Tagged: mobile Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Stef 4:04 pm on 14 June, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , mobile,   

    First code project for FreedomBox: the ‘bump’ challenge 

    Exchanging public keys and signing them is still a complicated matter for normal users. As part of the development of FreedomBox we are thinking of a simple way to establish trust and enable two people talk to each other through secure cryptographic means.

    One possible scenario is the following: User Jane meets her friend Ken, they ‘bump’ their phones or scan QRcode and by doing so they exchange not only their private information (vcard, GPG keys) but also establish a high degree of digital identity trust. The updated status of ‘trust’ can be then transmitted back from the phone to their respective FreedomBoxes, securing future communication between Jane and Ken.

    I’ve asked for comments and asked for participants on the FreedomBox discuss mailing list. Read the conversation on the archives and consider joining the effort.

     
  • Stef 7:58 am on 8 June, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , ios, mobile,   

    Putting Firefox Mobile on Apple’s iOS 

    Apple doesn’t allow another browser Firefox  (apparently there are other browsers) on its iOS devices, so Firefox Mobile cannot run natively on iPhone/iPod/iPad. Enter Mozilla Home, the hack used by Mozilla Foundation to allow Mozilla desktop users to bring their data on their favorite mobile device.

    The mockup of the upcoming version are awesome:

    Building on Firefox Home « Ian Barlow.

     
    • Glenn 12:30 pm on 8 June, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      “Apple doesn’t allow another browser on its iOS devices,”

      That statement seems odd since there are several browsers available on the app store, and many outdo Safari, like Mercury and Mammoth.

      • Stef 1:06 pm on 8 June, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        Uhm … I was not aware of this. Need to investigate more then. Thanks for the comment.

    • Joe 11:17 pm on 3 July, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      It’s not that other browsers aren’t allowed (even higher-profile browsers, like Opera) – according to Apple, any browser built for iOS must be based on the WebKit (Safari) rendering engine, and that would basically contradict Mozilla’s entire purpose.

      • Stef 7:50 am on 4 July, 2011 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for the clarification. Indeed that makes sense.

    • praxis22 11:57 am on 12 November, 2011 Permalink | Reply

      Chrome is based on webkit, but good luck getting that through the app store :)

      I think Apple’s stance could be more easily explained as, OK, so long as it doesn’t compete.

  • Stef 10:49 am on 28 May, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: contest, mobile,   

    Develop For Privacy Challenge 

    We live in a world of smartphones and other mobile devices that provide amazing services. But these same devices can also collect and share vast amounts of data that can paint a detailed picture about where we go, who we know, what we do and even what we think.

    Protecting this critical information is more important than ever. But too many users lack the tools that would enable them to take advantage of new technology without losing control of their personal information.

    That’s where you come in. And that’s why we’re launching the Develop for Privacy Challenge.

    Rules, judges and deadline on  Take the Challenge | Develop For Privacy Challenge.

     
  • Stef 10:02 pm on 21 February, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , mobile   

    GPLv3 and mobile app stores 

    The (supposed) incompatibility of GPL, especially GPLv3 and mobile app stores is still here and growing bigger:

    The rules for Microsoft’s Windows Phone Marketplace appear to mean that even Microsoft’s own MS-RL open source license is banned. And perhaps Nokia should worry too.

    via Microsoft Bans Its Own License (updated twice) – Simon Says….

     
  • Stef 11:01 pm on 10 January, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , mobile,   

    Apple and software freedom clashing again 

    Another app has to be removed from the Apple iTunes mobile App Store. This time, after GNU Go, it’s the iOS port of the popular free VLC Player because the terms of the GNU General Public License are incompatible with those of Apple’s store.

    Difficult situation and I still think that the best way out is for FSF to sponsor a mobile app repository for free software applications. What would be better?

    via How to avoid public GPL floggings on Apple’s App Store | ZDNet.

     
  • Stef 7:45 pm on 9 September, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , locked, mobile, , unlocked   

    The carriers are ruining Android 

    Techcrunch author MG Siegler picked the wrong fight accusing Android of ‘not being open’. His rant rant is all about how the fact that Android is open source allows the carriers like Verizon and T-mobile to fill it up with crapware and basically crippling the user experience. The nuts of his argument though are in this paragraph:

    The thought of a truly open mobile operating system is very appealing. The problem is that in practice, that’s just simply not the reality of the situation. Maybe if Google had their way, the system would be truly open. But they don’t. Sadly, they have to deal with a very big roadblock: the carriers.

    Carriers have been crippling phones everywhere and independently from the OS. I think of my Nokia E71, for example. It came branded (not locked) by TIM (Italian operator), installed with a custom firmware containing software that wouldn’t even start. So bad was the situation that I had to change its serial number and lead Nokia to believe that it was an unbranded phone so that I could install the normal firmware and get regular updates.

    I learned my lesson then: never ever buy branded/locked phones. But aren’t they more expensive that way? Yes! Unlocked phones cost a ton of money, and you know what? They should! When you go buy a laptop do you expect to pay less than $300? So why do you expect a Droid  phone to cost only $199? Don’t you expect that such low means strings attached? And the strings are crippleware, like the idiotic Navigator-thing that AT&T tried to make me pay for on the Palm Pre.

    Come on, American friends, you should know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Android is (almost) free software but that doesn’t have anything to do with the stupid manoeuvres of the carriers. These are lame attempts to squeeze some pennies out of you while they wait for their friends in Washington to destroy net neutrality (with Google’s help).

    Screw them, buy unlocked phones and refuse data+voice plans that tie to them for two years. Freedom comes at a very small price, all things considered.

     
    • Dror 8:23 pm on 9 September, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      I think most people realize that the subsidized headsets come at the price. The calculation I make is that since I know I’m going to stay with Verizon since they have the best network, I might as well take advantage of the two year plan. I won’t however let then sell me handicapped or significantly modified Android.

      This is all going to change once the price of smart phones comes down. By the end of the year, we’re supposed to see the Huawei IDEOS for around $150. It’s screen is smaller and the processor not as powerful, but it can probably do the job, and I might get one unlocked for my son.

      • Stef 8:02 am on 10 September, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        If so many people understand that the subsidized phones come with strings attached, why so many people rant and point fingers at Android instead of shooting at the real culprit?
        I made the mistake of buying a subsidized phone in Italy when this was still legal (antitrust law blocks carriers from tying customers to 2 years contracts) and I found out that the drawbacks were just too high.

  • Stef 10:35 pm on 7 September, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , mobile, netneutrality   

    There is nothing wrong in being a pipe 

    The more I think about the net neutrality debate the less I like what I learn. What is really puzzling for me is that carriers are complaining about having a privileged position and that is just unacceptable. It seems to me that network operators like AT&T, Comcast and Telecom Italia operate in an oligopolistic market, with extremely high barriers to new entrants, and with customers with strong disincentives to switch. The more I look at it the more I convince myself that network operators are telling politicians a fairy tale. Big telecoms want us to believe that they need to have some special power, because Google is taking away their margins. I am more inclined to believe that they should thank the governments that gave them a good and well defensible position, while focusing on delivering a good service.

    There should be nothing wrong in being a dumb pipe: just focus on delivering a high quality service, voice and data, instead of venturing in idiotic ‘value added’ crap. Hell, even offer the option to the customer to shape internet traffic, couple it with real good customer service and enjoy the recurring revenue, maybe small but almost 100% sure. There is really nothing wrong in being a pipe.

     
    • Dror 10:56 pm on 7 September, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Ah, but the carriers are used to being able to nickel and dime you on extra charges on top of your monthly fee. First they charged you for extra minutes, then they charged you for SMS, now they charge you for data. If you just pay a flat monthly fee, that number will keep going down and down the way DSL does, and that’s what they’re trying to avoid. It’s what’s good for the consumer, but not the carrier.

      • Stef 7:34 am on 8 September, 2010 Permalink | Reply

        But they chose to go down that path, a mistake that they should pay for, and not be allowed to ask for the government to grant them more benefits. In Italy we have never had flat monthly fees for voice calls, only recently they started to make these offers. And in Italy we still don’t have the super-silly flat fees for mobile data plans: how could AT&T think that it was sustainable? Their mistake, again.
        If the problem is Internet services free-riding on carriers’ infrastructure they should start charging them more for bandwidth. Will this mean the end of gratis gmail? I won’t cry for that but I will if net neutrality will be sacrificed to the altar of stupid business choices.

  • Stef 1:59 pm on 18 August, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: dilbert, mobile, , web   

    Is Dilbert taking side on Net Neutrality debate? 

    Probably this is just me, but today’s Dilbert cartoon reminds me of the debate about net neutrality and the Google/Verizon proposal. By implying that the mobile web is slow, is Dilbert reminding us that wireless is really different from our home/office wired web?

    Dilbert.com

     
  • Stef 7:05 pm on 15 July, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , faif, , kuhn, mobile,   

    Buy unlocked Android phones 

    When you buy an Android phone you’re not necessarily buying a phone with an free/open source operating system. Most of Android operating system is licensed in a way that allows manufacturers to lock down the device and make it physically impossible to install new and better software. Bradley Kuhn wrote an interesting article after Motorola finally admitted that they don’t want users to exercise their freedom:

    the company just doesn’t believe users deserve the right to install improved versions of their software. At least they admit their contempt for their customers.

    The lesson here is not to buy phones from Motorola and buy Google ADP1 or Nexus One which allow improvements to be installed.

     
  • Stef 10:01 am on 2 June, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , app store, , , , , , lefty, , mobile,   

    Beyond removing GNU software from mobile stores 

    Last week the Free Software Foundation asked Apple to either remove the game GNU Go from the iTunes App Store or change the terms of service on it. Apple chose to simply remove GNU Go from the store and the move was not a surprise, as FSF Compliance Engineer said in the blog post.  I am puzzled by this move.

    I don’t think that FSF goal it to prevent iPhone users to run GNU software on their device, as David ‘Lefty’ Schlesinger paints it and seems to discuss,but nevertheless this is the immediate effect.  Mobile app stores and locked down devices are hostile to free/libre software and GPLv3 can have a difficult life in the mobile environment because of its ‘full installation instructions’ provision. Also, there are still too few free/libre mobile applications.

    Having this in mind, a plausible explanation of FSF’s move was to educate free software developers that mobile app stores are not designed to respect users freedom. Fine, but the following question is: how to we proceed from here? What’s the next step of this education and what’s FSF’s plan to bring freedom to the users of mobile phones? I suggest for FSF to sponsor a mobile app repository for free/libre apps: it would have to run on non-free operating systems, but that’s what GNU had to do when there was no Linux. Also, it would be good and probably easy to extend the Free Software Directory to take mobile world into account. What else should FSF do to promote freedom in the mobile world?

     
    • Lefty 1:58 pm on 2 June, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      While the FSF-sponsored repository you suggest might go a (very) small way in ameliorating the problem, it’s going to have next to no impact on the world of real people using real devices. Even something such as you suggest can’t get GPL software into the hands of iPhone users since the only way to do that is via Apple App Store.

      However, there’s another issue for app stores, too: by allowing the download of GPL-licensed code, they’re effectively “distributors” under the GPL in the FSF’s view, and obligated to provide source code on demand. Neither the Apple nor the Android store ask, or even allow, developers to upload source code, nor do the stores have any support for providing source code. If source code is demanded, they can’t provide it: they don’t have it. So, simply by virtue of hosting only a binary, they’d seem to be in technical violation of the GPL.

      Since they’re commercial enterprises, the various app stores can’t rely on §3(c) of the GPL, either. I’ve gone into this in more detail here

    • Stef 2:48 pm on 2 June, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      I would expect a FSF mobile app store to have an impact in the long term, just like GNU took at least 10 years to start being useful for a wider public.

      Regarding the distribution issue, I think you’re correct, but that’s much more easy to solve than changing the terms of service. Heck, I think that Google could start doing this very soon if they wanted to, and without going through their legal department: add space annd some UI in the market submission process to host source packages of GPL apps. Without such changes, I believe it can also be tolerated like FSF tolerated for many years the CDs distributed with magazines, packed with binaries and no source.

      Note to self: a free mobile market should easily allow for -src packages alongside the binaries, like debian repositories do.

      Are you concerned that FSF is putting itself in a corner with this? I am, kinda.

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel