Slashdot Mirror
Google Pushes Openness Over Rooting
jamlam writes "The Android developers blog has a comment from their dev team on the recent 'rooting' of their Nexus S phones. It contains a call from Google to handset manufacturers to open up their phones to give users choice. But will this ever happen in a market dominated by lock-'em-down cellular networks?"
"It contains a call from Google to handset manufacturers to open up their phones to give users choice. But will this ever happen in a market dominated by lock-'em-down cellular networks?"
No. The only solution is for Google to roll out their own infrastructure and run their own telecommunications network. They're big enough to compete with the other big boys like At&t.
But, but...Google will be mining our data and knowing everything about us...
Like At&t doesn't?! Also, Ph1r5t P05t. May we all have a comfortable and hassle-free series of end-of-year rituals.
Because the handset vendors don't want that, as it leaves an easy avenue for self-support. Rooting is why Motorola locks the kernel down, so you absolutely cannot upgrade to new versions of Android directly.
Carriers hate it because it means that you're less likely to upgrade to a new contract, since your old phone will last longer.
If you can put latest and greatest Android on an end-of-lifed handset they haven't gotten money for in two years, they get nothing.
If they successfully lock things down so that you need to buy a *new* handset to get the snazzy new features. If most of the reason people get new things is for software, then the hardware vendor has their own interests in making sure their stuff comes along for the ride.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
More like a correction of Engadget's hysteria and a lamentation at the lack of openness.
The gist of it is that Engadget claims Android's security is shit since you can root it so easily.
The Android devs respond by saying you shouldn't call it "rooting" since the Nexus S was intended to allow users to install their own OS. To do that, you need to be able gain root access. In fact, they tell you how in the blog: fastboot oem unlock. That's it.
Rooting a phone implies root access was not intended, and you must exploit a security flaw to gain access. If root access was intended from the beginning, how can running the command to do so possibly be considered exploiting a security flaw?
To put it another way, is sudo a security flaw in Linux? That's basically what Engadget is saying, and the Android devs are saying that's stupid, and oh yeah phones should be open so rooting goes the way of the do-do bird.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
All applications are required to declare the permissions they use, ensuring the user is in control of the information they share.
I want more than the application to declare what permission it uses.
I want to be able to run an application that say wants access to my GPS coordinates, but I can say no you get fake GPS access.
The same with internet access, phone directory access, and so on.
I do not want to be restricted to all or nothing, and have to forgo an app all together over a potential security issue.
The best example I have is the Bible app from LifeChurch.tv. I love the app, but for awhile it wanted access to my GPS coordinates.
Why? God knows where I am already LifeChurch. But unlike the nagging iPhone version which I could deny location information every time I ran the app it was all or nothing, location information transmitted.
Heck I want everything the damn apps do logged, if I allow them internet access I want to know what pages and logs on the packets sent.
Then we can really avoid these naughty apps that are transmitting things, because the OS says hey this app is transmitting this user, and the user can say hells no.
I do not ever want to install an anti-virus application to my phone. Never ever, I do not need them on my desktop, do not need them on my phone. Die McAfee and Norton, die!
Just my two cents. Perhaps I should download the source and make my own build. But it would be much easier on me if a Google engineer did it.
What good is your old phone without a contract?
The cell providers make you sign the same contract whether you buy a phone or not. Wouldn't they have an interest in keeping you using the same phone for longer? I don't understand why more carriers don't sell more open phones
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
First off, the people who are talking about "rooting" an open platform are morons. The rooting occurs when the carrier and phone manufacturer -- yes I'm talking to YOU, HTC-- put gobs of needless, expensive, and ultimately pointless security on top of stock AOSP.
They want control. The EFF (did everyone donate this year?) helped affirm our rights to control over our own equipment, but the carriers and manufacturers are responding with more and more technical hurdles.
These short-sighted obstacles cost them money in R&D, which is ultimately passed on to us, the customer, or absorbed by their stockholders. These technical measures (locked emmcs) are pointless, immoral, bad for business, and an entire subculture has emerged dedicated to sidestepping them.
Google has some mixed motivations here, but one thing I can think Google might do about this is to license their Google apps (or "Gapps"-- Maps, GMail, etc.) to community firmware so that they can legitimately compete with the carriers in the market. The competition and choice would benefit the consumer (example: Gingerbread is already running on the T-Mobile G2 and Froyo is available only on other platforms through community roms not offered by the carrier, who has abandoned older phones.). Plus support for community roms would help Google reach those customers who are now "locked out" of the Google market.
The downside might be more support headaches or returned bricked phones for the phone companies. But can't they look at that as a potential new market? Yeah, when you sell someone a computer and they trash it, it's a headache. A headache you can charge them to fix. Right now people brick their phones after trying to install a rom in the shadows and then return them. If phones were treated by carriers as the computers they ARE, it would be no different than someone trashing their DELL and needing Best-Buy or whomever to reinstall Windows. Or maybe they'd pay $10/hr in support.
The point is-- if tomorrow people were locked out of their computers' operating system by the manufacturers or told what software they could run on their laptops by their ISPs, there would be revolt (I would hope). But we're slowly being conditioned to accept such control starting with smartphones, working up to tables...
what's next?
Reworded: Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is your old phone if you... can't... speak?
What good is your old phone without a contract?
The cell providers make you sign the same contract whether you buy a phone or not. Wouldn't they have an interest in keeping you using the same phone for longer? I don't understand why more carriers don't sell more open phones
You don't have to renew your contract to continue your service. That's a common misconception. Most carriers will continue to give you service once the contract is up. That's why they offer to upgrade your phone every time your contract is nearing an end, because that becomes an incentive for you to sign into a new contract.
I don't like to sit. Sitting is for people who like to sit.
Wrong.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
Source
They can copy the Linux kernel which they can acquire at GPLv2 and then give it out (modified or not) as GPLv3 and those who receive it from them can only use it under the license they received it in, or a newer version. If they want an earlier version of the license then they must find someone willing to give them a copy with an earlier version attached.
In short, the GPL is forwards compatible not backwards compatible.
Wrong. The Linux kernel specifies version 2. It does not include the "or later" clause which would allow the use of a later license.
ulessthanme
Jailbreaking (a.k.a. rooting) an iPhone doesn't modify the baseband. Only the unlocks do.
"Do you guys in the US not have a massive prepay market?"
No.
"prepay sims"
SIMS are only used by ATT, TMobile and for iDEN on Nextel/Boost iDEN
The PREDOMINANT carrier(s) in the US are CDMA, and not GSM or UMTS: Verizon Wireless is CDMA and does NOT use SIMS or RUIM (equivalent to SIM in CDMA) in 90% of its phones. Only "world edition" phones have a SIM. Matter of fact the TOP carriers in the US, nationwide (VZW) or regional (US Cellular, MetroPCS, Cricket) are ALL CDMA.. The two GSM and UMTS carriers rate at the bottom of the scale as last or second to last.
And even with att and tmetro moving from to the other is not even remotely close to the experience in the UK, EU, and other regions. Carriers in the US make it as difficult as possible. This is true even on CDMA.. Sprint REFUSES to put CDMA phone on their system that was not originally on their system to start. So if you want a sprint CDMA phone from the used market you have to purchase one that was specifically on sprint.
The model for cell phones in the US is VASTLY different than the rest of the world.
1311393600 - Back to Black