>My guess is that it would cost too much, without the commodification of our private information.

Ask and ye shall receive. Uber, the darling of both the mobile world and the "sharing" economy is set to start tracking your every location so they can serve up fucking ads[1].

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/uber-ftc-p...

I will treasure my bicycle even more. I hear the birds singing, not some stupid jingle.

I predict that bicycles will join the IoT. It will be a feature. Like some bastard child of OnStar and medical alert systems ;)

What if our information stayed private and we used our "supercomputers" to do all sorts of data-mining, or AI, or data-science on it? Same stuff the big guys are doing, but for ourselves. Smaller, higher quality datasets.

If our smartphones worked like this, and we'd benefit more from better information, then we'd also have a pretty good reason to develop advanced information-centric UIs and focus a bit more on security and trust.

That would be wonderful. But I doubt that providers would ever bundle them. So most people would consider them to be too expensive. And so they would die, like Blackberry has.

Smartphones and security don't really go hand-in-hand anyway.

However, I am encouraged by the fact that people paid many thousands of dollars in the '80's and 90's to purchase PC's. They were much harder to use, much less powerful, and yet because these PC's represented either a competitive advantage or a novelty, the price was paid. No Internet, but a heckuva lot more control and trust than now.

If a similar value proposition pops up again, somehow de-commodifying or replacing the standard PC design (smartphone or otherwise), I suspect we'll see a similar willingness to pay a premium.

> So is anyone building such a smartphone?

Perhaps a more appropriate question is not so much if anyone is building a smartphone (from a hardware definition) so much as is anyone building an operating system which runs on commonly available smartphone devices which does not employ these tactics?

> And if not, why?

I'm certain there are efforts in motion which seek to establish a viable choice for many smartphone owners in what their devices run.

As to "the commodification of our private information", well, I have to ask: why accept this in the first place?

> Perhaps a more appropriate question is not so much if anyone is building a smartphone (from a hardware definition) ...

The baseband is a huge security hole. The provider in large part owns the device, regardless of what software it's running.

> ... so much as is anyone building an operating system which runs on commonly available smartphone devices which does not employ these tactics?

I can live with Linux ;)

You may be interested in the Neo900 [1] project, which is building a trustworthy mobile phone and will support a variety of free software operating systems.

It will be possible to run with completely FLOSS software (including drivers) and it even solves the problem of the baseband modem having full control over the main CPU/memory.

[1] http://neo900.org/

Thanks!

Now if they accepted Bitcoins ...

But hey, I'll ask.

> The baseband is a huge security hole. The provider in large part owns the device, regardless of what software it's running.

In the US at least, this is not the case:

https://www.fcc.gov/device-unlocking-faq

The cellular provider no more "owns the device" than the cable company "owns your TV."

> I can live with Linux ;)

But you are not living with Linux. You are living with Android ;-).

I don't do cable TV. Same reason ;)

I'm not living with Android. I'm waiting for Linux.

Edit: I don't mean "own" literally, financially. I mean "own" in the sense of access and control. So yes, I can root "my" device, but I can't root the baseband radio.

Then this might be what you have been waiting for:

http://kali4hackers.blogspot.com/2013/09/install-kali-linux-...

Oops, ran out of reply levels.

And yes, one can run Linux. But you're still running the Android kernel :(

The next X-prize should be for the best implementation of a smartphone OS/GUI where the "smartphone" has no I/O whatsoever except for the touchscreen and a charging/debug port.

If that couldn't crank up our creativity, nothing could.

For me, it's tough to say what value a smartphone would have if it could not leverage its hardware aside from being a form of a kiosk. Not harshing you or anything, I just can't see it.

I'm up for learning though :-).

I'd set it up as a behavioral mirror. Naturally I have a horse in this race :)

Inputs would be the actions you take in life (choices you've made) and how they relate to your goals (which depend on actions). Output would be an interactive visualization of past actions. The purpose would be to help improve the quality of your choices (actions you take) to better achieve your goals. Algorithms would work with the accumulated information to pull out correlations, patterns, and in general accelerate the process.

No Internet required, and so much greater security, privacy, and trust than usual. Which is freeing in many ways.

@s73v3r, Self-knowledge can be tremendously rewarding too.

Smartphones aren't going anywhere, but their value proposition is not the only one available. If we were to jump-start our creativity through tight constraints like the X-prize idea, I expect that we'd end up combining the best of our current technology with the best of the new. Or maybe the worst of both...

One of the biggest values I get from a smartphone, and I suspect the vast majority of otherse are with me, is the fact that it connects me to the global repository of human knowledge. Cutting off the internet would neuter it to me.

https://wiki.debian.org/ChrootOnAndroid may interest you.

Thanks. I've seen that, and plan to test with an old Nexus.

this is one of main reasons I moved to blackberry from android.

There is an expensive phone that isn't selling your private info as a commodity.