zlacker

>>transp+(OP)
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.

>>arcane+3n
>Not all of us need all the features of a smart phone, but still need a comms device. [...] I don't need a supercomputer in my pocket.

What's stopping you from using a feature phone?

>>gruez+bn
Security/privacy?

>>arcane+En
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.