zlacker

Not just forcing the app store duopoly to open up, forcing banks to open up and prohibiting these kinds of restrictions that are based on "we insist that you trust some large corporation that we also trust".

>>BrenBa+(OP)
Exactly. I'm literally penalized because I have control of my own device (which somehow isn't an issue with the much more "insecure", root-wise, browser on a linux desktop)

>>vright+mb
> which somehow isn't an issue

now. In general it certainly is; web interfaces will be phased out unless web browsers gain client attestation capabilities (at which point it's game over for the open web).

E.g. Revolut never had a web interface and is doing just fine.

>>BrenBa+(OP)
And the sentiment that I own the things I've bought and paid for and should be able to do what I want with it. That a company shouldn't be able to come in and take away features, that I purchased with the device, away from me for absolutely any reason.

I can't go to Google HQ and reinstall their locks because I think their locks are insecure, and I certainly can't declare myself the arbiter of who should be allowed to open their locks. I'd be charged and put in jail. But they can do the digital equivalent to my device and that's valid business.

>>baq+jd
Revolut does have a web interface, with some limited functionality. It's still useless to me because I need the phone to authorize it the first time.