Why not a nexus chipset ?

John Case case at SDF.ORG
Thu Oct 4 03:07:14 UTC 2012


On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Mh wrote:

> you will not reach to a widely usable phone , that all the details of it 
> is free and open by all means . business , export restrictions , 
> regulations and shareholders are responsible for that , good or bad . 
> you CAN define specifics of a secure system based on your priorities and 
> test and certify to see if it fits your criteria or not on the other 
> hand . what society you belong to ?


Well, I disagree.  First of all, if we assume that the Internet is 
available in some fashion, you can have a general purpose unix computer in 
your hand, with no mobile chipset, and use SIP.  It's not common, but it's 
workable and it is indeed free all the way through (depending on your 
configuration and your OS choice).  If you consider that the Samsung 
Galaxy Player is *hardware identical* to one of the worlds most popular 
android phones (except for the missing mobile chipset), I would say that's 
a "widely usable phone".

And further, if we choose strategy "B", where we encourage, or facilitate 
a leak of baseband IP, then you can go that route.

And that is why I think the reference platform of google nexus phones is 
very interesting and very unique ... the ps3 breaks, and other breaks like 
that, were possible because millions of people had these hardware 
identical boxes in their own houses - you can't let the cat that far out 
of the bag and expect the secrets will stay secret.  CSS, playstation, 
iTunes, and whatever dvd-jon is working on this week all show that to be 
true.

One clarification:

I wasn't saying that pursuing an open mobile platform was a dead end, I 
was saying that pursuing calypso was a dead end.




More information about the baseband-devel mailing list