Slashdot Mirror
Rooted Devices Blocked From Android Movie Market
tekgoblin writes "Google has released the Android Movie Market to Android tablets with Honeycomb 3.1 and in a few weeks for users with Froyo and Gingerbread. However Google has stipulated that the Android Movie Market will only be available to Android devices which are not rooted. So if you have a rooted Android device, don't expect to download anything from the Android Movie Market any time soon (or at least until a workaround is found)."
Which will be in about a week.
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
And I was totally planning on abandoning Netflix and BitTorrent in favor of yet another half-baked movie service!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I didn't even know there was a such thing as a "Android Movie Market", an honestly don't care, I don't plan to pay $3.99 to "rent" a movie to my phone. I'll be happy once Netflix comes to Droid.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Google's Android Market != Android
Google dictating the terms of the Android Market being limited does not mean that Android is closed any more than Amazon requiring you to have an Amazon account to use their market does.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
For all the idiots that are going to complain about Google reneging on their openness promises this was obviously required by the content owners. There is no way the studios will allow any of their precious precious movies to run on a device without them being absolutely certain that they know where the data goes from the network connection to the screen and they can ensure nobody copies it.
Believe me, I know. I run Linux and there is no way to get any of the legal paid for movie services on my computer. iTunes does not work, Netflix does not work, the Amazon thing does not work. (I can only get free services like Hulu).
So it is not Google's fault, Google has no choice about it. In fact they are to be commended on convincing the studios to release their movies on Android at all, because I am sure Android's open source scares the hell out of the studios.
The device IS open. The store is not. Their store, their rules ( actually its most likely the MPAA's rules ). I don't see a problem with it really. No one is forcing you to use their stores.
Now when they start trying to prevent you from rooting, or limiting where you can connect to, THEN we have an issue. Until then, its just a choice.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just look at how they got NetFlix running on a rooted Nook Color. I'm sure there will be a work around. Not that I'm going to care one way or another since I dont see the point in buying DRM heavy single platform movies.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Wasn't Android supposed to be open?
The issue isn't with the OS, it's with the store which has to deal with the movie studios supplying the store.
There's probably a way to only allow the app to see certain things, blinding it to whatever would give away rooted-ness.
In any case, Netflix works on rooted devices, so it's not like there's missing functionality. In theory, Amazon Instant Video should work as well (with flash player) Other than that, I'd need a bigger SD card to fit movies transferred from my computer.
Also, I personally still can't see why I want to watch movies on a 4-inch screen. (or a screen I have to hold, for that matter (tablets))
Before we go all crazy on Google, we have to understand that Google has a business to run and any movie marketplace site like this will have to come up with notices like these to even get started. I don't think the fault is completely with Google on this one. It is the movie making production companies that want to enforce these kinda things to avoid piracy.
How do they know it is rooted? That would be the bigger concern to me.
!Equality through palindromes semordnilap hguorht ytilauqE!
I don't have a rooted device, but I'm not going to access the Movie Market anyway (let me guess it's not available where I live; I haven't bothered to find out).
I see a movie about two or three times a year. When I do, we go to a movie house - big screen, plush seats, expectant crowd - and make an evening of it. Movie, then dinner somewhere, perhaps a beer or two someplace. Part of a full nights entertainment.
Watching a movie - made for big-screen immersion - by myself on a small screen, with distractions all around - no thanks, I'll rather do without.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I'm curious how they plan on detecting if it is rooted or not. The easiest rooting method for my phone (if your using stock roms) or any custom rom you install on your own, uses the Superuser app to request root access anytime an app wants it. If they just try to run a root command, its going to pop up asking to allow or not and all you have to do is disallow. Blammo. Your phone looks like its unrooted.
Google's Android crew isn't *privately* rooting for you to find a way to do it anyway.
Just shut up about it already, so you don't get them in dutch with the studios, alright?
On the other hand, these are also the most tech savvy users who might actually be swayed by a convenient and cheap (and legal) movie downloading system. Certainly I used to buy music from a certain Russian site because the cost was worth the convenience of high quality music on demand.
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
You are unlikely to care about Android Movie Market. So what's the problem?
I certainly don't care.
Netflix.. seeing how it runs on a lot of Bluray players, TV's, phones, etc that use Linux at the core....
If we only have a platform that is open on the theoretical level - if users have to root a phone (something most people will never do) for it to be open, if making your phone open entails giving up other features, if manufacturers are actively hostile to people doing this and attempt to install countermeasures to rooting and sideloading...is this really "open"?
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
The only thing it means is that the word "open" has lost it's meaning.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
I wonder if there's somewhere else to download and watch the movie? Some place that doesn't care how I've configured my OS or my hardware. If there were such a place, one would think the content owners almost want me to go there to get their movie by making it impossible to get the movie directly from them. Ah... if only there were such a place...
It's part of the marketing campaign to spin away the openness of all these products. It's a failed strategy that highlights just how toxic the closed products are: you don't get to choose whether you want open or closed.
It's DRM that's not open and isn't ever going to be. If you want DRM'd services like movies badly enough to give up the openness, that's your choice. For music we don't have to put up with that crud any more. As far as I can tell the people who pay for DRM'd services like Netflix and this Android Movie Market validate the DRM business model and defer the day when the video vendors give up on DRM - perhaps forever.
But having a model that lets people choose? That seems fair even if I don't like how people choose. A reasonable person can't find fault with that.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
They are? Last I checked, you're free to use any third-party video store with Android. For that matter, you could run one of the half dozen BitTorrent clients directly on the phone/tablet in question and get your media that way, if you're so inclined - they're not blocked from the Market (and even if they were, you can always install an .apk).
The way this is different from Apple is that there any third-party video store app would have to do transactions through Apple, and pay the 30% cut.
Why would you want to watch a movie on a small phone sized screen? (Shouldn't you be keeping an eye on the road?)
I can understand watching 'live' events (like news, weather and sport)on a mobile device, you can't be home at the time its happening. But a movie can wait until you are sitting down in comfort in front of a big (er) screen)
So if your device is rooted, then your movie viewing is rooted. ;)
This, plus I gather the MPAA has a part in twisting Google's arm to put certain stipulations in place to cover them. It just doesn't sound like the kind of thing Google would worry about themselves unless there were someone else involved in the deal. All speculation, of course. But food for thought.
What? They aren't blacklisting websites or even blocking third-party apps. They are simply blocking rooted phones from their movie store. Are you going to start complaining that WP7 and iOS phones can't connect to their store either?
Google is not saying what you can and cannot do with your phone. Google is saying what you can and cannot do with their movie marketplace, there's a BIG difference there. How dare Google dictate what people can and can't do with Google's movie store? You ever heard of the old "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?" Google is saying if you use a rooted phone, you don't get access to their marketplace. Google and/or the studios are a little worried that people with rooted phones might find a way to steal movies. If you don't agree with the paranoia, you shop elsewhere. It's similar to how some stores don't let kids in groups of more than 2 enter, or allow you to bring in a backpack or large bag, they don't want you shoplifting. Also similar to how certain businesses post signs about not allowing weapons (even though the constitution allows you to own those weapons). They aren't saying you can't own a gun, they're saying you can't take it into their store, THEIR property. Google doesn't want rooted phones in THEIR store, and that's their right. Trust me, keeping out a few teenagers (some of whom just might have been planning to steal stuff anyway) doesn't hurt a store's business, and the maybe 10% of rooted android devices out there won't be missed by Google either.
Eggs
Milk
Bread
Cat Litter
Soda
I can still play rented movies on a jailbroken iPhone.
Apple does nothing that detects jailbroken phones. They don't care.
Plainly Google does.
That is different...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apart from the DRMesqueness, I would like to know how an app (suid root or not) could tell if the box had been rooted? AFAIK, when a [tiny]box is rooted, the root entry in /etc/passwd (or maybe /etc/shadow) is changed. That's it.
Sure, an app can read /etc/passwd (or suidr /etc/shadow) but how will it know what should be there? Is unrooted some fixed PW ??? This would be worth quite some cycles on a clustercracker.
Q: "Are you a rooted phone?"
A: "Ummm, why no, I'm not. Yessir. Not a rooted phone at all."
And so the era of mandatory "trusted computing" begins, kicked off, ironically, by Google.
If you wish to consume licensed IP content on a device in your possession, then the content owners will determine what computing functions are allowed on such device. And the device remote kill-switch will make you think-twice about content misuse.
I find the best choice is: none of the above.
- Must root to be able to use important features
like what?
that isn't true. a major difference between jailbreaking and rooting is whether or not the vendor continues to provide you updates. A jailbroken iphone cannot be updated for security or for new features in the OS without possibly losing everything gained from jailbreaking. With jailbreaks, you end up with less functionality in some aspects and more in others and the things you lose can be very consequential.
On the other hand, a rooted android phone does not (generally) run that risk. There is now 1 example of a store you cannot access for now with a rooted android device.
as to your points about polish, your opinion is your opinion but don't turn an argument into a chance to market a device.
as to app count, if this research is reasonable,
http://asia.cnet.com/crave/study-android-to-overtake-ios-app-count-in-july-62208428.htm
then android will have more apps soon (July). And if the graph is reasonably accurate, the pace of android submissions continues to accelerate.
and as we all have read, android marketshare is outstripping iOS by a large clip. Hell, when I got my phone 2 years ago the best choice was an iPhone but even I'm excited to switch from what I've seen. I think the last great benefit to apple is being on AT&T so you can check things online while on the phone, which can be really useful. But I haven't looked to see if other networks support that yet and it isn't an iPhone exclusive.
Google has only been as open as necessary.
Do you not see the humour in the fact that one you've "rooted" your "open" phone, you're now locked out of the store run by the maker of that "open" phone?
I don't care how it's different from apple. I'm just pointing out that Android fanboys are just as blind to the idiocy relating to their chosen platform as the Apple fanboys.
Wow, talk about fanboyism right?
-Carrier lock. Apple has a much harder hand on walled gardens, what with not even allowing "competing" apps very often, and we all know how belowed AT&T is. Plus, Nexus One/S anyone? My S had no branding whatsoever, no carrier lock, I have built-in tethering and wifi tethering, I can choose any app that I could possibly like without any restriction.
-Android is at approximately 360,000 apps (Androlib), while iOS is at roughly 390,000 (148Apps). If you think an 8% difference is enough to make Android the most evil thing ever, just go have fun with Jobs then. I like how 8% is "vast", though, especially considering this is just from the official Android Market.
-Less polished user interface? Matter of taste I guess. I find the Android interface very attractive, and fragmentation is a term invented by deniers. It was called "flexibility" before that. Flexibility to choose how your OS looks and feels, flexibility to pick your applications, launcher, theme, flexibility to do things that the developers might not initially have thought about, flexibility to make your device your device. The fact you can easily develop apps for Android without having to jump through hoops is a bonus, as somebody who knows how to code but has no interest in publishing apps.
-I don't exactly know why you're trying to make Apple look like the underdog here, because they clearly are not. Furthermore, I've never, ever seen anybody considering both rooting good and jailbreaking bad. Either they see both as acceptable/good, or they see both as bad. You're just cherry-picking negative reactions to jailbreaking and positive reactions to rooting to make your case, which is fallacious.
So I'll let you have fun with your conspiracy theories and go back to customizing my Nexus S. Ah, the possibilities!
Open means source code. You know, the thing that allows all those great 3rd party firmwares like Cyanogenmod?
I think it is looking to see if the device is unlocked, not if it is rooted. Unlocking allows for customizations, such as different kernels or root enabled images. If I remember correctly, the unlock flag is stored in the NAND memory, and is checked during the boot sequence. The Xoom can currently toggle that field, so that you can easily unlock and re-lock the device. The catch is each time you do that, the device reset to factory settings. There is also a verification that happens when you re-lock the device to make sure that everything is signed.
On T-Mobile (another GSM carrier, admittedly), I've always been able to talk and browse. I didn't even realize other people couldn't do it or that it was a big deal 'til I saw it touted as a feature on some commercial.
Ah, sort of, but not quite. Android is open. Much like a BSD license, when one puts essentially no restrictions on something, one of the things that may happen is that people seek to close it up. You could argue that Google could have gone out of their way to prevent it, but you can hardly blame them for it happening. Ultimately this is just another version of the BSD vs. GPL debate. Whose freedom do you protect?
Further, there are phones and carriers that have these open versions of Android installed, meaning you DO have a choice. Vote with your wallet.
A movie store? Which at this point merely SAYS you're "locked out" of it? Do you not think that somebody will devise a way to have a rooted Android phone go "yeah man, I'm completely locked down! Movie please?" Assuming such is even necessary as we speak.
Fewer apps = less choice = less freedom eh?
Well, shit. I hope linux users read your post so that they can understand how their operating system has less freedom than Windows. Poor deluded souls!
Oh I get it. You're an Apple fanboi.
I didn't particularly agree with anything you had to say, but at least up until now they've been facts (albeit ones spun to your liking). Now you're annointing your opinion as fact. Not only that, you've wandered so far into the realm of ridiculous that I hope you have a fucking rope tied to your waist to find your way back. How good a UI is has to do with user freedom? Give me a break.
Fragmentation? It's an issue -- for developers. Even if we're going to let you have a pass on this one without spinning it in the opposite direction, you've already included it. It means less apps. Maybe.
All of these being simple flaws in your own argument, without making a counter-argument at all and taking most of your points without contention. Obviously it is quite easy to contend pretty much every single one of them if somebody who actually cares about the Android vs. iPhone pissing contest were so inclined.
In short: Your post is nothing but your opinions, presented as facts. In your terms, it is a fiasco in every way.
The problem with thier policy is that a rooted device can be programmed to say "I'm not rooted, honest!"
However they had to make this official policy in order to get the media conspiracy to licence their vids. I'm just waiting for the day someone breaks ranks and the most of DRM disappears overnight.
Wrong. The OS is open. The devices aren't. The network isn't. The store isn't. Kinda marginalizes the value of an open OS.
Updating the OS. Particularly to a custom version.
That IS the banner feature of "open" Android, isn't it?
Nonsense. You're confusing an unlocked iPhone with a jailbroken one. Updated versions of iOS on a given device are often jailbroken as they come out, or very shortly afterward. You don't lose any features at all when you jailbreak.
Some of the world rides a bus, train, or flies on an airplane and wants to have a TV show or movie to watch while doing so.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Android Movie Market =! Netflix. Netflix works on rooted and unrooted android and iphone devices. Therefore saying it runs on rooted iphones is a meaningless argument. Android Movie Market is also not Netflix, so discussing netflix at all is pretty much irrelevant to a discussion about the movie market. Calling someone an idiot for making a doubly irrelevant argument sounds like a fair assessment to me.
lol, i thought RIM's PR dept was quiet lately, but really, posting on /.?
- Fewer apps than iOS = Less choice = less freedom
Then Windows is logically the most free OS, right?
It's an issue with current Verizon phones, I believe the explanation was that they use the same radio for voice/data. I think the new LTE phones are going to be able to do both simultaneously.
It'll take a week for people to realize they could just torrent the movie instead of paying money for a 24 hour version?
Geez, a whole week to realize that? Is it restricted for sale to those with a low IQ?? Or just slashdot users? :P~~~
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Calling someone an idiot for making a doubly irrelevant argument sounds like a fair assessment to me.
It was not doubly irrelevant, it was half irrelevant - the original poster mentioned BOTH renting and Netflix playing.
So possibly you could call him half an idiot but his main point had traction because he explicitly mentioned rentals.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sure android users will find a workaround as already mentioned. However, it's not that useful when netflix is already on android en masse. Although the netflix app was already pulled from the market (and only "made" for a handful of phones), it has been integrated into nearly every android phone able to run gingerbread roms as root. If you're an android user and want it, go over to the xda developer forums and find your phone and take a look. I added it to my phone the other day and it works perfectly.
Do you not see the humour in the fact that one you've "rooted" your "open" phone, you're now locked out of the store run by the maker of that "open" phone?
I don't see the humor. I suppose I see the irony, but it doesn't in fact make the phone less open, any more than TiVo made Linux less open. The main difference is that it's not normal for Android phones to allow users to install their own OS without first finding an exploit of some sort, and that is a problem, but I don't see that being at all related to the video store -- the issue here is with the store, not the devices.
I'm just pointing out that Android fanboys are just as blind to the idiocy relating to their chosen platform as the Apple fanboys.
I suppose that's the definition of a fanboy, but I don't think you've shown that. Android as a whole is not idiotic, and neither is iOS. Aspects of them are idiotic, and I don't see anyone here "blind" to the problems with Android, though, curiously, there seem to be too many people who see the Apple App Store's closed nature as a good thing. Still, even among people who own iPhones, it seems like most people accept Apple's tyranny as something they can live with, not as something they'd prefer -- that is, they see it as a worthwhile exchange for a better experience overall.
And hey, AC, at least you've found a way to feel superior to fanboys of both.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Just goes to show how, yet again....piracy wins! With piracy one doesn't have to give up control or freedom, you can have it in any damned format you want, and no worry about rootkits, backdoors or other acts of sabotage...err...I mean 'protecting of IP".
Time and time again, from game companies putting out their wares with nasty malware DRM, music companies putting ring 0 drivers that leave huge gaping security holes, and now this, time and time again the corps make sure piracy is ALWAYS better. Why you'd think they have stock in PTB or something!
Oh and mark my words Android WILL end up as locked down as iPhone, just you watch. Now that it has started to get traction both Google and the carriers will want more control, and since they have been very careful not to touch ANYTHING GPL V3 with regards to Android the next move will be eFuses or code signing. They'll do it "for security" and probably announce it right after some piece of Android malware has hit, but the results will be the same. Just like TiVo you'll have the code but not be able to do a damned thing with it.
While I've never agreed with much when it comes to RMS I thought then as now he had it spot on, once the corps were shown by TiVo how to lock up GPL code then the days of GPL V2 were numbered for anybody that actually cared for the four freedoms. Funny how once the TiVo trick was known all these corps started using GPL V2 code huh? Especially how they've gone out of their way to make sure they aren't "tainted" with GPL V3 code anywhere near their devices. mark my words Google doesn't need the geeks anymore so the days of open Android are numbered. They will jump in bed with the *.A.As, the carriers, and of course making it so every search has to go through Google will just be a nice bonus. Don't forget how they said Android was "open" and then said it was open "for the carriers" not the end users. These are just the feelers, seeing how much backlash they are gonna get. mark my words, before Xmas you'll see the end of Android being open.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Let's look at how open they are:
Yes, let's.
- Carrier locked, walled garden, locked-down out of the box = Little choice, little freedom
This is a problem. However, if the existence of these is enough to make Android "not open", then neither is Linux, BSD, or, well, anything. There are TVs which run Linux, and they sure as hell don't let you install anything you want on them. Those TVs are not open, therefore Linux isn't? Is that what you're saying?
- Must root to be able to use important features
Which?
- When you root, you are locked out of other important features
Again, which? The only one we know of so far is a single video store, far from the only video store. If that's "important" to you, I feel sorry for how empty your life must be.
- Fewer apps than iOS = Less choice = less freedom
Even if this were true, and it's not clear it is, the apps which we do have are barely restricted even in the official market, and you don't have to buy them from the official market. In fact, unless the carrier locks the device, there's nothing stopping you from installing software from other sources, and you don't need root to do so.
See if this helps: Let's suppose that all iOS had was fart apps, while Android has both fart apps and actually useful apps. Would iOS then have "more freedom" because it had 10 billion fart apps, while Android only had a few hundred useful apps that were actually unique and useful?
And I haven't even addressed the massive amount of additional freedom developers get. I mean, let's start with, I don't need to buy a Mac to develop with. I can choose my own tools to a large degree, but even if I go with the official SDK, I can keep right on using my Linux laptop, or even a desktop that isn't an overpriced workstation. If I can make a programming language compile to Android, I can use it -- there has never even been the threat of limiting it to one or two languages as Apple tried to do.
- Less polished user interface,
WTF does a user interface have to do with freedom?
more fragmentation = less flexibility,
Problem: The PC is already "fragmented", and Linux itself even moreso. What "flexibility" have they lost? And what "flexibility" is missing from Android, for that matter?
smaller userbase,
First, dead wrong -- Android actually has a much larger userbase. I don't know where you get that from.
Second, WTF does this have to do with freedom? Again, from this, I'd have to conclude that Linux and OS X are both less free than Windows.
less choice = less freedom
But you haven't shown less choice.
iPhone jailbreak == Android root
I can buy a Nexus S which is literally designed to be rooted. Where can I buy an iPhone that Apple hasn't tried their damndest to prevent me from rooting, let alone given me the tools to do it right in the official SDK?
After jailbreak == You can use all iTunes, Apple App Store, AND alternate sources
After rooting, the only thing I can't use is one video store. I suppose that puts a jailbreak ahead if I were to grant your premise that it's equivalent to rooting my Android phone -- except I don't need to root it to use alternate sources, and alternate sources pretty much make this video store irrelevant.
Vastly more apps == Vastly more choice, freedom
Even if there were numerically more apps, you haven't shown that this is "choice" in any meaningful sense.
Less fragmentation, more polish == More ease of use...
That is the only one I can give you, since:
larger community,
Factually wrong.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The LG G2X (and probably several other phones) has an HDMI connector allowing video output. I wonder if this will be disabled. I could find out myself but I returned mine due to the problem with the screen.
I had to root my Moto Cliq to be able to run anything higher than 2.1. Given that the unofficial alpha-quality 2.2 ROM for my phone is faster and more stable than the Motorola official 2.1, I'd say the platform itself is pretty darned open. Especially compared to, say, iOS where jailbreaking has the opposite effect (locking you in to the last official OS release until a new exploit is found).
That said, another poster had a great point about the fact that once you jailbreak iOS you still have full access to all official portals along with the dark side. Now, apparently, that is not the case with Android.
Then we have the N900. It is a very open phone in every sense of the word (the OS is closer to "true Linux" than Android, the hardware is well documented and OSS friendly, etc.) but T-Mobile, Nokia and Intel have all but disavowed knowledge of its existence these days. It is a true hacker's phone in the sense that once you buy it, you're on your own for support. And as it fades into obscurity (hell, it was always obscure) with it goes any chance of a truly open mobile platform. And before you say "what about MeeGo?", it is so far from being a viable phone platform that it may as well not exist in that sphere.
Sadly, the world is stuck on the top three: Android, iOS and Blackberry, and the latter is beginning to fade from the consumer marketplace. Two years ago when someone whipped out their smartphone in public it was usually a Blackberry and slightly less often an iPhone; these days it's primarily an Android device with the occasional iPhone. Yet another duopoly...
not an intention. A door is not "open" when it is shut simply because you intend for it to be open. Shut is shut.
Android's source is open.
Android as a platform is nowhere near it.
Techies care a great deal about the former.
Everybody else only cares about the latter.
But techies have done a good job of convincing everyone else that open source code for Android OS == open platform in the marketplace, in practice.
And the debates rage here on Slashdot as if there was some question about whether Android, in reality, in the marketplace, as a series of devices and carriers, is open. It isn't. It simply isn't.
But of course you can have the source.
Here you go, Grandma!
What's this?
It's the source code to Android! Can you feel the freedom pulsing through your veins?
Um, can I just watch a movie?
No, sorry, can't do that. Just read the source. SOOOO OPEN!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Wait... so I have a rooted device. Forget all of the added functionality you can get by rooting, I would root for no other reason than that CyanogenMod skull fucks HTC Sense and is always up to date. Is Google basically saying that if I root and ROM my phone the only way I can get movies is to, um, pirate them? Good policy. I am sure that nothing is going to drop piracy rates faster than by making it so that your most savvy users have no choice but to pirate if they want movies. What asshole thought that that was a good idea? What brilliant idea is next? Maybe we should only hand out condoms to people who are celibate.
This wont stop me from rooting. It sure is fucking stupid though.
Maybe if they keep going down this path and are annoying enough I'll just say fuck it and get an iPhone. If I am going to be stuck with a locked down piece of shit, I might as well have on that isn't filled with bloatware and NASCAR apps. Android is awesome, but some times I feel that between the carriers, the manufactures, and now apparently Google, they are desperately trying to fix that.
If EITHER of the devices does what you want (i.e., in my case - make phone calls, check email, browse intarwebs and store contacts) then what is wrong with either choice?
To me, the phone is a tool just like a hammer or a screwdriver. I don't care whether or not the castings/tools are available for me to easily make my own screwdrivers or hammers, so long as the ones I can purchase do the job that I purchased them for with a minimum of fuss. My iPhone does that. I'm quite sure an android phone would do that, also.
99.9% of other end users don't care either.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
To what end? If the phone you purchased does what it says it can do on the box, then why is rooting it to run custom firmware an "important feature". Sure, it might be a desirable feature for a limited subset of users, but if it works as described/marketed, then I don't see how running custom unsupported firmware is an "important feature" other than for curiosity's sake.
Has any android handset been sold / had official marketing to say that "yes, you can run custom firmware"? If not, then don't be surprised if custom firmware is not supported.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Indeed it is... the problem is that Android is supposed to be on the GPL side of that debate!!!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Surely that rationale also applies to buying smartphones in general, no matter manufacturer or carrier control?
And it's not the Android Market itself - it's the movie market...
I have no intention of watching a movie on my QVGA screen, so I'm sticking with Cyanogenmod.
They blacklisted their own site.
No, the site blacklisted the phones. It sounds the same but it isn't.
If that's not telling you what you can and cannot do, then I don't know what is. I bet a robber who holds you up at gunpoint and demands your money and you give it to them, then you voluntarily gave it to them. They didn't take it from you, you gave it away, right?
Except you have the right to keep both your money and not get shot, but you don't have any right to access their store.
Dilbert RSS feed
Again, which? The only one we know of so far is a single video store, far from the only video store. If that's "important" to you, I feel sorry for how empty your life must be.
This automatically gets a -1 douche from me.
We're not talking about children hunger in Africa, we're talking about damn smartphones. In this specific context, a video store is an important feature, especially considering the hundreds of thousands of people who already installed the Netflix app on their Android phones.
Dilbert RSS feed
My HTC Evo has HDMI output. Not that I would use it, but I could see impulse buying a movie while walking home and popping on the tube, if the resolution is good enough.
One quick question... when was the last time Google bricked anyone's phone for doing something Google didn't like? Just a question...
Stone
Because there are people willing to pay them if they did.
Dilbert RSS feed
I'm on my second Android based phone, and yes, I COULD root it, but as this poster said, I don't NEED to. With the software available on the Android market alone, I can make it do whatever I get an itch to MAKE it do. When/if I start having problems with it I can't fix by whatever means, I MIGHT look into rooting it.
Stone
Newer Android devices, especially tablets, have HDMI output.
There. Now you can copy movies with your non-rooted device.
You're right. If you remove the movie studio oligarchies, then there won't be any major motion pictures; to pay for, or to pirate. Problem solved!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
No, that's not what he's saying. Linux, the kernel (which is the extent to which Android can really be called "Linux", and even that is custom), is very open. It's the stuff you heap atop it, and the hardware you run it on, that might not be so open. In the case of Android, the hardware and software are varying degrees of closed.
This is quite similar to TiVo.
Now that it has started to get traction both Google and the carriers will want more control, and since they have been very careful not to touch ANYTHING GPL V3 with regards to Android the next move will be eFuses or code signing. They'll do it "for security" and probably announce it right after some piece of Android malware has hit, but the results will be the same. Just like TiVo you'll have the code but not be able to do a damned thing with it.
The carriers have always wanted control, this is not new. Googles entire point of making android was for there to be an open platform for which it could display ads. Being closed lessens the number of people interested, it's main product is eyes so whatever gives it the most eyes is what it will do, being open is a part of this. That said, the carriers have sway over the phone manufacturers, so it would not surprise me in the least if the carriers locked things down a bit more. But google really has no business case for locking it down, it goes against it's own interests.
They will jump in bed with the *.A.As, the carriers, and of course making it so every search has to go through Google will just be a nice bonus.
Even if google secretly wanted to limit it only to google search, it would never. The department of justice would come down on them so fast it would make their head spin. So with that out of the picture what incentive does google have to ally themselves with the *.A.As or carriers? Considering google is the very company trying to undermine those other interests monopolies on their respective things so that ads can be shared more freely.
Don't forget how they said Android was "open" and then said it was open "for the carriers" not the end users. These are just the feelers, seeing how much backlash they are gonna get. mark my words, before Xmas you'll see the end of Android being open.
Even if carriers start locking down phones that would not mean android itself would not be open. The individual devices may be locked down, but the platform will still be open. The more devices that are locked down the more incentive other carriers have to offer a phone that is not to seize that small portion that want it. Yes it is a small portion, but when considering the effort required to acquire it (none, just leave the thing open) someone will want to take it (corporate greed and all that).
The sky is not falling, thanks to google we do now have an open platform. Yes this platform is at risk from those that would try to subvert it in the chain, but overall getting everyone to adopt completely locked down devices after being used to the open droid will be a hard sell for some.
except hdcp keys were leaked
Anyway, maybe is more simpler to use a version of the app that does not tell it is on a rooted device.
Moped Jesus? Is that for sale?
For the other 99% of humanity, "my community of platform users" (those who can help me with questions, with whom I can share experiences and mutually dialogically engage in troubleshooting) includes only the other people with the same handset and the same carrier. A much smaller community. There are just a handful of versions of the iPhone and they are all AT&T.
I hope you realize "humanity" is more than just americans, and "the world" is bigger than the USA. We don't even have AT&T over here, so you're way wrong there.
I think I will build a shrine for my Nokia N900. I doubt we will ever see a truly open platform from a major manufacturer or allowed be a vile and evil carrier again.
Maemo would have been better for tablets than Android.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
What is the indication that a phone is rooted? How would Market application know that in the first place?
Just goes to show how, yet again....piracy wins!
So true. They've just driven everyone with a rooted phone to seek alternate sources of entertainment. I don't know what all the options are, but one of the easiest, cheapest, and most popular is "for free from the internet".
Media companies are hilarious. I can download full-sized Blu-Ray rips from the protocol that shall remain nameless on the day of release, but they are protecting the crappy Android quality movie files from the most savvy users.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I think the new LTE phones are going to be able to do both simultaneously.
Yes, the Verizon "4G" LTE phones can do voice and data simultaneously. It's still a pain in the butt if you don't have a bluetooth headset, but it does work.
What you are referring to is "usability" NOT being "open."
Rather a huge difference.
Even if I did not disagree with your points about usability...
Open refers to Open Source which means that the operating system has source code available so that users can look at the code themselves and modify it if they so choose.
Usability, or Ease of Use refers to how easy it is to DO SOMETHING with the software. Email, web, video whatever you want.
By saying that Android is open Google does NOT imply that you can do anything with Android other than look at the source code.
However the ability and FREEDOM to look at the source code gives US (users) the ability to either modify the os ourselves or use code modified by others IF WE CHOOSE.
IOS is not open.
WIndows is not open.
Linux and Android ARE open.
Does this mean that they are better for all and sundry? No, of course not.
But they are better for many, and personally I have yet to find a better os for a smartphone: I can do more at lower cost, more reliably than with any other phone.
And I can do so without resorting to spreading FUD or false statements, pal. ;)
Linux computers, watercooled, photography
There's no walled garden. There's a door that has a requirement to enter, but I can just walk around and use a different door to get to the same area.
Limiting access in a single instance != walled garden. I can still use the regular Android market, or the amazon market, or install applications individually on my own, or any number of other ways of getting applications. Sorry, but there's no walled garden here...
The reasons to root are things that a normal user wouldn't want/need to do. Whereas the need to jailbreak an iPhone does give things a normal user would want to do, like being able to download an application and install it without using the Apple App Store.
when Android devices have by and large been much the same: closed until you open it.
Please give an example how Android devices are closed until you open it? Unless you're on AT&T where they removed the ability to side-load applications (which is why i never recommend buying an Android phone from AT&T) then every Android phone can install applications from more than just the Google App Store, they can use the amazon app store, side-load applications, or a bunch of others if they want. They can install new interfaces like LauncherPro, replace the default functionality with a new text messaging app, or completely different actual browser (not just Opera Mini which is not really a browser so much as it downloads and renders on an outside server and then forwards the results rather than browsing directly on the phone), etc.
The only reasons to root are to overclock/underclock your phone, remove stock apps placed by the manufacturer (not all manufacturer's do this), completely install an entire new interface over the entire phone, and update beyond what your carrier is willing to suppport.
For example, is that iPhone 2 running iOS4? Don't think so. Is that iPhone 3 running the latest version of iOS? Nope. Yet my original Droid is running gingerbread right now because I rooted it. The average user has no need to do this.
Talk about what benefits the source of Android offers that isn't available to iOS users by virtue of its closed source.
Choice! Android users have the choice of TONS of different phones from a multitude of carriers. As a result of Android's open source nature, soon Blackberrys will be able to run Android applications. (You really think they would have done that if it wasn't free and open source and available?) As a result of Android's open source nature there's an entire community that builds Roms from source which turn out to be faster and more efficient and better than many of the default roms that manufacturers put on their own phones. And I'm not talking about rooting with that. You just can't do that with iPhone because it's closed source. The benefits for a power user are huge due to the community and Roms and tweaking and hacking. The benefits for the average user is that when the manufacturer stops supporting a phone, they can update it and breathe new life into an old phone due to people making Roms and tweaking the code to function on older phones.
That means that the source code for Android is available.
It does NOT mean that all the applications must be open source, it does not mean that every app must be able to access everything in the world.
It does not mean that the web browser on the phone can access a proprietary file format that is not compatible.
It means that the source code for the operating system itself is available and can be modified.
The FACT that Android is Open Source does give us, the users and potential users, a great deal of additional possibilities WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM.
It does not mean that phone manufacturers or carriers have a requirement to allow us to run a custom version of Android- some make it quite difficult in fact.
It does not mean that software developers are required to open source their applications (although some do.)
It does not even mean that Google is required to open source all of THEIR applications.
Being open source does not guarantee the os is easier to use, more stable or more resistant to malware.
Being Open Source does NOT mean that it is trivial to modify the OS so that a user can remotely drive their car with their cellphone!
But there ARE a tremendous number of advantages that being open source DOES provide: since the source is open, once a device can be updated (rooting and exploits usually required- carriers and manufacturers fault, not Google) it can often be updated and extended to be able to do more and work better than it did originally. Usually this is because the custom versions of Android are based on Google's Android, not the carrier/manufacturer versions.
Yes, I use Android on phones and a tablet and I am very happy with them.
Many people are likely to be happier with iPhones and other smartphones, and I am happy they have them.
But the fact remains that at an OPERATING SYSTEM LEVEL, Android is open and Iphone is not.
On a Market level, iPhone is severely restricted and Android far less so.
There are those who claim that jailbreaking and rooting are the same- completely incorrect. Very different indeed.
Jailbreaking an iPhone is more akin to installing the Amazon Market for Android than it is to rooting.
Linux computers, watercooled, photography
Carrier locked, walled garden, locked down out of the box = little choice, little freedom
You're only carrier locked due to carrier technology like EVERY other phone in the US. The GSM android phones with sim cards are just as unlocked as any other GSM phone with a sim card. Etc. There's no walled garden, you can install applications by side loading or from different markets or the google market. It's not locked down, it does everything it says it can and much much more.
Must root to be able to use important features
Like what? Rooting adds features like overclocking/underclocking, upgrading to the newest version of the OS beyond what the manufacturer will support. None of these are "important" to anyone except a power user who wants to tinker and mess with his phone, a small subset of users.
When you root, you are locked out of other important features
The only thing you're locked out of will be this Movie Market. That's it.
Fewer apps than iOS = Less choice = less freedom
One could argue that there's more diversity in apps than iOS which = more choice and more freedom. This is a false argument that doesn't have any merit for or against android. I almost want to say you sound like a fanboy
Less polished user interface, more fragmentation = less flexibility, smaller userbase, less choice = less freedom
Ok, you're definitely a fanboy. There's fragmentation in the iOS camp too (can you run the latest and greatest version of iOS on the iPhone 3? How about the iPhone 2?). Smaller userbase? Eh, that's debatable depending on where you get your numbers from. In the US there are more android phones than iPhones. Claiming that Android is less flexible than iOS is just ignorance to what you can do with one versus the other. I prefer the Android interface to the iPhones anytime. I like being able to customize my interface beyond a wall paper and ordering my apps. I like my widgets :)
how not all apps are compatible
Which is due to features available based on the hardware or the version of the OS. Rooting makes MORE apps available, not less, just as jailbreaking does the same for iPhone. However, unlike the iPhone, it's not necessary to root your Droid to get out of the closed garden.
won't have access to things like movies
No, won't have access to a movie rental service that is new. I fail to see the problem
May create problems with carriers
You can always revert to stock. And if you're worried about your carrier more than you want the added features of rooting than don't do it. You aren't the type of user that would benefit from rooting much then.
Unlike those poor iOS users that must "jailbreak" their phones
Nothing wrong with jailbreaking, but I don't have to root my android phone to install applications that aren't from the market. An iPhone has to be jailbroken to do that. Etc.
it's the same damned act, with the same damned consequences, only in the case of the jailbreak, you end up with more funcitonality and more choice in the end.
I don't think anyone advocating rooting looks at jailbreaking as evil or bad. They look at the reasons for jailbreaking are things that you have in Android without having to root. You end up with more functionality with a rooted Android phone than you do with a jailbroken iPhone. For example, a rooted android phone can always upgrade to the latest version of the OS. A jailbroken iPhone is stuck until someone finds an exploit to the newest version. The difference here is the availability of the source for the community to create a rom.
I've got a 47" HDTV to watch video entertainment on.
Which someone else in the house is using at the moment to watch MTV's Jersey Shore.
Freedom is the ability to do real things that you might like to do without being constrained.
Like, say, view a pornographic app on your phone.
But never mind that -- you've already chosen a very odd view of freedom. If you're given the freedom to do a thing, and you didn't want to anyway, that doesn't count as freedom? Really?
Only for techies does this set of real things include "hacking on the source."
And yet, if this was actually irrelevant, we wouldn't have Linux to begin with. At the moment, Apple still pretty absurdly limits what can and cannot go in their app store, so even if most end-users would never develop an app, they are still affected by not being able to find apps which would fall afoul of these restrictions. Giving developers freedom does translate to end-user freedom.
Also, if you're really going to go here, jailbreaking a phone also falls into this set of real things.
Only for techies is it irrelevant if an app has "slight" compatibility problems with a handset...
You're again speaking in abstract terms without citing any actual apps with actual compatibility problems, and you're ignoring the part where this is generally accepted as the state of affairs in desktop computing -- how many apps have slight compatibility problems with the latest version of an OS?
Sit ten users in front of a Windows box, and the same ten users in front of a Linux box for the following hour.
Then ask them: during which hour did you feel more free in your user of these computers?
These users have had how much time to be trained in Windows over the years, and you give them an hour to try out a new OS? I'd be very curious to repeat that experiment with users who had no experience with iOS, sitting them down in front of a computer and an iPad.
As a typical geek you will, of course, tell them that they are all wrong,
If someone claims to be free while I have them tied up, there are a few possibilities: Either they like being tied up (possible), or they don't realize that they are tied up. The reality of being restricted really isn't dependent on their opinion, however.
Now, I wouldn't tell them that they are wrong to prefer Windows, but I think if you don't ask the leading question about freedom, you might find they prefer it for being "easier to use," or, if they have a bit more insight, because it's closer to what they're familiar with.
Because they don't want to hack on the source.
Did I ever once claim they did? What's more, do you really think availability of source, or actual open-ness, doesn't affect end-users at all?
Consider Firefox. While most users couldn't identify this as the reason, open source and open-ness is why it was able to get the market share it has and why so many users prefer it, even if they're only just technical enough to install an add-on. Being open source meant Microsoft couldn't simply buy the Mozilla Foundation and kill Firefox. It also meant that, while most users don't care about hacking on the source, the one user who cared to hack on the source and add, say, popup blocking, or tabbed browsing, or an extension API, or write an extension like, say, Adblock, had a profound impact on how useful the browser is, and how much freedom there is, for every other user to try it.
Then there's the part where having an open standard drove the Web to places it really couldn't have gone if we were stuck in the "Works best with IE6" era. Without that, and without Firefox to challenge IE -- even if no users actually used Firefox -- the iPhone wouldn't exist in any recognizable form, because Webkit, if it existed at all, would be irrelevant. By contrast, today users have the freedom to use any browser they want, on devices which might not have had a browser at all if IE6 still ruled, and to expect most of the Web to jus
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
We're not talking about children hunger in Africa, we're talking about damn smartphones.
I didn't mention children in Africa, you did. So let's talk about some damn smartphones.
In this specific context, a video store is an important feature, especially considering the hundreds of thousands of people who already installed the Netflix app on their Android phones.
...and you just made my point for me. If there's already a Netflix app for Android which can run on rooted phones, again, I'd find it truly depressing if an "important" feature to you is this one specific video store, when there is at least one other significant video store for Android already, and nothing stopping anyone from setting up another.
I'll admit it's not a feature I personally am likely to be impressed by, as I can't see wanting to watch video on a screen that small, but that's not the point. Even granting that video is important, even granting that an Android-specific video store is important, I still don't see why that particular video store is an issue.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Has Google actually released a statement regarding this? My thought is that the only "crime" Google are doing is disallowing you from getting access Anonymously to the movie. Google makes money on knowing what you are doing/watching. A rooted device would lead to the ability of getting the movies without them knowing who you are. I suspect (I'm not super tech savvy) that the non-rooted device is tied into your user profile/billing system, so it can be traced that Mr Joe Bloggs watched Movie Y. Now they can use this data to work out what kind of advertising they can target at you.
Anyone who buys into some Google service, expecting that they won't be monitored for advertising purposes really needs to cash in their geek card. Rooted device not only goes against Big Content, but also defeats the purpose of it being a Google product.
Except you have the right to keep both your money and not get shot, but you don't have any right to access their store.
I'm not discussing rights, but what is right. When you can determine the difference, get back to us.
Learn to love Alaska
I got a torrent client on my Android, that should do it.
Hang on. You bought your phone, but you don't control it. The phone is "yours", but someone else determines what you are allowed or not allowed to do with it, when you can upgrade, and how you can change it. You trust your carrier to do "what's best for you" but your carrier doesn't trust you. That's your phone.
My phone is different. I don't trust my carrier to "do what's best for me" -- because they don't and they won't. I know they will only do what it best for them. So, unlike you, I own my phone. I determine what runs on it, when it gets upgraded and, especially, what doesn'tT run on it.
"Untrustworthy"? Um, no. Just because your carrier doesn't trust you doesn't mean you are untrustworthy.
I trust my carrier to provide the specific service they've contracted with me to provide. I don't trust them enough to let them into my phone any more than I'd let my ISP have control of my PC or let the electric company dictate what appliances I can run in my home.
By virtue of the fact that Google picked Linux (GPL), not BSD, to base Android on.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
A Jailbroken iPhone is on par with a regular Android phone. You Jailbreak to be able to run apps not from the market and to be able to install some kinds of apps Apple doesn't permit like things that change the input device or the like. Well that is Android in its default state. You can install from non-market sources (or add another market like Amazon), apps have a much wider latitude in what they do, and so on.
Rooting an Android phone is to get yourself total and compete control, the ability to install different ROMs, the ability to mess with the kernel, etc. It is a much higher level of device access.
Naturally this follows from the indisputable fact that no one other than a major studio can produce a major motion picture.
I agree, security wise the whole android process is completely broken. Release fast release often only works if the releases actually get out into the field, and because of vendor customization and lock-in they don't. This situation was perfectly predictable, and it could have been avoided in a few different ways.
That being said, as an OS android is pretty amazing. Sure there are bugs, but I think it also has more capabilities and more potential than any of the competitors. WP7 has some interesting features, but it certainly does not have a decent browser, and that's probably the most important app on a smartphone.
I don't think it means anything for the Android platform. I think it sucks that I won't be able to access Movies while running my phone how I want. But, even if I didn't have a rooted phone, I couldn't access movies because I live outside the US. The reason I can't access it outside of the US is the same reason that rooted phones can't access it inside: Content providers and licensing.
If you want to get pissed about locking down content, then look at every piece of licensed content, and how much of it is available outside of your borders. Get pissed off about the fact that international licensing is such a shit show, that I can't even buy mp3s from Amazon's mp3 store, half of the iTunes catalogue isn't available to me, virtually none of the online radio providers work here.
Google wants to provide content to people that people want, because they can make money off of it. But, to avoid lengthy court battles, and providers refusing to profide content, they have to play by the content providers rules. It sucks, I wish that weren't the case. But to try to blame Google, Apple or Amazon for their content having ridiculous restrictions of whatever form, is moronic.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
I agree with nearly everything you say, my problem with Google is this: they make a big show about "openness" but giving away the OS is the easy part. People buying into this crap will end up with their "open" phone in a desert without content and a few crappy open source apps because Google, as most corporations refuse to support openness where it's hard and it counts. And I don't buy the argument that they have to play along with content providers. Apple, though far from perfect, at least plays hardball with these assholes forcing the price of music downloads down, getting rid of DRM on iTunes music, kicking NBC out of the iTunes store because they wanted to raise prices on videos. Google could buy these companies several times over but they haven't shown any backbone in a good while now. They talk the talk without walking the walk.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Updating the OS. Particularly to a custom version.
That IS the banner feature of "open" Android, isn't it?
Pretty sure you don't have to do that with the Nexus.
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
No, that's not what he's saying. Linux, the kernel (which is the extent to which Android can really be called "Linux", and even that is custom), is very open. It's the stuff you heap atop it, and the hardware you run it on, that might not be so open. In the case of Android, the hardware and software are varying degrees of closed.
This is quite similar to TiVo.
If Android is closed by virtue of the hardware and additional lockdown software then so is Linux on which that same kind of hardware and software is present, like in the case of TiVo. So it's not Android that is closed, it's some phone platforms, you can't equate say the Motorola DroidX to the Nexus One just as you can't say Linux is closed just because it's on a TiVo when you can install it on a PC and it's fully open.
Fair enough. But, Apple was only able to force the majors to remove DRM and was only able to tell NBC to get stuffed after becoming the only game in town. Google cannot do that at this point. They simply don't have the market share.
Plus, Google did just piss off the majors in a HUGE way with Google Music. Apple is still trying to nail down deals, while Google is already offering me 20,000 free cloud based storage songs.
Now, I'm not completely apologetic for Google, I think that this is really shitty that they bowed so hard on the licensing deals that I'm not allowed to use the service. I fully agree that they should do more to ensure that consumers are presented with more solutions and options. But, I don't think that they're in as secure of a position to start issuing the ultimatums that Apple can. When they've "proved themselves" to the majors, they'll be able to force them to allow things like rooted users accessing the 'protected content'. With enough consumer pressure, I'm sure it will happen, just as it did to iTunes.
If it doesn't, I'll be first in line to decry the shitty stance that they're taking on the issue. But as long as I'm able to access Android source and recompile it as I see fit, I'm not going to call questionable licensing decisions in side products, I'm not going to start flagging Android as closed.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
If Android is closed by virtue of the hardware and additional lockdown software then so is Linux
Android is not Linux. The software that is locked down in Android is not "additional", it's Android itself.
Android is to Linux similar to what TiVo is to Linux. TiVo is closed, but the Linux kernel is not.
So it's not Android that is closed, it's some phone platforms
No, Android is closed. Or simply just "not open". Show me where the source code for 3.0 is. Show me where you can build an official Android handset without meeting Google's rules. There *is* an open version of Android, but no one uses it. It's almost like a TiVo distribution without the TV listings or season pass features, etc.
you can't equate say the Motorola DroidX to the Nexus One just as you can't say Linux is closed just because it's on a TiVo when you can install it on a PC and it's fully open.
No, because this isn't a comparison between a generic Linux OS and a customized, specialized, closed one. They both run a customized, specialized, closed (or "not open") Linux-based OS.
Android is not Linux.
Thanks captain obvious, i never made any claim to the sort and if you're capable of reading my post that would be obvious to you.
The software that is locked down in Android is not "additional", it's Android itself.
No it isn't, compare Android 2.3 on a Nexus to on a Droid, there are additional lockdowns on the Droid the make it necessary to root it, these are not present in the very same version of Android 2.3 on the Nexus.
Android is to Linux similar to what TiVo is to Linux. TiVo is closed, but the Linux kernel is not.
No, because I can grab a copy of Android 2.3 sources with no problem.
No, Android is closed. Or simply just "not open". Show me where the source code for 3.0 is.
Just because you can have a version that is not open doesn't make it entirely closed. The OSX kernel has many BSD components, it doesn't make BSD closed, the source for 2.3, the latest version of Android available for mobile phones is up for you, i'm sure you can find it.
Show me where you can build an official Android handset without meeting Google's rules.
It doesn't need to be 'official', that has absolutely ZERO to do with openness.
There *is* an open version of Android, but no one uses it.
Oh so now Android's closed, except for when it's open. The only closed version of Android is 3.0, the tablet version, not even designed for the VAST majority of Android devices.
It's almost like a TiVo distribution without the TV listings or season pass features, etc.
No it isn't, that's an idiotic comparison that makes no sense.
you can't equate say the Motorola DroidX to the Nexus One just as you can't say Linux is closed just because it's on a TiVo when you can install it on a PC and it's fully open.
No, because this isn't a comparison between a generic Linux OS and a customized, specialized, closed one. They both run a customized, specialized, closed (or "not open") Linux-based OS.
Build a version of Android from sources and you can install it onto a Nexus, try and put it on a DroidX and you'll be hit with additional non-Android lockdowns that prevent it.
Android Open Source Project is not the same Android you get on a phone. It's similar to Chrome vs Chromium. If you want the "full" Android experience, there are non-open source limitations. Google's claims of being open are smoke and mirrors. They are, at best, "open-ish".
Version 3.0 isn't even open-ish. The part you can get the source for is the kernel, which is a heavily modified, but obviously still GPLd, Linux Kernel. You seem to think I'm talking about carrier or handset maker extensions. I'm not. I'm talking about Android itself, as officially designed by Google.
Just because you can have a version that is not open doesn't make it entirely closed. The OSX kernel has many BSD components, it doesn't make BSD closed, the source for 2.3, the latest version of Android available for mobile phones is up for you, i'm sure you can find it.
You are making no sense. First off, no one is saying it's "completely closed". Second, you are looking at it ass-backwards. The Mac OS X kernel is open source, but that doesn't make Mac OS X open. The Android kernel is open source, but that doesn't make Android open. The proof of this is 3.0. You can't just hand-wave it away. Android 3.0's closed nature have absolutely zero impact on whether Linux is open, just like TiVo has no impact. Linux is completely open, Android is sometimes open, but never completely.
Android Open Source Project is not the same Android you get on a phone.
It doesn't matter, you can get the source of Android 2.3, the same that you get on a Nexus phone, the full platform and software stack.
You seem to think I'm talking about carrier or handset maker extensions. I'm not.
Then why did you interject in this discussion if you don't know what we are discussing? Clearly - as you can see from the poster i originally replied to - that is *exactly* what we are talking about, the additions of the manufacturer and how those affect the openness of the underlying software.
Android 3.0's closed nature have absolutely zero impact on whether Linux is open
I never said it did - in fact you are the one that brought up Android 3.0 - i simply suggested the logic that lead him to the claim that Android isn't open - the additional lockdown hardware/software on some Android devices - would lead you to the conclusion that Linux isn't open - like the additional lockdown hardware/software on a TiVo. Obviously that is true in neither case and the additional lockdown hardware/software has no impact on the openness of the underlying software. We were talking solely about manufacturer-added lockdowns before you butted in.
Alot of people out there dont get why people here see this as a bad thing, and fine, if you dont then more power to you. You can sit there and say "well, this is required by the studios" or whatever you like.
However, the reason people like me are getting up-in-arms about such a move is because of what google USED to represent. In short, it was one of the few companies around that was large enough to stand up and fight a fight we want to see fought. Its not about what the MPAA and studios want, its about whats sensible. This is not. Typically google have fought that fight, to the point where they DO put significant dollars on the line in order to win what is plausibly (though subjective it may be) a just and/or fair outcome.
This has stopped happening. The reality is, google could have probably gotten that content simply based on android market share, and maybe in the future they'll revisit that fight. Who knows. But lately (big IMHO here) google seemed to have changed tactics quite a bit in regards to being a company that "does no evil". They're sitting on that border line, at least in the minds of people like me they are - my opinion (alone) matters very little and so im easily dismissed. Again, the whole "do no evil" is a subjective argument and what it means to me, you and everyone else may be completely different. But at least TRY and understand why people will be disappointed about this.
The best part of all this is, I wouldn't rent a movie anyway (there are better options). google have a GREAT ability to never provide services in my country, which in itself doesnt bother me in reality. But for me the "do no evil" argument of google's is wearing quite thin rather quickly.
My ultimate point being that calling people idiots for believing in a fight that you may not is rather silly and ultimately the fight was to your benefit.
On a more personal note - someone using the name of Edmund Blackadder to post such a comment is disturbing, blackadder was one of my more favored tv shows.
You want to know what is sad? I have gotten to the point that when I buy a game I take its nice shiny box and put it in the closet and just run the "Razr1911" version. Why? Because their shitty ass ring 0 DRM garbage makes a modern X64 OS run like ass, so yet again its the pirate version for the win!
If for any reason I need to install new hardware, or move my game folder to that new drive I just bought without wanting to do a full reinstall, the pirate version "just works" whereas the DRM version is crap. Starting with Bioshock II (which makes you run GFWL, which I've spent more time fighting that POS software service than I have the bad guys in the games) I've simply bought the game and left it in the package. The Razr1911 version doesn't need GFWL, it has a pre hacked version already included that "just works" hassle free. And that doesn't count the fact that so many of the games I buy simply won't run OOTB because the DRM ignore the drive (because I have two burners and no players) and calls me a pirate for daring to have burners in my machine! WTF? who doesn't have burners in their machine today? Hell they are cheaper than the players!
For a good example of how this DRM bites you in the ass I invite you to watch this video (warning language NSFW, but you watch it you'll understand why he is POed) and share it with everybody you know. People don't realize that for many of us piracy isn't about "getting free stuff" it is about being able to use what we paid for because if the DRM don't work there is nothing you can do, as most places won't accept opened returns. As the guy in TFL I posted says "It IS bullshit!" and I have to agree. Nowhere else are you allowed to sell products that are broken by design and fail so often to do as intended.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.