Your Phone Is Your Castle

499 points by 0DHm2CxO7Lb3 5 years ago | 299 comments

saagarjha 5 years ago |

> Because iOS software, backed by iPhone hardware, actively prevents a customer from installing any software on an iPhone outside of the App Store, it does also prevent attackers from installing malicious software. Because the App Store has rules about how applications (outside of their own) can access customer data, if Apple discovers a competitor like Google or Facebook is violating its privacy rules it can remotely remove their software from iPhones, even internal corporate versions of software owned by Google or Facebook employees.

This is a bit inaccurate; first because the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone and also because the apps pulled there did not go through the App Store, they were actually sideloaded using enterprise deployment. Apple does have the ability to remotely disable applications downloaded from the App Store, but to my knowledge it has never used this ability.

> These companies have built very sophisticated and secure defenses all in the name of protecting you from the world outside their walls, yet in reality the walls are designed to keep you inside much more than they are designed to keep attackers out. The security community often gets so excited about the sophistication of these defenses backed by secure enclaves and strong cryptography that their singular focus on what those defenses mean for attackers blinds them from thinking about what they mean for everyone else.

I mean, all you have to do is look at the things that are implemented to see that Apple's goal in many cases is to protect their software, not you. There is custom silicon in every recent iPhone that does nothing but stop modification of kernel code, even in the face of code execution and arbitrary read/write in EL1: interesting from an academic standpoint, but if you stop and think about it for more than a second it's entirely useless for actually protecting users.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5 years ago | |

"Apple's goal in many cases is to protect their software, not you."

Seems like it is easy to trick the public into confusing one goal for another.

There seems to be an implicit rule in the Apple software scheme: Apple itself is "pre-certified" as trustworthy. Not only at the time point of hardware purchase, but endlessly into the future.

The user of course cannot revoke that "certification". The way these systems are structured today, the user effectively cannot decide after purchase "Thanks Apple, I got this. I'll take it from here." This is sort of implicit trustworthiness of hardware vendor as software vendor also underlies the contemporary concept of "updates". There is no genuine (viable) option for the user to say "no, thank you". Saying no would be deemed as ill-advised for a variety of reasons.

The one-time hardware purchase is transformed into an ongoing dependent relationship that can be, and in fact is, exploitive. Its primary reason for existence is as you suggest not to "protect" or otherwise benefit the user, but it can be contrued that way.

saagarjha 5 years ago | | |

Yes, this is exactly how Apple's security model operates; at least for their embedded devices. On Macs it seems like you at least get the choice between "I trust Apple" and "I don't check anything", which is still annoying because clearly the option people want is "I trust me" but Apple is not willing to provide this.

bad_user 5 years ago | |

> "the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone"

Source?

Apple's App Store has in fact a really good track record for stopping malware from reaching phones. Some mallware still got in, but AFAIK Apple has reacted promptly on discovery, and it would be a logical fallacy to conclude that their track record has been "spotty", and as implied, useless, because it isn't.

There are thousand of Windows PCs infected by botnet malware, per day.

Yes, if you'd remove the App Store, iOS devices would still be more secure because of the sandboxing. What Apple does however is a multi-layered approach to security. Which is why iOS devices are in fact the safest devices for consumers on the market.

You and I may not like it. I actually think Apple should allow third party sources, just like Android. But let's not pretend that there aren't security benefits to their App Store.

thatfrenchguy 5 years ago | |

> There is custom silicon in every recent iPhone that does nothing but stop modification of kernel code, even in the face of code execution and arbitrary read/write in EL1: interesting from an academic standpoint, but if you stop and think about it for more than a second it's entirely useless for actually protecting users.

Every single malware (or jailbreak) wants to modify EL1 code, it's not just interesting from an academic standpoint.

saagarjha 5 years ago | | |

Malware has no need to modify EL1 code if it can grab your iMessages without doing so; exploit chains found in the wild grab the kernel task port (or equivalent) instead. Jailbreaks do want to modify EL1 code, but this comes back to the point I was making about this protecting Apple's software and not their users.

spideymans 5 years ago | |

> This is a bit inaccurate; first because the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone

Spotty relative to what? The App Store hasn’t had a 100% perfect record, but it’s pretty darn close to it. I really can’t think of any other software distribution channels for general purpose computing devices (including the open web) that have had a better security track record than the App Store

bee_rider 5 years ago | | |

Have there been widespread instances of malicious software in Linux repos? It might just be that Linux distros are lower value targets than apple phones, but they do seem be pretty good in terms of both keeping out actual viruses (which Apple is pretty good at keeping out) and also keeping out shady advertisement/snooping based software (which Apple seems to have done less good at keeping out than the repos. Although, they are doing good for a private company, right?)

Also, Steam seems to do all right as far as I can tell.

fsflover 5 years ago | | |

> I really can’t think of any other software distribution channels for general purpose computing devices (including the open web) that have had a better security track record than the App Store

GNU/Linux packaging systems? F-Droid?

ghostpepper 5 years ago | | |

The open web is a distant second at that - perhaps third if you think the google play store is relatively malware-free compared to the open web.

kgabbott 5 years ago | |

Why is it useless for actually protecting users? Is it easily circumventable or is it just that there are simpler attack vectors that don't require modifying kernel code?

saagarjha 5 years ago | | |

Most iPhone attacks that users care about are those where attackers target sensitive user information and exfiltrate it–other ones don't really make sense on the platform. For this, typical attack vectors are a messaging app exploit (which is entirely outside of the control of Apple, FWIW), a web browser exploit coupled with a sandbox escape, or perhaps a bug in a Wi-Fi or Bluetooth driver; none of which typically require modifying kernel code in order to implement. The group of people that wants to patch the kernel, or extend it, is essentially nobody but security researchers and jailbreakers for whom the rationale to do something like this is often "because I should be able to do this". Thus, the feature is ineffective at addressing or preventing actual attacks that users care about and very effective at preventing people from tinkering with iPhones.

syshum 5 years ago | |

Apple's goal is to protect their share price.. Nothing else.

Everything Apple does is in service of that goal.

This is why they are hardline on AppStore policies, and why they are hardline against Independent repair.

Any PR they have about protecting the user is just marketing

logical_proof 5 years ago | | |

I’ve been seeing this idea on the Internet a lot more for months now and I’ve been trying to put my finger on what I think is wrong with it I think I finally figured it out.

I work for a corporation, it’s not a massive corporation, when I first started it was a midsize family owned company and we never did work in service to the bottom line at least not solely. First and foremost we were interested in customers and providing value to them. I think that any major corporation or business small large whatever also has that same responsibility and probably also the same drive. Any organization is made up of multiple people and there’s definitely going to be some actors that are completely bottom line driven but you’re going to also have individuals whose purpose is meeting customer needs and providing customer value. I’m not saying Apple is an altruistic corporation or doesn’t have concern for the bottom line, but making such a broad generalization to say that Apple only serves their bottom line perhaps sets you and others up with a pessimistic attitude where the people doing good work are missed.

This is mostly a bit of introspection on the thought that I’ve been trying to flesh out for the last few months and it’s not meant as a criticism of your comment in anyway I understand the sentiment of where you’re coming from because I’ve also been in that same place. I think my views are just changing a little bit and I thought I’d take this opportunity to write them down hope you have a great day.

threeseed 5 years ago | | |

Like all companies Apple does well when it looks after its users.

In the case of both the App Store and third party repairers that involves protecting users against bad actors. I have downloaded dodgy apps in the early days of the store and have had repairers use counterfeit, defective components for my Mac.

Unfortunately protecting against bad actors inevitably comes at the cost of openness.

nodamage 5 years ago | |

> first because the App Store has a spotty record of stopping malware from reaching your phone

Can you elaborate on this with more detail about what you're specifically referring to?

saagarjha 5 years ago | | |

Apple let a jailbreak app on the App Store once: https://9to5mac.com/2016/08/29/reddit-jailbreak-dribbble-cli.... And Charlie Miller got his developer account revoked because he showed it was easy to get malware past App Store review. In general, it's trivial to get things that break the rules past the review team; I think almost every large app is probably doing it to some extent.

noisy_boy 5 years ago |

Speaking as an Android user, the usefulness of the eco-system is undeniable and leaving that is too much friction for most, even for those who do care about privacy.

I think in addition to the focus on hardware, one approach should be to provide the tools to the users for more control. Provide a rooted phone by default. Add tools that let me see what my phone is doing behind the scenes. Give me option to turn-off some of the things I don't like (e.g. an app is sending analytics to some domain, let me turn that part off without turning off the whole app in a relatively simple way). Help with planned obsolence by providing updates etc and so on.

Basically give back some control of jail/castle to the users without asking them to leave it completely.

Edit: one more thing, please add NFC. Going back to carrying boatload of cards again is not an option.

hevelvarik 5 years ago |

It will be great to have more players in the smart phone OS domain so I hope this makes it big. On the other hand, the downside of taking the security and privacy of your phone into your own hands, is that ... you’ve taken the security and privacy of the phone into your own hands.

I’m happy to pay Apple to do it for me because my phone is nowhere near my main or most important computing device and I also quite like that they poke google and Facebook in the eye from time to time. Sure, Apple is just a profit driven enterprise like the rest but their business model is directly related to keeping users happy at least for some value of users and happy.

The only downside for me is that I can’t write an app for my device because I haven’t bought into the Apple computer ecosystem.

fouc 5 years ago |

I think this is a great point.

Our personal computing devices should have the same sort of protections and affordances that our homes have. We should have an expectation of privacy and control over our domain. We should have the rights to build, repair, and more.

If we're not leasing a phone or leasing a house, if we are owners of the phone or the house, then we should have full control to every aspect of it.

quietthrow 5 years ago |

I think librem/purism has a point when you look at it isolated. But when looked at it holistically it completely missess the point. You can put in all the kill switches you want and sure thst will benefit in some small way but until the users data is with Apple/Google/Fb etc it dosnt matter Largely Which phone you use As you are still very exposed. Until that problem is solved (users truly owning their data) everything is simple a bandaid fix. Sure purism/librem might be a slightly better bandaid than what is offered by current vendors But it remains a bandaid never the less.

The reality today still is that you can’t have greatly useful tools and it’s super powerful functionality separated from where and how it’s data is stored. Until that is separation comes all these security and privacy issues can’t be solved at its root.

Once you look at it holistically you see it’s not just a hardware issue that you are dealing with. You are dealing with a much larger and complex set of issues: user caring about privacy; development of standards and tool that allow vendor agnostic data portability that still are as powerful as google sheets or say maps or keynote etc; pervasiveness of such tools as if only a small population of users are using those tools they are not very useful; business model that supports sustainable monetization of such tools so business can continue to provide such tools.

It’s quite complex and kill switches and secure hardware can’t solve for thst. At least not alone.

nodamage 5 years ago |

> Your security and privacy aren’t really protected inside these walls because the main point of these security measures is to enforce control, security against attackers and protecting your privacy is mostly marketing spin.

The author presents this as fact but does nothing to actually justify the claim. I'm not sure why we should assume it is true when two decades of history of malware on Windows (and to a lesser extent, Android) clearly demonstrate the problems with having no walls at all.

The irony of course being that this article itself is a marketing piece for this company's product.

marcinzm 5 years ago |

Is it just me or does this feel to be written in a FUD marketing style? Very strong focus on fear in the writing and what seems like cherry picked examples.

Then again I have learned to have a defensive and negative reaction to anything that even smells like marketing so it's hard for me to tell anymore.

notemaker 5 years ago |

In Sweden, all users are locked to whatever OS:s our mobile ID verification app BankID [1] supports. Yes you can opt to use a physical 2fa device to log onto your bank, but you're missing out on 99% of the digital banking infrastructure.

So, even if I'd like to order one, I won't. The friction is too great.

[1]: https://www.bankid.com/en/

llarsson 5 years ago | |

For context, this is not just about banking services. This is our trusted e-identity card. It is used for tons of systems where we need to prove that we are who we day we are. Everything from declaring our taxes to signing documents electronically to, yes, various banking apps.

Also, I feel the same as you, notemaker. I would if I could, but without BankID, I could just add well get a dumbphone.

bestham 5 years ago | | |

Fellow Swedes, change is coming in the form of the new national e-identity ID-card[1]. With this you would only need a smart card reader and a compliant browser in order to use eID and electronic signatures. As opposed to BankID this can be used to create derivative e-identities.

[1]: https://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2019/03/utredning...

AckRite 5 years ago | | |

In Lithuania we have secure(?) SIM cards that can be used instead of app for such purposes, the app being SmartID.

Although I wonder whether secure SIMs work with dumbphones, have not researched how it actually works (probably a type of SMS?).

Upon request, you have to provide sPIN1 to initiate an action and sPIN2 to finish it (login to bank, approve a transfer).

cromulent 5 years ago | |

There is a similar banking cartel in Finland. It's so odd how people consider banks to be citadels of trust.

neom 5 years ago |

I noticed it's powered by an "ethical operating system", however they don't really go into any detail about what an ethical operating system is.

valvar 5 years ago | |

An operating system containing only libre software, I assume. At least in my book, software must respect the freedoms of its users in order to be ethical. And their OS is indeed libre and respects its users.

threeseed 5 years ago | | |

Sounds pretty hypocritical if you're not running it on libre hardware as well.

I assume Purism makes their own CPUs, memory etc ?

fsflover 5 years ago | |

PureOS is a free OS endorsed by the Free Software Foundation: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html.

teddyh 5 years ago | |

They use their own PureOS: https://pureos.net/

caymanjim 5 years ago |

I don't need much from a phone, and just about any Android-capable phone would work for me, as far as OS and hardware capabilities go. The thing that's going to keep me tied to a Google-controlled phone for the indefinite future is Google Fi. I'm not aware of any other cell service plan that does what Fi does: $20/mo base, $10/gig after that (with everything from 6G-15G at no additional cost, after which you either get unlimited throttled data, or can start paying $10/gig for again). And the most important part of that (for me) is that it's the same price no matter where you are in the world. I haven't been traveling this year, but normally I would, and there's no other way I know of to use my phone internationally for so little (at least not without constantly swapping SIMs and changing the phone number).

superkuh 5 years ago |

An alternative to making your phone is castle is not building your castles in the air. Don't use your phone as your primary computing device. You'll never be allowed to own your phone because it's a radio transmitter and it has a license, not you. You cannot own or control it.

MacsHeadroom 5 years ago | |

The librem phone comes with a hot swappable mobile radio (or no radio). That hardware and firmware is actually separate from the phone entirely.

PureOS also comes with VoIP call and texting apps which can be used on WiFi.

keenmaster 5 years ago |

I just want a phone with full Windows 10 that is as customizable as desktop computers are. Phones are very powerful nowadays. There's no reason for them to have the same limitations as 10 or even 5 years ago.

zozbot234 5 years ago | |

Windows 10? I don't even want that on my computer, let alone my phone. Of course a mainstream Linux OS (with real desktop+mobile convergence) would be quite nice, and both Purism and the pmOS community are working towards making that possible.

fsflover 5 years ago | |

> I just want a phone with full Windows 10 that is as customizable as desktop computers are.

The advertised phone is a phone with full GNU/Linux that is as customizable as desktop computers are. So it's almost what you want. A video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH3RbrwhNd8 (not Librem 5 yet, but another GNU/Linux phone).

dannyw 5 years ago | |

There is a good reason: battery life.

keenmaster 5 years ago | | |

It's my device. I should have the choice to override the standard use case to unlock the phone's full functionality at the expense of battery life. I almost always have a charging cable with me, and a 20,000 mAh powerbank. Furthermore, there is a lot of room to increase charging speeds, but most phone manufacturers have dragged their feet because extremely fast charging speeds aren't necessary for the standard use case. However, that "standard use case" is outdated and needs to be reevaluated.

pjmlp 5 years ago | |

I still keep my Lumias around.

henry_bone 5 years ago |

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter.”

Except in a "State of emergency" in Victoria, Australia, in this present day.

RileyJames 5 years ago | |

Isn’t the state of emergency about powers to require someone to stay in their house / ‘castle’?

What rules has the state declared over what one can do in their castle?

The rules appear to be specifically about when, why and what you can do when “leaving” your castle. Which has always been the case.

gruez 5 years ago | |

...or "security forces", if they have a warrant.

pjmlp 5 years ago | | |

Not necessarily, depending on the country a warrant is not something that security forces care much about.

nuker 5 years ago |

> illustrates how Apple markets their castle’s defenses as protecting the castle residents when in reality it’s about controlling all that goes on inside the castle.

.. which ensures best in the market protection of the castle residents, for which they happily pay premium.

> The biggest threat to most people ends up not being from uninvited hackers, it’s from the apps Apple and Google do invite in that capture and sell your data.

Thats completely wrong. Apple does not make money on users data. They sell protected, private devices and services. Google is direct opposite.

__d 5 years ago |

Without commenting on the overall thesis, it's inaccurate to say that if Apple removes Fortnite from the AppStore that it is also removed from users phones.

Anyone who has already purchased Fortnite via the AppStore can still use it on their phone, in whatever version they had downloaded prior to the removal.

pas 5 years ago | |

If it disables login with apple id, can those users use the app?

jtth 5 years ago |

My phone is not a home. It’s a filament in a fabric of affordances. I rely on others to support those affordances. I pay for some of them with money. I don’t want a castle. I want a society.

javajosh 5 years ago | |

Your phone contains records of all the actions you take with those affordances. What you are looking at, who you are talking to, messages you've sent, inside and outside apps, plus a time series of sensor data that position you and can give audio/video of you at all times...it is foolish not to treat access to this device with great care.

megous 5 years ago | |

Your phone is a little portable wannabe Orwell's telescreen, with more sensors than even Orwell could have imagined.

feralimal 5 years ago |

Yes, the phone is your castle, and the castle is breached.

By design. Whether that's by your phone automatically backing up your data to the cloud, or whether that's because your OS decides to roll out a 'track and trace' update to be used by governmental agencies, or any number of other possibilities.

Privacy cannot be regained by petitioning Google, Apple or the government for the features you think you should have - ie total control, repairability, headphone sockets, etc. You are the product.

When it turns out our own phones are snitches, the answer is to get out. Why stay in a breached castle? And these snitches can't get stitches. The only answer I see it to ditch the phone.

raxxorrax 5 years ago | |

You still have the ability to not use these services and have a reasonable privacy. Makes GPS and blue tooth superficial and you might need to carefully select the apps you trust, but theoretically it can work. I know that most people don't care and it is imposing that others suffer from their indiscretion, but at least there are solutions aside from tracking ambitions of your ISP.

feralimal 5 years ago | | |

But you don't know what privacy you have or don't have.

And they can install an update to covertly 'track and trace' you. How do you even know that this is what is being done?

Frankly, I think this was already possible to do. If anything I'm slightly mystified as to why this was announced as if they didn't already have the capability.

fsflover 5 years ago | |

> The only answer I see it to ditch the phone.

Why not use a GNU/Linux smartphone instead, use Nextcloud and not trust Google or Apple?

feralimal 5 years ago | | |

I would be open to this. Are the phones any good?

I did buy the red hat tablet a few years ago, but found I didn't use it. Maybe I didn't like the form (a tablet).

senko 5 years ago | |

> The only answer I see it to ditch the phone.

Did you?

feralimal 5 years ago | | |

No! It's so damn convenient. I wish I'd never got one.

I'm not walking the walk. I've seriously considered the idea for a long time, and it seems bound to happen. The issue for me is the convenience of having a podcast player + camera.

But, sigh, I'm not there yet.

I'll tell you what, I'll try to extract myself again over the next week.

james412 5 years ago |

They've taken so long to deliver Librem 5 that even normies have started reverting back to candybar phones in the meantime

aftergibson 5 years ago | |

Shows the strength of the pinephone. Release something cheap, quick and hackable rather than try to deliver everything. It’s been a really impressive project so far!

d33 5 years ago | | |

Thanks for reminding me about it. I can see it's already sold out:

https://store.pine64.org/

Curious if there's going to be another batch.

Mediterraneo10 5 years ago | | |

The Pinephone is one of the most disappointing things I have ever bought. I'm an old Nokia N900 fan who was so enthusiastic about getting a new open phone, but the Pinephone’s CPU is extremely underpowered in terms of running the only interface that is both libre and has any real future (i.e. Phosh on Mobian – Ubuntu Touch is based on moribund 2014-era code, and Sailfish’s UI isn’t libre). Scrolling is ragged, opening new windows is painfully slow, and it is easy to make the device start swapping. Also, the Pinephone screen and case feel very cheap.

For me, the Pinephone is at best a tech preview for the sort of experiences you might get to have on the Librem when it becomes available.

rabidrat 5 years ago | |

Yeah I ordered one 15 months ago and had to start using a flip phone. I can't wait any longer though, I am going to have to get a different smartphone :(

siwatanejo 5 years ago |

This is the content that really gives me hope. I think Purism is doing great work. But somehow I can't stop thinking that they are too small, and that these companies striving for user privacy and user choice should unite to make the fight against the Duopoly (Apple&Google) easier. I hope one day we can see a curated AppStore, ruled by an alliance formed by companies like Purism (e.g. Huawei -> HarmonyOS, Samsung -> TizenOS), but which doesn't impose what to install (people can opt-out without jail-breaking, like described in the article).

rptr4 5 years ago |

I want to like their phone, but this will be a lot like using Linux on the desktop in the 90s. Software won’t be available and it will get in the way of anything productive I need to do.

Mediterraneo10 5 years ago | |

> Software won’t be available and it will get in the way of anything productive I need to do.

This is Hacker News, where many of us are weirdos who prefer to do almost everything in Emacs. In that case, the software for these phones is definitely already available. What is still missing is the hardware keyboard like the Nokia N900 had.

white-flame 5 years ago | |

Conversely, I'm sitting at a computer for the majority of my waking hours. My productivity happens there.

For a phone, having calls/texts, web access (and most "apps" of any importance have a web version), calculator, clock/alarm, camera, and weather info is fine. I don't need tons of applications installed on it anyway; I have my real computer for that. I don't lose any convenience to go to a more security-minded phone.

And besides, it's nice to be actually away from the computer when you're away from it, instead of having the phone being a constantly nagging ball and chain of your entire digital life. It's got to be socially & mentally healthier, too.

paulcarroty 5 years ago | |

Absolutely, but this is first phone from Purism; hardware are too far from latest iPhone too.

Breaking mobile duopoly matters.

bulka 5 years ago |

Sigh. Double checking my email: still the same. Order placed: January 16, 2019. Shipping ETA: mid-to-late November 2020. Off topic, I know, but ghrghghr....

reeealloc 5 years ago |

Y'all are really complaining about an ad in an post that makes reasonable claims. At a grand scale they're right, your phone is not your castle.

aaron695 5 years ago |

I've been running two accounts on my Android phone for a while.

And I'm on the second account.

It really doesn't work perfect, I can't hotpot for instance, I have to swap to the initial account.

But I don't see the phone as my castle, more the second instance.

Same diff perhaps. I do know when I handed it to someone to view something I though I really need a button to mute all the notifications while it's in their hands.

fsflover 5 years ago |

If you have a question about the GNU/Linux phone advertised in the article, look at this: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-wiki/-/wikis/Freque...

jay_kyburz 5 years ago |

OT: but there is something wrong with the "t" in that font. Does everybody see the same thing as me? It wasn't till I read trustworthy that I thought wtf.

https://imgur.com/a/UrwSjA5

aembleton 5 years ago | |

Looks fine to me: https://imgur.com/hKhPIPP

I'm running Firefox 80.0.1 on Manjaro Linux. The font is loaded from https://puri.sm/wp-content/themes/wp-purism/fonts/librebaske...

Check you're not blocking that URL.

jay_kyburz 5 years ago | | |

weird, thanks for helping.

dhosek 5 years ago |

Ah geeze, I thought this was going to be something interesting and it turned out to be a stinking AD. I'm not going to have much faith in your arguments if your final point is going to be "buy our stuff instead of theirs."

fsflover 5 years ago | |

What's wrong with stating a problem and suggesting a solution? Solutions are never free.

dhosek 5 years ago | | |

Lots of solutions are free. And the fact of the matter is that this was not presented as an ad initially. It was disingenuously presented.

visarga 5 years ago |

Not castle, rental car. You're just a guest on your device, at least in real life.

nojvek 5 years ago |

A part of me feels the next Apple ad is going to be “Your phone is your castle”. I do like their pro privacy stance against the big dogs. I just really hope the phone was more akin to the bicycle of the mind that Steve Jobs promised us.

tpetry 5 years ago | |

They already did (about 1 week ago): https://youtube.com/watch?v=-l61NE0eqkw

Valkhyr 5 years ago | |

> I do like their pro privacy stance against the big dogs

I do like their pro-privacy stance as well, but I take issue with that sentence in that it makes it sound like Apple is not a "big dog" and taking a stance for you, the little guy. Yes, their policies with regards to your data are easier to stomach than, say, Google's, but they are not on your side against the world, they are on their own side, and have plenty of questionable policies and decisions to show for that.

Foremost of all being that they refuse you the ability to install a different OS on the hardware you own, or even install any application you would like on it. This is not merely an abstract philosophical matter either (though I'd argue it would matter even then): in China, you used to be able to install VPN apps to evade state surveillance, until China made Apple boot them from the App Store. I cannot see any argument that makes this into a win for customers.

sadfev 5 years ago |

I really like the philosophy of Free Software and particularly applaud the efforts of Purism.

But the phone is unusable!! 4 hours of battery life, persistent bugs and hefty price tag.

Maybe privacy has a huge premium to pay, which I doubt 99% are willing to pay

ISL 5 years ago |

It can't just be your phone -- we should each have an inviolable online cache.

jerome-jh 5 years ago |

If you have a dummy account dedicated to your phone, use e.g. K-9 to check email on real accounts, manually export/import your address book, never share it, never sync it, you are pretty close to that.

Ngate 5 years ago | |

good to know thanks

std_badalloc 5 years ago |

First I've heard of this. What is the software situation like on a device like this? I assume no comptability with Android, so apps have to be developed specifically targeting their OS?

fsflover 5 years ago | |

This is GNU/Linux based on Debian, so apps should be developed in the same ways as for desktop Debian. Android apps could work in a VM, see anbox.

podgaj 5 years ago |

I know it is nice and convenient having a smartphone, but you all are creating the demand for these horrible phones. And since you keep buying them why should anything change? You complain and complain and google and apple laugh with your trillions of dollars.

If you do not like what apple and google are doing, boycott them.

I know it is hard, you are all addicted to the quick information and the dopamine rush. I know because that was me. And many of you here are probably developers sucking off the teat that you complain about.

Myself? I use a flip phone while I wait for a phone that somewhat meets my criteria for something close to my linux based laptop.

StavrosK 5 years ago | |

> you are all addicted to the quick information and the dopamine rush

No, I'm addicted to being able to coordinate with my friends, and the additional friction of not being on WhatsApp means I won't be invited to stuff as often.

This sanctimonious diatribe isn't going to make a flip phone any more useful in a country where nobody calls or uses SMS.

podgaj 5 years ago | | |

The trouble is you think this cannot happen without a smartphone.

If you want things to change you have to take a stand and SACRIFICE. If your friends will not reach out to you because you are not on an App, are they really your friends?

dathinab 5 years ago |

Man I wish:

- I could use a librephone without major drawbacks

- puri.sm in the future Teaming up with Fairphone, so that you don't have to choose between a free software or fair hardware

kelnos 5 years ago |

I would really love to have a third possibility in the mobile space, especially one as privacy- and user-focused as Purism, but I'm not convinced I'll have the same breadth of experience that I have on Android. Reading through their FAQ[0] and their app list[1], it just seems like they haven't worked hard enough to achieve "app parity" with Android or iOS.

I get that in some ways that's a non-goal, but when I consider my usage patterns, I just don't see myself being able to replace my Android phone with something like this. There's no replacement for my banking apps, things like Uber/Lyft or Postmates, streaming video/music services, etc. The web experiences for most of these are either nonexistent or just generally terrible.

I think in some ways we've gone too far with the current dominant platforms for a third party to emerge for common usage, or even usage by fairly technical people who rely on mainstream apps. A third player would need to have deep pockets and a ton of industry and financial connections to get a viable alternative to Google/Apple Pay working, for example (and the FAQ says the first phone model won't even have NFC). Do you think Chase, Capital One, Wells Fargo, Vanguard, Robinhood, Schwab, ETrade, etc. are all going to write new apps for a new platform, or make their mobile web experiences good enough to act as a substitute? I really doubt it.

There's a FAQ entry about making it possible to run Android apps on PureOS, but it didn't feel like that's much of a priority for them. And it's unclear whether many of these sorts of apps would even run: for example, I expect apps like Google Pay and some banking apps have some hard-to-emulate checks in place that ensure they're running on a conformant, non-rooted Android device. Even if there are workarounds for these sorts of things, it doesn't seem like it'd be safe to rely on those workarounds to not stop working at an inconvenient time.

If they truly believe they can build a sustainable business with a super-low-volume product that only caters to an incredibly niche audience, then that's great, and I genuinely wish them the best of luck. But I fear that any third-party, open platform that ignores mainstream use-cases will just become more and more marginalized over time to the point that they won't even be a viable option for their intended audience. Or, at least, their users will have to have a second device that they use to interact with everything their Librem phone can't talk to.

[0] https://puri.sm/faq/ (scroll down to the "Librem Phone" section)

[1] https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/mobile_optimized_apps/ -- which shows that the stock email app is unusable, and the calendar is usable but the UI doesn't fit on the screen properly.

cloverr20 5 years ago |

I feel this is a great initiative, in the mobile OS android and ios goes unchallenged, similar to how it was when windows/mac were ruling earlier, and then linux came and became popular.

I really hope many people get to know of this and can use/contribute to it. One big challenge might be to how to have something as an APP store, without a lot of malware/ poor quality apps.

einpoklum 5 years ago |

I'm a bit skeptical about their presumption to be both an app store and a phone provider, but ok, I guess.

> $749 USD pre-order

Unfortunately, it seems the "security-focused" phone is only for very rich people. I mean, ok, if you can afford a new iPhone you can also afford this, but most people in the world can't spend half this much on a phone.

qchris 5 years ago | |

This is somewhat fair, but I think it's also worth pointing out that it's not a business model w/o precedence. Not too long ago, you could have argued that same thing about the Tesla Model S; "electric cars are only for rich people".

The capital from selling at a mark-up to wealthy early adopters helps to fund cheap(er) versions (i.e. Model 3) that are accessible to more people later on.

Not a perfect analogy, and Purism's execution isn't exactly comparable to Tesla's, but I think the idea is the same.

RealStickman_ 5 years ago | |

I think it's worth mentioning that the PinePhone exists as well an can be had for 150$ whenever they launch a new batch (every 2 months or so). It is also a Linux phone, maybe not as privacy focuses as the Librem 5, but it serves a similar niche in my opinion.

jstanley 5 years ago | | |

What's the best OS to use on the PinePhone?

judge2020 5 years ago | |

> if you can afford a new iPhone you can also afford this

And that's not taking into account the SE which has a modern processor and is $400.

ajconway 5 years ago | |

And, unfortunately, they are expecting to deliver it 6 months from now.

cromulent 5 years ago |

A house is physical property.

A phone holds intellectual property and digital information, perhaps belonging to other people. It's complex.

The comparison is overly simplified, I think.

For example, as soon as you subscribe to corporate email, your device is considered "managed" and can be remote wiped. I was surprised not to see this in the article.

nybble41 5 years ago | |

> A phone holds intellectual property and digital information, perhaps belonging to other people.

And a house can't? Not to belabor the obvious, but houses often contain phones, along with other storage media holding a wide range of digital information. The phone, like the house, is still your physical property, regardless of any information it may contain.

cromulent 5 years ago | | |

I really think there is a big difference between digital devices and houses, and saying that the old "house is your castle" laws should apply to a phone is silly, especially when talking about app stores.

Saying that "the phone is still your property" is true physically, but that's not what the OP is saying. He's saying that whoever sold you the phone shouldn't be able to control or limit what happens to it. Why not though?

I wonder what he thinks about homeowner associations in the US. Or gun laws. Or zoning restrictions. Or all of the other laws that society has added since then.

My Samsung TV won't let me install apps from anywhere but the Samsung app store. Is that really breaking the Magna Carta? This is silly.

henryackerman 5 years ago | |

That's what work profiles are for. I'm fine with my company nuking the work profile on my phone. It fulfills infosec requirements while still respecting my ownership over my own device.

cromulent 5 years ago | | |

It's not your choice though, on whether they wipe the work profile or the whole device - it's theirs. It's not your castle.

dasb 5 years ago |

My phone is a plunger: a tool that I don't like using, but need to use anyway.

whatsmyusername 5 years ago |

I’m fine with the Apple moat. The average user is too stupid to defend a castle.

ohgreatwtf 5 years ago |

>your phone is your castle, you decide what is on it >systemd

einpoklum 5 years ago | |

Where I read this, I laughed; then it occurred to me that maybe systemd actually gets installed on some phones; then I cried a little.

megous 5 years ago | | |

There's quite a bit of variety in OSes I checked. Anything from systemd, to upstart, to random bash init scripts (some oses are based on devuan).

LdSGSgvupDV 5 years ago |

US: Not your phone, is our phone.

Razengan 5 years ago |

I collected a list of arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo on iOS and I’ve yet to see anyone offer a good solution to these:

---- The problems with letting all apps advertise external payment systems:

• Someone may publish a free app to avoid paying anything to Apple, and then charge users [an asston of] money to ""unlock"" via an alternate payment system.

• Users may not be able to see a list of all in-app purchases (and their guaranteed prices) as they can on the App Store, without downloading the app.

• Sharing your payment details and other information with multiple entities, and having to continually trust each of them (e.g. to not abuse or leak).

• Confused users may clog up Apple's customer support with complaints related to third-party payment systems.

• Angry users may demand Apple to offer refunds for shit that was paid for via third-party payment systems.

---- The problems with allowing third-party app stores on iOS:

• How will iOS sandboxing be enforced for apps delivered via third-party stores? Will those apps still have to be submitted to and signed by Apple?

• Third-party stores would need the privilege to write binaries on your iPhone. How will that privilege be regulated to prevent abuse? e.g. what happens if a store starts writing malware?

• Users may sometimes have to wait longer for an app to update on one store than on others (as already happens on Steam vs GoG).

• Developers would no longer be assured that they will have access to literally all the users that iOS has, by publishing on just one store.

This is the biggest kicker for me as an indie dev. You would have to submit to each store, wait for approval on each of them, update for each of them... to come close to the userbase that you can currently access by just publishing once on the App Store.

• Developers will no longer all play by the same rules. One store may allow some content while another may prohibit it.

• Controversial content like porn may still ultimately be bound by Apple's ruling on such matters, rendering moot the freedom of third-party stores in what kind of apps they may offer.

• iOS Parental Control and Screen Time restrictions may be ineffective on other stores (and browsers too if third-party rendering engines were allowed).

• If an app or game is exclusive to a store that a user isn't already using, they would have to create a new account and maintain an additional app just to access that one exclusive.

• Not all stores may be compatible with the iOS backup and restore system, or the APIs for app-thinning and on-demand resources.

underdeserver 5 years ago |

Obligatory CGP Grey video: https://youtu.be/e-ZpsxnmmbE

phoe-krk 5 years ago |

Missing "your" in the beginning of the title.

saagarjha 5 years ago | |

I suspect that Hacker News editorialized that title automatically.

OJFord 5 years ago | | |

In case anyone reading's unaware, when that happens (if it seems silly/obviously not an improvement) you can edit and resubmit exactly the same title as originally submitted, and it will then be accepted as-is.

dang 5 years ago | |

Fixed. Thanks!

sam_lynx 5 years ago |

Always wanted for someone to make a copy of Apple’s products but without their insane level of control over your device. Looks like someone is finally going to do it :)