The future of computing does not look bright

As Wikipedia summarizes it:

The main issue is that the owner of the hardware is considered an attacker too, and that what constitutes a secure Platform is decided unilaterally.

Digital rights management ^🗄️ systems, often abbreviated as DRM systems, might rely on trusted computing, but not necessarily.

DRM as a concept has always been problematic, in particular

Do those artificial restrictions affect me?

In multiple ways!

I have older programs that still work, but I’ve lost the license key, and it is not possible to buy a new one.

I have older programs that still work, I have the license key, but I cannot activate them because the DRM system needs to communicate with a server that no longer exists.

In both cases, I’m officially unable to install the program again.

I have games that require inserting the CD, but most computers do not have a CD drive anymore. I can install the game from the backup I made of the CD (a simple copy of the content), but the copy is not recognized by the game as a CD for starting the game.

I cannot do proper backups of different media, but it’s not because I lack the hardware.

I want to print a black-and-white document, but the printer claims that the red ink, which I almost never use, is empty. On older printers, this would not have been an issue; now I’m forced to buy new cartridges every time, even if I don’t use them.

Android phones prohibit me from making screenshots for fair use, backups, and documentation purposes.

I have digital books that I cannot read on the device of my choice, although I have compatible eBook readers.

And probably many other things. I bet many people are affected in even more ways, probably even without realizing it, because these inconveniences are considered normal.

Most people find it normal to have to

Because systems are getting locked down year after year. For example, Google announced that it is not possible to install an application on Android devices if not through their store or adb, and also developing programs will have additional restrictions, like submitting an identity profile to Google.

Another issue is that users do not know how to use their devices/do not know how their devices work. One of the reasons is that most user interfaces hide a lot of important information.

Phones in particular are hard to use after five or more years, or use as a generic computing device.

On one hand, the operating system does not give much flexibility, functionalities like

and many others are not available to the end user.

On the other hand, hardware is difficult to repair or reuse

Thus, even if you buy the hardware and software, you are much more limited in what you can do.

The same patterns are being used more and more on PCs.

Most of all, I am worried because I am being forced into an ecosystem I do not want to be part of.

Like most people, I need money for living. I get the money by working. I need a bank account.

All banks I am aware of are transitioning to mobile applications for "security". One can either use the application directly or use it as a second-factor authenticator for logging in on the computer.

Those applications want to ensure that the device they are installed on is secure. This is often done by using the Google attestation service, plus, it might use other "handwritten" verifications.

On my devices, the application of the bank I am currently using does not work, because (pick at least one)

Other things I have experienced (not first-hand, sometimes by helping someone else):

Even if the devices I’ve used are "perfectly secure", as in they have no known vulnerabilities, or that the known (and mostly unknown) vulnerabilities cannot be exploited (the device is, for example, air-gapped), and meet all other requirements for running correctly, I cannot use them.

This is the issue with Trusted Computing; it acts against my interests.

And while it is possible to say "buy a new device", there are multiple issues with this approach:

On a computer, thanks to

I can still use older systems and programs (or newer programs that work the same way) without issues. Thus, in general, a newer machine is a superset of an older one. On a phone, or in general with trusted computing, but more on that later, this is not true.

I currently have an issue with the bank, because I am being forced to, but there are other places where applications are being pushed continuously.

It is an issue I was always aware of, and because having administrative privileges offers multiple advantages, I always avoided using those programs.

The second most prominent example I have are public health insurance companies.

Some of their applications want to ensure a "secure environment" too, and so they do not work on my devices. As I did with the bank, I complained because I am not able to use certain features, but it did not help. At least I am not being forced to use the application as long as I avoid certain features, and as long as the website works both from the computer and on the phone.

Transport Companies are also pushing for applications; in some places, it is getting harder to buy physical tickets. For example, Ryanair ^🗄️ is forcing everyone to use their application.

One should not be surprised that, in general, an application does not work as well as a printed piece of paper. I’ve read (and had) too many experiences where the application crashed at the wrong moment, or the bought ticket temporarily disappeared.

Of course, using the phone instead of printing things can have multiple advantages. For example, there is less waste, no need to waste ink and paper, and the chances of losing or forgetting the ticket might be smaller than forgetting the phone.

On the other hand, why not just give the user an image, a PDF document, and/or a passbook file to save on the device pkpass?

I’m pretty confident that, if the battery is not empty, I’ll be able to show an image at any time. I’m not as confident that a third-party application works correctly the moment I need it.

The reason why one is forced to use an application has nothing to do with security, accessibility, or ease of use.

For example, BVG ^🗄️ in Berlin used security as an excuse to drop support for older Android version.

As someone who writes software, I get it. You do want to minimize the number of devices and their idiosyncrasies you have to support, test, and debug.

The main business of most companies is not to write an application, but something else. In this particular case, there is no reason why an old device could not do the equivalent of a printed piece of paper. It is, in fact, a nice use case for an old device instead of throwing it away: use it as a dedicated device for managing tickets. This ensures, for example, that the battery running out is not an issue in most situations, as you are not going to use it otherwise. If configured correctly, like showing by default the wallet with the tickets, it can be given to a teenager, an elderly person, or, in general, to someone who would not use a smartphone otherwise.

Security is just a lame excuse.

So why are companies investing so much energy in programs they give away for free that cost them a lot of money, and possibly some reputation?

The first reason is: everyone else is doing it.

The second reason is: it is "modern" (whatever it means).

And last but probably most importantly, forcing the user to use an application instead of giving him the possibility to bookmark a website or leverage an existing infrastructure, gives the author of the application more control. It can show the user other content (related products, ads) or track information (which can be given to "partners"). It also makes it easier to lock the user ^🗄️ in a particular ecosystem.

For the end-user, there are not many advantages.

Why would I need an internet connection to show my ticket? Why does it need to be updated continuously?

An application is, in general, not really environmentally friendly. Even without taking into account that it might force the user to buy a new device, it is another program running and consuming resources, the battery in particular. Plus, people had to develop, debug, and test it. Compared to that, printing a piece of paper or saving an image in the photo gallery is much more energy-efficient.

"Voting with your wallet" is not sufficient anymore. I suspect it has never been sufficient.

Claiming that this can be fixed by not buying certain products does not work. I cannot find the product that is exactly what I want, so I have to compromise one way or another, and every product on the market has some deficiencies.

I would like a phone where

But cannot find it anywhere; contact me if you find something similar. But even if it existed, I am part of a minority, no company would be able to live with my once in a blue moon purchase.

Most of the topics I’ve mentioned are important only for some disjoint minorities.

Most people do not care if the drivers are open or closed source, as long as the system works (for some definition of system and works) Most people do not care if you can use a third-party store, as long as the preinstalled store on the device works. Most people are not personalizing their computer or phone. A lot of people change their phone every two, three, or four years; some do not even buy them, but lease them.

Once upon a time, standards had a major meaning, interoperability was important, because no company was big enough that it could ignore the rest of the world. For this reason, there was an incentive to use standard protocols. Today, a handful of gigantic companies control the majority of the stack of technologies, which radically changes how standards are developed and how important they are.

So the only possible way to improve the situation seems to be to have more regulations.

Recently, thanks to regulations, we have

And we should have batteries that are easier to remove ^🗄️ again.

Note that regulations are not perfect. Even with the GDPR, most companies are still tracking their users; at least they are now notified, and there are more situations in which one can opt out. It is heartbreaking to see how many "partners" websites have, for showing me things I’m not interested in. But before the GDPR, it was not better; it was just harder to see what was happening.

Not only users, but also nations are losing control over computing platforms, as they all have in their dependencies one or more of those gigantic companies, all located in America.

It’s a shame that on one side, some governments are trying to use alternative programs, often open source or at least programs that support open formats, but on the other hand, they are not doing much to prevent local companies from pushing their citizens into environments controlled by those gigantic companies.