Why apps?...

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 1/8/2022 21:17, legg wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 08:56:33 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 8. januar 2022 kl. 16.33.18 UTC+1 skrev legg:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:18:24 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

Jeroen Belleman
Have been trying to get an Android OS running on a PC,
just in order to communicate with hardware using a
bluetooth link - which is what mfr app provides.

Android cannot recognize, access or use most of
PC hardware, to do this. Complete flop.

Android not ready for anything other than use as toy.

there are 3 billion active Android devices ...


The option of buying an android tablet and setting it
up to run the app seems the only current alternative.

Why? because Google doesn\'t want to do the work of
creating a real OS. Revenue from toys id apparently
enough.

RL

It is not just a matter of wanting. Once you are deeply involved
with and OS - as they are with linux, android is just a colourful
packaging for it - it is just about impossible to move away.

 

[Klaus Kragelund]

08.01.22 14:18, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.


An app is a lot more responsive and not dependent on an internet connection

Also, browsers are not created equal and take up resources (just look up how much RAM is used on a desktop browser)


--
Klaus

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:18:24 +0100) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <src2v1$a58$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

Jeroen Belleman

The governments want more and more control
where you are, who you talk to, what you do, what you say and your opinion is.
Phones and apps give it to them, for people there is no way to see what code is in those apps.
crypto currencies now also in China on your phone.
Access ... QR codes...
Now wait till you get chipped, like your pet dog.

It is dark times and it must end
Once the nukes fly and the big EMP silences all phones then freedom surfaces again
If there will be anyone left to feel free is of course a valid question.
But wildlife at Tjernobyl thrives.

I have my smartest phone in airplane mode...
There was a lot to do about Israeli spy software used by many countries that
could even start the phone\'s camera and watch you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)

Of course they monitor you anyways....

I feel better on my laptop, wrote most relevant clients
email, irc, usenet, what not, and have the internet monitoring tools.
And I do not want to let go of my real keyboard, those rubbing screens do
not do it for me.

I do have a real gasmask for when I have to go demonstrate.
Seems you need a bullet proof vest and anti dog spray too these days here,

....
everything censored.. I have no facebook account, do have a twitter one, no idea if it still works, never use it.
Seriously think about leaving youtube, already moved to posting stuff on my own website.

bitrex
No, www will not go away, wikipedia is cool, there are a zillion sites with a zillion very interesting projects.

A much bigger danger is the greens, kids grown up with Al Gore\'s polar bear crap now have power
and shutdown nuclear - and oil based power plants, have no clue about electrickety or anything else as far as I can see
and soon will force people to live in grass huts again.

 

[legg]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 21:34:08 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

On 1/8/2022 21:17, legg wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 08:56:33 -0800 (PST), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

lørdag den 8. januar 2022 kl. 16.33.18 UTC+1 skrev legg:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:18:24 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

Jeroen Belleman
Have been trying to get an Android OS running on a PC,
just in order to communicate with hardware using a
bluetooth link - which is what mfr app provides.

Android cannot recognize, access or use most of
PC hardware, to do this. Complete flop.

Android not ready for anything other than use as toy.

there are 3 billion active Android devices ...


The option of buying an android tablet and setting it
up to run the app seems the only current alternative.

Why? because Google doesn\'t want to do the work of
creating a real OS. Revenue from toys id apparently
enough.

RL

It is not just a matter of wanting. Once you are deeply involved
with and OS - as they are with linux, android is just a colourful
packaging for it - it is just about impossible to move away.

So why don\'t \'other\' linux distros run android apps?

RL

 

[Don Y]

On 1/8/2022 6:18 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser.

.... to a first-order approximation. Note that every browser has
always had browser-specific extensions which \"colored\" the UX.
And, that\'s not to mention the presence of evolving standards.

Javascript began the trend away from the browser as a
\"dumb terminal\". Apps just continue that trend.

Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??

An app is a lot more responsive than a round-trip to the
server.

An app doesn\'t *need* to rely on the accessibility/availability
of the server.

An app can more actively target the actual hardware that is
supporting it.

An app has greater control over how things are cached.

An app can access bits of your device that a browser\'s
sandbox prevents.

\"Branding\"

Browser interfaces have to tolerate a wider variety of
devices (a user can choose to visit your site from a
desktop PC *or* a tiny phone). This affects the output
and input modalities that are effective. An app can
constrain/expand on those.

Browsers tend to be pigs -- because they have to support
all sorts of extensions, etc.

One *advantage* (from the user\'s PoV) of an app is that it
can allow you to preserve a particular UI/UX without
being at the mercy of the latest version of served pages
(assuming the vendor allows this backwards compatibility).

One downside with all web-based services is that you\'re
never sure what you\'re going to be facing when you connect
*now* (vs. 2 days *or* 10 minutes ago!). It\'s the
epitome of forced updates (annoying when one of your PC
apps \"changes\" due to an upgrade -- esp if you can\'t
refuse the upgrade; web services don\'t even warn you that
there is/was an upgrade!)

> What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

It\'s hard to design in a \"generic\" environment. Esp if
you want to put your own spin on the UX. Layer your own
UI on the target OS and develop for that, instead.

(Why don\'t desktop developers design apps to run directly on
the X intrinsics?)

 

[Don Y]

On 1/8/2022 11:52 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-01-08 19:00, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
lørdag den 8. januar 2022 kl. 18.37.19 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

Jeroen Belleman
The way they ask for ridiculously broad permissions should be a clue.

I think sometimes it is just lazy developers that doesn\'t bother picking what
they actually need

\"Why does Walmart need access to my camera, phone, and messages?\"

One guess.

if it scans barcodes it need access to the camera, it might need access to
messages
to read a message with something like a discount coupon


You can trust them to purposely invent ways to make the broad
permissions seem legitimate, so that they can better spy on you as
a result.

It is amusing that no one has developed a sandbox that you can interpose
between any/every app and your actual resources. This would allow
the user to see *which* resources are ACTUALLY being accessed as well
as allowing you to \"dummy up\" some bogus resources to appease/confuse
the app.
\"Yeah, my address book has just one contact in it -- and that
happens to be the email address of the app\'s CEO! Please feel
free to spam him.\"
(of course, the next app has the email of THAT app\'s CEO in its place)

I.e. turn every phone into a honeypot.

But, sheeple aren\'t concerned with these issues. If you bring
them (or \"privacy\", in general) to their attention, they will shrug
and say \"they have nothing to hide\" or \"no one would be interested
in (pwning) me\". Of course, when they get *bit*, they\'ll never think
that it was their behavior that facilitated that!

Even without letting an app peek into your \"other stuff\", it already
discloses enough about you as soon as you turn it on

(Yes, the visitor checking out at kiosk #23 is now identified -- from
his charge card -- as John Doe. Prior to reaching the checkout, he
visited the following departments, lingering at the following displays
for these periods of time. We can now correlate length of time
at a particular display with probability of making a purchase of
those displayed items...)

(Yes, the browser with fingerprint 0xFEEDABE was seen visiting
this other site just a few minutes ago. We\'ve seen this pattern,
before, so we know to serve up THIS version of the web page
to better hook them into a purchase than a cold visitor)

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 9/1/22 5:52 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-01-08 19:00, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
lørdag den 8. januar 2022 kl. 18.37.19 UTC+1 skrev Phil Hobbs:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

Jeroen Belleman
The way they ask for ridiculously broad permissions should be a clue.

I think sometimes it is just lazy developers that doesn\'t bother
picking what they actually need

\"Why does Walmart need access to my camera, phone, and messages?\"

One guess.

if it scans barcodes it need access to the camera, it might need
access to messages
to read a message with something like a discount coupon


You can trust them to purposely invent ways to make the broad
permissions seem legitimate, so that they can better spy on you as
a result.

Apps can run continuously in the background too, they don\'t wait for you
to visit the web page.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:18:24 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

Jeroen Belleman

There\'s a rhetorical question if ever.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Don Y wrote:

It is amusing that no one has developed a sandbox that you can
interpose between any/every app and your actual resources. This
would allow the user to see *which* resources are ACTUALLY being
accessed as well
as allowing you to \"dummy up\" some bogus resources to appease/confuse
the app.
\"Yeah, my address book has just one contact in it -- and that
happens to be the email address of the app\'s CEO! Please feel
free to spam him.\"
(of course, the next app has the email of THAT app\'s CEO in its place)

I.e. turn every phone into a honeypot.

Google\'s OS and Apple\'s OS probably wouldn\'t allow it. If more people
had Linux phones it could be done, but they cost around $800 which gives
an idea how much Google and Apple make from your phone.


--
Defund the Thought Police
Andiamo Brandon!

 

[Don Y]

On 1/8/2022 9:37 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Don Y wrote:

It is amusing that no one has developed a sandbox that you can
interpose between any/every app and your actual resources. This
would allow the user to see *which* resources are ACTUALLY being
accessed as well
as allowing you to \"dummy up\" some bogus resources to appease/confuse
the app.
\"Yeah, my address book has just one contact in it -- and that
happens to be the email address of the app\'s CEO! Please feel
free to spam him.\"
(of course, the next app has the email of THAT app\'s CEO in its place)

I.e. turn every phone into a honeypot.

Google\'s OS and Apple\'s OS probably wouldn\'t allow it. If more people
had Linux phones it could be done, but they cost around $800 which gives
an idea how much Google and Apple make from your phone.

Apple may not allow the app to be distributed via their stores
(not sure if Google has a similar hold on \"installables\") but,
in theory, such an app could underlay all other apps (if installed
first) and *interpret* their code, as the worst case scenario.

No idea as to the performance hit as I don\'t use a cell phone and
can\'t speak to the nature/complexity of the apps hosted thereon
(is there a \"render 3D model\" app? \"perform DRC on PCB\" app?)

I support \"applets\" in my current design but they are intentionally
high-level abstractions that rely on services offered by the underlying
system. One could \"hook\" each of those services and run an applet
in a sandbox \"at processor speed\" with very little effort (that
was one of the design goals for the RTOS).

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Don Y wrote:

It is amusing that no one has developed a sandbox that you can
interpose between any/every app and your actual resources. This
would allow the user to see *which* resources are ACTUALLY being
accessed as well
as allowing you to \"dummy up\" some bogus resources to appease/confuse
the app.
\"Yeah, my address book has just one contact in it -- and that
happens to be the email address of the app\'s CEO! Please feel
free to spam him.\"
(of course, the next app has the email of THAT app\'s CEO in its place)

I.e. turn every phone into a honeypot.

Google\'s OS and Apple\'s OS probably wouldn\'t allow it. If more people
had Linux phones it could be done, but they cost around $800 which gives
an idea how much Google and Apple make from your phone.

Nah, you can get a Pinephone for $200.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Mike Coon]

In article <src2v1$a58$1@gioia.aioe.org>, jeroen@nospam.please says...

For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

Jeroen Belleman

They don\'t have to tell you what \"cookies\" they are storing...

 

[Martin Brown]

On 08/01/2022 13:18, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

Jeroen Belleman

Spyware. Profiling and selling personal data. Just look at the
ridiculous permissions many of them request by default.

I agree it seems to be a retrograde step to have everything as an app
and it clutters up the screen to hell with random icons some of which
only make sense to the dope headed Californian designer on an acid trip.

A bit like with browser cookies most people just click OK without even a
second though about why a supermarket would want access to your photos,
email and phone contacts list, microphone and webcam.

The odd one can be useful like an app for finding the nearest bank
machine which has its compressed database and map data in the phone.
(memory is cheap so some things do work better this way)

Unfortunately in the UK they are closing banks and their machines left,
right and centre so you do have to update it fairly often if you want to
be directed to a still working one as opposed to a blanking plate where
a hole in the wall bank machine and a bank used to be!

Cash has become a lot less common thanks to Covid - everyone prefers
contactless payment these days. Limit for that now raised to £100.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 3:17:20 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:

It is amusing that no one has developed a sandbox that you can interpose
between any/every app and your actual resources. This would allow
the user to see *which* resources are ACTUALLY being accessed as well
as allowing you to \"dummy up\" some bogus resources to appease/confuse
the app.

Yeah, and Java was envisioned (write once, run anywhere...) as
an interface between every app and actual resources.

The three B\'s kinda ruined that.

Bugs, bloat, business. Can\'t live with \'em, can\'t live without \'em.

Bugs buried in a third-party library with no one accepting responsibility
means that software and firmware can become untenable, and unfixable.

Bloat in use of oddball functions means you need versions of firmware, software,
and addons to match some arbitrary list of specifications or the new (or even old) app won\'t run.
There\'s no clear listing available, of course....

Business decisions (or outright collapses, or purchases/mergers) take away
infrastructure, so the box can\'t run. Or, phone-home functions are required
to un-brick the thing, and there\'s no one home when the checks don\'t arrive regularly.

 

[Don Y]

On 1/9/2022 12:38 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 3:17:20 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:

It is amusing that no one has developed a sandbox that you can interpose
between any/every app and your actual resources. This would allow
the user to see *which* resources are ACTUALLY being accessed as well
as allowing you to \"dummy up\" some bogus resources to appease/confuse
the app.

Yeah, and Java was envisioned (write once, run anywhere...) as
an interface between every app and actual resources.

The three B\'s kinda ruined that.

Bugs, bloat, business. Can\'t live with \'em, can\'t live without \'em.

Bugs buried in a third-party library with no one accepting responsibility
means that software and firmware can become untenable, and unfixable.

Bloat in use of oddball functions means you need versions of firmware, software,
and addons to match some arbitrary list of specifications or the new (or even old) app won\'t run.
There\'s no clear listing available, of course....

Business decisions (or outright collapses, or purchases/mergers) take away
infrastructure, so the box can\'t run. Or, phone-home functions are required
to un-brick the thing, and there\'s no one home when the checks don\'t arrive regularly.

All of these are \"survivable\" *if* you have control over the design.
The ENTIRE design.

For a business, that means owning source licenses to all hardware and
software.

Sadly, for a *consumer* (| user), it means the same thing! Because having
all of that reside in the arms of a vendor does YOU no good if the vendor
decides not to support it any longer.

[I think anyone who buys a \"smart appliance\" is begging to be screwed-over
in the future. How long does a vendor support a \"smart TV\"? Do the codecs
keep being upgraded/repaired? Or, does the vendor move on to developing
Model N+1 with the newer codecs and leaving the older model(s) to languish?
(i.e., treat your TV as a DUMB *monitor* and move all of the smarts *out* of
it and into an appliance that YOU can control)]

Gotta wonder about these smart refrigerators, thermostats, \"Alexa\", etc. How
much of the functionality is *in* the device and how much relies upon some
other service? (when that service goes away, you\'ve got a dumb little box that
can\'t even be repurposed to fill its original role!)

[Of course, the vendor can rationalize moving the smarts out of the device
and into a service as a means of driving the per unit cost down AND
facilitating improvements to the service without \"push updates\". And,
you\'re just *renting* the device, after all...]

 

[Rich S]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 5:37:19 PM UTC, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
For years, interaction with the internet worked through a
universal browser. Lately, every service, gadget or whatnot
wants you to download their special-purpose app. Why??
What\'s the deal? It seems like a huge step backwards to me.

Jeroen Belleman
The way they ask for ridiculously broad permissions should be a clue.

\"Why does Walmart need access to my camera, phone, and messages?\"

One guess.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

One reason could be, sloppy programming.

Developers use old past-practices or
carry-overed modules, and would rather assume
they \"need it\" to get the product working &
out the door, rather than stop, consider the user\'s
privacy & security concerns.

my organization has a a digital lab division,
working on these consumer issues. They
released a \"Digital Standard\" document, which
we are rolling out as way to evaluate connected
products. WiFi routers, TVs, apps, etc.

Printers, for example, largely the situation
I describe above.

cheers, RS

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Google\'s OS and Apple\'s OS probably wouldn\'t allow it. If more people
had Linux phones it could be done, but they cost around $800 which
gives an idea how much Google and Apple make from your phone.



Nah, you can get a Pinephone for $200.

Wow. I only looked at the high end with switches to power off
components.


--
Defund the Thought Police
Andiamo Brandon!

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 1/9/2022 22:27, Don Y wrote:

On 1/9/2022 12:38 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 3:17:20 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:

It is amusing that no one has developed a sandbox that you can interpose
between any/every app and your actual resources. This would allow
the user to see *which* resources are ACTUALLY being accessed as well
as allowing you to \"dummy up\" some bogus resources to appease/confuse
the app.

Yeah, and Java was envisioned (write once, run anywhere...) as
an interface between every app and actual resources.

The three B\'s kinda ruined that.

Bugs, bloat, business.   Can\'t live with \'em, can\'t live without \'em.

Bugs buried in a third-party library with no one accepting responsibility
means that software and firmware can become untenable, and unfixable.

Bloat in use of oddball functions means you need versions of firmware,
software,
and addons to match some arbitrary list of specifications or the new
(or even old) app won\'t run.
There\'s no clear listing available, of course....

Business decisions (or outright collapses, or purchases/mergers) take
away
infrastructure, so the box can\'t run.   Or, phone-home functions are
required
to un-brick the thing, and there\'s no one home when the checks don\'t
arrive regularly.

All of these are \"survivable\" *if* you have control over the design.
The ENTIRE design.

For a business, that means owning source licenses to all hardware and
software.

But this is not realistic unless you are the galaxy emperor... We do not
depend on anyone for software, so what. Cut us the silicon and we are
dead.

Sadly, for a *consumer* (| user), it means the same thing!  Because having
all of that reside in the arms of a vendor does YOU no good if the vendor
decides not to support it any longer.

[I think anyone who buys a \"smart appliance\" is begging to be screwed-over
in the future.  How long does a vendor support a \"smart TV\"?  Do the codecs
keep being upgraded/repaired?  Or, does the vendor move on to developing
Model N+1 with the newer codecs and leaving the older model(s) to languish?
(i.e., treat your TV as a DUMB *monitor* and move all of the smarts
*out* of
it and into an appliance that YOU can control)]

Gotta wonder about these smart refrigerators, thermostats, \"Alexa\",
etc.  How
much of the functionality is *in* the device and how much relies upon some
other service?  (when that service goes away, you\'ve got a dumb little
box that
can\'t even be repurposed to fill its original role!)

[Of course, the vendor can rationalize moving the smarts out of the device
and into a service as a means of driving the per unit cost down AND
facilitating improvements to the service without \"push updates\".  And,
you\'re just *renting* the device, after all...]

They are all going this way as far as they can manage it of course.
Design software people use (not us, we have our own) is nowadays
based on yearly subscriptions, so is office etc. Exceptions/ways
through it still exist I guess but for how long.
The picture is turning pretty dystopian and all we can do is
just live the rest of our lives the best we can, I don\'t think we
can do much to avoid a catastrophe.
Let\'s take it as easy as we can - while it lasts .

 

[Don Y]

On 1/9/2022 2:57 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

On 1/9/2022 22:27, Don Y wrote:
On 1/9/2022 12:38 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 3:17:20 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:

It is amusing that no one has developed a sandbox that you can interpose
between any/every app and your actual resources. This would allow
the user to see *which* resources are ACTUALLY being accessed as well
as allowing you to \"dummy up\" some bogus resources to appease/confuse
the app.

Yeah, and Java was envisioned (write once, run anywhere...) as
an interface between every app and actual resources.

The three B\'s kinda ruined that.

Bugs, bloat, business. Can\'t live with \'em, can\'t live without \'em.

Bugs buried in a third-party library with no one accepting responsibility
means that software and firmware can become untenable, and unfixable.

Bloat in use of oddball functions means you need versions of firmware,
software,
and addons to match some arbitrary list of specifications or the new (or
even old) app won\'t run.
There\'s no clear listing available, of course....

Business decisions (or outright collapses, or purchases/mergers) take away
infrastructure, so the box can\'t run. Or, phone-home functions are required
to un-brick the thing, and there\'s no one home when the checks don\'t arrive
regularly.

All of these are \"survivable\" *if* you have control over the design.
The ENTIRE design.

For a business, that means owning source licenses to all hardware and
software.

But this is not realistic unless you are the galaxy emperor... We do not
depend on anyone for software, so what. Cut us the silicon and we are
dead.

You can always find another source for silicon. If the design is locked
up behind closed doors, NDAs, <whatever>, then having all the silicon
in the world won\'t help you if the vendor stops selling the item that
you need.

We designed a $300K device that relied on a $5K software license.
Vendor stopped issuing licenses. What recourse did we have? It\'s
not that the \"item\" disappeared from the face of the Earth... just
was no longer available for our LEGAL use.

We either stop selling our existing product *or* redesign it to
use some other replacement for that licensed component. Of course,
vendor would love to sell us some NEW component to take its place.
But, would we want to open ourselves up to his intransigence on
a *future* decision to stop selling THAT license?

Sadly, for a *consumer* (| user), it means the same thing! Because having
all of that reside in the arms of a vendor does YOU no good if the vendor
decides not to support it any longer.

[I think anyone who buys a \"smart appliance\" is begging to be screwed-over
in the future. How long does a vendor support a \"smart TV\"? Do the codecs
keep being upgraded/repaired? Or, does the vendor move on to developing
Model N+1 with the newer codecs and leaving the older model(s) to languish?
(i.e., treat your TV as a DUMB *monitor* and move all of the smarts *out* of
it and into an appliance that YOU can control)]

Gotta wonder about these smart refrigerators, thermostats, \"Alexa\", etc. How
much of the functionality is *in* the device and how much relies upon some
other service? (when that service goes away, you\'ve got a dumb little box that
can\'t even be repurposed to fill its original role!)

[Of course, the vendor can rationalize moving the smarts out of the device
and into a service as a means of driving the per unit cost down AND
facilitating improvements to the service without \"push updates\". And,
you\'re just *renting* the device, after all...]

They are all going this way as far as they can manage it of course.
Design software people use (not us, we have our own) is nowadays
based on yearly subscriptions, so is office etc. Exceptions/ways
through it still exist I guess but for how long.

You stick with what you already have/had -- insofar as it is able
to meet your ongoing needs.

Or, embrace more \"open\" offerings... often with the need to make some
commitment (time or money) to ensuring their continued availability,
development, etc.

(Too often, folks buy into FOSS for $0 -- thinking it \"free\" and not
realizing that it can go away just as easily, without support, as
any other offering!)

The picture is turning pretty dystopian and all we can do is
just live the rest of our lives the best we can, I don\'t think we
can do much to avoid a catastrophe.
Let\'s take it as easy as we can - while it lasts .

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 1/10/2022 0:06, Don Y wrote:

On 1/9/2022 2:57 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 1/9/2022 22:27, Don Y wrote:
On 1/9/2022 12:38 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 3:17:20 PM UTC-8, Don Y wrote:

It is amusing that no one has developed a sandbox that you can
interpose
between any/every app and your actual resources. This would allow
the user to see *which* resources are ACTUALLY being accessed as well
as allowing you to \"dummy up\" some bogus resources to appease/confuse
the app.

Yeah, and Java was envisioned (write once, run anywhere...) as
an interface between every app and actual resources.

The three B\'s kinda ruined that.

Bugs, bloat, business.   Can\'t live with \'em, can\'t live without \'em.

Bugs buried in a third-party library with no one accepting
responsibility
means that software and firmware can become untenable, and unfixable.

Bloat in use of oddball functions means you need versions of
firmware, software,
and addons to match some arbitrary list of specifications or the new
(or even old) app won\'t run.
There\'s no clear listing available, of course....

Business decisions (or outright collapses, or purchases/mergers)
take away
infrastructure, so the box can\'t run.   Or, phone-home functions are
required
to un-brick the thing, and there\'s no one home when the checks don\'t
arrive regularly.

All of these are \"survivable\" *if* you have control over the design.
The ENTIRE design.

For a business, that means owning source licenses to all hardware and
software.

But this is not realistic unless you are the galaxy emperor... We do not
depend on anyone for software, so what. Cut us the silicon and we are
dead.

You can always find another source for silicon.  If the design is locked
up behind closed doors, NDAs, <whatever>, then having all the silicon
in the world won\'t help you if the vendor stops selling the item that
you need.

We designed a $300K device that relied on a $5K software license.
Vendor stopped issuing licenses.  What recourse did we have?  It\'s
not that the \"item\" disappeared from the face of the Earth... just
was no longer available for our LEGAL use.

We either stop selling our existing product *or* redesign it to
use some other replacement for that licensed component.  Of course,
vendor would love to sell us some NEW component to take its place.
But, would we want to open ourselves up to his intransigence on
a *future* decision to stop selling THAT license?

Sadly, for a *consumer* (| user), it means the same thing!  Because
having
all of that reside in the arms of a vendor does YOU no good if the
vendor
decides not to support it any longer.

[I think anyone who buys a \"smart appliance\" is begging to be
screwed-over
in the future.  How long does a vendor support a \"smart TV\"?  Do the
codecs
keep being upgraded/repaired?  Or, does the vendor move on to developing
Model N+1 with the newer codecs and leaving the older model(s) to
languish?
(i.e., treat your TV as a DUMB *monitor* and move all of the smarts
*out* of
it and into an appliance that YOU can control)]

Gotta wonder about these smart refrigerators, thermostats, \"Alexa\",
etc.  How
much of the functionality is *in* the device and how much relies upon
some
other service?  (when that service goes away, you\'ve got a dumb
little box that
can\'t even be repurposed to fill its original role!)

[Of course, the vendor can rationalize moving the smarts out of the
device
and into a service as a means of driving the per unit cost down AND
facilitating improvements to the service without \"push updates\".  And,
you\'re just *renting* the device, after all...]

They are all going this way as far as they can manage it of course.
Design software people use (not us, we have our own) is nowadays
based on yearly subscriptions, so is office etc. Exceptions/ways
through it still exist I guess but for how long.

You stick with what you already have/had -- insofar as it is able
to meet your ongoing needs.

Or, embrace more \"open\" offerings... often with the need to make some
commitment (time or money) to ensuring their continued availability,
development, etc.

(Too often, folks buy into FOSS for $0 -- thinking it \"free\" and not
realizing that it can go away just as easily, without support, as
any other offering!)

Well we have dps for power only but it comes with everything necessary
to do all the software for pretty sophisticated products without needing
a single bit of software from anyone else.
How does product lifetime licensing sound?