SoylentNews

An Anonymous Coward writes:

https://hackaday.com/2025/10/22/what-happened-to-running-what-you-wanted-on-your-own-machine/
https://archive.ph/6i4vr

When the microcomputer first landed in homes some forty years ago, it came with a simple freedom—you could run whatever software you could get your hands on. Floppy disk from a friend? Pop it in. Shareware demo downloaded from a BBS? Go ahead! Dodgy code you wrote yourself at 2 AM? Absolutely. The computer you bought was yours. It would run whatever you told it to run, and ask no questions.

Today, that freedom is dying. What's worse, is it's happening so gradually that most people haven't noticed we're already halfway into the coffin.

The latest broadside fired in the war against platform freedom has been fired. Google recently announced new upcoming restrictions on APK installations. Starting in 2026, Google will tightening the screws on sideloading, making it increasingly difficult to install applications that haven't been blessed by the Play Store's approval process. It's being sold as a security measure, but it will make it far more difficult for users to run apps outside the official ecosystem. There is a security argument to be made, of course, because suspect code can cause all kinds of havoc on a device loaded with a user's personal data. At the same time, security concerns have a funny way of aligning perfectly with ulterior corporate motives.

[...] The walled garden concept didn't start with smartphones. Indeed, video game consoles were a bit of a trailblazer in this space, with manufacturers taking this approach decades ago. The moment gaming became genuinely profitable, console manufacturers realized they could control their entire ecosystem. Proprietary formats, region systems, and lockout chips were all valid ways to ensure companies could levy hefty licensing fees from developers. They locked down their hardware tighter than a bank vault, and they did it for one simple reason—money. As long as the manufacturer could ensure the console wouldn't run unapproved games, developers would have to give them a kickback for every unit sold.

[...] Then came the iPhone, and with it, the App Store. Apple took the locked-down model and applied it to a computer you carry in your pocket. The promise was that you'd only get apps that were approved by Apple, with the implicit guarantee of a certain level of quality and functionality.

[...] Apple sold the walled garden as a feature. It wasn't ashamed or hiding the fact—it was proud of it. It promised apps with no viruses and no risks; a place where everything was curated and safe. The iPhone's locked-down nature wasn't a restriction; it was a selling point.

But it also meant Apple controlled everything. Every app paid Apple's tax, and every update needed Apple's permission. You couldn't run software Apple didn't approve, full stop. You might have paid for the device in your pocket, but you had no right to run what you wanted on it. Someone in Cupertino had the final say over that, not you.

When Android arrived on the scene, it offered the complete opposite concept to Apple's control. It was open source, and based on Linux. You could load your own apps, install your own ROMs and even get root access to your device if you wanted. For a certain kind of user, that was appealing. Android would still offer an application catalogue of its own, curated by Google, but there was nothing stopping you just downloading other apps off the web, or running your own code.

Sadly, over the years, Android has been steadily walking back that openness. The justifications are always reasonable on their face. Security updates need to be mandatory because users are terrible at remembering to update. Sideloading apps need to come with warnings because users will absolutely install malware if you let them just click a button. Root access is too dangerous because it puts the security of the whole system and other apps at risk. But inch by inch, it gets harder to run what you want on the device you paid for.

[...] Microsoft hasn't pulled the trigger on fully locking down Windows. It's flirted with the idea, but has seen little success. Windows RT and Windows 10 S were both locked to only run software signed by Microsoft—each found few takers. Desktop Windows remains stubbornly open, capable of running whatever executable you throw at it, even if it throws up a few more dialog boxes and question marks with every installer you run these days.

[...] Here's what bothers me most: we're losing the idea that you can just try things with computers. That you can experiment. That you can learn by doing. That you can take a risk on some weird little program someone made in their spare time. All that goes away with the walled garden. Your neighbour can't just whip up some fun gadget and share it with you without signing up for an SDK and paying developer fees. Your obscure game community can't just write mods and share content because everything's locked down. So much creativity gets squashed before it even hits the drawing board because it's just not feasible to do it.

It's hard to know how to fight this battle. So much ground has been lost already, and big companies are reluctant to listen to the esoteric wishers of the hackers and makers that actually care about the freedom to squirt whatever through their own CPUs. Ultimately, though, you can still vote with your wallet. Don't let Personal Computing become Consumer Computing, where you're only allowed to run code that paid the corporate toll. Make sure the computers you're paying for are doing what you want, not just what the executives approved of for their own gain. It's your computer, it should run what you want it to!

Original Submission