[kuhsaft]

> It is interesting though how this same conversation doesn't exist in the same way in other areas of computing like video game consoles

Historically, when the first game consoles with game cartridges existed, the hardware was much more niche than the available personal computers. Game system developers designed hardware specifically for games, and game developers developed for those specific systems. Also, physical media for games provided an ownership model and DRM.

In 2003, Apple released the iTunes Music Store partnering with music labels to counteract the prevalence of music pirating. That was the first major digital marketplace with DRM and way before the App Store in 2008!

In 2005, digital distribution for video game consoles came with the Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, and Wii. Being game consoles with unique hardware, they kept their restricted licensed development model of previous generations.

The iPhone and App Store just followed that pattern. Unique hardware and a licensed digital marketplace to go with it.

Now, the hardware between video game consoles, smartphones, and personal computers are mostly unified; and the only real difference is software, but the restricted marketplace model still remains.

---

> The fact that mobile phones aren't yet just a standard type of portable computer with an open-ish harware/driver ecosystem that anybody can just make an OS for (and hence allow anybody to just install what they want) is kind of wild IMHO. Why hasn't the kind of ferver that created Linux driven engineers to fix their phones?

DRM. There are already devices where you can unlock the bootloader and install any OS on it. But then you won't be able to install apps that use the Play Integrity API to ensure DRM. Companies/developers want revenue and develop apps that require Play Integrity.

Any device that doesn't have DRM will never support a paid digital marketplace or paid content streaming.

> Is Android and iOS just good enough to keep us complacent and trapped forever?

Probably. Microsoft tried a DRM supported OS with Windows Phone and that failed.

---

That being said, digital marketplaces and DRM have there place to prevent piracy and allow developers and creators to make a living.

If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal.

[chasing0entropy]

"That being said, digital marketplaces and DRM have there place to prevent piracy and allow developers and creators to make a living.

If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal.'

This is the equivalent statement to inspecting everyone's bag at any point because they might have something illegal. It's not an acceptable move from google.

[chii]

> If someone has a solution to prevent piracy without a root of trust that would be ideal

and that someone is named Gaben, and the solution is called Steam. He has done more to solve piracy than any media empire who proportedly spent billions in law suits, lobbying and anti-circumvention ever did.

[kuhsaft]

I think it's more equivalent to when game consoles check the license on disc media.

It used to be via hardware in the disc reader, then online license checking. And now it's fully digital, media and license.

The fucked up part is the fact that we can't transfer digital ownership of purchases. But at least I can use my purchases across multiple devices. Maybe this is what we should use blockchains for, but it would still require a locked device with root-of-trust.

---

> It's not an acceptable move from google.

By all means, you can have an unlocked Android device with a non-Google sanctioned OS and not use Google Play. That way you can use any app that doesn't require Google Play Protect.

Companies are OK with it because it makes them money. The majority of users are OK with it because they can use those companies' apps.

[cwillu]

> Any device that doesn't have DRM will never support a paid digital marketplace

Yet here am on linux buying games on steam

[kuhsaft]

Steam is a bit different, since that originated as a PC digital marketplace before complete root-of-trust DRM from HW->bootloader->OS->SW.

If anything, I would bet on a shift where Steam on Linux requires a signed OS like Windows Secure Boot. Call of Duty and Battlefield 6 already require Windows Secure Boot.

Wait, a signed Linux OS with Secure Boot already exists. It's Android Play Protect.

Also on Linux, you only get Widevine L3, which limits video and audio quality for DRM web content.

[fnord123]

Indeed. The complement of No Tux No Bux is If Tux Then Bux.

[kuhsaft]

It's less likely that game consoles and smartphones will become fully unlocked like personal computers. I would bet on the opposite where personal computers have the same HW/SW model as smartphones. We are already almost there with macOS SIP and Windows Secure Boot. The only thing missing is removal or isolation of root privilege escalation.

[pjmlp]

> Now, the hardware between video game consoles, smartphones, and personal computers are mostly unified; and the only real difference is software, but the restricted marketplace model still remains.

Not really in regards to consoles, the hardware is still tailormade for game development, even if some components seem common.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Any device that doesn't have DRM will never support a paid digital marketplace or paid content streaming.

None of the attestation stuff actually works for that.

For streamed content the pirates only need one person to crack one device and then everything is on The Pirate Bay. Notice that it's all still available in such places despite the DRM and the people still paying for it are still paying for it despite its availability there.

And apps are the same. If you put some attestation in your app, the pirates would just disable it in the copy they distribute, because attestation does nothing to prevent copying.

What it's nominally supposed to be for is so that a server can verify that the device is approved before providing some service. But that only works if a) the thing the server is providing is individualized rather than generally available, and b) the attacker can't get an approved device. The first is what makes it useless for copy protection. The second is what makes it useless for e.g. a bank app, because the attacker will just steal the user's credentials on a compromised device that never even attempts attestation because it's only connecting to the attacker's servers, and then put the stolen credentials into an approved device in order to transfer the money.

The only party to benefit from any of this is the incumbent platform if they can fool useful idiots into using it in order to lock customers into their platform.

[kuhsaft]

> For streamed content the pirates only need one person to crack one device

Thus the push for locked devices.

> What it's nominally supposed to be for is so that a server can verify that the device is approved before providing some service.

Which is why Neflix wont work with a device failing Play Protect.

> The first is what makes it useless for copy protection

Not if you require a locked device to download the artifact in the first place to prevent copying.

[eptcyka]

It took years before Apple relented and allowed the concept of a file be exposed to end users.

[pjmlp]

To be fair, initially Lisa also had the same document concept from Bravo, and that they took into iOS.

So Apple has been through this before.

[beeflet]

Don't prevent piracy

[Y_Y]

> In 2005, digital distribution for video game consoles came with the Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, and Wii.

Or at least ten years earlier with a Japanese SNES:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellaview