troubling trends that have been going on for quite a while. And it proposes Open Source as the answer. And while that’s a workable solution for a lot of technical folks like us, from the perspective of a non-technical phone user, it’s equally unworkable as the roadblocks thrown up by Apple and Google.
What good is it to a non-technical PureOS phone user that even if Purism decides not to package a certain application, they can always find some other repo that carries precompiled binaries for their platform, or instructions on how to compile it from source? Access to the source means nothing if you can’t make heads nor tails of it, or if it requires you to blindly trust some random person on the Internet to have published instructions that don’t hose your system, weaken its defenses (even as an unintended side effect), or even straight out install malware. Telling someone to simply add another repo to their package manager is not solving the problem of having to install the F-droid (or any other) app store. Giving someone the instructions to cross-compile their application on an OS they’re unfamiliar with (or even straight on the phone itself) is not solving the problem of having to side-load the application from some random website.
Sure, one could argue that the FOSS community has a better track record when it comes to security. But we sometimes lapse as well. I don’t remember the specifics, but there was that time when it was discovered that the NSA had contributed shady code to some encryption algorithm, which went unnoticed for over a decade IIRC? And while this doesn’t happen all too often, there have been attacks on FOSS projects that tried to introduce backdoors or other malware. And sure, we could argue that it’s easier to defend against this because when it comes to source code, we can verify the source comes from the official git repos, or the binaries come from trustworthy repositories in the case of prebuilt binaries. And for us techies, that is indeed a workable proposition most of the time. But some end-user who has no technical skills, and who does not immerse themselves in the FOSS world? They’ll be reliant on technical folks like us to make those decisions for them, at which point we become the weak link in the chain. FOSS does not solve these issues for your average user. It just moves them elsewhere.
1 Like
FOSS = free-open-source-software
so it’s about the SOFTWARE not the average user. you can’t help somebody who is not willing or unable to help himself unless you are so resourceful that you can COMPENSATE for everything he/she is lacking …
free-software is about free-speech … but people who know ONLY the ‘matrix’ can’t practice free-speech effectively or AT ALL … does that mean that if we can’t help everybody we quit TRYING altogether ?
NO. we move on and focus the resources where they matter the most and when they matter.
free-software and Linux is still the backbone of the internet even if many are trying to minimize the importance of that.
all i’m saying is … let’s not make CANCEL-culture more powerful than it already is …
Can you please slow walk me through this. - I really don’t see the difference.
the “process” to install applications on Android:
Change settings to allow installation of “non-secure” package (accept scary warning.), find packages, determine if you can trust packages, install packages (buy using a click action.)
the “process” to install packages on linux:
(optional, edit sources, add new public keys (accepting scary warning) add new repo by editing configuration files etc.), find packages, determine if you can trust packages, install packages (buy using a click action or command line.)
They seem broadly the same, the only way to make them different is to assume that android users are dumbed down, and Linux users aren’t - but then we can see we had to change something other than the OS to compare the OS…
I guess what I’m saying is to a technical user (current target market, there is no difference) both scenarios are very easy things.
The the “great unwashed”/not technical user the steps appear the same and contain similar warnings about being sure you trust the source.
It seems both options are you get a “store” experience out the box, and can choose to suffer some scary warnings by going outside that if you want.
You’re starting at a too late point in the process. An average user will never install anything outside the store. It’s not the 2000s. Once the OEM chooses the store, the decision is done for 90% people - I think you noticed that yourself.
The difference is if the OEM wants the Play Store, that’s it (unless someone actually fines Google for having control over that as an uncompetitive practice, which is also the point of this thread). If the OEM wants the Purism Store, they are free to keep adding other stores and make them seamless.
1 Like
this is the point I was making, if you’re saying only the very technical can work with FOSS, then OK, but the very technical are already perfectly happy running whatever they want on their android devices.
So neither PureOS not Librum5 “fixed” anything.
nor did anything to address free speech,
nor did anything to address cancel culture.
tools by themselves can’t be responsible for change … but every now and then a tool comes up that just MIGHT make change … EASIER
what users do with what they have is ultimately up to them if they don’t want to be “TAXED” …
yes! exactly my point.
But, that same 90% won’t go outside the PureOS Software app “store” either.
No! that’s not “it”!
People on android can currently use, F-Droid, Amazon App store, APK mirror, Aptoide… (and so on)
So the problem is moved, (but not resolved) instead of Google curating apps into a walled garden, it’s Purism curating apps into their software store. (walled garden) -which people may choose to go outside of (same as android users can) but (you’re right) 90% wont… (so nothing helps them!)
If we want to look at the 10% who will stray outside the garden walls… each process is equally easy/difficult/well catered for on android or PureOS…
The 90% are ending up just trusting that purism won’t pull a listing for an app based on political pressure. e.g. they don’t benefit at-all, they still just put faith in an American west coast technology company having their backs!
Maybe I could put it another way. (going back to the example of Parler.)
if the ability to use other apps stores or install random packages outside of a store environment is “free from censorship”
then the extension of that is to say that because Parler APKs were still available, because Parler was still available in alternative app stores (aptoide) that the application was not censored at all. there was no drama to be seen there?
no! of course the app was removed for 90% of the user based (who don’t know how to install things outside of the app store) and equally if/when purism respond to pressure and remove and app it will be unavailable to 90% who don’t know how to work outside an app store.
1 Like
Yup, you got it exactly right; that’s the point I was trying to make. In both cases, end users are at the mercy of some third party that determines what they can and can’t install. In both cases they have options to overrule that choice, but it requires skills they may not possess, nor wish to acquire.
And we shouldn’t look down on them for choosing to remain illiterate on that front. There’s nothing wrong with not wanting to acquire those skills. Last time I checked, we didn’t require people to be able to completely dismantle and reassemble a car before we allowed them to drive one. We don’t expect people to be RF and electronics experts if they want to listen to the radio.
Some folks are inclined to immerse themselves in the inner workings of the tools they operate, whereas for others it “just has to work”. And we’re all the latter in some areas of our lives, because you simply can not achieve mastery or even competence in every field. So giving those people “better tools they can fix themselves, given specific knowledge that can only be obtained by years of study” does not solve the problem that they’re helpless when stuff suddenly “breaks” or their tool loses an ability it previously had.
FOSS certainly solves some problems, but it doesn’t solve all problems for all people. It’s a step in the right direction. Not a silver bullet.
1 Like
Does anyone preinstall those alongside the Play Store? Is it guaranteed doing that will not revoke the Google Play license? Can Google Play and other storefronts be integrated together in a single interface?
That’s true, but that doesn’t prevent censorship and therefore is only marginally relevant for this topic.
1 Like