This is a crazy understatement of just how many human-years of life have been lost due to that incident. How many people got leukemia in neighboring countries and other complications that cut their lives short. I am amazed this isn't more widely known, and I always find it suspicious when people downplay the real extent of the damage that has been done, to human lives.
Just saying that only 50 people died is pretty messed up in my opinion.
It's actually not, as it correctly states 50 direct fatalities.
What is grossly messed up are, or were, the initial projections of thousands, ten-thousand, no hundreds of thousands or even millions of fatalities.
The WHO does a report every decade on the health effects of Chernobyl. Each report had to reduce the projected fatalities by an order of magnitude.
One or two reports ago, the psycho-social effects of the evacuation and loss of income from the plant became greater than the effects of radiation, whether direct or indirect.
And of course all the fatalities and more or less all the negative health effects of Fukushima were due to the unnecessary evacuations.
I will use the "rabid" replies I got as evidence towards interests of minimizing the scare for nuclear because there's many other interests behind it and I doubt it would get a fair shake. A lot of political and economic interests are known to muddy the truth.
And this isn't the first time this happened, had a few debates before and out of nowhere quite a few people insist going as hard as possible, to no end, to dispel "misinformation", like that is what normal people do. I think you should be ashamed of yourselves for denying the pain and suffering of so many people "for a greater purpose".
>Radiophobia
I do not have this issue, I am not scared of a bit higher radiation, I understand the body can deal with quite a lot (compared to normal background).
I am scared of what could happen when humans and their politics get involved. There's more dangers than proper implementation, there can also be sabotage fears, as recent events have shown. I really don't understand why you'd accuse me of such a thing unless you're trying to smear me, which again...makes your rabid responses rather suspicious.
All the replies other than yours have politely pointed out that you were incorrect.
> >Radiophobia
> I do not have this issue,
The definition says: "...leading to overestimating the health risks of radiation compared to other risks."
That looks exactly like what you are doing.
> I think you should be ashamed of yourselves for denying the pain and suffering of so many people "for a greater purpose".
Nobody here has done that...with possibly one exception.
You are denying the pain and suffering of the people who suffer due to us not adopting more nuclear power. For what "higher purpose" this should be I can't fathom.
The adoption of nuclear power had saved an estimated 1.8 million lives by 2011.
Conversely, the turning off of nuclear power plants or delaying/cancelling of new builds post Chernobyl has cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives.
We estimate that the decline in NPP caused by Chernobyl led to the loss of approximately 141 million expected life years in the U.S., 33 in the U.K. and 318 million globally
Not many unlike what you want to believe. And there is no mechanism to directly link them to the nuclear meltdown.
Since they are suspiciously clustered in specific places, it is more likely that there are other environmental and genetic problems that have more influence than the result of secondary radiation.
In addition to what other comments have said below, it's also important to state that the indirect impacts of the alternatives aren't widely studied, so it's practically impossible to compare. How do we figure out how many people have a significant impact on their life because of the fossil fuel we burn and put all sorts of crap into the atmosphere?
Doubt most people want it as thin as possible. This is just the phone industry running out of ideas and trying to tell people what they actually need.
There's not much left to "fix" on mobile phones, and no real important features to add. Lacking that, they need something to sell the phones with, so they're going for these strange "improvements". It needs to be something that has some wow factor so they can lead with. This seems to somehow work on normal people so they'll keep doing these "improvements".
I expect in the future they'll pull this trick again, moving bits of the phone upwards towards camera, and create a second notch from half way down, where the phone will get even thinner, and they'll sell that.
I can think of quite a few things to fix just they are extraordinarily difficult engineering problems versus 10-20% improvements on existing features or random tweaks:
- novel approach to camera optics that can completely flatten them into the phone
- front camera hidden behind the screen removing the island or inset
- dramatically better battery tech density leading to like week long usage
- way more ram (100gb+) and processing power for powerful local llm and other ai
- significant reduction in thickness and weight. like this air with no bump but also under 100 grams
- maybe some stuff with projectors
This. I don't want a very thin phone — I want one that fits in my pocket smoothly, and the bump ruins that. Give me a thicker phone, with a bigger battery and rounded edges like the original iPhone.
You know, I forgot my razor and was on vacation in a very touristy place which only had expensive, "luxury" brands of everything just to pump up the price. So I got stuck buying one of those Mach 4's. I have to say, it was actually a very nice shave. I'm usually a total skeptic and this is obviously Mad did a great job with this commercial, but there is something to be said for that product. I haven't bothered paying the higher price for it in general, but I do kinda miss it.
Interesting! I hadn’t seen that Mad TV ad before. It’s quite reminiscent of this one from The Late Show on Australian TV in 1992. I can totally see people having a similar idea from the same blade escalation process.
No one would buy it (by Apple standards) because no one is asking for an over half pound phone. I bet a 17 Pro with a flat back that was all battery would approach a pound.
This is not true. None of the Apple cases (or third party cases) give a flush finish to the entire phone. They just add a new, bigger, larger bump below the camera bump which lets the phone basically lie flat. It does not make it easier to smoothly fit into a pocket or anything like that, and the phone is still wobbly while placed face-up on a surface.
Note that hidden front cameras have been available for a while - for example, the Samsung Z Fold 3 (2021). There are some engineering tradeoffs involved with light transmission and image quality that maybe Apple doesn't find favorable.
Interestingly Chinese manufacturers seem to be the main adopters of this tech. For example, the article below has Samsung, Xiaomi, ZTE, Oppo, Vivo (actually, this may just be due to there being many more large Chinese phone manufacturers in general.)
https://www.smartprix.com/bytes/under-display-camera-phones/
Basically nobody cares about front camera performance since its never stellar and always over-ironed digital meh, especially compared to look of display that's constantly in-your-face. The photos taken with it are never taken for highest picture quality, rather just catching a person being somewhere.
The motivations of Apple to keep things as they are for so long, despite strong criticism from all over is one of business mysteries. A little middle finger to its user one may say, not big enough to stir things too much, just a bit.
At some point you run into physics limitations with the camera though. Cameras are a weird bit of tech. In almost all other areas of tech, as we get more advanced, things get smaller - the opposite is true of camera sensors, they get better the larger they are. More light, less noise, better/more pleasing bokeh, etc. Same is true for lenses as well, and as the sensors get bigger, the lenses also must get bigger.
I love the idea behind the pro phone and going all out on cameras, but practically I want the air more. I wish it had an ultrawide, but it is what it is - I have and frequently carry around an actual camera with me most places I go where I'd want to take photos.
We had flush cameras the last time in the iPhone SE 2016. That camera was good enough for my modest needs. It's just that Apple has a different opinion.
People who routinely take photos in social situations. Camera phones don't have features that appeal to professionals, they do things that appeal to casual photographers.
Pro photographers aren't professionals because they have expensive cameras, it's because they get paid to deliver professional results. A phone camera can be the most usable camera for a result because it's smaller and fits in more places.
Though the camera isn't even the most important equipment, that's lenses/lighting (plus stabilizers, studio backdrops, etc.)
They say the best camera is the one you have with you, and your phone is usually with you. In any case, some professional photographers actually prefer shooting on their phone even for planned, high-profile shoots—perhaps they like its convenience, or that its unassuming nature puts subjects at ease. Or perhaps they find it creatively freeing to be burdened down by only minimal gear.
Yeah, idk. That seems like an awful idea to me. I’m not sure why she would shoot with an iPhone for such a job unless she got paid by Apple. Some practical reasons:
- Such an important moment is something you often wanna blow up in a large/hi-res print.
- An ultrawide lens is suboptimal for portraits and usually makes the face look puffy from the perspective.
- Unless you know the exact color & aesthetic for the cover you want to preserve the raw capture for changes in post to match the vibe.
While I can certainly appreciate the casual and intimate vibe she’s going for, as a pro she could have brought any decent camera with a portrait lens and keeping the shoots equally short without compromising quality and adding risk for the poor layout person who has to work with it later.
I consider myself a hobby photographer, and I love having a phone camera. I can then have the tele glass on for entire hike/session, and do landscapes on the phone. Currently, 2 weeks in, I didn't even touch the landscape glass in it's case.
> novel approach to camera optics that can completely flatten them into the phone - front camera hidden behind the screen removing the island or inset - dramatically better battery tech density leading to like week long usage
The thing you are looking for is meta lenses, not the company. They could cover the entire back-face of the phone and provide some pretty incredible capabilities. We are not there yet, but I'd expect to see them in the next 20 years.
I was going to come in with a set of reasons why these wouldn't sell, but... I think they could! Air quality fits neatly into Apple's health push, though I could see them making that a Watch feature rather than a phone feature (since your phone lives in your pocket, and quality sensors need time for the readings to stabilize). 3D imaging and synthetic refocusing both have a wow factor that would be easy to get people excited about. The only one I'm unsure of is multi-spectrum imaging; while I suspect pretty much anyone on this forum would jump at that, I don't have a good idea of whether the general population would get excited about temperature data. At the very least, it'd be handy for some kitchen tasks where you need a surface temperature.
> Novel radios that enable true Starlink connection in your pocket for gigabit internet globally
Satellite comms gets very close to face melting tech quite quickly, so I would prefer not to have that in a mobile device....
I would like a light field camera. I've seen some research about using and array of 1mm2 cameras (basically the smallest omnivision module) and one decent module to make a synthetic high res camera. Takes a huge amount of GPU power to get not very interesting results though.
Man, the Oneplus 8 I believe had an 'xray' camera that was super cool, until people realized you could use it to 'see through clothes', and so it was disabled. I have to imagine cool camera tech is being held back to some degree by that still today.
Why do you need a gigabit connectivity on the phone? Aside question: can you tell the difference between 4K and 8K video on the phone without actually checking?
I want a phone that fits in my hand. Will have to leave the iPhone world in a few years when the 13 mini dies, but from what I can tell android is just as bad.
Took the plunge from an SE 2020 to a 16, and it is noticeable how it is hard to hold in one hand. I could see a world were a foldable iphone would mean a narrower device.
I got a 16 (mostly because of the USB-C) and returned it before the 30day return period was over. It was a noticeable downgrade compared to my SE 2022.
Currently trying to get a solid postmarketOS setup so I can switch back to Linux before the SE goes out of support. Apple really doesn't offer an upgrade path from this device.
My hope is that when the mini is end of auooort that I’ll just stop carrying a phone and will end up not wasting so much time on the internet. It could be a good thing!
I am thinking of trying one of the vertically folding phones with a keyboard case. It reminds me of a BlackBerry. The keyboard means the small square outer screen is a lot more usable by itself.
iPhones have had iMessage over satellite since I think the 15? I've used it when camping. It's pretty neat!
Features I want: ask siri for the things I look up and it works. "When did the baby fall asleep" instead of opening Nanit. "How many more intervals in this workout" instead of opening TrainerRoad. "What is my next meeting" instead of opening Outlook. This was the promise of the new Siri and it just has yet to really come true.
What needs to be better about screens outdoor? iPhones have had nicely readable screens in bright sunlight for a long time now, including compatibility with sunglasses. Though it would be nice to see this in all other phones too.
Other than that I agree. Especially camera bumps are annoying to me, I would prefer a phone thick enough to make the bump disappear, that would then automatically solve the battery life issue as well.
> Batteries that charge fast. Batteries that can support 2-3 days of use. Lighter batteries.
Battery chemistry isn't there yet. Frankly, we are lucky enough phones don't set themselves ablaze every day - it only takes minuscule errors and you get a Galaxy Note.
> Thinner camera.
Hard to beat physics and if you ask me, "AI" slop is already being overused on cameras to hide the fact that good picture quality requires sensor area and distance for the optics.
> Satellite connectivity.
We're already beginning to see that with Starlink LTE.
You can see the logical conclusion to this phenomenon with vacuum cleaners. Pointless little buttons and switches that don't do much, labels and fancy names for things that any vacuum can do, and aesthetics that prioritize a futuristic form over function.
> There's not much left to "fix" on mobile phones, and no real important features to add.
I'm happy with my iPhone, but it still has a week or so shorter battery life than even a relatively cheap Nokia phone and with all that available space I know something it could be used for.
3d holographic displays, IR keyboards, powerful local llm (so more powerful), Silent-Speech Interface (SSI), more powerful cameras (better than mirrorless cameras, 3d, multi focal length in one image etc).
3d UIs don't work, every attempt has failed to reach mass adoption
IR keyboards lack haptic feedback
Aside from enhancedprivacy, a desire to drain your battery, a lack of recurring revenue for local phone LLMs, and functioning when network is inaccessible, what would a local LLM do that a network-enabled feature couldn't?
There is ample room to extend, but it costs money or the designers are in a bubble or they are afraid to innovate. The worst is that they now copied Pixel's ugly island :DDDDD. Oh dear god. At least it doesn’t look like some brutalist artist’s fever dream, just like we've seen it on the Pixel phones.
I don't have the impression people care about the weight of phones. Premium phones have metal and glass cases, and in the non-premium market the thing that matters is price.
What matters to me is how comfortable it is to hold and use with one hand. Large and thin phones tend to be bad in that aspect.
Niche, but (true) satellite communication. If i understand correctly what we have in the pixel 9/10 is not nearly as useful as having a garmin, never mind the fact that it works basically in europe and US only
the thin phone is supposedly first step toward the iPhold foldable. they will probably slam 2 iphone air sandwiched together for the fold so this is the first step i guess
Here's my hot take: A small metal loop for tying a wrist strap to.
All other cameras have wrist straps as a safety feature. From flimsy ribbons on the smallest (smartphone-sized) to padded leather on the largest. They were common on feature phones too.
But smartphone makers want people to drop their phones, so people would have to buy new ones, I suppose.
You could get a case with a wrist loop, you say? Not on any of Apple's cases, anyway.
>Statements like "I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll see exactly what it does" and "This is when it's zoomed out, you can still see it traveling" seem to be careful wording meant to lead people to a conclusion without actually claiming it.
Also saying "orb" which further mystifies it, that's just a visual translation of the gear tracking it.
After getting "hit", there seem to be what looks like three drones still flying, sort of like those ultra fast racing drones: https://youtu.be/EtRXay2kqtc
Even their movement is similar. They could have carried some sort of mesh, and could be some kind of missile deflecting tech test or whatever. Or maybe a 4th drone is still attached to that mesh and keeps dragging it along.
Insisting on the UFO angle, along with the rest of the wording they use seems they want to strongly suggest the viewer comes at particular conclusions without actually saying it.
UFOs came a long way in the last 70 years or so. Started with saucer shaped crafts that housed biological aliens to drone like crafts. Can't wait to see how their tech advances in the next 20 years.
You're more correct than you think. Before the saucers, it was "phantom rockets" and "phantom airships" and sky boats.
For some reason (which can't possibly just be that it's just folklore) UFOs always seem to manifest as whatever the current culture considers to be "futuristic."
Most of Earth's powerful armies are all into war AI/AGI machines and I doubt any of these movements can do the least bit of change about that. If anything these kinds of movements will at most serve as a tool to calm the spirits of concerned people, but nothing else. Or even cut access to AI/AGI tech for normal people, which would be even worse, but more convenient for the people in power.
This movement's framing is suspicious at the very least.
Does it though? Are there statistics that clearly show devices aren't being stolen anymore because they cannot monetize them anymore?
The way I see it the only thing this does is make you feel better the thief cannot monetize it, or use it, but it does nothing to prevent the theft which is really a moot point in the grand scheme of things. We end up paying in this way, of not having the freedom to easily and cheaply replace parts, while being comforted that even though they still are getting stolen from us, whoever steals them cannot use/monetize them. Which is quite primitive in a sense, and I do not think it's worth it. But that's just me.
According to the GSMA last year phone theft (which arguably has much more part serialization and anti-theft measures implemented) has been a steady 1% of smart phone users worldwide. It does not seem these attempts to lock down systems are successful in reducing theft. https://www.gsma.com/solutions-and-impact/industry-services/...
However I wonder if they have had an impact on data and financial theft. Which things like part serialization wouldn't affect but system security measures would.
In the early days, iPhones being both extremely popular and expensive made them pretty big theft targets and Apple was getting pressure from the various state governments to "do something" about the increases in phone theft. At least according to NY and CA, the activation lock alone in iOS7 caused double digit drops in the iPhone theft rates: https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/20/police-say-ios-7-...
Yeah, imagine a world where people who are forced to steal are competent enough not only to know which phones they can sell, but to be able to guess the make and model in the middle of a mugging
imagine a world where people who are forced to steal are competent enough not only to know which phones they can sell, but to be able to guess the make and model in the middle of a mugging
No need to imagine. This actually happens with watches.
In Hong Kong (and likely other cities), you can pick a watch from a "catalog" that is a binder of photos of watches on people's wrists in public, and the middleman will have the watch custom-stolen for you.
They actually do though. First thing to learn when swiping is what's worth swiping, and if no one will buy an iphone paper weight then it's not worth the risk.
That might account for a small set of scenarios, most times they just go for whatever sticks to their hand, in pockets/purses, without knowing what they'll get. As long as there's devices that can be monetized they will attempt to steal them if they cannot make sure it's not worth it.
And this would account for pros, let alone newbs in stealing, or just irrational behavior, or people who just enjoy creating harm with no gain.
I think this is a case where the justification is weak and in reality it's more about greed and control on Apple's side rather than some potential benefit that is actually seriously diluted by a lot of other not mentioned factors.
I agree that all the random factors you mentioned exist, and the proportion to random vs targeted theft would be an interesting debate, but there's solid evidence for significant targeted theft. The fencers tell the thieves what to look for.
Yeah it's like saying "home invaders don't know if there is anything good inside they just choose houses at random." The point of the theft is to get something out of it.
I've thankfully never had my house robbed, or a cell phone or laptop stolen. I have had my car broken into. The thieves chucked a paving stone through the window, grabbed a backpack sitting on the passenger's seat, and ran off with it. Left the paving stone in the driver's seat. The backpack had my gym clothes in it. A T-shirt I was rather fond of, a pair of shorts, a few extra pairs of socks, and a shitty pair of sneakers, all were well worn.
Replacing the backpack and gym clothes was probably $100, market value was maybe $10, and it was $507 to fix the window. (my deductible was $500.)
I thought you were going to say "but they ignored the $100 textbook on the dashboard" or something. The anecdote doesn't demonstrate anything. How much of an inconvenience the theft was for you is not a factor for the thief. They got $10 by chucking a rock through a window, and they only lost the opportunity cost of choosing a different victim.
They had to take the cumulative risk of getting caught though - one well-targeted burglary to take a designer handbag or diamond necklace would earn that thief as much as the indiscriminate 'stealing nwallin's gym clothes' thief would make in a year, as long as they had the network to sell the contraband on without incriminating themselves.
That risk is there regardless of what they steal. The kind of thieves who break into cars are low-effort-random-reward. They have neither the patience nor the skill nor the resources for the kind of planning you're referring to. Yes, the bag didn't contain much valuable. A different bag might have. Had the thief known that for a fact beforehand they probably wouldn't have bothered.
The trick is adding a ton of features which expose extra attack surface that needs them to maintain and fix, under the pretense that it will make everyone's life easier. Make it complicated enough so that the community cannot maintain it, enabling the corporation to throw its weight around.
It’s the perfected form of what MS was trying to achieve with IE back in the 90s. All the power of a closed source monopoly, further enhanced by friends and foes alike incorporating your tech as a load-bearing pillar of their strategies, with a cloak of plausible deniability in the form of an open source repo protecting you from antitrust enforcement. A true have your cake and eat it situation.
This is what happened with the Qt app dev framework. The Qt Company delayed releases of LTS updates to non-paying users by 1 year, while not properly dealing with the steady stream of regressions that were affecting normal releases. I quit Qt development partially because I felt that I was dealing with forever-beta software.
But actually, with Qt you do have KDE devs who push their own patches which does help deal with the flaws in the upstream project.
In the Android world, they need more devs doing the same and supporting projects like GrapheneOS with security testing/hardening.
Seems like there needs to be a split of both hardware and software. Mobile phones morphed into something else lately. Not all of us need all the features of a smart phone, but still need a comms device.
We need a simpler OS with simpler hardware that focuses on comms and less features. Simpler OS, lower attack surface, simpler to maintain without the help of a gigantic corporation. I don't need a supercomputer in my pocket.
I don’t even want a smart phone if the banks/trading firms don’t force me to use a phone for auth. I keep a used smart phone for company stuffs (again auth) and bank stuffs.
So you want a $100 feature phone that has serious security features like monthly security patches and dedicated security coprocessors? It's tough to make the economics of that work out. All the serious security features costs money to implement, either in the form of development costs or added costs to the BOM. Those costs can be absorbed if you're selling a $600 phone, but not a $100 phone. If you try to add those features to a $100 phone, it'll end up making the phone more expensive, which means nobody but security freaks would buy your phone, and you lose economies of scale that's needed to make a phone at all.
Back to your point, there's already a "split of hardware and software" in the PC market, and we know how it works out. Security there is a joke. Windows might be getting monthly security patches, but the same can't be said of the panoply of third party drivers/firmware. Whenever microsoft tries to push for better security they get shouted down by people claiming it's some sort of conspiracy to implement DRM.
You missed my point, a simpler hardware/software phone needs less resources to maintain. No eyecandy/cushy features to maintain, security becomes easier to maintain by the community. No constantly added features and gimmicks which break and introduce weak points.
Let's not forget that all these "features" which enable corporations like Google take complete control over the project also end up driving price up, constantly. Cheap phones are a sh*t iteration of more expensive phones, instead of being simpler more basic implementations of must have features without the "quality of life" bloat on the top tier models. They should have a different tier OS rather than the same one.
I would also not make the parallel between comms devices and PCs, they're different beasts.
>a simpler hardware/software phone needs less resources to maintain
And a such a product is going to absolutely niche, which means no economies of scale producing or maintaining it. You try to justify that by saying it'll be maintained by "the community", but who's going to want to do unglamorous work fixing security issues, compared to developing features? Mainstream phones have dedicated security teams and freelance vulnerability researchers going after them for fame/clout. Who would want to do security research for what's essentially a glorified nokia 3310 that maybe 1000 people use?
The Flipper Zero and its success through direct crowdfunding proves that if you build it, and this next step is equally important to the first, if you build a community around it to directly market it effectively with reversible crowdfunding, you don’t have to wait for them to then come, as they’re already here, right there with you.
Flipper zero doesn't really have a competitor, aside from maybe a bunch of bulky equipment that fits on a table. Such a feature phone would be competing against iPhones/Pixels, both of which are pretty secure and have dedicated security teams. Any new product would have to compete on price/feature/reputation, which would be tough.
The success of the Raspberry Pi proves that existence of competitors is no impediment to success with the proper connections with vendors and with the community.
The OpenWRT One is another example of collaborating with community trusted vendors to build a niche community based hardware product.
Ignoring how strangely against this idea you are, for no justifiable reason, it wouldn't look like a 3310, it would still look like a smart phone, probably OLED so more battery life. It would just miss a lot of modern features which are absolutely irrelevant to anyone who wants a privacy/security focused mobile phone.
Probably not the latest CPU, not the latest mobile chip, but still decent for what it has to do.
>Ignoring how strangely against this idea you are, for no justifiable reason
Ignoring how you assert this, when I outlined plenty of reasons which you've yet to rebut...
>it wouldn't look like a 3310, it would still look like a smart phone, probably OLED so more battery life. It would just miss a lot of modern features which are absolutely irrelevant to anyone who wants a privacy/security focused mobile phone. Probably not the latest CPU, not the latest mobile chip, but still decent for what it has to do.
Sounds like a $200 mid-range phone that's sold in much of Asia. Question is, who's going to make it? How are you going to amortize the development costs? You mentioned that it's going to use custom software/hardware to keep security maintenance burden low, but how would that be funded? Most of the SoC vendors are going to be providing kernels/drivers to you with the expectation that you're going to use it to build an Android phone. Good luck convincing them to provide engineering support for your custom software/hardware stack.
Not to mention the questions about maintenance you haven't addressed aside from some handwaving about it'll be simpler and therefore can be "community maintained".
>Whenever microsoft tries to push for better security they get shouted down by people claiming it's some sort of conspiracy to implement DRM.
Mainly because it is, and you can go Q.E.D. all you like, but there doesn't need to be a bunch of mustachioed villains explicitly making evil plans when everyone's ultimate aims align. They're going to get theirs, and the rest will just be a long for the ride while those people in a position of power continue to weave a collective path through the space of "conspicuously unimplemented features".
The computer was meant to be as a calculator. An unassuming tool to automate the mundane, not as a link in the chain of techno-fascism/feudalism/tyranny. The only thing that will ward off that eventuality is how we as people embrace and guide it's further usage & implementation.
The tech is currently here for every bad ending. I want to make that clear. It has already arrived. The knowledge of it's configuration to bring those ends are the part that isn't quite realized yet. I pray that it won't be unearthed, but with the way things are currently going, I have serious doubts.
>Mainly because it is, and you can go Q.E.D. all you like, but there doesn't need to be a bunch of mustachioed villains explicitly making evil plans when everyone's ultimate aims align. They're going to get theirs, and the rest will just be a long for the ride while those people in a position of power continue to weave a collective path through the space of "conspicuously unimplemented features".
Like it or not, TPM was meant to increase security by deterring evil maid attacks. If you can't stop this sort of attack, your device doesn't offer serious security, and a feature phone with wifi/bluetooth/cellular data turned off probably has similar security. Moreover TPMs were introduced over a decade ago and there's still no DRM that's based on it. People did forget about SGX though, which came and went but had actual DRM built for it. I've also never heard a peep about HDCP which is specifically for DRM purposes and is built into every GPU/monitor.
Okay, so there's so much wrong here i don't know where to start.
> Like it or not, TPM was meant to increase security by deterring evil maid attacks. If you can't stop this sort of attack, your device doesn't offer serious security, and a feature phone with wifi/bluetooth/cellular data turned off probably has similar security
TPMs in their commercial implementation do not deter any evil maid attack. Only some special cases like HEADS Firmware actually protects you from an evil maid attack. TPMs, Secureboot, etc. merely prevent non-signed code from booting when the hard has not been tampered with. Tamper with the hardware and make it show a green "everything is fine" screen while booting a tainted kernel and device drivers and a tpm won't save you.
> Moreover TPMs were introduced over a decade ago and there's still no DRM that's based on it.
Google Play Integrity API is essentially this. Can't run certain apps on devices that don't pass TPM based attestation. Not exactly DRM but something akin to it.
> People did forget about SGX though, which came and went but had actual DRM built for it.
People didn't forget, it got broken so badly intel gave up on it.
> I've also never heard a peep about HDCP which is specifically for DRM purposes and is built into every GPU/monitor.
You've just not been listening. It's just that HDCP also has been bypassed a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_graphene