Ask HN: Why do you code? - <AUTHOR> The absolute most basic reason possible for me, I can make something out of nothing.
Even after being a front end dev for the last 10ish years it blows my mind. I can open up a blank text editor and make something that can evoke emotion in other people.
I can create beautiful and amazing experiences for people (self high 5!) around the world in just 1 night of coding.
What about you? <comment><USER2> It's evolved over the years:

Age 9: It's fun

Age 13: It's fun, and my parents won't buy me any games for my C64 so I have to write my own

Age 24: It's fun, and I can automate all this boring repetitive business stuff to get my work done faster so that I can play more Freecell and Tetris.

Age 26: It's fun, and The Internet just happened and suddenly everybody wants to pay me three times what I'm worth to do it. Woohoo!

Age 31: It's fun, and if I do just one day of it for freelance clients each month I can live on this beach indefinitely.

Age 37: It's fun, and if I put up a credit card form on one of my side projects, people seem to be willing to pay me money every month just to use it.

Age 43: It's fun, and I seem to still be doing it even though I could probably pack it in and live off that SaaS income.

There seems to be a common thread there. I suspect I'll still be doing it in another 10 years.

<comment><USER3> What's that SaaS project? If you don't mind sharing...

<comment><USER4> Looking at his profile it might be [http://www.fairtutor.com/](http://www.fairtutor.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Many reasons, best presented in list form, in no particular order of significance.

* Enjoyment. I like constructing intangible things inside computers such as data structures, and manipulating them.

* Problem or task solving. I like making tools that do things to take away burden from my and others' lives.

* Self-fulfillment. I like guitar but I'm terrible at it. I like snowboarding but I'm mediocre at that. I love rock climbing but again I'm not remarkable. I'm not very good at lots of things, but I'm pretty good at coding.

* What else is there to do? As someone who has leanings towards existential nihilism, eventually one sees no value in anything. So one might as well do _something_ to pass the time. Writing code ticks that box.

</comment><comment><USER6> When I was younger, the first real thing that grabbed me was magic (after reading, of course!).

To me, programming is like magic. It's that _aha_ moment that you can induce in people (and yourself), that leaves them baffled and amazed (the sanskrit word for this is _ascarya_ , wonderment).

Unfortunately, computer programs share two unfortunate aspects of magic:

        (1) The trick, once repeated, rarely evokes the same reaction in the audience.[0]
        (2) The implementation details are often mundane and boring (to laymen) when compared to the effect produced.

[0] i.e., I don't experiences moments of amazement every time I do a Google Search, but I certainly did the _first_ time!

edit: formatting.

<comment><USER7> These reasons are why I need to get into new things all the time; they keep it exciting and they actually make other people to think that i'm practicing magic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I enjoy writing code because I love computers. The ability to give the computer instructions that it will eventually understand and execute is the exact kind of empowerment I have sought out since I first touched MS-DOS at 4 years old.

Unfortunately, the hobby was never discouraged by my parents (constantly told to get off the computer because I was "melting my brain", being heavily pushed towards business and law related subjects etc.). Although I can't entirely blame them, the result was I lost interest around high school. I didn't rediscover my passion until about my Junior year of college (thanks to Skyrim modding, honestly).

I'm here now, and I love it. I'm currently learning C and I look forward to playing catchup with everyone who had a real head start.

</comment><comment><USER9> I like solving puzzles. Often that puzzle in my world is "How do we make sense of all this data for business users" or even as simple as "How do we make this faster?".

Also, its well compensated. If this was a 50k/year job I'd have found a new career by now.

<comment><USER10> It is a 50k/year job for many, many programmers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It crystallizes my ideas. In more than one way. It still staggers me that I can think up complicated structures that do entirely new things, even impossible things, and put them into practice using only my fingers and mind. I love architecture more than code, but code is the way to bring the architecture to life.

It also works the other way around. Code helps me think. It's rigid and exact, and doesn't allow for vagueness in ideas. It means that, when I'm coding, I'm required to think things through. It forces me to bring blurry notions into sharp focus.

And lastly, I believe it makes me a better person. Programming is a refined balancing act between abstracting and precision, between simplicity and complexity. Doing that balancing act makes me more capable of handling other situations. It trains your mind to understand complexity and reduce it, just as it trains it to see the problems with simplicity that make it more complex.

Oh, and it's also a great way to pay the bills. But I would still be coding if it didn't, I'd probably still be coding if I had to actually pay money to do so.

</comment><comment><USER12> _A program is a building of thought. It is costless to build, it is weightless, and it grows easily under our typing hands._

I like the puzzle of creating fictitious miniature, living worlds, over which I [can sometimes] exert complete control. I like words and names. I like formal elegance. It is also pleasant that I can get paid to do this in a very stable, corporate environment.

</comment><comment><USER13> Firstly, to show off!

Secondly, because it is very rewarding. To create something non-trivial and watch it work for the first time, after a dozens of failures, gives me a lot of satisfaction.

Wow, the question actually made me more aware of my motivation. It seems that everything I did was some case of "it looks simple, I can do it! Others will admire me. :)".

I, as a kid, played a lot of games on Amiga 500. Naturally, I was amazed by them and didn't even dream of doing a game myself. Later in life, a friend showed me how to do a 3d model in 3d Studio.

I liked it a lot, I could spend nights polishing minor details on car models (like those: [http://hrekin.za.pl/](http://hrekin.za.pl/)) As I was spending a lot of time in front of a computer, parents decided it would be nice thing for me to study Computer Science.

I remember, that my expectation then was something along the lines "They will teach me there how to make an application like 3d Studio Max", or actually any other desktop application. I was truly believing it would be the case. I was trying really hard to learn as much to make it happen.

But still, even 3 years after graduation, I didn't know how to write a desktop application which does some very rudimentary things. I was expecting it would be very easy to it, since everybody else seemed to do it: you click on a file with a certain extension and appropriate app opens.

Today, I am actually writing a very simple desktop application with all the pieces in place.

Of course, in the course, I had successes in more job related fields. I did survive a financial app maintenance and even got to sell one Android application to a commercial bank - which wasn't trivial, since it had some advanced computer vision stuff implemented (in pure C, no libraries used). I also wrote a C# game.

</comment><comment><USER14> I mostly code so I can save time doing things at work. I work in IT and am able to save many man hours by automating tasks. This makes me much more productive and valuable than other members of my team that don't have these skills. I'm really surprised by the lack of coding by IT people in general. At least the people I know.

<comment><AUTHOR> Work smarter, not harder. That's how to keep a job :)

<comment><USER4> Its also a good way to automate yourself out of a job.

<comment><USER10> And automate yourself into another one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I code that people can buy some more crap.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very optimistic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Although I love that coding is a means of creation, problem solving, and user experience. I feel that my primal reason for wanting to code isn't any of those.

Honestly, I don't even become interested or inspired to solve a problem until I experience it for myself (unless it's a job).

I feel that my interest in coding stems from the fact the I enjoy challenging conventions. I like asking why things are the way they are, and then breaking the rules to better the creation process & product.

The fact that I can learn on my own (as opposed to lectured) is what also drives me to code more. When I finally find something I want to build, I can learn how it's been done in the past, and develop my own opinions on how it should be done.

Also, coding is probably the first thing that I've ever felt I could do with my life.

</comment><comment> andrey-p Before I became a programmer, I wanted to be a freelance illustrator, but then I realised I can't be creative for anyone else but myself.

As a programmer, I still need to be creative but in a much different, much more straightforward way. I've got clearly defined problem that I need to solve, and I solve it.

I do sometimes find I get emotionally invested in whether I solve the problem or not - so if I'm stuck on a problem for a whole day and haven't solved it by the evening, I go back home dejected and depressed. Vice versa, if I've done everything I wanted to do, I'm in a great mood all evening. These sorts of ups and downs make my job exciting and refreshing.

</comment><comment><USER17> Ever since I found out I could program my TI 84 calculator back in a chemistry class, I am fascinated by building stuff.

The first thing I did was writing everything down for the next exam (combined with a simple interface to all the info and things like calculating some simple chemistry stuff) and making sure everyone else in the class had it on their calculators (the teacher never understood where the sudden increase in grades came from...).

I had fun back then and I still feel this way. It is something I can completely immerse myself in (luckily not the only thing) and I just really like doing it.

</comment><comment><USER7> Been coding almost non stop since 1982 when I turned 8 (birthday computer).

I like it because it's creating something from nothing. I like writing for the same reason (I'm better at programming though ;). For me the idea that I can simply get a <=$5 device of Ebay or the local thrash heap and open up infinite creativity, ideas, experimentation and even wealth is why my work and hobby is creating software. I don't have to anymore, but I like it and the more I learn about it the more I like it.

</comment><comment><USER18> First of all I don't necessarily think I am good at coding. When I was young it was the fun of learning. Then when I work tech support I coded because I was for trying to create my ideal life, which was not having to work for someone else (failed at that). Now that it's my day job I simply do it for money. Ultimately I am too burned out from work to do any coding for fun anymore. However, if I had another way to get money I think I would probably start finding coding fun again.

</comment><comment><USER19> * It gives me hope. It's the only activity (for me) that may one day lead me to fully control my destiny (i.e., side project -> lifestyle startup)

* I can be god-like. When working on a side project, I get to make ALL the decisions.

* It's rewarding. Being able to take an idea born purely from my thoughts, and make it into something real, is inherently rewarding. Although I guess this applies to any creative endeavor, with coding it's cheap (all I need is a computer) and the feedback loop is short.

</comment><comment><USER20> I like creating stuff. If money (and time I guess) weren't an issue, I'd do more than code: electronics, machining, etc. Hopefully one day I can afford a nice lathe.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's a family curse. My dad is a programmer, my brother is a programmer, my mother is not a programmer though, but a math teacher. The only real black sheep in the family was my sister, who has done everything from being a hockey trainer to dentist assistant. But finally even she caved to genetic pressure and entered IT, initially as a software tester, but she's already progressing to information analist and she's starting to look into actual code.

</comment><comment><USER22> Because, while it is a tired old trope that mathematically/technically-minded people are not creative in a traditional sense, it is my only creative outlet.

</comment><comment><USER23> It wasn't an option for me as a kid. I was told I "wasn't good at math" so not to bother trying to program. Later I learned to work through those issues, and now it's accessible to me.

Apart from the motivation to prove to myself that I can do it, it's fun. Nothing quite like getting some piece of code to run successfully, or making something that people enjoy using.

</comment><comment><USER24> Originally? I got out of grad school and needed a career.

I had previously tried to learn to program and hadn't really gotten anywhere (attention span and lack of determination), so I was already interested. But without the external impetus, I have no idea if I would have ever started.

Now, it's because I'm fascinated by the process (and also because I need to be paid...).

</comment><comment><USER4> Recently: To pay the bills.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you still enjoy it? The reason I ask is that I go through slumps where I just don't have any creative juice left for a while.

<comment><USER4> Not really. I haven't worked on anything especially challenging lately. There is only so much enjoyment that can be gained from tweaking a CSS file here or there for 8 hours a day. By the time I get home I have no desire to work on anything else.

<comment><AUTHOR> I used to work in a place just like that. Soul sucking. I feel for ya, man.

<comment><USER4> Fortunately I have a pair of prospects in the works. Hopefully one of them pans out.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what I ended up doing, took on some side projects to keep my head clear first and then used them as portfolio fodder for a new job.

Good luck!

<comment><USER4> Good news! Got the job that I was most hoping to get, and it came with a 7.5% raise. Win win!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Probably at the age of ten, the moment when I got to understand the concept of a loop, be it a while or a for loop, I started to realize the endless possibilities one can do with coding. 20 years later, with more sophisticated tools in the pipe, I'm still looking for the boundaries of what is possible and what isn't.

</comment><comment><USER26> I like(d) it a lot. Recently I changed job due to an internal company change and I am in a terrible technological situaton. Working with a lot of stuff I don't like with colleagues I don't like. But my passion for coding didn't leave me. I love it and I try to write as much code for myself as possible.

</comment><comment><USER27> I love the thrill of solving a particular problem with code. I also like being able to create useful things from simply hitting a keyboard for a while.

I think its a great technical field that also rewards creativity. I'm also and hobbyist musician and I feel that the two skills really work well with each other.

</comment><comment><USER28> I write code because I like solving problems and being intellectually challenged. A past co-worker summed it up best, "I don't want to be promoted, why would I want to manage people? I get to build cool shit, all day, and get paid for it. 8 year old would think my job is awesome."

</comment><comment><USER29> Because it's fun.

I love going from a blank slate to a working piece of software. I love that I can create things with just a terminal and a text editor.

The fact that I get paid to do it for a living is amazing, and something I find a little surreal from time-to-time.

</comment><comment><USER30> Because I'm addicted. No, seriously, I can't stop - I've been hacking on C++ and Python code since 6:45 this morning, and I haven't even stopped to check email or work on other things I'm supposed to be doing.

</comment><comment><USER31> I originally started because I was fascinated by what could be done with code. Creating things from start to finish is still exciting even after 14 years. After taking on a management role, I still code when I can because I enjoy it.

</comment><comment><USER32> All the turnkey solutions for my line of business are garbage. I used to be a data scientist and moved into sports science, and wow, you should see what passes for "good software" in this industry.

<comment><USER33> Sounds like you're in a position to make some good money if you've got the time and motivation :)

<comment><USER32> Most of the software use is internal, actually. There is a limited market to actually capitalize on the software because everyone gets so locked-in from various vendors, so friction and moving costs are high - not to mention social signaling of using similar software packages.

Which is all well and good, really. By developing better internal software packages, we move faster and more efficiently and churn out better research and products. I have no desire to sell the software that powers the engine that will overtake my competitors. Maybe in five years when we're the market leader and we can sell the software for a few million dollars per year. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Originally because it was fun and helped pay the bills. More and more recently I code to better understand things I'm thinking about or build small tools that are useful to me.

</comment><comment><USER35> Because I'm okay at it, and it appears to create enough value for society that I can capture some to feed my real passions: contemporary art and architecture.

</comment><comment><USER36> Earlier i do it for my assignments but now doing it solemnly for one purpose to build something ( platform, software, website, app )which can generate money

</comment><comment><USER37> Because it's my special way of expressing myself.

</comment><comment><USER38> Being able to go from nothing to something is fun.

</comment><comment><USER39> Because I love software engineering and computer science and besides many other things that involves coding too.

</comment><comment><USER40> I always had a fascination about writing code .... Coding is fun .... and also the way of making money for me.

</comment><comment><USER41> I code for the thrill and pleasure of the creativity involved. As an add-on, it provides for my family.

</comment><comment><USER42> Pay my bills In Argentina the Software Engineer jobs are not well paid...

</comment><comment><USER43> > _Why do you code?_

I'm decent at it and it puts food on the table. Sorry ...

</comment><comment><USER44> Easiest way to take an idea and run with it.

Except compared to daytrading. Eek.

</comment><comment><USER45> That's what I know to do, but sometimes it get boring.

</comment><comment><USER46> Because it's the only thing I'm good at.

</comment><comment><USER47> Because I can't stop!!!

</comment><comment><USER48> It's a passion.

</comment><comment><USER49> because it is fun!

<comment><AUTHOR> ding ding ding!

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Fun and profit. Simple enough, yeah?</comment>


One of the FBI's Major Claims in the iPhone Case Is Fraudulent - <AUTHOR> https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/one-fbis-major-claims-iphone-case-fraudulent <comment><USER2> TL;DR: "they're asking the public to grant them significant new powers that could put all of our communications infrastructure at risk, and to trust them to not misuse these powers. But they're deliberately misleading the public (and the judiciary) to try to gain these powers. This is not how a trustworthy agency operates. We should not be fooled."

<comment><USER3> The TL;DR should be "iPhone 5C NAND flash can be wiped and restored to default, making brute forcing the PIN a possibility," not this speculative snippet.

<comment><USER4> Except that all the evidence points to this speculative snippet being correct, and is the point of the article. So, your tl;dr is missing the crucial point of the article, that the FBI is making a power gambit through deception.

<comment><USER5> By the same measure, Apple is deceiving everyone too.

Apparently, they can't enable the phone's "icloud backup" because someone changed the icloud password. Doesn't Apple have old passwords -i.e can't they restore the old password from backup? And presuming they can't (why?).... can't they simply modify the server-side to not check for password for a given account, and accept just accept any password for backing up?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have to say, whoever at the FBI decided this was the right case to push their new doctrine, could have done his/her homework a bit better. Technically speaking, this is the last iPhone you can actually crack _without_ assistance from Apple. They are making it harder for themselves. They only have to wait for another major incident, retrieve (or plant, why not) an iPhone 6 from the scene, and do it again, this time _for real_.

Unless they are trying to pre-empt something else (like the recently-touted shift to "devices even we can't access" from Tim Cook, which may or may not be simple advertising), they just picked the wrong time to stir this particular pot.

<comment><USER7> This case isn't just about Apple though. If the FBI wins this case, it becomes a precedent that can then be turned around and used on ANY hardware or software company in the future.

<comment><USER8> Which is why it should have been important enough to them to wait for the next 9/11 or similar incident.

Waving around the proverbial pipe wrench for a case this ambiguous is just stupid. They're just as likely to have it taken away from them altogether.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Heck, the FBI could also disable writes to the chip, or simply interpose some logic that pretends to write, but actually doesn't (a non-write-through cache :-) ).

That is, if the secrets in question are on that NAND chip.

<comment><USER10> For this device, with no Secure Enclave, I believe they are on the NAND chip.

<comment><USER9> Heck, there are probably 20 companies with a Silicon Valley zipcode that could do that work, then. And a few in LA. I know people who could do this in their garage (and that's not hyperbole).

<comment><USER11> That would rather defeat the point of this whole fake political-judicial spin effort. Teh terrorists already destroyed their personal phones that had actual terror secrets. These work phones, which could have been confiscated by San Bernardino County at any time, are vanishingly unlikely to yield months-old information of any sort.

<comment><USER12> They already retrieved a ton of info from a month or so old iCloud backup. The FBI has a good idea what might be on the phone, but they aren't saying what they already found.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting technique, but it doesn't remove the long interval between permitted passcode attempts - an equally important problem for brute-forcing.

So the FBI would most likely still require Apple's assistance in this.

<comment><USER14> If you can copy the contents of the NAND memory to one chip for testing, then you can copy it to a hundred chips and parallelize the process, assuming I haven't misunderstood the hardware issues at hand (not my specialty, to be fair).

The exponential backoff of attempts is not really an issue in that case.

<comment><USER15> Interestingly, this is the EXACT advice [1] given at the Apple + FBI @ U.S. Congressional Hearing on March 1st from California congressman Darrell Issa (R).

Congressman Issa was previously the CEO of DEI, a car security and audio equipment company. He is possibly one of the most tech-savvy members of U.S. Congress and happens to be one of the wealthiest as well [2].

The Congressional hearing video footage is here, the suggestion was proposed at 1h23m 13s in.[3]

[1]: [http://qz.com/628745/i-have-no-idea-the-fbi-director-at- the-...](http://qz.com/628745/i-have-no-idea-the-fbi-director-at-the-apple- judiciary-hearing-gets-schooled-on-security-tech-by-a-congressman/)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Issa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Issa)

[3]: [https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4993](https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4993)

<comment><USER16> I noticed the same thing. I wonder whether James Comey's aw-shucks answer (roughly, "I have no idea, I'm just a regular Joe, I don't know much about the tech here") was feigned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Apple said that could sync the data if the AppleID password wasn't changed. Can Apple just revert the AppleID account on their servers to a backup with the old password hash (or however it is stored)? Why wouldn't this work? Has something on the phone changed because of the password change or is Apple unwilling or unable to revert the AppleID account?

<comment><USER18> The local device could have cleared the stored password if the remote server rejected it even once.

<comment><USER19> Could have, and perhaps should have, but I haven't seen anyone claim that it actually does delete the stored password after a failure. And it would be awkward if the automatic backup stopped functioning and required manual intervention after each intermittent network failure. It should be fairly easy for someone with an iPhone to test and find out.

<comment><USER20> > And it would be awkward if the automatic backup stopped functioning and > required manual intervention after each intermittent network failure.

But not awkward after a valid reply from the server saying "password incorrect".

<comment><USER19> Possible, but still awkward. If the network failure is between the server and the password database, it would still need to distinguish between "password permanently incorrect" and "password temporarily incorrect".

But my stronger point was that there is no need to speculate, since someone with an iPhone can verify what actually happens. Set up backups, change the password, verify that it fails, change the password back, and report what happens.

<comment><USER21> If the HTTP status code is 5xx, keep the password. If the HTTP status code is 4xx, delete the password.

Obviously making some assumptions (like HTTP, or a 5xx on network fail between internal services), but telling the difference between "user supplied bad data" and "the server messed up" really isn't that awkward at all.

<comment><USER18> That's exactly what we do in one of our iPad apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It seems like there are several articles and security experts out there explaining how to recover data from a locked iPhone as if it were a cakewalk but where is one example of a complete soup-to-nuts case study on unlocking the same model phone as the San Bernardino shooter?

If you want the American public to believe the FBI is making fraudulent claims, show demonstrable proof that it can actually be done instead of all the talk and theories.

<comment><USER23> ^this

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The device is evidence, so all of you saying they can just start desoldering things and such need to think about that. What is the first thing a defense attorney would say if the data were to be used in a criminal trial? That's right, "the FBI replaced the memory chip on the phone with one they wrote their own copy of the data to." That is only after they potentially permanently damage the device and data.

<comment><USER25> And yet, there's no issue with "We'll let apple take the device, flash a custom OS onto it, and allow us to make attempts remotely while not having physical access to the device".

That's what they're asking for. Part of the FBI's argument is that they need the information for safety of our country, not specifically for the trial.

<comment><USER26> Isn't the FBI's position that the FBI will have physical possession of the device at all times?

<comment><USER27> The FBI said it would be acceptable for Apple to retain possession of the phone while it was running the customized version of iOS out of RAM in order to prevent the custom iOS from falling into their hands.

<comment><USER28> > The FBI said it would be acceptable for Apple to retain possession of the > phone...

However... in _that_ case the FBI _will_ have _remote_ access to the phone in question to run whatever software tools against it they require. (This requirement is in the order. :) )

Given that "prevent iOS from reading the ROM used to boot the iDevice" _probably_ isn't a threat that Apple considered to be a serious one, it's entirely possible that the FBI (or an agent of another TLA embedded within the FBI) could use this remote access to _also_ gain access to Apple's (signed!) PIN entry delay and self-destruct removal modifications.

If this happens, _and_ there's a way to bypass whatever mechanism Apple used in the modified image to make it run only on that single iPhone, then Apple has just unwittingly (and unwillingly) handed a backdoor to any iPhone of that model to FedGov (along with any _other_ governments that have clandestine access to the systems of the TLAs in question).

Don't be confused; the stakes are _really_ high.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think this makes the FBI look dumb, but I don't think this really helps them either.

If the NSA did this for espionage it's one thing, but I'm curious as to whether substantially modifying the iPhone in this way would stand up in court.... How would the police assert that they preserved evidence after doing this?

I was involved in a drawn out case challenged the validity of data recovered from backup at great. That was easy to assert with normal IT people, and yet it took weeks to litigate. Couldn't imagine how this would go.

<comment><USER30> They're not looking to prosecute anyone (defendant is dead), presumably they're trying to recover info the could lead to more terrorists/plots

<comment><USER31> Yes, but presumably they might want to bring what they find as evidence in such future cases.

<comment><USER9> Heck, they can just use "parallel construction" and lie their teeth off, as usual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wonder if the FBI has checked for any ways to circumvent the passcode screen using software bugs.

Edit: Not sure why I got downvoted. I can currently circumvent my keyboard passcode with a number of steps, and I'm on iOS 9. Steps to try for yourself:

Edit: Ok I've been tricked. The steps below are unnecessary as the first step actually unlocks your iPhone in the background. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ The fact remains though that these bugs have existed in the past and may exist on the device the FBI wants to unlock.

1\. Invoke Siri, "what time is it?"

2\. Press the time/clock that is shown

3\. Tap the + icon.

4\. Type some arbitrarily long string into the search box. Highlight that text and copy it.

5\. Tap on the search box. There should be a share option if your device is capable. Tap the share option.

6\. Share to messages.

7\. Press the home button.

Congrats, you're more effective than the FBI.

<comment><USER33> Data is still encrypted in that state. The passcode screen is not what is preventing access. That is how it works in Android (where a lockscreen is just an app that is locked into the foreground), but not iOS. Bypassing the iOS passcode entry screen gets you to a weird limbo-like state where a lot of thing don't work. I don't recall what that state is called.

<comment><USER34> This is not accurate regarding Android [http://www.zdnet.com/article/google- now-requires-full-device...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-now-requires- full-device-encryption-on-new-android-6-0-devices/)

<comment><USER33> FDE on Android still leaves a lot to be desired. It hardly stands up to Apple's implementation. The only time that any data is encrypted is when the device is off or a volume is unmounted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This reminds me of the republican congressman from Cali, Issa, telling the FBI in very technical terms (inserting in between that he could be completely wrong) the exact same thing mentioned in this article. I'm unsure if the author was inspired by congressman Issa or if he came to it by his own accord.

More over, what's more fascinating is, some people may say it's privacy v security and the fight for terror. But what has emerged from the last few weeks is multiple reason why the FBI should not win in court, regardless of your perspective of terror. It's been very clear from day 1 that the intentions of the FBI are vicious and non-genuine, and with every passing day, more people are finding out.

</comment><comment><USER35> I wouldn't be so sure the FBI knows this. Apple certainly does -- if they told the FBI, why didn't they also put that in their letter?

<comment><USER36> If the FBI's technical teams can't figure this out they should all be fired and it's all the more reason we shouldn't trust them with back doors into anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Seems like a pretty articulate explanation of what is going on here. Of course I realize that my confirmation bias will cause me to see articles more in line with my way of thinking as 'right' but I've also worked with NAND flash devices and believe that the chip[1] they use in the phone does not have any sort of protections on the NAND flash itself, you should be able to just drop it into a test fixture and read it out.

[1] [http://toshiba.semicon- storage.com/info/docget.jsp?did=15002...](http://toshiba.semicon- storage.com/info/docget.jsp?did=15002&prodName=TH58NVG4S0FTA20)

</comment><comment><USER38> Anyone else a little surprised that apples security feature here is so easy to sidestep? I'd have thought, in the least, that any such keys were stored in the main processor without external read/write capabilities.

<comment><USER39> No, I'm not that surprised. I think this feature is intended to protect your personal data from the casual iPhone thief or to minimize risk if you lose/forget your iPhone somewhere. I don't think it was intended to be a secure-from-governments kind of features.

<comment><USER40> Guess again - it is! It's a work in progress, and on the 6S it has improved a lot with the secure enclave in its own chip. It seems it will get even better, with encryption in the icloud as well.

The SE uses a different key for each app, so even if you can decrypt one key, you only get data from one app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> From the sound of various blogs, articles, etc., it sounding like the FBI doesn't have anyone who has technical expertise in this area (or if they do, those persons are being kept buried). While the court case is important to the FBI (and very wrong to the public), the technical details of breaking into an iPhone should not have been an issue for them.

I'm starting to think no one is driving the clown car in their technical division.

<comment><USER42> Well, according to the congressional hearing (posted in another comment thread on this post), the FBI has "engaged all parts of the US government" to try and find a solution and came up with none. Which is funny, because the congressman who was questioning Comey proposed essentially the same thing as this article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> > If it turns out that the auto-erase feature is on, and the Effaceable > Storage gets erased, they can remove the chip, copy the original information > back in, and replace it.

Sounds like a better hack would be to interpose the flash memory interface with a RAM cache that simulates writes without modifying the original flash data. Then they can hammer away at brute forcing it without the delay of reburning the flash.

</comment><comment><USER44> The ACLU is not wrong, they are right in the _technical_ sense.

But I very much doubt you would practically manage to remove that NAND chip and replace it very often on that umpteen layer ultra thin board. Instead, remove it once and stick it in a test fixture, then try brute forcing it.

<comment><USER45> "Technical correct... the very best kind of correct!"

The bigger question here is: do you really want law enforcement to hack into things as standard procedure? They certainly don't. It's difficult, expensive, slow, and worst, unbound by law. It's a world where your privacy is exposed based on the federal hacking budget rather than a judge's opinion about your potential criminality.

It's much better for law enforcement to be constrained by law than technical ability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Sorry about the slight OT, but what truth is there in this statement I was presented with?

>Even if an iPhone is locked, all of that encrypted data can technically be read easily so long as the phone had at least been unlocked once since the time it was booted up.

Obviously I think it's a nonsense, but I have no way of disproving it (even though the burden of proof is on the claimer, naturally).

Edit: OK I found this [http://www.darthnull.org/2014/10/06/ios- encryption](http://www.darthnull.org/2014/10/06/ios-encryption) so never mind, I guess...

</comment><comment><USER47> This attack was already widely discussed here, last week: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11199093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11199093)

</comment><comment><USER48> Maybe their exists experts that can get this right every time but there are significant risks to damaging a chip desoldering and resoldering. It's not just removing a through hole capacitor.

<comment><USER49> Yet the FBI's official plan is to get Apple to assign a few developers to put together a custom version of iOS that they trust will overcome all risk of erasing the device.

Is there a reason we should have confidence in software engineers rather than electrical engineers?

<comment><USER50> sw can test it on another phone till they get it right....EEs can only practice on another phone, if they screw up on the actual phone, it's gone burger

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity. Some engineer probably told upper management they couldn't decrypt the phone because the software would erase all data. Maybe because they didn't know, or didn't want to, but still this has blown out of proportion.

To be clear I don't think apple should compromise the phone, just that this is not a long con by the FBI to compromise all phones.

<comment><USER52> There needs to be a corollary considered here, possibly something like "never invoke the stupidity out lane for those who have previously demonstrated their malice"

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> the most frustrating part of this whole thing is the multi-headed response by various agency chieftains. fbi says one thing. nsa says another. former generals say another.

am i crazy to want the president step up and say: "our position as a government is: x"? there's no/no way this has escaped his notice. isn't that part of the job description of "leader of the free world?"

<comment><USER45> The executive branch is a big organization. Each agency has a different mission, culture and authorities (legal powers). The cryptowars are a complex issue, so it makes sense that the agencies have different takes on it.

I agree that thr government should have a unified view on all this. However, it should come from CONGRESS, not the President. This is clearly an area where our democracy needs to make a decision about how we govern ourselves, then enshrine that decision in law, then follow that law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Relevant grant from the Department of Homeland Security from 2011: [https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/361729](https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/361729)

I'm surprised someone at Uni hasn't made demonstrating this exact attack a class project.

</comment><comment><USER55> What strikes me as odd in all those analysis is that they all assume that the FBI is not expecting that weakened security will mean that there will be far more difficult to address crime -- i.e. far more on their plate.

</comment><comment><USER56> I don't know why this case is getting so much attention when it's readily apparently the FBI could just get everything off the phone with a cellebrite & call it a day.

</comment><comment><USER57> > Why the FBI can easily work around "auto-erase"

If it's so easy, then the ACLU should have no problem demonstrating it with an actual iPhone 5c.

</comment><comment><USER58> How practical is it to remove-restore-replace the NAND chip every 10 tries if you have to search through millions of combinations?

<comment><USER59> Where do you get the millions of combinations figure?

<comment><USER60> Maybe it was a type and he meant to say: >You see, a six digit passcode has one million possible combinations instead of 10,000.

<comment><USER58> Wasn't a typo, I did mean "millions", see my comment above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> so john mcaffee was right?

</comment><comment><USER62> This is really annoying. I wrote a blog post last week making this exact same point, posted it here, and it promptly got flagged to death, most likely by the same people who were commenting that I was "absolutely, totally wrong".

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11199093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11199093)

Nice to be vindicated though.

<comment><USER63> To be fair, this isn't an especially relevant argument, even if it's true.

The FBI isn't going to rip open a phone, unsolder a chip and risk destroying the device, when it can do what it's done successfully, many times in the past, and ask Apple to unlock the phone for them:

[http://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467602161/the-seeds-of- apples-...](http://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467602161/the-seeds-of-apples- standoff-with-doj-may-have-been-sown-in-brooklyn)

This thread is a real-world demonstration of the XKCD comic about pipe-wrench security:

[https://xkcd.com/538/](https://xkcd.com/538/)

Nerds think that proving that there's some theoretical, high-tech attack against the _this specific phone_ means that the FBI should therefore lose. But that's irrelevant. This case is about the pipe wrench.

<comment><USER64> Well, no, I think it's still very relevant.

To use the classic XKCD comic, the crux of the case is that FBI is the one arguing the first panel (i.e., some bogus magical encryption we can never break), and _because of that claim_ , they need to be able to compel Apple to compromise the security features using the old wrench trick.

The reality of there being practical alternatives for the FBI to pursue should give pause as to whether they can compel Apple to compromise the security features, and arguably the method described/discussed is indeed very practical.

All in all, it's less about the FBI's ability to do any of this and instead more about "should be the allowed to force a company to do something like this?". By demonstrating the claim that it's impossible to proceed without Apple's help is not true, I would think it should give pause to any court as to how to rule, since the implication of the ruling is pretty big.

<comment><USER63> The point is that the definition of "practical" is debatable -- any reasonable person can see that there are more risks associated with mucking around with the circuit board than having Apple install a custom software build, which carries no technical risk at all.

It doesn't matter that you can come up with some theoretically plausible attack that works in this one case. If it's harder or riskier or slower or less effective than Apple _complying with the warrant_ , then the question stands.

<comment><USER65> It actually seems clearly the opposite to me. This approach uses standard tools and methodologies for which there are already experts. Asking Apple to write new firmware has the potential of software bugs and similar unexpected issues.

<comment><USER66> I agree with you. Writing a custom firmware on the device is on the same risk level as desoldering the chip. In both cases it would be a smart option to test this approaches on a different device first.

<comment><USER67> The difference is that one of those options is nearly completely reproducible, the other requires humans to deconstruct a device which introduces more chances for things to go wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Obligatory ACLU and EFF donate links, "Freedom isn't free":

[https://action.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-fighter- join-a...](https://action.aclu.org/secure/become-freedom-fighter-join-aclu)

[https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)

<comment><USER69> Obligatory you can donate to the EFF via Amazon Smile:

EFF: [http://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/search?ie=UTF8&q=Electronic%...](http://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/search?ie=UTF8&q=Electronic%20Frontier%20Foundation%20Inc)

ACLU: [http://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/search?ie=UTF8&q=ACLU](http://smile.amazon.com/gp/chpf/search?ie=UTF8&q=ACLU)

And Chrome plugin that I use to force the browser to the smile site: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile- always/jgpmh...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile- always/jgpmhnmjbhgkhpbgelalfpplebgfjmbf)

I've never used this firefox one but here's a link to a similar one for FF: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/amazonsmilere...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/amazonsmileredirector/)

<comment><USER70> I only recently learned about Amazon Smile. Awesome stuff!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> This article seems wrong to me. I don't know a ton about the iPhone's specific implementation. That said, I was under the impression that these systems all worked similarly to the PC's TPM. Essentially, the encryption key is stored in a chip that acts as a black box. That chip is manufactured in such a way that makes it extremely difficult to extract data from. You can't simply copy it. You'd have to take it apart, inspect it with a microscope, and hope you don't destroy the data in the process.

The OS should set the security level initially. The TPM would enforce it. You can't modify the OS to make an attempt without it counting against the initially configured limit.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Platform_Module)

<comment><USER72> Not for the 5S. The iPhone TPM (or "Secure Enclave") is available on the A7 processor and above. The 5S includes an A6.

<comment><USER73> I think you mean the 5C.

<comment><USER74> Correct, the phone in question is a 5C, the 5S has the TouchID sensor and therefore the Secure Enclave (TPM).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> With 14 million combinations just in a 4 character alphanumeric(upper/lower/numbers) password, I would think they would start to encounter flash reliability issues re-writing this "Effaceable Storage" long before the password could be broken.

This would also slow down their attack considerably.

I disagree that the claim is fraudulent.

<comment><USER76> I believe the passcode is only 4 numbers, not alphanumeric.

<comment><USER77> The passcode can be alphanumeric. It's user-configurable.

[http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/05/how-to-set-up-a- complex-p...](http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/05/how-to-set-up-a-complex- passcode-on-your-ios-device/)

<comment><USER75> thank you. I just assumed it was configurable, like Android,, but, with the downvotes, I thought I was wrong.

Of course it would take much less time for a 4-digit numeric code -- but AFAIK at this point the length of the password is unknown, so, the ACLU claiming fraud based on the assumption of the length of the password is not correct.

Lets see how many more DVs I can get.

<comment><USER78> When you tap the home button on an iPhone, it shows you empty circles indicating how many characters are in the passcode. It also varies the entry keypad depending upon whether it's alphanumeric or numeric.

In other words, if you are holding the phone in your hand, you can figure out how many digits the passcode is, and whether it's alphanumeric or just numeric, without entering a single character.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> _" The FBI can simply remove this chip from the circuit board ("desolder" it), connect it to a device capable of reading and writing NAND flash, and copy all of its data. It can then replace the chip, and start testing passcodes. If it turns out that the auto-erase feature is on, and the Effaceable Storage gets erased, they can remove the chip, copy the original information back in, and replace it. If they plan to do this many times, they can attach a "test socket" to the circuit board that makes it easy and fast to do this kind of chip swapping."_

Right. They _could_ do this, and risk destroying the device, or they could ask Apple to do the easy, reliable thing, and just install a build on this phone that allows brute-force attacks.

Given that Apple has a long history of complying with these kinds of requests for valid search warrants, and that this situation is about as clear as it gets when it comes to justifiable uses of government investigatory powers, it's obvious why they're taking the latter approach, and not the former.

There's a legitimate privacy debate in this case, but this isn't it.

Edit: I'm just stating facts here, folks. Downvoting me won't change those facts, or make the government change its tactic.

<comment><USER79> When has Apple complied with a warrant that sought to compel a digital signature?

<comment><USER63> They're not being asked to provide "a digital signature". They're being asked to enable a brute-force attack on a single phone. Here's the full text of the request:

[http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple- As...](http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Shooter-Order-Compelling-Apple-Asst- iPhone.pdf)

Order #2 is the relevant order. But to answer your question, they've complied with similar warrants on at least 70 cases in the past:

[http://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467602161/the-seeds-of- apples-...](http://www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467602161/the-seeds-of-apples- standoff-with-doj-may-have-been-sown-in-brooklyn)

The only difference in this case is whether or not the FBI can compel Apple to make and install a custom build of iOS to crack the phone.

<comment><USER80> "Make and install a custom build" means compelling a digital signature, since the custom OS build must be signed before the device will accept it.

<comment><USER63> That's a distinction without a difference. Presumably Apple has done signed custom installs on the ~70 other iPhones they've brute-forced under warrant, because signed firmware has existed on iOS since (IIRC) the iPhone 3G.

In any case, the legal question has nothing to do with encryption. It's an incidental detail.

<comment><USER80> Those 70 other cases didn't involve installing a custom OS. They were running older OSes that did not do as good a job protecting the user's data, and thus could be attacked without any changes to the OS. The whole reason this thing has blown up now is because Apple finally improved their security to the point where the old attacks no longer work.

<comment><USER63> You are wrong. Apple cracked the other phones by installing software that brute-forced the password. They didn't have someone sit there and punch in 10,000 codes like a monkey.

Moreover, Apple won't comply with valid warrants for phones running iOS7, so it doesn't really have anything to do with the security of the OS. This started only because a federal judge made an issue of the legal justification for the first time ever:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/feds-since- apple-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/feds-since-apple-can- unlock-iphone-5s-running-ios-7-it-should/)

<comment><USER79> Again, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claim that a piece of brute-forcing software written by Apple already exists?

<comment><USER63> How about the fact that these tools have existed in the public domain for every version prior to iOS8, plus the fact that Apple could do this _in Apple stores_ for customers, plus basic common sense?

[http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/translock-utility-ios-can-brute- for...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/translock-utility-ios-can-brute-force- passcode-jailbroken-iphone-1493296)

But OK, if you insist...here's "evidence" straight from the EFF:

 _" For older phones with no encryption, Apple already had a software version to bypass the unlock screen (used, for example, in Apple stores to unlock phones when customers had forgotten their passcode)."_

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/technical- perspective-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/technical-perspective- apple-iphone-case)

And before you go there: whether or not you call this "brute forcing" is, again, a distinction without a difference. The FBI wants access to a single, password-protected phone, under warrant, and Apple has historically _maintained custom software_ that helped them comply with these exact requests. Nobody knowledgable about this case _cares_ that the software has to iterate through 10,000 numbers, or uses some other method to gain entry. They just want the outcome.

<comment><USER79> Your first link requires an already-compromised boot path; it cannot be used on the San Bernardino phone. Your second link describes software that only works on unencrypted devices, which likely means it needs to be able to grab the password hash directly (which it's free to then brute-force off-device, avoiding the max-attempts erasure).

Whether Apple has previously signed a piece of PIN unlock software or not completely misses the point: they decided to do that. They were not compelled. They expressed trust in the software because they trusted it. Not because they were forced to. Compelled speech is constitutionally prohibited.

Maybe give CVE-2014-4451 a try?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Android Is As Open As The Clenched Fist I'd Like To Punch The Carriers With - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/09/android-open/ <comment><USER2> In the end, it's our fault for electing people that refuse to regulate the cell phone carriers properly. Or, it's our fault for doing business with them. There are some countries where carriers are not allowed to include un- uninstallable apps. But not the US. Why? Because consumers in the US don't care about anything but a low, low price.

Right now, Android is the only popular mobile OS that you can clone from git, build, and install on some piece of hardware. All hardware? Nope. But some? Yes. This means it's basically open. Just because someone sells you a box you're not allowed to open doesn't mean that all boxes are un-openable, after all.

I had no trouble hacking my EVO 4G, deleting the stock OS with HTC and Sprint crapware, and installing a build with 100% open code. While it's not possible to do this with _every_ Android phone ever made, it's not possible to do it with _any_ iOS or Symbian or WebOS device. This makes Android the most open; and after the industry has been closed tight for 20+ years, it is quite refreshing. We haven't achieved perfection yet, but Android is the only software stack bringing us closer.

(Remember commercial UNIXes? Neither do I. Linux and Free/Open/NetBSD relegated them to a very tiny niche market. Android is the beginning of this for mobile; you don't just wake up one day, free of the oppression of closed hardware and proprietary software. It takes time and effort, and Google is leading the way right now. Someone else will build on this in the future, and things will become even more open.)

<comment><USER3> Another possibility is that this is as open as Android is ever going to be. The original Droid was a high-water mark for openness and standardization on Android. Subsequent phones have been progressively more customized and locked down.

Examples: AT&T banning sideloading, Motorola phones taking a more aggressive approach toward hacking, Verizon signing exclusive deals like Skype and moving toward a proprietary app store, Google deferring to carriers on tethering, Verizon's forcing Bing on users, etc.

"I can always hack it" isn't a solution, unless you'd accept that hacking is also a solution to Apple's App Store censorship. Android's fans are so focused on how evil Apple is that they're ignoring the way Android itself is becoming less open. I'm not entirely happy with Apple, but I'll take their curation over the carrier's vision of a new walled garden based on Android any day.

<comment><USER4> _Another possibility is that this is as open as Android is ever going to be._

This is a great point. Many of us are imagining a hypothetical alternate world where Google forced all Android phones to be non-evil, but maybe that world can't exist. Maybe if Google was fascist about openness, the carriers would just ship Symbian and WinMo instead.

 _The original Droid was a high-water mark for openness and standardization on Android._

I would say the Nexus One is the high-water mark, although apparently many people never even knew that it existed due to the lack of marketing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is very close to a previous article blaming Google for turning us back into the days of strong carrier control. (can't remember the link, but it was here on HN).

And I agree, though I don't think Google did it on purpose. Their main aim---I think---was just to avoid Apple (or Blackberry) becoming too powerful. They wanted to commoditise the smartphone market. And they have succeeded.

And to me it doesn't look like the hardware manufacturers got a great deal either. It's turning into a cut-throat market, where all phones are pretty much identical (and interchangeable), and your revenues come from economy of scale. Basically like the PC market.

Normally (e.g PC market) this would mean that the customer can shop for the best deal, which is great. However the "customer" here are the carriers: they buy from the manufacturers and resell to the real customer. And indeed they got all the power: they can ask this or that company to lock or modify the phone under threat of taking their business elsewhere.

The real customer, however, is only dealing with the carriers, and Google hasn't commoditise these. If anything we are getting even more market concentration.

So yeah, it seems to me to be pretty much what economics theory would suggest.

The only alternative would to get an unlocked phone but then the manufacturer would lose the massive subsidise and most users seem to prefer those to the hassle of getting a closed system from their carriers.

<comment><USER6> _The real customer, however, is only dealing with the carriers, and Google hasn't commoditise these. If anything we are getting even more market concentration._

Not yet, anyway. But the carriers have to be the next target. The huge capital requirements to build a network is their main barrier to entry, but that's unlikely to stop Google.

I wonder if they realize this (they probably do), and if so, what they are going to about it.

<comment><USER7> Google don't want to be in the phone market - they want to be in the selling ads on search market.

Their worry was a closed iPhone with an Apple only browser might go to an Apple/ATT only search page with Apple/ATT ads - or they might simply replace all the Google ads with their own before sending pages to the phone

And once people accepted this on iPhone they might also accept it on all the other phones then on all the home cable connections - like BT/Phorn.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't understand how he could interpret Verizon making and promoting their own app store as meaning the platform isn't open. Am I missing something or is the fact that anyone can make their own app store mean the platform is _more_ open?

Also, one minor nit is the 2.2 stats he's referring to are from August 2. I'm sure they'll be much higher with the 2.2 rollouts that occurred for Droids and Incedibles (others?) in August.

In the end, if manufacturers/carriers make a bad product, it will fail in the market, but with Android, they're free to do that if they want.

<comment><USER5> It's the usual open for whom argument.

Say Verizon creates its app store, promotes it, and removes Google's Marketplace. They also make sure you can't install apps any other way, including the original Google's marketplace.

Now, they have been able to do all of this because it's open, so yeah, it is more open. However what they will hand over to the customer is more closed, and possibly a worse experience.

<comment><USER8> I would agree with you if he was talking about removing the Android Market, but that's not the argument he made in the article. He said "it would likely be more prominently displayed than Android's own Market for apps" which would leave the Android Market intact.

<comment><USER9> The fact remains, for all this openness you have vanishingly small amount of control over your own device. If you don't want Verizon's market and if you certainly don't want it "prominently displayed" you may end up being out of luck.

<comment><USER10> That's not what Verizon has done, though. I bought a Droid 2 from them recently, and when I first started up there was a question about V.Cast which I said no to (because I knew everything there would cost money that I didn't want to spend) and I wound up with the Android Marketplace icon on my home page and the V.Cast app buried in my app list. If I want to check it out it's there, if I don't I don't have to click on it. Same goes for the other apps that cam pre-installed, which mostly aren't even that bad. I did go and re- organize most of my home pages, including getting rid of things like the Fox News widget, but that's just customizing. At no point did I really feel constrained by running Verizon's rom.

Of course, I _am_ paying $20/month for tethering on top of my unlimited data plan. The phone by itself is unlimited, but when other devices connect through it I'm limited to 2GB/month before ungodly data rates kick in. For now I'm saving it for emergencies, but so far the web browser and email connectivity are good enough that I don't think I'll even need tethering, so I'll probably cancel it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> it's not just the carriers. It's the manufacturers too - I know of no phone (aside of the Google developer phones) that would allow you to freely install your own build of the OS or even just remove "value added" software that has been installed for "your" "convenience".

Unless you exploit security holes in the vendors crappy security systems. The fact that they don't even invest enough resources into a quality security framework (which helps increasing their revenue) speaks volumes of the quality of the other "improvements" they make to stock android.

<comment><USER12> But that is because of the carriers. Why do you think Motorola implemented a signed multistage boot process? I'm sure they didn't say, "We want to limit our customers and waste engineering resources on a problem that voids the warranty anyway and doesn't matter to us".

Nah, they reacted to VZW's threats.

<comment><USER13> Nitpick: regardless of what the scare-message says when you unlock your N1's bootloader, changing the software on a device cannot (by law, in the US) void the warranty on the hardware, unless it is demonstrable that the software modification actually damaged the hardware.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rm-rf The key here is the unavailability of non-carrier branded unrestricted Android phones in the US. If I get subsidized by the carrier when purchasing the phone, dealing with crapware and restriction is part of the cost of getting $400 or so off the price of the phone at purchase time.

Ideally I could make a choice to buy an Andriod phone from a manufacturer with no branding and no restrictions, pay full price for it, and accept that the additional cost is what I'm willing to pay for an unrestricted, unbranded phone. The inability to purchase a phone like that is the real problem, not the restrictions placed on carrier subsidized phones.

Two years ago I bought an unrestricted HTC Diamond with Winmo 6.1. I paid over $600 for the phone and the privilege of being able to do whatever I want with the phone. The $400 extra over a branded/restricted phone, spread out over 24 months, is $17/month for the privilege of being able to doink around with a phone.

Having done that once, I'm leaning toward putting up with the crapware and restrictions and saving the $400. I figure that in two years, I probably only _really_ used a couple of third party apps. Most of the rest that I tried were annoying memory leaks and crashes waiting to happen - barely better than carrier provided crapware.

<comment><USER14> If you own your phone, T-mobile smartphone plans are $20/month cheaper. That's $480 over a 24-month contract, it doesn't pay to get the subsidized phone. (Yeah, unless you get an N1, it's still a branded phone with some crapware, but they will unlock it immediately and you can change your plan at any time.)

<comment><USER15> T-mobile, in my experience, is on the right side of almost everything in this argument. Of course they probably have to be given their relative size compared to the other big players.

I gave up T-mobile a couple of years ago due to call quality issues here in Denver. I'm hoping they've fixed it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does Siegler ever make any points or does he always ramble on like this? Is he upset that people are buying android based phones or is it that the carriers are customizing the os too much and google won't force any strict guidelines? That was the appeal of android from the beginning. Basically anyone could take the os as a starting point and do some cool stuff with it. The fact that the carriers are using their monopoly to force certain conditions on their users is not really the fault of whoever produced the os which happens to be google in this case.

<comment><USER17> Where does Seigler say that it was Google's fault? Let me quote: "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."

At the end of the day, Siegler understands that for end users, it _doesn't matter_ whose fault the whole mess is, all that matters is that users are once more being herded into operator-controlled ghettos, much as they were pre- iPhone.

<comment><USER18> He is saying google is complicit in some kind of act he finds distasteful so google is partly to blame. Is that spelled out enough for you to see why I said he is blaming google?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The Android 2.2 Froyo marketshare number he quotes/links (5%) is five weeks out of date. That may not sound like much but the previous version 2.1 took 25% in just two weeks and climbed by nearly 8% every two weeks since.

[http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform- ve...](http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform- versions.html)

I've been checking that page recently because of the absolute storm of Android updates, new devices and sales increases announced recently and I expect a big shift in the stats.

<comment><USER20> this is especially significant because the original Motorola Droid received its 2.2 OTA update recently, and that phone accounts for a huge percentage of US Android handsets.

<comment><USER21> Sadly, the Canadian version of the Droid (Milestone) isn't scheduled to get 2.2 until "Q1 2011"... It's the same hardware, I don't know why we have to wait 6 months.

<comment><USER22> I believe it is because the Milestone is on more than one carrier. Verizon and Motorola Worked together on the Droid's software and they streamlined the process because the Droid is only through Verizon, but the milestone is, for the most part, carrier independent. Even though it isn't to one single carrier I believe Motorola still works with carriers to make sure the phone updates don't brake anything. Also, Motorola have done their part with the Milestone by selling it, and they probably dont make any money with ongoing support, unlike verizon, who want to keep their contracted users happy.

Thats my opinion of it anyway. and i own a UK Milestone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Seems like we are a bit more lucky in the UK. You can buy virtualy any model android that is not carrier locked on pay as you go or just signup to a pay monthly plan with any of the 5 major carriers: <http://www.carphonewarehouse.com/mobiles/smartphones/android>

In the US I can understand your points.... how is such a large market so controlled by the carriers? How is there not someone like carphone warehouse that sells all phones unlocked and carrier free? I mean here I bought even my iPhone from the Apple UK store unlocked and chose my own carrier, would do the same with an Android - no crapware any time.

<comment><USER24> > _any model android that is not carrier locked on pay as you go_

That's wrong. All PAYG phones are carrier locked - they have to be for the sake of the business. You can buy SIM-free phones easily (say from expansys).

The only way to get an unlocked phone from a carrier is to get a pay monthly plan, and that's only on some carriers (IIRC, only O2 gives you an unlocked phone, and on T-Mobile you have to request an unlock code and they give it to you 28 days later). The reseller Carphone Warehouse told me that all their pay-monthly deals, regardless of carrier, come with unlocked phones.

<comment><USER23> I would respectfully disagree.

You can buy a phone outright and go on a pay monthly plan without a contract. That is what I am currently doing with my iPhone - I paid ¬£440 for the phone outright and pay £20/month on O2 for 300 minutes, unlimited text and unlimited data.

No reason why you can't do that on n an Android

<comment><USER24> That's a SIM unlocked phone rather than a "true" PAYG, and yes you can do that with Android. Actually I'm about to :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think the author is a little unclear of the definition of "open." Specifically, what "open source," which is the "open" in question, really means. The carriers can pull these shenanigans precisely because they have access to the source for the OS. If they didn't they'd have to go through Google or pick another option.

<comment><USER9> I think he's very clear. The ironic point he is trying to make is that people are citing "openness" as their reason for purchasing Android phones when it has no benefit for them at all.

<comment><USER25> How is it not a benefit? If a carrier's actions really disgust me, I can just switch to a different carrier and still have access to a platform that is substantially the same. I'm not necessarily locked in to a carrier, unlike, say, someone who just has to have their iPhone.

<comment><USER9> You get that same benefit with Windows Mobile or Blackberry, yet nobody would claim they are open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Why not buy a unlocked phone? Won't HTC or Samsung sell them to you?

<comment><USER27> Where, how?

<comment><USER28> Here in Norway, and probably in most other parts of Europe, you can buy unlocked version of all phones, be it HTC, Samsung, iPhone (sold unlocked directly from <http://apple.no>).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> All of this only applies if you buy a subsidized phone from the carriers. Until the carriers can legally forbid non-branded phones from being on the network, they only have the power that their customers, who apparently like giving up their freedom of choice for a low upfront phone price, voluntarily give them.

</comment><comment><USER30> What Siegler does is pretend that when people say "Android is open" they mean "Android isn't repackaged by companies for their own purposes."

Of course people don't, but it's a handy strawman.

"Android is open" is used to express the idea that there is competition between Android products (consumer view).

"Android is open" is also used to express the idea that a companies are free to enter or exit the marketplace without permission (developer view).

"Android is open" is also used to express the idea that it isn't "Apple's Gated Community" (brand differentiation).

This is probably the most important, and it's right out of Apple's playbook.

</comment><comment><USER31> I was just about to write a blog post complaining about this very same problem. My 2.1 update was 6 month late and I can't root my phone, which was exactly why I wanted an Android.

I will buy an iPhone next time. If I have the choice of bending over in front of Apple or T-Mobile, I'd rather have Apple.

</comment><comment><USER32> If I can put debian on my phone then I guess I could also put crapware free android if I wished. Also probably there is some method of uninstalling crapware without reinstalling whole system and eventually people will find out what it is.

</comment><comment><USER33> Techcrunch is a troll site. Do not feed the trolls. Do not post their links.

<comment><USER34> Would you care to engage with the actual points made in this article?

<comment><USER35> What points? That Android itself being open doesn't guarantee that every piece of software, every piece of hardware, and every carrier is going to be totally open?

That's an asinine, utterly idiotic argument. It's a juvenile strawman ("Gosh, and I thought Android was open...but look I can't install Skype on my Sprint phone").

MG Siegler has seldom said anything that had any merit or added to the argument in any meaningful way. Which isn't a suprise, as TechCrunch _is_ a trollbait emporium: They know that posting such asinine nonsense gets them hits, so they'll keep doing it. It is, absolutely, feeding the trolls.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The default (or potential) to be open shouldn't simply be equal to closed.

<comment><USER5> -1

The article answers this line of thought (see below)... and instead you offer no arguments.

"And before all of you pros storm the comments with how great it is to root your Android phones, consider the average consumers here. They are the ones being screwed by this exploitation of "open." Anyone with the desire to do so can fairly easily hack an iPhone too."

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> MG Siegler is a troll of the worst kind.

I have to particularly laugh at the Skype comment he added (a drum that Gruber has banged on in his dismissively sarcastic manner): That has __NOTHING __to do with Android. Skype, the company, decided to get in bed with Verizon and limit their app to certain handsets under certain conditions. What does that have to do with anything beyond perhaps "Skype and Verizon have a business relationship"?

Android, the platform, is open, although that of course doesn't mean that every piece of hardware, software, or carrier will be open. Nonetheless, it's open enough that if you don't want Verizon crapware you can get a phone elsewhere. The advantage of Android being everywhere, unlike say the iPhone in the US, is that you can get a phone from another vendor or another handset maker if someone gets abusive, as Verizon is becoming.

<comment><USER37> I decided to stop reading MG Siegler's Android-related posts. His articles about Android are just absurd. The last straw for me was when he wrote that Android is only surging because Apple is letting them too.

He's the ultimate fanboy that just cannot accept that the IPhone will not be the dominant smartphone in the near future. I don't think Apple loses sleep that they will be outsold by Android since they will still be taking massive profits.

It's really unfortunate that a writer like him gets a voice in an influential blog like Techcrunch. I hope he just post things like these on his personal blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Note, several things wrong..

Google/OHA is making progress on opening different parts of the development process/tree..the android sdk tools including the Adt plugin are now developed out in the open..ie no closed master tree of code..

Author IS CONFUSING US Telecom Mobile Operator situation with openness of he Android platform

</comment><comment><USER39> MG Siegler - I just got trolled again.

</comment><comment><USER12> Even in the worst case scenario, it's more open than it's competitors and every single problem in the article can clearly be attributed to the carrier. Send a message by buying phones that aren't locked down. Thus far, HTC has left their stock Android phones fairly "hackable". Granted, the Nexus One was the last stock Android device we've seen. I'm hopeful that their slider qwerty super phone coming to VZW will run stock Gingerbread, and thus will be open to running a CM release.

In lieu of that, I hope Google gets back into the phone market (I know, I know, they said they won't) with a Nexus Two before all of the CM resources jump ship to Meego or whatever up and coming platform presents itself as more "truly" open (at least until the carriers monetize and lock it down as well).

</comment><comment><USER40> This is pretty much business as usual in the computer industry.

If you want a low price you have to put up with retarded bullshit.

If you want a good experience you have to pay the Apple premium.</comment>


Top 50 Twitter Clients By Number Of Tweets - <AUTHOR> http://bryanr.org/2010/10/5/top-50-twitter-clients-number-tweets/

<comment><USER2> While this is interesting,I think there is a lot of scope to draw mistaken conclusions- a)What is the justification of having a sample time of just 1 hr? That's not even large enough to ignore effects of time zone differences (Twitter is pretty much global- if this measurement is done at a time when Twitter users in Japan are sleeping, or USA are sleeping, you would get skewed results) 2)Is this measurement made by usage of a particular app? Which app? No explanation whatsoever! 3)At the bare minimum, this should have been an average of 1 hr, same time, for a duration of atleast 1 week. 4) "Lies,Damned lies, and Statistics"- I think the numbers presented in that context are almost meaningless, if not telling a completely false story.

<comment><AUTHOR> a) Fair point. The justification is 'laziness'. The data is from 2010-10-05 04:00-05:00 GMT (late night PDT).

2). It uses a python script to save the twitter stream to json bz2 files, one per hour. And another script to analyze one bz2 to find the top values for any json field (in this case, 'source'). Pretty simple really.

3). Sure, that would be better.

4) Imperfect != Useless. I haven't seen any other recent data on twitter client usage, so I thought this may be interesting. For instance, I was surprised by how popular the website is, vs 3rd party clients.

If you need better/more results, contact me and maybe I can provide them commercially.

Always Be Closing,

rphlx</comment></comment>


Neoliberalism: Oversold? [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/pdf/ostry.pdf <comment><USER2> Neoliberalism is a term that only resonates inside the socialist box. Is a label engineered to align the left, never any kind of useful thing, or movement nor school of thought.

<comment><USER3> Exactly the term neoliberlism is a straw man. Mostly used by critics.

> It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal > scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called 'Third' or 'Middle > Way' between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and > socialist planning.

> When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto > Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It > had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally > by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a > moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist > set of ideas.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)

<comment><USER4> Se also this recent confused article in the Guardian, which hilariously portrays the IMF as a "Neoliberal" institution: [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-...](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism- ideology-problem-george-monbiot)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I guess this is the kind of articles that is being referred to by Varoufakis in say, this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szIGZVrSAyc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szIGZVrSAyc)

It's nice that some experts from IMF is saying this, but unfortunately, the people in power do not care.</comment>


In Amazon's Bookstore, Orwell Gets a Rewrite - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/technology/amazon-orwell-1984.html <comment><USER2> Conflating reviews of different editions is the straw that makes it impossible for the shopper. I was looking to buy a translation of 1001 Arabian Nights. Some reviews warned of scams, some spoke positively of the quality of the translation, but they were the same reviews on every translation and every edition. I gave up. That much seems like a simple change too... simpler than conflating them. The only explanation I can think of is to deceive the customer into thinking a product is more reviewed than it is.

<comment><USER3> It's not just the reviews. They conflate the different editions themselves (making it "logical" that there's only one set of reviews -- after all, there's only one product!), which usually gives absurd results when you go to view the kindle version of a book that exists in more than one edition.

I'm not sure who's supposed to benefit from this. Fudging the editions seems like you're going to a lot of extra trouble just to hurt your customers.

<comment><USER4> This annoys me on Prime Video reviews when you see people rating a title poorly because the DVD comes in a cheap case or lacks extras.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is indeed a problem that the article describes: book pirates with very little oversight selling books on Amazon and making a profit for both. A result of this practice is that people get substandard copies of books with typos.

The headline suggests that these typos are sinister ("newspeak"). If that were true, that would be an entirely different and also disturbing problem. I did not find any mention of these errors to be so.

<comment> vaer-k I think the disturbing problem lies in the proliferation of _sources_ of misinformation, not in the motivations of said sources. We live in an age where information distribution is so cheap and convenient that everyone has ended up bombarded by noise, and few have the time and education or luxury to sift through it all. In the end, maybe Orwell was wrong about the source of the corruption of society: it's not controlled by an oligarchy or big brother; it's an epiphenomenon of a burgeoning, hyperconnected, disorganized collective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > What unites all these books is that none of them paid the author anything

He's dead. None of the copies do that. I understand that the main point here is about counterfeiting, but perhaps copyright shouldn't last more than 50 years either...

<comment><USER3> People have a way of believing that the law -- whatever it might be -- makes terrible ideas into good ideas. From the bottom of [https://www.kansas.com/news/state/article234237337.html](https://www.kansas.com/news/state/article234237337.html) :

> Last year, a Chinese national who was a research professor at Kansas State > University was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for > stealing valuable American rice seeds — a trade secret — that can be used to > treat gastrointestinal disease, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, hepatic > disease, osteoporosis and inflammatory bowel disease.

God forbid someone release rice that cures various gastrointestinal diseases into the wild. Someone might be cured!

<comment><USER7> Paying people for their work incentivizes them to do work. You can read about in the US Constitution.

<comment><USER8> > _Paying people for their work_

This whole thread started with

> _He 's dead._

The point being that they're _not_ getting paid for their work. Perhaps their descendants are, or far more likely these days, their employer.

<comment><USER6> That's because we're talking about two different cases.

Copying without paying a >50 year old book: no real negative consequences

Copying without paying a seed that was developed in the last few years: significant negative consequences

(Obviously there are significant positive consequences to pirating that rice. But limited-term IP strikes a reasonable balance between getting more done and also releasing it to the public.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Previously posted this week here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20738152](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20738152) .

</comment><comment><USER10> [http://archive.is/tr5tY](http://archive.is/tr5tY)

</comment><comment><USER11> Amazing how a site that started by selling books now does an awful job doing just that. Another reason Amazon et al should be broken up.

<comment><USER12> I'd be fine with them simply being made directly liable for all piracy and counterfeiting on any of their platforms.

<comment><USER13> Why isn't this considered more seriously? The pirate bay wasn't selling torrents ffs, but they were targeted to hell and back.

<comment><USER4> The Pirate Bay wasn't run by the worlds richest man. Bezos could fully fund any primary challenger he wanted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As I wrote in the previous HN thread:

>If you're wondering about some weird social ill plaguing society from the tech industry, 99% of the time the root cause of it is Section 230.

Which is also relevant to the big WSJ story today about Amazon's problem with fakes and unsafe products.

</comment><comment> vaer-k "On Sunday, Amazon said in a statement that "there is no single source of truth" [...]"

<comment><USER15> I see what you did, but taking that quote out of context is a bit ironic, given some of the points made in the article.

Which may be why you did it, to be fair. Is it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Someone should make a start up that is the original Amazon idea and just sell books.</comment>