Slashdot Mirror


CyanogenMod Installer Removed From Google Play Store

sfcrazy writes "[Wednesday] Google asked the CM team to voluntarily remove the [CyanogenMod installer] app from the store or they would be forced to remove it administratively. CM team chose to remove the app voluntarily. According to the CyanogenMod team, Google initially said that the app was in violation of Google's Play's developer terms. When the CM team reached out to the Play team, they found that 'though application itself is harmless, and not actually in violation of their Terms of Service, since it 'encourages users to void their warranty', it would not be allowed to remain in the store.'" You can still install manually, though.

255 comments

  1. Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this were Apple removing an app, everyone would be complaining about the walled garden!

    1. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 5, Informative

      The difference is that Apple only allows you to install apps from the official app store. To allow unofficial apps on an Android device, all you need to do is tick a box in the settings menu.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Where's the outrage?! by MrLint · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about being outraged on the premise that installing of software is a warranty violation. I'd not be at all surprised that Verizon was involved.

    3. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 1

      (though considering you posted this 2 minutes after the story went live, when there were no other comments.. you're clearly just a shill who knows there is is no reason for outrage)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Vanderhoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the CM team is free to distribute their app in other ways. Apple is a little more strict about only allowing apps from their store to be installed. I know jail breaking and all that, but if you're going to jail break your apple device you should already understand the risks and be technically savvy enough to do it.

      Google shouldn't have to allowed a known "potentially" dangerous app in their store. Anyone with the expertise required to use this firmware can go and get it from the Cyanogen website. It doesn't need to be advertised in the app store for non-technical people to download. Without researching it I'm sure a laymen would think firmware is some kind of a game and could mess up their device without knowing it. Then who's going to take the blame. I suspect it would be Google for distributing it, a laymen will never take responsibility for using something they didn't understand.

    5. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this were Apple removing an app, everyone would be complaining about the walled garden!

      There's your answer. There's no walled garden here, so it makes no sense to complain about one.

    6. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the summary?

    7. Re:Where's the outrage?! by rainwater · · Score: 2

      The warranty violation is unlocking the bootloader which this app requires (and is done by the companion app).

    8. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're the first post and you're wondering where the outrage is?

    9. Re:Where's the outrage?! by dc29A · · Score: 2

      If you want to gain traction, 'distribute in other ways' won't fly because it's far simpler to install an app from Google Play than to download from a site into sd card, tick a box in some settings, get a file manager to navigate to app and tap click to install it.

    10. Re:Where's the outrage?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want to gain traction, 'distribute in other ways' won't fly because it's far simpler to install an app from Google Play than to download from a site into sd card, tick a box in some settings, get a file manager to navigate to app and tap click to install it.

      Your argument hinges on the belief that the users who want CM are unable or unwilling to perform those actions. That assertion is unproven at best. You also don't need a full file manager; you can simply use an APK installer. Some of them are truly teensy tiny. Also, web browsers will sometimes install APKs directly. I don't use Chrome, because it sucks, but Fennec will do it. And you can also open downloads directly from the downloads manager if you download them with the included crap browser.

      Now, personally, I do use ES File Explorer for this purpose, both for downloading and for opening the APK, but there's no actual need.

      I am running CM nightlies on Franco's kernel. I flashed recovery manually, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Yoda222 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you have basically the choice between a phone (or tablet) where you can install stuff that you don't want and one where you can't install what you want.

    12. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says something you don't agree with, must be a shill. Your tinfoil hat is too tight friend.

    13. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Modifying device firmware should never be a one click download from an app store. If you want to modify your devices firmware than you should know how to "download from a site into sd card, tick a box in some settings, get a file manager to navigate to app and tap click to install it" otherwise there are going to be a lot of spoiled teens out there with broken phones and tablets and parents blaming Google for messing up their kids $400+ device.

      I really want to say just getting their story on /. is a good way to gain traction with the people that actually have the expertise to use this product, but I'm absolute miffed by the number of comments, already, on this story where the commented doesn't know the difference between software and firmware and doesn't understand why that would void a devices warranty.

    14. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I read an article it suggested that even just rooting the device was a warranty violation.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As many others here can attest I put CM on my devices long before this app was available by following some pretty straight forward steps.

      Is the 'walled garden' the same? Does android ever "reflash" your device to remove your jailbreak for you and then prevent you from going back to an older version?

    16. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sweet catch

    17. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're a step closer to Google asking that button to voluntarily remove itself from the interface.

    18. Re:Where's the outrage?! by crossmr · · Score: 0

      a little more strict? That's like saying hitler had a slight preference for blue eyes...

    19. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 2

      Nope. Abrasive first post within a minute or two of story being posted. Sometimes they've actually been several paragraphs long. Some people are literally paid to try to sway opinion here. If you pay attention, then you'd notice. Others have put up much more informative posts about the actual company that does all this bullshit, though I can't remember the name. It's not paranoia, it's simply how business and marketing works these days.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    20. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assertion is unproven at best

      Common sense should dictate it. If you are seriously suggesting that not having your app in the Play store isn't a MAJOR hindrance to adoption, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

      Some neckbeards looking for hipster apps not available elsewhere are not representative of the market at large, which was what GP was talking about.

    21. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And there are ample anti-malware/anti-virus apps available for Android in the Play Store. I'm on my 4th Android phone and have installed all kinds of software, legit and less so, and have yet to encounter any malware or viruses. Know how many are available in the Apple iTunes store? Zero. If they allowed one to be listed, it would be admitting that their precious iPhones are vulnerable.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    22. Re: Where's the outrage?! by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      So you have basically the choice between a phone (or tablet) where you can install stuff that you don't want and one where you can't install what you want.

      Yeah, it would be great if you could add 3rd party software sources' signing keys like on nearly every GNU/Linux OS... Android isn't GNU it's just Linux.

    23. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need to unlock the bootloader to root.

    24. Re:Where's the outrage?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Common sense should dictate it. If you are seriously suggesting that not having your app in the Play store isn't a MAJOR hindrance to adoption, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

      If you are seriously suggesting that all apps are created equal, you're just an asshole.

      Some neckbeards looking for hipster apps not available elsewhere are not representative of the market at large, which was what GP was talking about.

      How convenient that the CM installer is basically a hipster app. How many people do you know actually using features provided by CM that aren't provided by a clean stock reflash, or through other means? Neckbeards are the primary audience! People who can't manage to reflash their phones without the installer will also be unable to reflash their phones with it. Google provides you information on how to unlock their devices, as do some others, so if you bought a device meant to be unlocked then you'll have no problem installing CM.

      There's still a CM-related app in the play store, which by the way performs all the non-unlocking parts. So it's not like users won't be able to be attracted to CM via the Play store.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Where's the outrage?! by kav2k · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to fiddle with the SD card? Your mobile browser is perfectly capable of downloading the APK, opening it without a file manager and then if it won't install it's one tick in the settings.

    26. Re:Where's the outrage?! by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative
      Verizon doesn't warrant the phones, the manufacturers do. Not every warranty includes terms denying coverage for unauthorized software installation (e.g. HTC, Samsung), but some do (Google owned Motorola).

      HTC and Samsung don't cover damage caused by unauthorized modification (which would include installing another OS), but lacking anything which would point to that as the cause, there's no disclaimer. Google's Motorola, OTOH, specifically says they won't cover the product at all, damaged or not.

      MOTOROLA STRONGLY RECOMMENDS AGAINST ALTERING A PRODUCT'S OPERATING SYSTEM, WHICH INCLUDES UNLOCKING THE BOOTLOADER, ROOTING A DEVICE OR RUNNING ANY OPERATING SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE APPROVED VERSIONS ISSUED BY MOTOROLA AND ITS PARTNERS. SUCH ALTERATIONS MAY PERMANENTLY DAMAGE YOUR PRODUCT, CAUSE YOUR PRODUCT TO BE UNSAFE AND/OR CAUSE YOUR PRODUCT TO MALFUNCTION. IN SUCH CASES, NEITHER THE PRODUCT NOR ANY DAMAGE RESULTING THEREFROM WILL BE COVERED BY THIS WARRANTY.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    27. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do something you take *the blame* for it.

      Passing the buck, claiming "I didn't know" is foolish and retarded. Don't care if you believe in personal responsibility or not, I do, so if you do it, you're responsible for your own actions, make sure you research / read up before you do something.

      All this coddling / holding of hands is for the mentally deficient (Read as: Apple customers), anyone with more than 3 brain cells to rub together should be capable of reading up, and deciding for themselves if they want to do something.

      Android is a lot like UNIX (the real UNIX, not the washed out Apple BSD variant). When you execute a command, it expects 2 things..

      #1 You know what you're doing
      #2 You wanted it to do the action you told it to do

      If not, too bad, because it doesn't ask "are you sure" 50 times before doing it.

    28. Re:Where's the outrage?! by xvan · · Score: 2

      No, you don't... You need to unlock the bootloader to replace the kernel, and a custom kernel might (or might not) be a requirement to install CM...

    29. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or buy a blackberry and run the 10.2.1 update. That way you can install the malware, but it's easier to uninstall without taking over your phone.

    30. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      That's only true of some devices. Many root techniques use exploits which are entirely invisible to OEMs and don't require unlocking.

    31. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      I've needed to unlock it for every phone I've rooted, although perhaps there is a way to get superuser active on some without doing it.

    32. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      And rightfully so, however, Google isn't making it impossible to install the CM mod or the installer.
      I can understand their point of view, if a newb user is using this to install a different firmware and screws it up, he/she can't fix it and will try to claim warranty, which it will not be given. Then there would be courtcases and other shitstorm stuff that would damage Google because the user was stupid.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    33. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Nope. I meant shill as in a literal paid shill. I'm not sure if it's still the same guy that was being a North Korea apologist all the time though.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    34. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, taking personal responsibility is important. The problem being those like us who willingly admit when they've done something wrong rather than pointing the figure are in the minority. And the Media loves to pick up stories that cause outrage because some yokel didn't lock their phone or let their 12 year old play with it and ended up with a $5000+ phone bill. Who gets blamed for that?I'm pretty sure the finger is normally pointed at the service provider because they didn't make it hard enough to do.

      Now in some cases I can clearly see the service provider is intentionally creating a confusing scenario or just being a jerk, like the person that had a huge cell bill in BC because their phone was connecting to an American cell network that was over powering the service providers, but for the most part your right on the button.

    35. Re:Where's the outrage?! by MrNemesis · · Score: 3, Informative

      It isn't a one-click method to install the CM firmware though - just a method of making the installation via PC less painless. All the app does is basically enable USB debug and help with the ADB setup.

      Ars did a pretty decent writeup of the installation process here; http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/android-roms-the-easy-way-testing-the-new-cyanogenmod-installer/ - it's certainly not a one-step job.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    36. Re:Where's the outrage?! by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Stories are available to subscribers before they go live and they are available to everyone on the firehose. (It's pretty obvious if a firehose story is going to go live.)

      I'm not denying that there are paid shills here, but there are other innocuous explanations for long replies posted soon after a story goes live.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    37. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That's interesting, because it's not "standard".

      Usually, rooting and unlocking the bootloader are two separate issues. My phone was rooted for a long time before I unlocked the bootloader.

    38. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who gives a fuck? Don't install malware and you won't have malware.

    39. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No one is paid to post on Slashdot. You know why? Because this site doesn't have the user base anymore to sway any opinion at all. The mfgs don't care what we think, and haven't for a while.

    40. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Exploit based, I assume? I haven't had to rely on that, although if you don't have to unlock the bootloader it's a better way to go.

    41. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until Google decides to remove that box.

    42. Re:Where's the outrage?! by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a walled garden. The difference is this one has a huge gate that you can walk through at any time. You can even go inside someone else's walled garden.

      In that way, Android's a bit like the Chelsea Flower Show - many gardens to choose from.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    43. Re:Where's the outrage?! by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The problem is they have decided to shift control of application installation into firmware, not for the benefit of the consumer but to lock the consumer into their market place and severely limit competitive choice. Is likely to be very worthwhile to start driving in that wedge between Android and the annoying Goggle App store and start pushing for more FOSS applications on places like http://sourceforge.net/. People who buy unlocked phones expect them to be 'Unlocked' not not just partly unlocked.

      PC owners for decades didn't need to be controlled by an app store and there is absolutely no reason smart phone user should except for greed of certain organisation seeking to pretend to be old world media publishers and seeking a cut for basically nothing other than an artificial anti-competitive barrier they purposefully created.

      And yes, "OH THE HORROR" people have been updating hardware drivers (firmware) on PCs for decades. Ahh the FUD, the FUD, all to keep people looked into the kiddy pool app store.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    44. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Well, the content of it made it very obvious in the cases that I'm thinking of. There was one where a guy was going on and on about stuff like Windows Server and Visual Studio, while clearly having very little idea about software development methods and philosophies outside of the Windows world. It was kind of amusing in a way. He'd had this massive pro-MS anti-Google post lined up for the minute that the story went live. I think that's when I realised that people are actually being paid to do this stuff, and then I saw some comments here later with a bit more detective work into the actual company (or companies) behind such posts. There was one guy in particular who had a lot of new accounts, kept saying "frankly" and some other give-away phrases, and couldn't resist any discussion involving Asia - especially North Korea. Bizarre.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    45. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps because Play is international? In the US a company may not void a warranty for an action that did not cause the device failure.

    46. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what mfgs stands for (manufacturers? Management fags? whatever). I've no idea of the actual readership figures these days either, but for example earlier today Bruce Schneier linked to one of todays' Slashdot discussions which was discussing a fairly high profile article he'd just uploaded. I don't know any other sites better for interesting and informative technical discussions. I keep seeing posts like yours, but it actually seems likely that they're also shill posts. If these ACs really have such a low opinion of Slashdot, why are they even bothering to visit, and read the comments looking for places to inject their pointless vitriol?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    47. Re:Where's the outrage?! by dugancent · · Score: 1

      The AC is right. Comment counts used to be the high hundreds, commonly over 1000. I've been reading this site for around 10 years, commenting for a couple, and the readership has defiantly fallen. No one I know follows Slashdot other than myself, and I'm checking it less and less.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    48. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that they couldn't even work due to the jailed nature of iOS app containers. But hey Apple is evil right, its fun to spew FUD.

    49. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1
      I found your comment very insightful up to this point:

      people have been updating hardware drivers (firmware) on PCs for decades

      It seems to me the difference is hardware drivers tell one device how to interact with another device, where as firmware tells a device how to work with itself. Screwing up firmware means the device might not work properly period making it very hard for a non-technical person to fix, screwing up hardware drivers means you can't connect or use another device like a printer, sound or video card, which is pretty easily remedied because the primary controlling device still works and updating the driver is trivial.

      I don't disagree with the rest of what you posted and it pretty much matches my earlier post:

      Well, the CM team is free to distribute their app in other ways.

      I like the idea of distributing FOSS applications through Git or sourceforge and being able to compile the code myself. I also feel that would be an appropriate place for Cyanogen app, out of the reach of tweens who are just messing around with their parents phones and somewhere where a more technical person looking for that kind of functionality is apt to look, if that type of stuff was available there to begin with.

    50. Re:Where's the outrage?! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Here's the key phrase in that disclaimer:

      IN SUCH CASES

      What that means is that IF it is actually the modification that's broken your device, then you're on your own. However, if your device is broken for some other unrelated reason, your warranty is still intact.

      Per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the same law that prevents car manufacturers from voiding your warranty for using non-OEM replacement parts), the burden of proof lies on the warrantor (not you) to show that the modification, rather than some warrantable defect, caused the damage.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    51. Re:Where's the outrage?! by petman · · Score: 1

      Also, some devices, like non-carrier branded Samsung phones, don't come with locked bootloaders, so there's no such thing as unlocking the bootloader to begin with.

    52. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Stu101 · · Score: 1

      Err, you are totally wrong..

      You go into security settings and tick a box in there. I know as i did it last night with Wireshark.

      --
      http://www.writeitfor.us - Writing IT for the IT generation.
    53. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0."

      Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    54. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about for iOS, or Android? It seems like you're making a joke because of the Wireshark thing, but I'm afraid don't get it, because Wireshark doesn't work like that.. :p

      --
      which is totally what she said
    55. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whereas the Nokia 1011 has 0% of all mobile malware. Clearly it uses a superior operating system than any of its more modern competitors.

    56. Re:Where's the outrage?! by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Cyanogen is expanding and going commercial. By definition that means they'll be looking to bring in new users that traditionally wouldn't be considering their product. That pretty much means they're going to have non-tech savvy users stumbling across it, and they'll be using sales tactics (since it's a product now) to get them to install it.

      I can't say I like that they're out of the store but I can see why google did it...

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    57. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it would be great if you could add 3rd party software sources' signing keys like on nearly every GNU/Linux OS... Android isn't GNU it's just Linux.

      GNU is completely irrelevant to the ability of adding 3rd party software sources.

      Next time you are making a statement without an obvious point, at least make it coherent.

    58. Re:Where's the outrage?! by glitch0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, that rule changed a few weeks ago: http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/11/21/motorola-will-longer-void-warranties-developer-devices-owners-request-unlock-codes/ Unlocking the bootloader on motorola devices no longer voids the warranty.

      --
      -Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
    59. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter how secure a system is if the security method does more damage than the potential malware.

      See Norton Anti-virus for an example.

    60. Re:Where's the outrage?! by peppepz · · Score: 1

      I'm not a shill and I am outraged, too. To me, Google don't want users to have an easy way out of the DRM-ridden, spyware-laden walled garden that they get their income from, and today they used their iron fist to make sure it doesn't happen. The fact that Apple's jails are even bleaker is no consolation.

    61. Re:Where's the outrage?! by tepples · · Score: 1

      I thought on iOS, it was just 1. subscribe to the (paid) iOS developer program and 2. tick a box in Xcode.

    62. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Because it's not easy to untick "official sources only" and download from the Cyanogen mod website? Compared to going through the process of flashing a new ROM to your phone, that is very, very easy. It's not using an "iron fist", it's more they're like waggling a finger in a token gesture to placate the service providers. It's just as easy as before to put a new ROM on your device (which is to say: not always simple, but usually possible somehow).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    63. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You removed a virus/malware from a stock 4s. Care to explain exactly how that worked?

    64. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How many people do you know actually using features provided by CM that aren't provided by a clean stock reflash

      What are you talking about? A good reason to use CM (or other alternative rom) isn't features, it's the lack of "features": the "stock" images provided by the manufacturers/carriers are loaded with all kinds of shitware. Something like CM can improve performance by not having a bunch of shitware loaded. The other big problem with stock images is that they're usually old; the mfgrs don't bother releasing updated images when new versions of Android come out, and newer versions can frequently have better performance or power consumption. CM (and other alternative roms) give you the possibility of having an image that's updated, and not loaded with shitware, something you can't get with a mfgr stock image.

    65. Re: Where's the outrage?! by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      Are there examples of software that are available for Android but not for iOS. And I don't mean eye candy stuff, but software that's really missed? I own an iPad and so far I haven't bumped into anything.

      I am asking, because prior to my first iOS device someone was trying to convert me to Android because iOS didn't have Tweetbot (back then).... Which was sad and funny, because I can probably count all the tweets I wrote over the years on two hands...

    66. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 2

      So, pay $99 a year just to install apps on your device? Can you actually install any app, or only your own apps? I think a much better option would be to root it.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    67. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm on my 4th Android phone and have installed all kinds of software, legit and less so, and have yet to encounter any malware or viruses.

      Here's the kicker: the apps are the malware.
      Have you looked at the permissions some of those apps are asking for?

      If you're not also running some form of security/privacy platform (like: openpdroid, or xPosed/xPrivacy) then your data is free for the taking.
      It's surprising^H^H^H^H^H^H^H unfortunate that it took Google until 4.3 to add any kind of "privacy manager" (even if it is a halfhearted attempt).

    68. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0.

      Looks like you don't know enough people. It has been done, without jailbreaking, and we only know because the developers publicized that fact themselves.. If you want to keep the same answer, perhaps you could rephrase the question as "How many times that Apple admit that they served up viruses or malware in their App Store?"

      So you think its better to run extra software, waste more ram, cpu and storage space ... so that you don't get something that iOS users just aren't going to get in the first place?

      But what if I don't _want_ a misplaced sense of security based on faulty assumptions?

      You utterly fucking fail at understanding security. [...] The only known threats on iOS devices have come to jailbroken phones and the jailbreaks themselves.

      It ain't just a river in Egypt.

      And that's not even considering threats that come from Apple itself, without any need to install apps or change settings. Something magical happens and things just work.

      Until then [I] just make it obvious [I'm] nothing more than a fanboy.

      No argument here.

    69. Re: Where's the outrage?! by substance2003 · · Score: 1

      And that's the reason why Android is ridden with malware attacks (97% of all mobile malware).

      Can I get a citation please? Seems a rather high percentage.

      Also, this was always the problem with Windows and yet when they try to push towards a walled garden arrangement people cry foul to that so IMHO you can't please everyone.

    70. Re:Where's the outrage?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A good reason to use CM (or other alternative rom) isn't features, it's the lack of "features": the "stock" images provided by the manufacturers/carriers are loaded with all kinds of shitware. Something like CM can improve performance by not having a bunch of shitware loaded.

      You can freeze the shitware in modern versions. This has been a problem however, I will grant you. Moving on:

      The other big problem with stock images is that they're usually old; the mfgrs don't bother releasing updated images when new versions of Android come out

      Right. But you can still install those images with Rom Manager once you root your phone, and there's one-click rooters even for many devices which aren't meant by their manufacturers to be unlocked by the user. Most of these only run on Windows or Mac, but users of alternative operating systems can safely (statistically) be assumed to be capable of using google and looking up the other methods, which boil down in almost all cases to installing the Android SDK tools, and flashing a recovery and/or kernel, and using the upgraded recovery to root — assuming whatever you flashed doesn't auto-root, which is indeed sometimes the case.

      Meanwhile, the CM Installer wouldn't install a damned thing on a locked phone, and the ROM Manager app can install CM on an unlocked phone. So basically, the only thing that's now gone missing is the unlocking help. But unlocking your phone (or indeed, most other popular Android devices) is as easy as googling (or perhaps even using Bing) for your device's model number or even its name, and "unlock", and following the first link that doesn't appear to be an obvious news article.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    71. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anti-malware for Android is hilarious, because there are no hooks in the OS available for an "anti-malware" app to actually do anything. "Hey, you installed this other app and we think it is bad! We hope you'll uninstall it, because our super-mega-safety app really can't do a thing about it! Hopefully, it won't have uploadeded all your pornographic selfies and encrypted your filesystem for ransom before you see this!"

    72. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0.

      We don't know that at all.

    73. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Google fans still see Google as the innovative and cool tech company like it was 10 years ago instead of the advertising company it has become. RIP Google Labs

    74. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      So set one as high as you want for yourself and get off other people's lawns?

    75. Re:Where's the outrage?! by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "I'm absolute miffed by the number of comments, already, on this story where the commented doesn't know the difference between software and firmware and doesn't understand why that would void a devices warranty."

      Slashdot is no longer a tech site and has not been for some time. It was bound to happen and there's too much profit involved to change it back.

      What is needed is a replacement for Slashdot for techies. The promise that such a site can be grown to profitability and the tech audience abandoned later is legitimate reason to create it.

      Scenes come and go. All is transient.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    76. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this were Apple removing an app, everyone would be complaining about the walled garden!

      It is outrageous yet perhaps not equivalent as side loading on Android is trivial so you have a choice to install shit directly. My understanding this same capability requires more effort on iOS.

      One of the many benefits of CyanogenMod is enabling total bypass of google bullshit. Install it and be happy.

    77. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I don't want to have to jump through series of pointless hoops just because someone's spoiled teenager didn't pay attention to the clear warning message. The rest of the userbase doesn't need to suffer reduced functionality just because of irresponsible parents.

      That shiny $400 device has parental controls. If the precious snowflake couldn't be trusted to take care of it, then perhaps those should have been active in the first place.

    78. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You can freeze the shitware in modern versions.

      You can freeze some of it, but can you really freeze all of it? How do you know? There's no way to really know what kind of shitware is running in the background, and not able to be disabled from the application manager; since the OS image is closed, there can easily be services running in the background that aren't disableable by the user.

    79. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Does that mean the consumer has to prove it didn't, or the manufacturer has to prove it did?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    80. Re: Where's the outrage?! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      "Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0."

      Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.

      How exactly did you do that from a stock iPhone 4S?

      I'm really curious.

      If it was more than just deleting the app using the phone's built in method and then trashing the backup of the app from iTunes then I'm *really* interested.

      Whether we define a virus as something you can trivially delete is an exercise for the reader.

    81. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand why this is so hard for some people. It has nothing to do with this specific scenario I concocted based on events I've read multiple times in various news sources. Yes, parents should be responsible and not let "snowflakes" play with expensive toys, but this is about the end results of the scenario.

      **WHEN** someone's device is bricked because of a download in a distributors store the distributor will be held accountable for damages. So the same people saying "Well, I don't want to have to jump through series of pointless hoops" are the people who will be wagging the finger at the distributor for allowing that to happen in the first place. A distributor knowing an app is "potentially dangerous" to a device sounds like a good class action argument to me. Should Google be putting themselves in a position where they *can* be sued because they allowed a "potentially dangerous" app to be distributed through their official channel! It's rhetorical, the answer is no. Especially when there are other ways for that app to be distributed anyway.

    82. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where the commented doesn't know the difference between software and firmware

      The difference between software and firmware is that firmware is software.

    83. Re:Where's the outrage?! by preflex · · Score: 1

      It isn't a one-click method to install the CM firmware though - just a method of making the installation via PC less painless.

      Oooh! Great! Where do I download? I've been looking for ways to make installing 3rd party firmwares more painful. As it stands right now, the process is far too pleasant and enjoyable.

    84. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Exploit based, I assume? I haven't had to rely on that, although if you don't have to unlock the bootloader it's a better way to go."

      Yes, pretty simple. It was a matter of turning on USB debugging, connecting to my computer via USB, and running a script. It took all of about 30 seconds from start to finish.

    85. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      If it is anything but trivial to fix the firmware, the device was badly engineered. A second backup firmware image that will put the device into a state that it can load the current good image from is a solved problem.

    86. Re:Where's the outrage?! by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Hmm Imagine if lenovo or dell put that in their warranty.

    87. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neckbeards are the primary audience!

      You and the GP keep using that word, and neither of you know what it means.

      Are you the same person?

    88. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Psykechan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only known threats on iOS devices have come to jailbroken phones and the jailbreaks themselves.

      Apparently you utterly fucking fail at understanding security. Those jailbreaks exploit holes in the walled garden to install tools that do other things, like allowing users to install their own software. Malware authors can exploit those same holes to install their crap.

      Even if the garden wall was perfect and didn't have holes, you still have to trust the guard who doesn't work for you, but for the gardener.

      When Android doesn't require essentially every app you install to get access to private data BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN FUCKING INSTALL IT, then you MIGHT be able to start talking differently here. Until then you just make it obvious you're nothing more than a fanboy.

      Well that time is now because Android doesn't require this. There are so many problems with every security model but by defending iOS in such a half-assed way, you have proven that you are nothing more than a fanboy as well.

    89. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Are there even 97 mobile malwares in the whole of history? (Not counting those known only to Make-a-fee)

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    90. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      It comes and goes - back when iPhones could be jail-broken by visiting a website (something as far as I know - no Android phone has suffered from) I banned loads of iphones off our university network for contacting known malware sites.

    91. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, pay $99 a year just to install apps on your device?

      No, that's a disingenuous statement and I suspect you know that. It isn't $99 to install apps on your phone, you can do that without paying anything by just using the appstore. And the $99 pays for more than just the developer certificate that enables you to install non-appstore apps.

    92. Re:Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 1

      It's not "disingenuous", we're talking in the context of non appstore apps. I didn't even consider that someone might take my words so literally. Your last sentence answered my question though.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    93. Re: Where's the outrage?! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Ya know what? Give ME complete and total control of your PC and I can promise you you will NEVER get malware again? Sound like a good deal? No?

      Well that is EXACTLY what you have done when you sold your ass to Apple INC as they and ONLY THEY get to say what YOU can do with THEIR device. And make no mistake it IS their device, you don't have shit to say about it, they can pull any app you paid for, cut off support, oh and make sure that only THEIR programs get top shelf like Safari.

      But if you want Big Mommie to wipe your nose while they smack your hand (and take your wallet) you go right ahead sparky, the rest of us like to actually own and control our devices.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    94. Re:Where's the outrage?! by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Unlocking the bootloader is a direct path to getting an su binary. But android's history is littered with linux exploits that have been automated to give you elevated privileges and install su. Without unlocking the bootloader first, or installing a different ROM.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    95. Re:Where's the outrage?! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Actually those are REALLY easy to spot and are easy to tell when compared to say somebody like me who is just opinionated. So allow old Hairy to explain in a few easy steps "How you too can spot the Shill"

      1.- Look at the account history, do they only post on articles by a single company? this used to be the easiest way to spot the shill but the corps got wise to it and started having their shills do more AC posting. yet another reason to ban AC posts I say.

      2.- A shill account will have nearly every post be "on message" and be either pumping up the target of the shilling or nailing that company's rivals. For an example if a poster ONLY writes glowing posts for company X and shits on company Y? Probably a shill.

      3.- The easiest "tell" of the shill, the language. Shills get "talking points" from the corps that they need to incorporate to get paid and since those points are written by marketing? Total buzzword bingo. You'll see words like "synergy" and phrases like "user experience" and "positive flow". Basically the kind of shit you'd hear in some mid level PHB board meeting, which is frankly unlike anyone who isn't in marketing would talk.

      So there ya go, with these 3 simple tells you too can play "Spot the Shill" and get close to 90% accuracy. Why not 100%? Because its damned hard sometimes to tell the difference between a shill and a rabid fanboy, but usually the fanboy will get their panties twisted enough and put enough passion in the post to spot them over a shill who is merely making a living. For an example look up the /. articles on MacDefender and MacGuardian and ther you will see posters arguing up and down they "don't count" because they don't meet some technical BS criteria for a "virus". Now THOSE are fanboys as a shill would try to change the subject, the fanboy will keep right on digging the hole they are sticking themselves in.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    96. Re:Where's the outrage?! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Is it really software? Or firmware? When do you make the distinction?

      We have been spoilt for a long time by the ability to install what we want on a PC. There's the BIOS which will take care of starting up the computer and then an operating system which is user installable. In any case it's practically impossible to break a computer by installing an operating system to the point where it can't be recovered by simply starting the install of another system.

      However historically things that did break the computer were also not covered by warranty. BIOS updates, voided warranties unless they were done by the manufacturer. Overclocking voided warranties. Pretty much every piece of software that could directly damage hardware voided warranties. Phones are no different.

      The problem with the phone is there's no simple system like that. The bootloader is often overwritten in the flashing process. Many cases result in bricked or unusable devices. A lot of the failsafes are built into the software too with reports of certain versions of OSes breaking WiFi hardware, overdriving speakers etc. Above all the first review posted on Slashdot of Cyanogen's loader had the real problem, it didn't work for the reviewer and he ended up having to put a lot of effort into recovering a working phone, and most critically when it doesn't work there's no way to back out again. There's no way to simply install the factory OS.

      So is this software in the traditional sense? More importantly why should the manufacturer be liable for you installing something on your phone that could not possibly be part of their test case? The only way around this is to go down the computer path and provide a system with a bootloader and a disc full of drivers.

    97. Re:Where's the outrage?! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And I agree with this. Anything that allows a hardware fault through access to the system that can cause it to go outside the normal operating parameters *should* be a warranty violation.

      Now we could make the distinction between providing the ability to do x vs having full root access to the device, but the reality is root access on an Android device opens up a myriad of different ways to kill the hardware. Some intentional like the ability to overclock the processor, and some unintentional like a radio program on the Galaxy S which used some fancy direct hardware access to mess with the speaker volume (if you had root) which after a botched update caused a lot of phones to burn out their speaker. This feature didn't work without root.

      Any action on my computer capable of damaging the hardware is a warranty violation too, such as using the overclocking feature in my video card driver. Why should the manufacturer be liable for something completely out of their control? One could argue that there should be failsafes, but key to the discussion is that there ARE failsafes... in software.... which can be bypassed by root.

    98. Re:Where's the outrage?! by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      which leaves you vulnerable because Android doesn't have the sense of white listing specific sources nor can you filter out specific permissions. It's an all or nothing mess which has largely proven not to work well.

    99. Re: Where's the outrage?! by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      Emphasis mine:

      "Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0."

      Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.

      How exactly did you do that from a stock iPhone 4S?

      I'm really curious.

      If it was more than just deleting the app using the phone's built in method and then trashing the backup of the app from iTunes then I'm *really* interested.

      Whether we define a virus as something you can trivially delete is an exercise for the reader.

      Nice goalpost-shifting.

    100. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit about the warranty?

    101. Re:Where's the outrage?! by msauve · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      "In such cases" refers to "RUNNING ANY OPERATING SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE APPROVED VERSIONS."

      An you've obviously never read the MMWA. It doesn't say what you think it says.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    102. Re:Where's the outrage?! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If this were Apple removing an app, everyone would be complaining about the walled garden!

      You see, if Apple removes an app I cant install it from an external source.

      Google is free to determine what they do and do not keep in their store. The difference between Android and IOS is that only on Android am I free to go elsewhere if I dont like it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    103. Re: Where's the outrage?! by geirlk · · Score: 1

      To me, "The Killer App" would be the Wireless Analyzer app. It's basically the one single tool that free me from running around with a laptop all day, everyday, across several locations using bus for transport.

      In that regard, iOS not having anything similar is an absolute dealbreaker.

    104. Re: Where's the outrage?! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      "Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0."

      Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.

      Nice selective emphasis.

    105. Re:Where's the outrage?! by geirlk · · Score: 1

      It's basically the difference of picking up the brick from the street or buying it from Wal-Mart before you throw it through the window. Some likes the convienience of Wal-Mart, others understand that any odd brick will do the trick.

      Written from a not-yet-converted stock Galaxy S3. Was actually hoping to install CM this weekend through Play Store. Now I have to use the slightly less convenient option.

    106. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      google is just shoveling shit... the reason is not because cyanogenmod's installation may violate a device's warranty terms.. nor was verizon or any carrier or manufacturer pressuring google to remove the product.

      cyanogenmod is now a business, and google sees it, and what its product can do, as a potential threat to google's own mobile OS business model -- and they had to take action before further traction was gained by cyanogenmod in the marketplace. google asked nicely and got compliance.. but i am sure that they would've pulled it regardless of cyanogenmod's response.

    107. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Aighearach · · Score: 1
    108. Re: Where's the outrage?! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Someone who bricks their phone.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    109. Re: Where's the outrage?! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "If it was more than just deleting the app using the phone's built in method and then trashing the backup of the app from iTunes then I'm *really* interested."

      Notify Apple of hidden malware in an app, take iPhone to store, get re-imaged. Apple pulls the app from their store and from your iTunes.

      "Whether we define a virus as something you can trivially delete is an exercise for the reader."

      We have a concise definition for virus with regards to computers. Don't try to add one that makes zero sense.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    110. Re:Where's the outrage?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You can freeze some of it, but can you really freeze all of it? How do you know?

      How do you know that there's nothing hiding in the background of your CM install? Did you build it from source?

      since the OS image is closed, there can easily be services running in the background that aren't disableable by the user.

      Install android terminal, run ps. You can see if processes are running. Or enable developer options, and use adb. The user can see that in fact freezing processes works. At some point you have to trust the OS. If you can't do that, get another OS.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    111. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How do you know that there's nothing hiding in the background of your CM install? Did you build it from source?

      Well if nothing else, I trust the guys at CM and other such open-source projects (like DD-WRT) a LOT more than I trust any manufacturer or telecom carrier. The latter have been proven to load their phones with shitware and spyware; the former have not. Moreover, the mfgrs and carriers have strong financial incentives to load their devices with shitware; the CM guys have a strong disincentive, since as soon as someone finds out they did (by analyzing network traffic) and publicizes this, their reputation is toast.

      At some point you have to trust the OS.

      You don't know how the OS was altered by the mfgrs and carriers; they have the source, and can build in any back doors and spyware they want. They've already made it so you can't uninstall any of their pre-loaded shitware.

      If you can't do that, get another OS.

      Yes, that's why lots of people are trying out CM. It's not like there's any alternatives from the large mfgrs or carriers anyway; they're all going to be loaded with shitware and spyware.

    112. Re:Where's the outrage?! by Wokan · · Score: 1

      How am I supposed to be outraged when CM doesn't bother supporting my Android 4.x device? I'm not going to buy a several hundred dollar phone just so I can turn around and void the warranty on it. If I'm going to experiment with an unsupported OS, it will be because my carrier is never going to bother updating my phone OS again.

    113. Re:Where's the outrage?! by adolf · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      This, again?

      Reading it:

      They say "We strongly recommend you don't these things [list of things]. It might break stuff. And you know, IF it breaks stuff, we're not going to fix it."

      But what it DOES NOT say is "hey, idiot: if you put cyanogenmod on your phone, your warranty is GONE."

    114. Re:Where's the outrage?! by msauve · · Score: 1

      *meh*

      Really, if you can't read and parse English, you shouldn't be trying to interpret it.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    115. Re:Where's the outrage?! by peacefool · · Score: 1

      Everyone can still install the app from the official CM web-site OR start thinking about switching to some competing app market. With Apple, you will come back to use the same app store, whatever outrage impulse you had. I see some difference here...

    116. Re:Where's the outrage?! by adolf · · Score: 1

      Ok, smart guy: Show me the line that says that poking the software automatically voids the warranty.

      Otherwise, get the fuck off of my lawn.

    117. Re:Where's the outrage?! by msauve · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you'll have to learn to read first.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    118. Re:Where's the outrage?! by adolf · · Score: 1

      Ok.

      So what I gather from this discourse is that you're a pushover, and believe everything that you hear. Also that you've never heard of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975. And that you are at least as illiterate as you accuse me of being.

      If you want to go through life thinking that the mere act of installing software onto hardware automatically and irrevocably voids any warranty on that hardware, without even any statement from the warranter that this is actually the case, then you've chosen your own path.

      Good luck! (And get off my fucking lawn.)

    119. Re:Where's the outrage?! by msauve · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot if you think the MMWA prohibits anything of this sort. A car manufacturer can void your warranty if you hang fuzzy dice off the mirror, as long as they make the terms clear. A cell phone manufacturer can void your warranty for using a case, if they want to. You've ignored the verbatim text which has already been quoted. You continue to demonstrate an ignorance of the English language.

      Meh. You're not worth any more of my time.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    120. Re:Where's the outrage?! by adolf · · Score: 1

      No. The MMWA requires the manufacturer to prove, on an individual basis, that the fuzzy dice caused the problem.

      You're an idiot. I'm sorry that you choose not to enjoy as many rights as you actually have.

      Enjoy your fellow sheep.

  2. Voluntarily? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This doesn't' seem all that voluntary to me. My reaction was yeah sure you go ahead and remove it, why should we do you any favors?

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Voluntarily? by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it sounds more like "resigning" before you get fired.

    2. Re:Voluntarily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They should have let Google remove it and then Google would get flamed for the decision more.

    3. Re:Voluntarily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking more like "donating" the entire contents of your wallet to that nice friendly criminal you're facing.

    4. Re:Voluntarily? by mike260 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps making Google look bad isn't their #1 goal. Righteous indignation is cool and all but they're a business.

    5. Re:Voluntarily? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yeah, should have forced it on them, nothing to gain except "goodwill" from google and frankly I don't see them working with that (it's not goodwill to get asked to have it removed in the first place).

      also, since when does google ask for that anyways? afaik they just remove it normally, doing it this way is abnormal.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Voluntarily? by robmv · · Score: 1

      Because they aren't violating the current Terms of Service (TOS), but probably will. I expect and update to the Google Play TOS soon. I think it is better to ask for it to be removed instead of not giving any info or giving vague ones (Apple style) of why it is removed.

    7. Re:Voluntarily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what i thought too. How nice of them to ask if they'll remove it or cry and remove it. In this case very much fuck you google. Especially since it's not actually in violation of their Terms of Service. Fuck you google, Fuck you.

    8. Re:Voluntarily? by somersault · · Score: 2

      It's pretty hilarious that you'd get so worked up over it, when it was Google that created and open sourced Android, which makes it easier for projects like Cyanogen Mod to exist in the first place.

      Google are still allowing it to be installed - they're probably just trying to play nice with the phone service providers by doing this.

      It would be pretty stupid if one of the apps in your app store requires you to root your device to get any functionality at all. There are some Play Store apps out there where some functionality won't work without root, but I'm not sure if there are any such high profile projects that entirely depend on it.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Voluntarily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Righteous indignation is cool and all but they're a business.

      Could you please explain that in more detail? Because I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how CyanogenMod counts as a business.

    10. Re:Voluntarily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Righteous indignation is cool and all but they're a business.

      Could you please explain that in more detail? Because I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how CyanogenMod counts as a business.

      I think this explains it

    11. Re:Voluntarily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:Voluntarily? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Well, that is how things work I guess. Apple bought Siri, which was funded by DARPA, etc. I didn't actually know that though, thanks. I'd never heard of Android before Google made it mainstream.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:Voluntarily? by petman · · Score: 2

      Google bought a company named Android Inc., but at the time the Android OS was still in early development - in fact, it was not even announced yet at the time. So the GP was essentially correct - it was Google that made Android what it is and made it open source.

    14. Re:Voluntarily? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am because it is the begining of the end and their own rules do not allow them kick it out. Change the rules then, fine, but it's still bullshit.

      I have an android phone, but man is it hard to find software that do not require ridicilous permissions and there's no way to control those permission individually. Either they get some control to the crap or they do not pretend to control it. No updates to that phone either, so i think i'll just go back to idiot phones, which work as phones.

  3. Article was corrected by jbmartin6 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Note from the article "Removed reference to Google stating the app was not in violation of TOS – this was a mischaracterization of Google’s statement."

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Article was corrected by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      So why was it pulled then? Just because Google wanted it to be gone? Or maybe because CM was trying to get shipped on devices?

      Cyanogen Mod Goes Commercial To Make "Available On Everything, To Everyone"
      http://slashdot.org/story/13/09/18/1626237/cyanogen-mod-goes-commercial-to-make-available-on-everything-to-everyone

      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:Article was corrected by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Well presumably if they removed that statement because it was a mischaracterization of what Google said, then Google said it was in violation of the ToS.

      It sounds to me, to be honest, that this was a difficult decision from Google's point of view. I say this because the fact it voided the warranty was obvious from the beginning, and this is a high profile project that would have been closely watched by Google from the beginning. The fact they took several days to eject the app from the store suggests they didn't actually want to, but felt obliged to either because they were under pressure from other members of the OHA, or simply because they didn't want to set a difficult precedent.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Article was corrected by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      It sounds to me, to be honest, that this was a difficult decision from Google's point of view. I say this because the fact it voided the warranty was obvious from the beginning, and this is a high profile project that would have been closely watched by Google from the beginning. The fact they took several days to eject the app from the store suggests they didn't actually want to, but felt obliged to either because they were under pressure from other members of the OHA, or simply because they didn't want to set a difficult precedent.

      I think it's seen as Google is more and more afraid of losing control of Android and the whole reason of why they have Android to begin with. (Remember, Google was deathly afraid of Apple's iPhone OS back in the day - because they were dependent on Apple for mobile revenue. Android was seen as a way to ensure a stream of mobile ad revenue goes to Google).

      In fact, Google's biggest threat is Amazon who is having a lot of success with their Android OS.

      To combat this, Google has been closing off the source of a lot of Android applications, as well as enforcing the terms of OHA agreements and the like. A regular OHA Android with Google comes with a lot of apps that simply aren't in AOSP - either there's features missing (and the AOSP one is a bare bones version) or by integrating apps to use things that are Google-specific - e.g., forcing use of Google Services Framework. GSF is good in that it abstracts most of the Android APIs away so devs don't have to worry about supporting Gingerbread through Kit Kat, but it also has a nice side effect of tying those apps to Google Play store so devs won't try to submit to the Amazon App Store nor make the app available (easily) to the Kindle.

      Google's scared - they bought Android for the purpose of not being locked out of mobile advertising, and it's that very thing that's threatening them.

      I think the CM installer was difficult because what CM does may go against Google's best interest (i.e., ensuring you're seeing ads and all that).

    4. Re:Article was corrected by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2

      It's funny the way you characterize the removal at Google despite knowing nothing about what exactly happened internally. If this was Microsoft, Slashdot would immediately jump to the worst possible conclusion.

      --
      This space for rent.
    5. Re:Article was corrected by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A regular OHA Android with Google comes with a lot of apps that simply aren't in AOSP - either there's features missing (and the AOSP one is a bare bones version) or by integrating apps to use things that are Google-specific - e.g., forcing use of Google Services Framework. GSF is good in that it abstracts most of the Android APIs away so devs don't have to worry about supporting Gingerbread through Kit Kat, but it also has a nice side effect of tying those apps to Google Play store so devs won't try to submit to the Amazon App Store nor make the app available (easily) to the Kindle.

      It also invalidates your first point, about AOSP. AOSP can run gapps fine, because so much has been moved into play services.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Article was corrected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'encourages users to void their warranty' direct quote from the /. story.

      It makes me wonder how many other Apps fall under this lame excuse? I do know what this app (if you will) changes the OS over to CyanogenMod, but how many apps are malware hogs which would by there terms should void the warranty.

  4. Voiding Warranty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can it be considered voiding the warranty?

    It's like Dell saying that if you delete Windows, format your hard disk and install Linux, you void the warranty on your PC.

    1. Re:Voiding Warranty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Craputer manufacturers are doing that, actually.

    2. Re:Voiding Warranty? by qbast · · Score: 1

      Wipe bios, overwrite it with some random crap and see if your warranty is still valid.

    3. Re:Voiding Warranty? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 2

      Like it or not, mobile software is tightly-coupled to the hardware, and the warranty. I expect the manufacturers consider this more akin to wiping the firmware on your TV, microwave, or car.

    4. Re:Voiding Warranty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait; you don't see how installing something like an overclocking kernel could possibly damage the phone? There is this thing called Google - you can use it to see how that could, indeed, in certain cases, cause some damage to the hardware (generally from overheating or the like).

    5. Re:Voiding Warranty? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Actually companies like Dell will routinely deny warranty claims if you've done something like that. Read the fine print.

    6. Re:Voiding Warranty? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I expect the manufacturers consider this more akin to wiping the firmware on your TV, microwave, or car.

      ...None of which actually void your warranty unless the manufacturer can prove that that's the problem was caused by your modification (per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act).

      For example, if you hack your car's ECU for more horsepower, it's not going to void the warranty on the suspension.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Voiding Warranty? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Poor choice. That could void your warranty, as the extra horsepower would put more stress on the suspension.

  5. Reached out by Alioth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They didn't "reach out to Google", they contacted Google. Using "reached out to" in this context makes it sound like they are trying to make an emotional appeal to an elderly stroke patient. The perfectly usable verb "contact" is also one word instead of three.

    1. Re: Reached out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the idea was that they tried to work with Google in a positive way, rather than simply contacting them, which could have any number of connotations, both positive and negative.

    2. Re: Reached out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrongo. The phrase "reached out to" was used because it's become the trendy way to say "contact". It's showing up in all kinds of copy, news and otherwise, and it's revolting. It's PR speak at its worst and you're witnessing its universal adoption.

    3. Re: Reached out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me reach into you and ask what has the trendy saying "wrongo" substituted?

    4. Re:Reached out by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Good point. I just hope that your earnest heartfelt petition to the editors of Slashdot is heard and they change the summary ;-)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re: Reached out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kid, this use of "reached out to" pre-dates my birth, and therefore probably yours.
      You're falling victim to the recency illusion.

    6. Re: Reached out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using "reach out" in the sense of trying to transcend distrust or misunderstanding is very old.

      Using "reach out" to mean just "call" or "get ahold of", or sometimes something a lot closer to "bother", is new in the last few years. And it's quite common among MBAs and similar idiots... and very, very annoying.

      Which use is intended here is perhaps uncertain.

  6. Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If by 'encourage(s) users to void their warranty'" you mean "use the thing you paid for however you see fit in concordance with a thousand year history of English, Formal and natural law, then yeah, I guess you could say it voids your warranty.

    It's just amazing seeing, first Apple, and now Google, transform themselves into the modern IBM with their ever encroaching and desperate "lock in" policies. I guess it shouldn't be surprising. Seeing as the user is the product being sold, Google can't have their products (users vis a vie control of the user experience) just walking off the plantation, now can they?

    1. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Most people running CyanogenMod still run pretty much the same Google apps as those running stock, as far as I've ever seen. I don't think there's any alterior motives for this.

    2. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If by 'encourage(s) users to void their warranty'" you mean "use the thing you paid for however you see fit in concordance with a thousand year history of English, Formal and natural law, then yeah, I guess you could say it voids your warranty.

      Oh do fuck off. Warranties are limited in nature. It's got nothing to do with stopping you from doing what you want with your own property and everything to do with the fact that if you fuck up your own phone, it's not the manufacturer's problem to solve.

      Seeing as the user is the product being sold, Google can't have their products (users vis a vie control of the user experience) just walking off the plantation, now can they?

      Google deciding not to distribute an application is not akin to making you into their slave. Pointing out that a warranty might be voided if you do certain things is not akin to making you into their slave. All your analogies to "walking off the plantation" do is highlight that you have absolutely no sense of perspective on this matter.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    3. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or even ulterior ones.

    4. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Or anterior motives even. :o)

      The thing is, though, without all the bloatware that Google puts in "stock" Android, Google doesn't get all the user data they normally would. Especially now that they've forced everybody into Google+.

    5. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      If by 'encourage(s) users to void their warranty'" you mean "use the thing you paid for however you see fit in concordance with a thousand year history of English, Formal and natural law, then yeah, I guess you could say it voids your warranty.

      That's something of an overstatement. Can you show us a thousand year history of products coming with warranties and a body of law that deals with it?

      Companies that SELL stuff normally take a position that if you modify it in such a way that it no longer performs the purpose for which they designed it to be used, that's your responsiblity and has nothing to do with their warranty whether written or implied.

      It's just amazing seeing, first Apple, and now Google, transform themselves into the modern IBM with their ever encroaching and desperate "lock in" policies.

      Apple has always been playing the lock in game. Try running any software written for your Apple computer -- any generation -- on a non-Apple machine. Doesn't fucking work, does it? And they've got proprietary file formats too.

      I guess it shouldn't be surprising. Seeing as the user is the product being sold, Google can't have their products (users vis a vie control of the user experience) just walking off the plantation, now can they?

      CM isn't walking off Google's plantation. Cyanogenmod is very very much stock Android, with a few added bells and whistles. And it's not walking off your mobile provider's plantation either, because it leaves your phone locked to your carrier without further modification. But it does let you uninstall the crapware that most phones come with from your carrier.

      I think their objection is that they want to avoid this situation:
      1. Joe User installs CM Installer from the Market.
      2. Joe User installs CyanogenMod on his phone.
      3. The CM version he manages to install is either wrong for his phone or in some other way doesn't work to his satisfaction.
      4. He lacks the expertise to reinstall his phone's stock firmware.
      5. According to Joe User, his phone is "broken."
      6. Joe takes his phone to the store or warranty service center of his carrier.
      7. Carrier or manufacturer absorbs the cost of either replacing or restoring Joe's phone to stock or
      8. They tell Joe to pound sand because he voided his warranty, permanently souring Joe on their service.
      9. Carrier or manufacturer sues Google over encouraging Joe and millions of other Joes like him to fuck up their phones, which is costing THEM money.

      This of course is a little modified in the case where Google is the manufacturer. In that case, it's a direct cost to Google of phones being returned to them for repair or replacement. They want no part of that.

      How realistic is it that CM will fuck up your phone? In my experience, plenty. My phone won't run any CM correctly past 10.1.2. 10.1.3 and subsequent versions break the battery charging and USB connectivity. I thought it was a hardware problem until I downgraded.

    6. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "All your analogies to "walking off the plantation" do is highlight that you have absolutely no sense of perspective on this matter. "

      WHOOSH

      GP was referring to the user data that "stock" Android collects for Google, as opposed to Cyanogenmod, which by itself collects none.

    7. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's a real Google lock in to provide *two* supported methods of installing non-Google approved apps (apk install and alternate 'stores'). It's a 'lock in' in the sense that a locked door with the key provided and sitting in the lock is a 'lock in'.

    8. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially now that they've forced everybody into Google+.

      I have yet to opt-in to Google+. Android still works.

    9. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by penix1 · · Score: 2

      Google deciding not to distribute an application is not akin to making you into their slave. Pointing out that a warranty might be voided if you do certain things is not akin to making you into their slave. All your analogies to "walking off the plantation" do is highlight that you have absolutely no sense of perspective on this matter.

      Several problems with your statement there...

      1. Google didn't just "point out" that this application may void your warranty. It was already pointed out in large red, bold letters on the play store for the application so no further action on Google's part would be "pointing it out".

      2. "Certain conditions" (whatever that means) ignores that in other conditions the application works just fine and has worked fine for thousands, even millions of users. If "certain conditions" was the deciding factor, then literally ALL the applications on the store could void your warranty in "certain conditions". Yet they aren't shutting down the store because of that fact.

      3. Although the master / slave imagery is a bit strong you are still sacrificing the freedom to do what you want with the device that you own at Google's will. Google has made itself the gatekeeper by implementing that store and by seeing itself as the total arbiter of what is the best interest of their users.

      4. Voiding of the warranty is only an issue where the warranty is in effect in the first place. Google is unilaterally deciding that ALL users, not just those covered by a warranty, should not be allowed access to this application. Although they own the store and have the right to do this, that doesn't make the decision correct.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    10. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      you are still sacrificing the freedom to do what you want with the device that you own at Google's will. Google has made itself the gatekeeper by implementing that store and by seeing itself as the total arbiter of what is the best interest of their users.

      Not even close.

      Look, I'm not sure why it needs repeating, but let's repeat it again. Just because iDevices are locked to the iTunes store does NOT mean Android devices are locked to the Google Play store.

      Calling Google the "gatekeeper" implies that it has absolute control over what you install on your unhacked device.

      That's, quite simply, bullshit. Google has no such control. Android is not tied to any one app store. Google's sole advantage is in having a default app store on most Android devices. It has no monopoly, and you are not required to use it.

      You can download APKs and install them directly. You can install the Amazon App Store and install apps through there. There are many other independent app stores you can install on your device.

      The slavery comparison isn't merely offensive and over the top, it's a point blank lie. Knock it off.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by penix1 · · Score: 1

      Which completely ignores not only the other points I made but the market dominance Google has and their influence on other companies. Assuming this application is even on other services, this move by Google will be copied by them in short order. Google also has dominance in the Android store market simply because of the fact that every Android device ships with the store by default much like every copy of Windows ships with Internet Explorer. And just like Internet Explorer, getting those other venues installed requires the double whammy of knowing it is on that other venue AND going through the hassle of installing that other venue.

      Although not as restrictive as that iDevice it is still restrictive.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    12. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "I have yet to opt-in to Google+. Android still works."

      It isn't just Android. They've been doing it with all their services. And if you use any of those services: maps, search, etc., you will either be bugged to join up, or you have an internal account ID with Google, whether you "signed up" or not. Believe it.

    13. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      There is so much MORE in stock Android that collects your data, in addition to Google Play.

      There is the media player. The dialer and contacts manager. Maps. Search. Etc.

      With Cyanogen, you can just run those things when you want to, or IF you want to... because there are lots of alternatives. I run search via my Firefox browser. For voice command I use Dragon. I use MX Player for media. And so on. No need for a single Google app except Play, which is really just a convenience.

    14. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Which completely ignores not only the other points I made but the market dominance Google has and their influence on other companies.

      No, it doesn't. It answers almost all your "points", it's just that particular line was the clearest elucidation of the underlying crap your post was based upon. And pouring on more crap by suggesting that Google's "influence" with other companies has any bearing on whether they allow you to install third party applications they don't personally wish to support in any way is adding insult to, well, insult.

      Point 1: It has no bearing on how strongly CyanogenMod advertises the possibility that their app might or might not void a warranty on whether it does, and whether Google should include software that does on a store that specifically exists as a way to ensure people can easily find apps that meet a particular standard. Google might have an obligation to relax those standards if people cannot use anyone but Google to obtain apps, but that's not the case, and further, there's little point in Google having a store if they don't enforce standards.

      Point 2: Leaving aside the fact that you've conflated "damaging a device" with "voiding a device's warranty", again, this has no bearing on any issue here, given Google has no obligation to relax standards if its standards do not prevent people from being able to distribute software that doesn't meet them. As they can. Because Google has no monopoly.

      Point 3: Already dealt with directly.

      Point 4: Google is not "unilaterally deciding for all users" anything. Again, Google has no obligation to relax its standards if its standards do not prevent people from being able to distribute software that doesn't meet them. As they can. Because Google has no monopoly.

      There's plenty to criticize about recent Google management of Android from a pro-freedom point of view, in particular Google's decision to encourage developers to rely upon Google Play Services (an API, and no, you don't have to use the Google Play store if you want to distribute an app that uses the Google Play Services API, so don't even go there) to avoid fragmentation, when the API is proprietary and available only to OHA members.

      But Google has an absolute right, more so than Apple, more so than Microsoft, to ban apps from its store. And while I'd hope it never decides to go the Apple path and ban apps from competitors due to largely arbitrary anti-competitive criteria, a basic test of whether an app fails a reasonable set of rules - for example, because an app is likely to cause many users to lose the warranty protection on their devices - isn't just reasonable, it's desirable. Enforcing standards means Google Play has some value, rather than simply an unregulated marketplace akin to a back-alley in a red light district.

      As for market dominance, at least stay on topic. We're talking about a free app. You don't need to get those from an app store. CyanogenMod just needs to add a link to the APK from its website. That's it. Does Google have market dominance for app stores for most Android devices? Sure. But let's complain about that when we see evidence they're abusing it. When they're using their dominance to actively prevent people from using things they don't like, not simply deciding not to support a particular product because of the potential of that product to hold Google liable for something not under Google's control, knowing that people who really want the app can get it and install it anyway.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    15. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I said the Play Suite, not Google Play, idiot.

      Maps is part of the Play Suite (do you seriously think it's part of "stock Android"?) The "Contacts Manager"/"Dialer" (that's a pretty shitty way of describing an entire collection of apps and interfaces) doesn't collect a damned thing unless the Play Suite is installed.

      The first thing pretty much everyone with CyanogenMod does is install the Play Suite (usually in an APK called "gapps" - originally because these were the "Google APPS for android".) This enables Google services, including Google Play, Google Maps, the ability to log in using your GMail address and sync your contacts, etc.

      Stock Android does not send any data to Google. That doesn't happen unless and until you install the Play Suite. Until you do that it's not a Google device and any data you send to Google will be because you did it intentionally. To the best of my knowledge, the only "app" in stock Android that defaults to a Google service is that Search bar thing. That's it.

    16. Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "I said the Play Suite, not Google Play, idiot."

      The industry calls those Google Apps (gapps), not "Play Suite", because most of them have nothing to do with Play. Moron.

  7. Topmost stupid internet names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. cyanomodgen

  8. How long before 'certified' devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before 'certified' devices only allow Play store installs. I say 2 years tops.

    1. Re:How long before 'certified' devices by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      AT&T started out that way (play store only, no side-loading), they eventually gave up on the idea.

  9. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Barny · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just unplug the router, fashion a tinfoil hat and wear it while crying yourself to sleep in a corner. Google is the internet, get used to it.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. FDroid, Yandex, Amazon, direct download... by coder111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are plenty of alternatives to the official Google App Store.

    I'm not sure if it's a good thing they removed it from the official store or not. If it was up to me I'd probably allow it with big red letters saying "THIS WILL VOID YOUR WARRANTY AND MIGHT BRICK YOUR PHONE". OTOH people installing stuff from official Google App Store don't expect these things to happen, so maybe it's a good thing for the masses that this app was removed... And tech-savy people will find ways to get Cyanogen installed anyway.

    --Coder

    1. Re:FDroid, Yandex, Amazon, direct download... by gwstuff · · Score: 1

      The issue here - and this is something we've verified experimentally as a dev studio - is that 90%+ of the people downloading apps don't read the text about it. They do look at the screenshots. Especially the first two, I guess the disclaimer could go there, but even then it's not guaranteed.

  12. Re:WHAT HAPPENED TO KDAWSON!? by crossmr · · Score: 0

    Kdawson has thankfully been gone for awhile now, unfortunately timothy picked up right where he left-off. I'm half convinced they are the same person.

  13. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yeah, just like the USA is the world. No, I'm not getting used to it. If all you use the Internet for is to like, give thumbs up and watch kitten clips, sure. I get it you don't want to block the anal probing.

  14. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    The solution to your problem lies on the foundations of it.

    i.e.: Ask yourself why you want to block all Google hosts and open your mind to a new solution to that same problem. One that while less evident may well be more feasible.

  15. http://f-droid.org by RandySC · · Score: 1

    http://f-droid.org/ is full of opensource goodies, and has a nice package manager.

    --
    Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
  16. Install manually? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Can everyone side-load these days or do some carriers still lock that down?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Install manually? by alostpacket · · Score: 1

      No US carriers lock down side-loading that I know of. It was only ATT in the very early days of Android AFAIK. ATT only had the policy for about 18 months before giving up.

      Dunno about other countries, but I have not heard anything about such lock downs.

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
  17. Encouraging? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1, Funny

    Go on... void your warranty. All the cool kids are doing it.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  18. What, What? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    They had an installer on the play store? Well I'd say that would have made things easier last time I installed, but it wasn't really all that difficult last time I installed it. On a Galaxy S3 it was just a matter of grabbing the CM image for the phone, grabbing a recovery image I could flash with odin, flashing the recovery image to the phone, booting to it and installing the CM image from the external SD card. The only tricky part was if the phone was allowed to reboot to the stock image, it'd rewrite the stock recovery without so much as an irritable warning message.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  19. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    This post really highlights what's wrong with the world today. Let me guess... You also don't care about being tracked or spied on? Because you do nothing wrong. So you don't have anything to fear. Right?

  20. And that android phone can be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that android phone can be used to steal government secrets and make you a traitor!

    So Google needs to remove this "Android" app from the phones, because that's even worse than merely voiding a warranty!

  21. I feel okay with this. by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The peripheral legal implications aside, and at the risk of sounding like a Google apologist, I really can't say I have any problem with this.

    The sort of people who want to install CM will still have absolutely no problem going to the website and doing it manually. This presents no barrier to them exercising their choice of how to use their hardware.

    On the flip side of that, having it in the Play store presents something of an outright danger to people who don't know any better (aka "the vast majority")... "Oh, a new version of Android? Hey, I have an Android, I should grab this!". Ten minutes later, their battery dies, or they get sick of watching the installer screen and interrupt it. Oops! Partial brick-time, and now Google (via Samsung/HTC/etc, via Verizon/Sprint/etc) gets to deal with thousands of self-inflicted warranty issues.

    Again, at the risk of sounding like an apologist, Google has made compromises that let power-users do whatever the hell they want, while providing 99% of the "walled garden" experience most users want.

    1. Re:I feel okay with this. by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      I agree, you do sound like a google apologist.

  22. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Android and have no Google accounts, none. I block google analytics on my router (dd-wrt). It is possible.

  23. Re:Google is a pile of shit by game+kid · · Score: 1

    i.e.: Ask yourself why you want to block all Google hosts and open your mind to a new solution to that same problem. One that while less evident may well be more feasible.

    I'm increasingly trying to find reasons not to block. Their G+ tracker icons and toolbar are now all over the place (even saw the toolbar on Liveleak, of all places, at one point). They've extended their Real Name harassment to anyone who logs on to GMail. (They've done it only once for me, for now, as opposed to the every-reload rain of creepy that sent me flying from YouTube, but a day or so before that incident I also had to unblock plus.google.com to even log in. My account was apparently not "upgraded" by that, but still...at least buy me dinner first.)

    "Pile of shit"? Not quite, but they're aiming for it and have already reached "damage to the internet".

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  24. read it again by Chirs · · Score: 1

    Techncially they only deny warranty coverage if the different operating system damaged the product, caused it to be unsafe, or caused it to malfunction.

  25. Void warranties? How? by kimvette · · Score: 1

    How can the act of simply installing software void a warranty?

    When you come down to it, today's smartphone is just a compact, pocket-size general purpose computer with a radio transceiver in it. I fail to see how anyone can legitimately claim that installing software on it (even changing an OS) can void the warranty - particularly such a computer that comes with GPL software which is designed by the very license for user customization. If there is a chance it will be bricked, then that's a manufacturing defect on part of the manufacturer since the bootloader ought to be bulletproof and have multiple failsafes built into it, much like many of today's motherboards have two or more BIOS/UEFI systems allowing for recovery even if the board would be otherwise "bricked" from a faulty firmware upgrade.

    I mean really - why the fuck should they care what software you install? I care about a warranty on the hardware - when it comes to software I couldn't give a fuck, since historically no software ever comes with a warranty in the first place.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Void warranties? How? by xombo · · Score: 1

      kimvette's comment so eloquently and thoroughly demonstrates why Google felt obligated to remove the app from their storefront.

    2. Re:Void warranties? How? by sadboyzz · · Score: 1

      today's smartphone is just a compact, pocket-size general purpose computer with a radio transceiver in it.

      Today's home routers are just small general purpose computers with a bunch of network ports.
      Today's "smart scales" are just small general purpose computers embedded in a scale.
      Today's smart TVs are just general purpose computers embedded inside a big TV.
      Today's treadmills are just general purpose computers, in a treadmill.
      Today's DVRs are just general purpose computers with an hdmi-in and an IR receiver.
      Today's PS4s and Xbox Ones are, well they are just general purpose computers really.

      I fail to see how anyone can legitimately claim that installing software on it (even changing an OS) can void the warranty

      They all do. If they don't, they'll have to at least double the price on most of these products.

  26. come on, get real by Chirs · · Score: 1

    If you reflash your computer BIOS with something random that you cooked up, do you think the manufacturer should be on the hook to fix it? You screwed it up, you're responsible.

    Embedded devices are *not standardized*. Alternate kernels could cause things to overheat, raise the voltage too high (or drop it too low), apply voltage to the wrong pins, etc. If you do this and damage your device, do you really think that the manufacturer should fix it for you?

    And conveniently enough, just booting an alternate OS *doesn't* void your warranty. It only does so if it actually causes damage.

  27. Brick by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Because a phone is not a PC, that's why.

    The bootloader of the phone lives on the same flash chip as the OS. For a moment let's just put aside the fact that recovering a phone from a bad flash using it's "download mode" is an arcane procedure involving special software that most people won't have. Beyond that, a failed flash of an OS can brick your phone in such a way that even the "download" mode of your phone does not work, and the only way to fix it is to crack open the phone and JTAG the memory directly.

    This is not something an average consumer has experience with. You don't want your mom trying to flash a new ROM on her phone.

    1. Re:Brick by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Because a phone is not a PC, that's why."

      That's funny, because mine sure as fuck plays games, edits documents, and lets me use things like Skype, AIM, and web browsers just like a fucking PC. I can even plug in a game controller and use that to play games instead of relying upon touch screen controls.

      Or did you forget PC = Personal Computer, which defines a smartphone almost to a T?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Brick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you installed a custom bios to your PC and/or overclocked, you void your warranty. GG

    3. Re:Brick by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      How about you argue my original points instead of going off on an irrelevant sidetrack?

      I could care less if your phone can run Skype or play games. What matters is it is possible for someone to make their phone 100% inoperable by trying to reinstall the OS. This is not true of a PC at all.

    4. Re:Brick by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      Yes it's possible to completely kill a phone by rooting/unlocking it, especially one that requires using an exploit to accomplish the unlock. It's called hard bricking a phone (as opposed to soft bricking, which is recoverable)

      Unlike a PC, where the bios lives on a chip and the OS lives on a hard drive, with a smart phone everything lives on the same chip, just at different addresses. If you manage to overwrite the wrong address, you could scramble the phones bios, rendering it non repairable (without replacing the main board).

      This was a bigger risk in the early days of Android, now days most manufacturers (notable exception is motorola) have made thier phones more hacker friendly, so it's a simple matter of connecting the phone to a pc and running a few safe commands.

    5. Re:Brick by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "What matters is it is possible for someone to make their phone 100% inoperable by trying to reinstall the OS. This is not true of a PC at all."

      I can see you've never tried installing XP on newer hardware that won't support it, let alone done any professional work in a repair capacity. If you had, you'd know your statement is rather false.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  28. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > fashion a tinfoil hat and wear it

    Not good enouh anymore! There are air gap infection methods that use sound waves into your ears now.!

    L2/.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  29. Side-install by phorm · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I'd except anyone who was planning to install CM to be a bit more knowledgeable than the average user anyhow, which means that they should know how to install stuff from a 3rd-party package rather than just through the app store.

    Put the package on an official site, it doesn't really need to be in the store.

  30. Better example. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't matter how secure a system is if the security method does more damage than the potential malware.

    See the new "fundamentally changed" United States of Amerika, and especially its TSA for an even better example.

  31. Why not make the app to do a download/install/run? by rklrkl · · Score: 1

    One thing to try to appease Google Play is to change the app, so it's a set of instructions/downloads as follows:

    * If Unknown Sources isn't ticked on, the first screen tells the user to go to Setttings/Security and tick on Unknown Sources (maybe that screen could be loaded by the app to make it even easier?).

    * Next, the app downloads the apk from the CM site and installs it.

    * Ask the user to uncheck Unknown Sources if they had to check it on in the first step.

    * Run the downloaded app (exiting the original app at the same time if possible).

    Would *this* violate any terms of service of Google Play (written down or otherwise)?

  32. No third-party curator by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even if it is irrelevant, stock Android provides only two choices: only APKs signed by the phone maker's preferred curator, or every APK from every source. There's no way to add a third party as a curator the way one can with, say, any Linux distribution using APT. If you turn on "Unknown sources" for Amazon Appstore or F-Droid, for instance, you add the ability for apps to pose as Amazon or F-Droid and present an "update" that's actually a trojan.

  33. IDEs, emulators, and by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    Are there examples of software that are available for Android but not for iOS.

    I can think of a few things Apple forbids under its guidelines:

    • Apps to develop apps, such as AIDE.
    • Wireless network analysis tools.
    • Video game console emulators that run ROMs that you dumped using a Kazzo (NES) or Retrode (Super NES and Genesis) or CD drive (PlayStation) or homebrew ROMs that hobbyists are still creating for these platforms.
    • Web browsers that aren't Safari wrappers with all the intentional limits of Safari, such as no uploads of media types other than pictures and videos and no WebGL and no getUserMedia. And yes, I mean "intentional limits": Apple has implemented WebGL on iOS but allows it only for iAds, not for web sites.
    1. Re:IDEs, emulators, and by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the list. So far I only miss the wireless network analysis tool.

    2. Re:IDEs, emulators, and by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, one of the main things I run on my Android tablet that I wouldn't be able to on an iPad is an Apple Newton emulator.

      I also use a PC emulator, both DOSbox and Bochs, to run the occasional program I don't have a good Android equivalent of.

    3. Re:IDEs, emulators, and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget torrent apps. I downloaded uTorrent and tested it by downloading a Knoppix ISO.

  34. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Can you please give some details on how you do that?

  35. since it 'encourages users to void their warranty' by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

    What I find offensive here is the dual standard being applied. There are plenty of apps on the poorly named "Play Store" that openly state that they require the user to Root the device. And others relating to Rooting or encouraging Rooting by offering more features if the device is Rooted. Why are not all of those considered to be encouraging the users to be voiding their warranties? This looks to me like this one application was selectively targeted and then a reason was fabricated that contradicts with many of the other thing that I see openly offered.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  36. Defiant by tepples · · Score: 1

    [Over the past decade] the readership [of Slashdot] has defiantly fallen

    I'm not sure what you meant by "defiant". What is defying what?

    1. Re:Defiant by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Definitely. Autocorrect from my phone.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
  37. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Jeng · · Score: 1
    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  38. Open? by dborod · · Score: 1

    Open wins again!

  39. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you could search for "list of Google domains" on the Internet. There a website which lets you do that!

    Or does anyone have a better suggestion?

    Firefox + NoScript + RequestPolicy

  40. Looks like a PC but doesn't boot like one by tepples · · Score: 1

    [My smartphone] plays games, edits documents, and lets me use things like Skype, AIM, and web browsers just like a [...] PC.

    It acts like a PC from the user's point of view, but the relevant difference here is that it doesn't boot like a PC. PCs have the BIOS and operating system stored on separate media, and they have a PCI bus that the operating system can scan for plug-and-play devices. Battery-powered ARM devices don't.*

    * Some pedant will probably chime in with some RISC OS laptop.

    1. Re:Looks like a PC but doesn't boot like one by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " PCs have the BIOS and operating system stored on separate media, and they have a PCI bus that the operating system can scan for plug-and-play devices. Battery-powered ARM devices don't.* "

      My (second) ZTE Score M500 says 'Hello, yes I do, but I don't use PCI, I just scan the USB or Bluetooth bus instead'

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  41. Also, they're posting "return to factory" images. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    Actually, that rule changed a few weeks ago: ...

    From the article:
      - They are also retroactively reinstating the warranties of people who already asked for an unlock code and had their warranty voided as a result.
      - They are posting "return to factory images". (Nice pun, that. They let you flash your phone back to the factory image, which you'll want to do before returning it to the factory for service.)

    I guess losing a touch more than a third of a billion dollars ($342 million) in one year CAN sometimes get executives to look at customer complaints and try to address them. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  42. It was on the Play store? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't even aware Cyanogen was on the Play store. Who the heck installs a ROM from the play store anyway? That's kind of silly. You download the ROM from the official website to your SD card and flash from recovery. Trying to install from within a running ROM is just asking for trouble.

    1. Re:It was on the Play store? by sir-gold · · Score: 2

      This is why I support removing CM installer from the play store.
      Not because rooting/unlocking voids warranties, but because installing from within the OS is a terrible idea and much more likely to (soft) brick the phone

      It's like trying to install a desktop OS without having a bootable cd/usb to fall back on.

  43. U mad Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO, maybe CM uninstalls / disables junks that CM team feels not required, which in some way hinders the ability to collect and profile?

    Even it the decision weren't Goog's alone, anyone making android phones (e.g. HTC, Samsung) would probably be compelled to request to have this "app" be removed as well, as it encourages removal of the the vendors own junkware/bloatware.

    1. Re:U mad Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... not just the phone vendors, but any of their "strategic partners" who have managed to get their software bundled with the stock rom.

  44. Void the warranty by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 1

    Really? Last I checked, this is a legal contract between the end-user and the phone manufacturer, not Google. Further, do all phone manufacturers void warranty on reflashing?

  45. That doesn't follow at all. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Note from the article "Removed reference to Google stating the app was not in violation of TOS â" this was a mischaracterization of Googleâ(TM)s statement."

    Well presumably if they removed that statement because it was a mischaracterization of what Google said, then Google said it was in violation of the ToS.

    That doesn't follow at all. You're engaging in "The Falacy of the Excluded Middle."

    There's an enormous difference between Google saying that installing the app isn't a TOS violation (thus committing themselves to supporting the phone) and claiming it is.

    For instance, they could be reserving the right to make the claim later, on a case-by-case basis depending on what was installed and/or how it was done. Or they could just be avoiding potential legal entanglements without extensive (and expensive) study and/or risk of litigation if their lawyers guessed wrong about how juries, judges, and regulatory agencies around the world might act.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  46. Re:Gay homo african AIDS SEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got BALLS OF STEEL!!!
     
    --Duke nukem

  47. Re:WHAT HAPPENED TO KDAWSON!? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

    Timothy doesn't bother me. Kdawson was awful though; that guy couldn't wipe his ass without hatching a conspiracy theory, and I did stop visiting slashdot for a while because of it. If I really wanted that, I would be a regular visitor at prisonplanet and listener of Alex Jones.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  48. Re:Gay homo african AIDS SEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brad Pitt is hot. Even I "wood" take homosex from this homo homosapiens ;)

  49. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Barny · · Score: 1

    Thank you! I can't believe so many people took my post seriously :3

    You could try some tinfoil ear-plugs?

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  50. Re:Google is a pile of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post characterized those who avoid Google as crazy, paranoid lunatics who can't cope with "the future," regardless of how you intended it to sound. It doesn't help that the events of the past year have proven a lot of crazy, paranoid lunatics 100% correct.