Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Samsung Blocks Ability To Remap Galaxy S8's Bixby Button (zdnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the where-there's-a-will-there's-a-way dept.

A Samsung representative confirmed today via Twitter that the company has blocked the ability for users to remap the Bixby hardware button on the Galaxy S8. For soon-to-be Galaxy S8 owners, the news will come as a disappointment, especially since the Bixby voice assistant in English has been delayed and will not be fully functional when units starting shipping later this week. ZDNet reports: XDA Developers first reported a Galaxy S8 firmware update blocked the ability to remap the button to perform a variety of tasks. Before, the button could even be remapped to launch Google Assistant. It's not clear if Samsung will ever support remapping the button. A representative for Samsung tweeted: "Can't say it will never happen, but we won't officially support."

78 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These things are computers; where is the PC of mobile computing?

    We need the freedom to program these things as we, the users, see fit. When will we finally have our freedom again?

    1. Re:where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When will we finally have our freedom again?

      When there's sufficient demand.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by toadlife · · Score: 1

      These things are computers; where is the PC of mobile computing?

      Nexus and Pixel phones.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    3. Re:where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When there's sufficient demand.

      Exactly that. I've had this talk with many friends and they simply cannot see any need to control their own devices. In fact they prefer not to, because then someone "takes care of it" and you don't need to think. As long as they can get to Facebook they are happy.

      There is little to no market demand for devices that are controlled by their users. The open PC was a historical accident. I do not think it will happen again.

    4. Re:where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >>"These things are computers; where is the PC of mobile computing?"

      >"Nexus and Pixel phones."

      I think it kinda died with the Nexus 5 if the comparison is openness AND great value. And now Nexus is completely gone, replaced with Pixel which is just as expensive as all the other phones out there.... although at least more open.

    5. Re: where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      We were well on our way towards getting it until Microsoft decided to kill off Windows Mobile for a replacement that was inferior to, and 2+ years behind, every other mobile platform at the time (instead of 5+ years ahead).

      If "Windows Phone" (a/k/a Danger Sidekick OS, ported to C# & dotnet compact framework) had never existed & Samsung's latest & greatest phone today ran Hypothetical Windows Mobile 14 instead, upgrading your old Hypothetical WinMo 12 device to WinMo 14 would be like upgrading an older PC or laptop to a newer version of Windows... some new driver .dll files copied from a newer phone (or generic reference drivers downloaded from Qualcomm or Nvidia), and you'd be set.

      WinMo 5 & 6 were ugly as sin out of the box, but the core OS itself was generally good, and had capabilities that were YEARS ahead of anything about to be released by Apple or Google. That's a big part of the reason why Microsoft makes about ~$14 in royalties for every new Android & Apple device sold... Android might have made the technology pretty, and Apple might have made it usable by nontechnical people, but MICROSOFT was the one who first delivered it as a working product to YEARS before an iPhone or Android was even a "thing".

      RIP Windows Mobile.

    6. Re:where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      This time around, I think the big players learned their lesson. Keep the stuff under wraps, freedom is not profitable, restrictions are. It's annoying.

      There is no reason we don't have decent GP mobile computer that's not tethered to a manufacturer and/or carrier. I mean no reason technologically. So the big players are probably actively quashing any attempts to bring something game changing to market, because they like the game exactly as it is.

      Meanwhile, Microsoft and Intel are slowly but surely linking our PC's to themselves so they can eventually start tightening the screws. Windows Cloud is a sneak peak of the world in Microsoft's long-dreamed of Walled Garden that Apple has enjoyed for so long.

      Someone else in this thread said 'When there's sufficient demand." but what I think they are missing, is the big players are actively taking steps to ensure that demand is insignificant. What they are doing is creating more demand for the restrictive products because most people just don't give a hoot, if it works they're happy.

      One piece of good news in it all.. the DIY SOC offerings are getting smaller and more powerful with every iteration. These seem like good GP computing platforms in a small package with no bullshit (they seem to mostly run Linux, totally open specs.) So there's that at least. Frankly all they're missing is the cellular modem and some form of portable small display.

    7. Re:where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      When we have passed the "Max Headroom" world we live in today.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    8. Re: where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      You never tried to develop for Windows Mobile.

      I tried, and I found that there were a lot of API calls that weren't implemented in the OS - for stuff that I needed. I had to get people to implement an alternative solution on the devices to solve the problem that had to be solved - added cost for the project just because Microsoft provided an empty shell of an OS.

      So Windows Mobile 6.x was mostly a flashy shell. The light was on but nobody was home in that platform. So the result was that it was hard to make anything useful on that platform. So no good apps means that it wasn't attractive on the market.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    9. Re: where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Actually, I developed software for Windows Mobile for work back around 2006-2008. ;-)

      One feature I really, really miss from dotnetCF -- it didn't force you to bend over backwards and write explicitly-asynchronous code when you were trying to implement some blatantly-linear activity (like "display a form on the screen", "submit its contents to a server and wait for the response", "deal with its response", "display the next form", "submit its contents to a server and wait for the response", and so on). You could literally just wrap it in a dotnetCF class that allowed you to write it as a faux single-threaded sequential task, and let dotnetCF itself do the UI thread-juggling for you. It wasn't the OPTIMAL way to write an app like that, but it made implementing a simple sequence of submitted forms absurdly easy to do. I wrote my first server-submitting dotnetCF app in about 3 hours (most of which was spent reading a few chapters of a book)... I think my first Android app that did something comparable took the better part of a week to write. It amazed me how complicated Android managed to make things that were absolutely TRIVIAL to do with Windows Mobile.

      The biggest single weakness of WinMo was the fact that it was LITERALLY impossible to develop a custom WinMo 5 or 6 "phone/dialer app" using dotnet compact framework... you could only do it in C, using (semi-)private APIs with minimal documentation and no example code to speak of. But from what I recall, that was actually one of the new features that were supposed to be in Windows Mobile 7.0 (before Microsoft abandoned it).

    10. Re:where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >Well 'great value' wasn't brought up, so you're just moving goalposts.

      Yes it was brought up when they said "the PC of mobile computing" which, to me, implied compatibility, standardization, and low price due to lots of competition.

    11. Re:where's the PC of Mobile Computing? by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Please elaborate. I have ability to unlock the bootloader on my Nexus 5x and install another ROM if I so choose. Short of that I can also root my existing ROM without needing an exploit and modify the stock system.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  2. Perhaps an S7? by mhkohne · · Score: 1

    I'm upgrading soon from an S5 - I wonder if I should get a 7 while I still can and then wait to see what they do next instead of getting the 8.

    --
    A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
    1. Re: Perhaps an S7? by youngone · · Score: 1

      I'm upgrading soon from an S5 - I wonder if I should get a 7 while I still can...

      I'm going to upgrade from an S4 and will get an S7 for something like $250* less than the current retail price in 6 weeks or so.

      why not try something like a OnePlus 3T?

      I won't buy a phone without a microsd card slot, but other than that they look like a really good phone at a good price. If they offer a model with external storage the next time I'm in the market, I will consider them.

      * Local money, not $US

    2. Re: Perhaps an S7? by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      why not try something like a OnePlus 3T?

      I won't buy a phone without a microsd card slot, but other than that they look like a really good phone at a good price. If they offer a model with external storage the next time I'm in the market, I will consider them.

      * Local money, not $US

      He suggested you look at "something like a OnePlus 3T" not just the 3T model or OnePlus . There are dozens of Android vendors and models with about every combination of specs and features one might want. It would serve you well to at least glance over whats out there instead of blindly picking up another Galaxy version

    3. Re: Perhaps an S7? by youngone · · Score: 1

      K, thanks.

    4. Re: Perhaps an S7? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      In modern horror movies, the zombies moan 'flagship' where they used to moan 'brains.'

    5. Re: Perhaps an S7? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I got a CAT S60 last time. Only bad thing on that device is the cameras, otherwise it seems to do what it promises. It do have an IR camera, but (un)fortunately the images are quite fuzzy. They are probably intentionally fuzzy to prevent military applications and revealing nudes.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re: Perhaps an S7? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Out of sheer curiosity, why is an SD card so important? What sort of data do you carry around on your phone that 64GB isn't enough.

      I carry around a 64GB usb drive on my keyring, it contains a bootable Linux image, PuTTy a keepass file and some ssh keys. The rest (the vast majority) is zeroes.

    7. Re: Perhaps an S7? by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Not only are most phones not 64GB, when that is an option it's a damn costly one. I'd rather use my cheap as dirt MicroSD than shell out an extra $300 for more built-in storage because some hipster retards at the handset maker felt it necessary to make the shell un-openable because of "muh industrial design".

  3. No reason.. by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No reason to ever buy a Galaxy S8, then.

    Fuck that shit.

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    1. Re:No reason.. by ITRambo · · Score: 3

      You get my non-existent mod point. People need to stay away from things that allow them to do what they want to do with it. How many people would actually bother to make the change? Why is Samsung scared of the possibility? It's annoying.

    2. Re:No reason.. by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >"Why is Samsung scared of the possibility? It's annoying."

      Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is almost irresistible for companies to gain the power to force their agenda on people and then NOT use that power. The only thing that keeps it in check is severe customer backlash (which rarely happens) and hacking (which the companies try to fight endlessly). Samsung is probably no worse than any other typical company. Google is certainly not immune to it- they have all kinds of artificial limitations in Android that favor their own agendas, too. Crap, even their web search page is full of it ("Oh, I see you are not using us as your default search engine." "Oh, I see you are not using Chrome..." dismiss it as much as you like, it will come right back next time or perhaps next week). As does Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, etc, etc.

    3. Re:No reason.. by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fuck that shit.

      Seconded. But this blunder is easy to undo, and Samsung has a history of responding correctly to criticism. In their own interest obviously, but just a little less arrogant than a couple of Silicon Valley operations I could mention. An example: correctly chose not to follow (courageously!) in Apple's footsteps re the stereo jack. Another example: the sdcard slot stayed. Well, we never got the removable battery back, but I understand why... just so long as it stays repairable as opposed to glued in so insanely that replacing the battery amounts to refurbishing. I will predict that, with widespread condemnation of this stupid, arrogant infringement of the right to use the thing you bought, Samsung will back down and do the right thing.

      Should they wisely see the light and do the right thing, I would say that on the whole Samsung will gain trust compared to this incident never having happened. On the other hand, if they stick to their guns on this, that that's enough to flip me. In that case, fuck that shit, there are lots of good Android phones out there, and I will pick one that does not wave an attractive feature in my face then take it away.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:No reason.. by merky1 · · Score: 1

      Future Samsung press release : The lagging S8 sales are obviously from the Note 7 debacle, and we need to reduce user functionality to only samsung approved software and functions. It's for your safety.

      --
      --WooooHoooo--
    5. Re:No reason.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No reason to ever buy a Galaxy S8, then.

      If your entire purchasing decision for a phone hangs on the ability to customise a single button then your priorities are somewhat skewed.

    6. Re:No reason.. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Why is Samsung scared of the possibility?

      One of the highlights of the computing world in the turn of the century was the emergence of the single experience. Apple showed that you can make stupid amounts of money by creating a single standardized and very tightly controlled experience without providing users any customisation options at all. The idea is you pick up any iPhone you can use it, you pick up any Mac you can use it.

      Microsoft and mobile phone vendors have been falling over themselves to replicate this model for many years, locking down the ability to customise, move around, or change the UI for the most part almost down to even locking down colour schemes. We see this in OSes, mobile phones, hardware, distribution platforms, software, web interfaces, etc.

      If I boycotted anything that wasn't following this trend I would only be buying RMS approved hardware running RMS approved software.

    7. Re:No reason.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      But this blunder is easy to undo, and Samsung has a history of responding correctly to criticism.

      We'll see how much of this criticism is real. I'll wager that people won't care less about this button. Heck I didn't even bother remapping the assistant from my previous phone. That didn't stop me using another assistant using one of the many ways that's more useful than having to push a button.

    8. Re:No reason.. by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Windows 10 has nearly realized it. The installation media is now, roughly speaking, a system image much like a ROM file for Andriod. That is, the image is applied and obliterates the previous one to achieve a simple install/upgrade mechanism that ensures settings and whatnot are forced to known good states upon upgrade.

      Observe how certain Windows 10 settings are obliterated after certain large updates such as Creators Edition. Have fun turning all the privacy options back on and redoing any anti-auto-update tricks again after updating.

      Which reminds me, with forced auto-updates, automatic restarts regardless of what the computer may be doing, and forced setting changes upon update, why, it's almost like it's Microsoft's computer rather than your own. This is entirely by design.

    9. Re:No reason.. by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Well, we never got the removable battery back, but I understand why... just so long as it stays repairable as opposed to glued in so insanely that replacing the battery amounts to refurbishing.

      What explanation is it that you've understood? It enables more fancy unibody design and exotic materials? Who the fuck cares about that?!

    10. Re:No reason.. by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      Totally agree.

      The trick is knowing this before you buy... something like this may be pretty obvious to geeks on a technology-oriented forum, but my guess is that the great majority of users won't really pay attention/ notice, and others won't notice till after the fact.

      Personally, I never use the voice search features (Siri, Cortana, whatever this one is) ... I think it's probably because I've been "into computers" for so long that my experiences with speech to text have been colored by years of high promise and low result... and so even though it's likely a lot better now, I'm too busy shouting for the kids to get off my lawn. :)

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    11. Re:No reason.. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      If you do not care about unibody design then feel free to drive one of those old cars that had frames and tended to kill you more. And if you can't see how that relates to handset design then just don't worry, be happy.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    12. Re:No reason.. by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Sure, car frames and phones are completely comparable.

      One is a transportation device which propels the occupants at high speed and the other an electronic device which propels user data at high speed to the data mongers in S.V. Obviously, a unibody design on your phone will protect the occupants from injury when its involved in a high speed collision.

      Oh wait, that's not right. The unibody design will prevent user servicing of things like batteries or replacing broken parts. But hey, at Apple has their "recycling" program so you can feel good about replacing an otherwise working device with whatever the new shiny is this month. Let's applaud Apple for saving the planet, one planned obsolescent device at a time!

  4. I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ...and their comment was certainly snarky; but...

    WHAT IS UP WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?!?

    Do you whine that you can't reprogram the Play and Stop buttons on your DVD Player?

    Do you whine that you can't make the Stop button on you microwave oven launch Spotify?

    Just because something has a microcontroller doesn't make it a general purpose computer.

    It's an EMBEDDED DEVICE, get the fuck over it.

    1. Re: I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem was they could reprogram it but the devs BLOCKED it just to be asses.

    2. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Is there some sort of rule that vendor hostility becomes more acceptable as devices become smaller?

      If the vendor specifically has to break the ability to remap a button; this fairly strongly implies that it was otherwise possible; and the only reason it is impossible now is because they don't want it to happen.

      People tend not to feel the same way about fixed-function buttons in weaker devices because the limitations are more architectural than deliberate(and, if only thanks to a couple of decades of convergent evolution, there is often a reasonably sane quasi-default layout).

    3. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you [complain] that you can't reprogram the Play and Stop buttons on your DVD Player?

      Why, yes I do. Next question.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      GP doesn't, because Apple does his thinking for him.

      Not only are they geniuses, they have proxy-geniuses located in retail outlets right near your home.

    5. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      At least pick realistic examples. The buttons on my DVD player (or Blu Ray) are probably on a good place. Besides I'd be using a remote control and almost never use them. I'd love a remote that I could move the buttons around or at least reassign them. There are remotes that have screens and you can do that but then you lose the tactile touch that lets you use the remote without taking your eyes off the screen.

      When it comes to assigning a button to a service that not everyone will use then it's a waste of space. Not everyone uses a voice assistant and those that do don't use the one that Samsung supplies. This is all about Samsung increasing the market share of their voice assistant and not about improving the usability of their phones. The managers and/or marketing people have taken over the decision making, especially since they used to offer the ability of being able to reassign the functionality of the button.

      And today's smartphones are general purpose computers.

    6. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They can do whatever they want with the product they build, if you don't like it then don't buy it.

      Small wonder there is a slow pileup of failed "open" smartphone endeavours, you're all just going to keep buying Samsung's products anyway, sure you'll whine that the newly introduced dedicated hardware button can't be reprogrammed but it's not that big of a deal and as that time passes Samsung gets further and further ahead and open/free alternatives become less and less of a possibility.

      Your freedoms are slowly eroded by your lack of conviction, proprietary corporate solutions will always rule over the catchup attempts by FOSS to mimic innovation because people just 'want it now!' and aren't willing to sacrifice time or convenience for freedom and nor is FOSS able to innovate and produce things that consumers want before corporate proprietary inventions. Admittedly it does require some level of pragmatism but even RMS is guilty of it, his crusade against Tivoization is a result of accepting Linux as the kernel for the GNU operating system licensed under GPLv2 without copyright assignment to the FSF instead of developing HURD, as a result of this Linux grew in popularity and GNU is effectively stuck with Linux (or the even less desirable -- from their idealistic standpoint -- BSD) and the ideals of its creator(s) and HURD is never going to be able to catch up to Linux. Just as the idea of a free and open PC was never able to catch up to the status quo of proprietary products.

      Innovation in bringing PC, smartphone, tablet, wearable, home automation, etc products to market has always come in the form of proprietary solutions from corporations, not from the FOSS community and this is evident in the "where is the FOSS alternative to..." and "can XYZ run Linux" questions that are so often posed.

    7. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Years ago I had a Motorola K1. It's a little flip phone that could (in theory) connect to the Internet via a dialup connection. Because Motorola wanted to push all that crappy dialup stuff, they put a whole button (on a crowded keypad) for getting onto the Internet. It was so absurdly slow to load the browser, much less dialling up that I found it easier to go online in other ways than to ever use it. Some of the other buttons could be remapped - but not that one. Shame, I could have used that real-estate to do something useful.

      I still have that phone - I use it as an alarm clock. I've remapped all the keys to make it as 'fat finger friendly' as possible, but even though it's in aircraft mode, and had a dead sim in it, one little press of that button still tries to load up the browser. It still annoys me some 10 years after they came out with that phone.

    8. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      Relax, buddy. We are breaking Samsung's balls because they are a bunch of assholes and because it is fun to stick to the man - especially when the man is a complete asshole.

    9. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Is there some sort of rule that vendor hostility becomes more acceptable as devices become smaller?

      If the vendor specifically has to break the ability to remap a button; this fairly strongly implies that it was otherwise possible; and the only reason it is impossible now is because they don't want it to happen.

      People tend not to feel the same way about fixed-function buttons in weaker devices because the limitations are more architectural than deliberate(and, if only thanks to a couple of decades of convergent evolution, there is often a reasonably sane quasi-default layout).

      That's a very weak excuse.

    10. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      thanks to a couple of decades of convergent evolution, there is often a reasonably sane quasi-default layout.

      Actually, the default for DVR is insane. There is no good reason to have a stop button right next to play/pause when you almost never want that. Just lose the stop button. I mean, what does it do that pause, eject and power don't already cover? Or at least, place it well away from the useful buttons.

      ...and we're immediately off-topic. Good job!

    11. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      GP doesn't, because Apple does his thinking for him.

      Not only are they geniuses, they have proxy-geniuses located in retail outlets right near your home.

      Bullshit. I'm and Embedded Developer. I know how easy it would be to allow User-Programmability for that (or any) Button.

      But it isn't always NECESSARY or even DESIRABLE. And that's the difference.

    12. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      I'd love a remote that I could move the buttons around or at least reassign them.

      Steve Wozniak invented one back in about 1985. Didn't sell very well, unfortunately.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And today's smartphones are general purpose computers.

      For VERY limited values of the Term "General Purpose".

      As I said; just because it has a Microprocessor/Microcontroller, DOESN'T make it a General Purpose Computer, sorry.

    13. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Years ago I had a Motorola K1. It's a little flip phone that could (in theory) connect to the Internet via a dialup connection. Because Motorola wanted to push all that crappy dialup stuff, they put a whole button (on a crowded keypad) for getting onto the Internet. It was so absurdly slow to load the browser, much less dialling up that I found it easier to go online in other ways than to ever use it. Some of the other buttons could be remapped - but not that one. Shame, I could have used that real-estate to do something useful.

      I still have that phone - I use it as an alarm clock. I've remapped all the keys to make it as 'fat finger friendly' as possible, but even though it's in aircraft mode, and had a dead sim in it, one little press of that button still tries to load up the browser. It still annoys me some 10 years after they came out with that phone.

      ...and your point being?

    14. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Relax, buddy. We are breaking Samsung's balls because they are a bunch of assholes and because it is fun to stick to the man - especially when the man is a complete asshole.

      Well, you'll have no argument from me, there, LOL!

    15. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Oh please, there isn't much that I can do on a computer that I can't do on a smartphone. I can run word processors, create spreadsheets, browse the web, play games, and much, much more. Smart phones are more limited in their connectivity to peripherals like printers and scanners though it's getting better. If my smart phone doesn't have the ability to do something then I can probably write an application to do that. In fact that's the definition of a general purpose computer.

    16. Re:I can't believe I'm defending Samsung... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I will have to call that a "whoosh".

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  5. Flash another ROM by FrankHaynes · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So just flash another ROM into the phone and do what you want with it. How hard is that?

    --
    slashdot: A failed experiment.
    1. Re:Flash another ROM by Xenx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering most people purchase their phones from a locked carrier, kinda hard.

    2. Re:Flash another ROM by toadlife · · Score: 2, Informative

      Samsung locks their bootloaders. In three years of ownership, I was never able to flash a custom ROM on my Galaxy S4, as no one was ever able to crack the bootloader. I just checked on the xda forums. Still not cracked to this day.

      So, to answer your question, it's very hard.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    3. Re:Flash another ROM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure where you checked on the XDA forums, but it obviously wasn't the dedicated sections for the Galaxy S4 which is filled with custom roms, for several different variants of the S4:

      https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s4

      My wife's S4 has run Cyanogenmod for years, and now runs LinageOS.

    4. Re: Flash another ROM by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I guess I should have been more specific. There are a few variants of the S4. I'm taking about the Verizon version. It originally shipped with an unlocked bootloader when it first came out. Samsung then updated it with a locked bootloader and it has never been cracked. By the time I got mine it had already been patched with the locked bootloader.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    5. Re: Flash another ROM by toadlife · · Score: 1

      You must not have the Verizon version then. See my reply above.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    6. Re: Flash another ROM by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Informative

      It might be a Verizon S4... VZW takes bootloader-locking 'evil' to creative new heights (lows?).

      Apparently, when the Note 4 came out, Verizon actually paid extra to Samsung for them to protect the Sprint version's bootloader the same way (Sprint itself was indifferent) just to make sure there wouldn't be another CDMA model with easy-to-unlock bootloader. From what I recall, the Verizon model of one of Samsung's earlier phones could be cracked by flashing a Sprint bootloader to the Verizon phone... it temporarily bricked the phone (or at least disabled the radio modem), but then you could unlock the easy-to-unlock Sprint-version bootloader & reflash it with a second bootloader that was basically a Sprint Android bootloader w/ripped Verizon radio modem firmware to give you a working, bootloader-unlocked Verizon phone. Verizon was determined to keep it from happening again.

    7. Re:Flash another ROM by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Especially with Samsung's later phones, even if it doesn't "legally" void the warranty, it blows the fuse bits in the "Knox' subsystems, and after that not only do they consider the warranty void; the phone will no longer complete some secure transactions like Samsung Pay, and a few other things get disabled IIRC.

      So, rooting one kind of cripples it from being a "normal" Samsung phone in that its trust chain is no longer intact even if the warranty thing isn't an issue.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    8. Re:Flash another ROM by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Yeah I totally wish I'd never given my S3 to my sister.

    9. Re: Flash another ROM by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was the Verizon variant. It initially shipped with an unlocked bootloader, but an early update locked it for good. When I got mine it was already locked.
      It was especially annoying to me because not only had I run custom ROMs, I had made my own ROMs with every one of my previous smartphones going back to my T-Mobile Wing running Windows Mobile 6.1.
      It was half a phone to me.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    10. Re: Flash another ROM by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Jesus, just the thought of using stock Samsung software sends shivers down my spine and a hot anger rise to my face. Fuck Samsung stock ROMs forever, I don't care how much "better" the apologists claim TouchWiz has gotten. It's complete and utter shit no matter what they do, it will always be utter shit, again, no matter what they do. They have produced a software product so bad that nothing short of complete annihilation will ever fix it.

      Repeat after me: FUCK SAMSUNG

  6. Screw the Corporate Overlords! by jediborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why i won't buy a locked-down smartphone running Android anymore. These are designed to obey their creators, not their masters, which should rightfully be the users.

    The quickening pace at which we are losing control over our own devices that we presumably own is frightening

    1. Re:Screw the Corporate Overlords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The quickening pace at which we are losing control over our own devices that we presumably own is frightening

      To you.

      To me, too.

      But not to most, which is why consumers continue to buy the devices no matter how much c ontrol over them they lose.

  7. Re:HULK REALLY MAD! by colinrichardday · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps that's why they disabled the Bixby button.

  8. Not hard at all by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if you can find a ROM that supports the S8's radio. WiFi, hardware accelerated graphics, GPS, etc, etc. Difficultly: The S8 Just launched.

    Phones aren't like windows PCs. You can't just go to Samsung's website and pull drivers down. For a flagship like the S8 you probably will be able to find a ROM before long though. Try that with a cheaper phone like an LG D415 or Blu R1 HD...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Re:Nope. Bought a Nexus years ago; disappointed. by exomondo · · Score: 1

    Not only has it always required binary blobs and Android, but Google routinely dragged its feet in releasing the latest updates to the Open Source "community".

    Requiring binary blobs is pretty much the status quo in the PC market too, there are very few fully open source PCs and of course there are also very few fully open source phones. That isn't to say many people haven't tried but it's hard to develop and fund something that nobody wants.

  10. Re: Nope. Bought a Nexus years ago; disappointed. by Miamicanes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference is, "desktop" Windows has historically given us compatibility with drivers written for older versions (sometimes, as old as NT4) -- imaging drivers being the one notable exception due to TWAIN's brain-dead pre-WDM architecture).

    In contrast, Linux only abstracts its ABI for *applications*, not the kernel itself. For example, suppose I have a 4.10.10 kernel compiled for AMD64 using gcc, and a loadable kernel module built for that kernel. Now, suppose I have an identical computer running a 4.10.10 AMD64 kernel compiled with Visual Studio (just to give another widely-used compiler as an example). In most cases, the .ko file built for the "gcc" kernel will die a horrible death on the "Visual Studio" kernel... or possibly, even another 4.10.10 kernel compiled with gcc using slightly different options.

    Basically, Linux doesn't even *try* to maintain driver binary compatibility, even within THE SAME KERNEL VERSION, while Windows bends over backwards to maintain driver compatibility more or less "forever". AFAIK, it's an ideological decision... Linux's developers *want* to punish users of binary drivers & inflict the maximum possible pain, totally ignoring the reality that end users (or at least, users of cell phones capable of doing LTE on American mobile phone networks) have ZERO influence on Qualcomm or Nvidia's licensing policies... ironically, empowering VENDORS over end users in the process.

    Riddle me this: why could Linux use binary wifi drivers built for fsck'ng WINDOWS (via NDISwrapper), but can't even maintain binary compatibility between two sequential kernel releases with only minor differences? It's insane. I don't even blame Linus... I blame Google. Google has some of the best Linux kernel experts on planet earth. They could EASILY add an abstraction layer that preserved binary .ko compatibility across at least a few releases (think: a stable, open-source thunking layer that Android-certified drivers were required to use instead of directly referencing kernel structures... new release of Android? Just compile a new thunking layer for old binary drivers to use instead.)

  11. Originally you could remap the button by bongey · · Score: 1

    Guess someone was able to remap the Bixby button on demo S8 unit in Best Buy. So it isn't that Samsung blocked it from the beginning , they explicitly removed right before launch which is d-bag move.

    http://www.androidauthority.co...

  12. Re:HULK REALLY MAD! by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

    Do they have approval from the Bixby family to use that designation?

    Also the Hulk reference to the Bixby button is closer than you may first guess, Bill Bixby was one actor in the TV series The Incredible Hulk.

    Push the Bixby button - get Lou Ferrigno to show up in green.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  13. Re:User Choice by davester666 · · Score: 1

    You are mistaken. The monthly payments are necessary in order to keep your legs nice and healthy. The corporations can't be held responsible if you stop paying and something just happens to occur...

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  14. walled garden! walled garden! ermagerhd!!!!!! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    /wankery

  15. Re: Nope. Bought a Nexus years ago; disappointed. by exomondo · · Score: 1

    I agree with you on the way the instability of the kernel ABI has an effect on binary drivers but even then there is a solution in the form of compiling a kernel module to load the binary driver - which is what nVidia (and others) do with their binary drivers. Of course doing that requires a compiler and kernel headers which Android may not provide and it might not be practical to do so.

    Google could enforce all of this through their licensing of Android in the way they enforce having their apps installed with Google Play Services...but they don't and it's in the interest of OEMs to get people to buy a new device rather than maintain older ones especially when the margins aren't particularly large.

    My point was only that the binary blob requirement has, for the most part, always been there whether it's Linux on the PC or Linux on the smartphone.

  16. Re: Nope. Bought a Nexus years ago; disappointed. by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    Another major annoyance: no Android phones -- not even NEXUS phones -- allow you to use the stock rom as a STARTING POINT for further modifications (by furnishing a build script with complete source and any binary blobs required to build the stock ROM). Instead, you're forced to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and reimplement the phone's functionality in its entirety (since AOSP itself usually has major stock features missing, even for a Nexus).

    For YEARS, I've been wanting to make a slightly-modified kernel that acts like you have the display orientation set to "manual", BUT reads the accelerometer and sets the orientation ONE TIME immediately after the user toggles the display off and on by pressing the power button twice. Basically, offering a compromise between "auto" and "manual" -- "semi-automatic". Toggling the power button twice is a quick & easy gesture, and IMHO setting the orientation immediately (but ONLY) after turning on the display is just common sense. It blows my mind that anyone at Google thinks the way auto-orientation has worked ever since we lost slide-out keyboards is actually acceptable. At the very least, Google's auto-orientation-setting routine should have enough logic to notice the user violently rotating the phone (and maybe listen for an angry "God DAMN it!") in the immediate aftermath of an auto-orientation change... especially when the phone's display is angled downwards (ie, the user is lying in bed holding the phone above his face).

    I'd also love to implement what I call "CrashCam Mode" -- Crash, as in "you see a jet about to crash (or some other newsworthy event, like a police officer beating the crap out of a 95 year old woman in a wheelchair) and only have a second or two before it'll be too late to film the million-dollar video for CNN". Basically, if the user presses the power button four+ times within 400ms, instantly disable autofocus, set focus it to infinity, and start capturing video at the maximum resolution and framerate while launching the camera app itself. For good measure, if the camera supported 120fps, you could have the odd frames be set to some exposure suitable for either indoor lighting or morning/late-afternoon daylight, then alternate the even frames between under-exposed and over-exposed (to ensure that you'd end up with at least 30fps of usable video if the lighting were really dark or bright).

    Oh... and I'd also remove the 911 emergency-dialer-without-unlock that seems to be the new norm, and make it impossible for the dialer screen to activate unless I've either fingerprint-unlocked the phone, or done a complex gesture like the Donut/Eclair/Froyo-era "deliberately slide the dot along a precise arc to unlock". Frankly, I'm more likely to die from an aneurysm in a moment of rage after hearing DTMF tones coming from my pocket (when the phone is SUPPOSED to be locked) than I am to die because some random onlooker couldn't use my phone (instead of their own) to call 911.

  17. Do we need first fire extinguisher? by Daleonis · · Score: 1

    We will see soon.

  18. Re:HULK REALLY MAD! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Oh, I was aware that Bill Bixby played David Banner on that show. Thanks for getting it.

  19. Re: Nope. Bought a Nexus years ago; disappointed. by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    > Seemed to contradict yourself there, son.

    Not really. There's no contradiction between, "they have the institutional knowledge and resources to do it" and "Google's management isn't interested in dedicating their best senior developers for several months to take leadership of Android's binary kernel-driver problem".

    The fact is, if it weren't for Android, Linux's device driver issues would be mostly irrelevant, because they'd meaningfully affect *maybe* a few thousand actual users. Google is the entire reason why roughly 97% of the Linux-running devices on earth actually RUN Linux, and it's high time they took responsibility and assumed leadership for fixing its driver and bootloading mess for the sake of Android's own users. Because god knows, there just about the only ones in a position to actually DO it. Gnu would rather have everyone rot in Tivo-ized hardware hell for all eternity than concede defeat to Qualcomm for the sake of empowering end users to make the best of a situation with only bad and worse alternatives.

    The biggest single problem with Android phones and tablets is the fact that, with the POSSIBLE exception of Intel-based Chinese devices capable of dual-booting Windows and Android, there's no direct equivalent to a PC BIOS (and even with dual-boot devices, it's iffy). On a PC, there are well-defined universal standards for making an operating system bootable from fixed and removable storage media that have evolved in compatible ways since the 1980s. Everyone agrees upon where the boot sector goes, where in RAM it should be loaded, and how it should be interpreted during the first moments after powering on the device. With Android devices, there's no such thing... every single vendor does it differently, and most of them take advantage of the opportunity to lock down the device and exercise control the owner's experience long after its purchase by the end user.

  20. Re: Nope. Bought a Nexus years ago; disappointed. by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    OK, fine. Try this: name one real phone available for purchase today by end users with the following features:

    * full-speed compatibility with at least one American phone network. This is a hard one, because thanks to bastardized American LTE, even our nominally-GSM carriers have become as de-facto proprietary as Sprint & Verizon.

    * 2GHz+ CPU, 3+ gigs of RAM, and 64+ gigs of fast flash. Bonus points for microSD, removable battery, and/or the ability to charge quickly.

    * 2160x1440 or better display.

    * Released with all the sourcecode, build scripts, and documentation necessary for knowledgeable end users to independently implement support for later releases of Android, even without the active blessing or cooperation of the vendor.

    The problem isn't that Linux EVER breaks binary compatibility... it's the fact that it routinely and casually breaks binary compatibility up, down, left, right, diagonally, and with "three snaps in 'Z' formation" with every single new build (let alone version).

    The fact is, end users are powerless to exert any kind of meaningful market influence or economic pressure over Qualcomm, because they have a de-facto monopoly over American LTE. If you want full-speed LTE on an American network, it's basically "Qualcomm or nothing". At least if we had some degree of meaningful binary kernel module compatibility, we could limp along with the original binary drivers when a new version of Android gets released and the phone's manufacturer has abandoned it because it's no longer a current model.

  21. Re:User Choice by Meski · · Score: 1

    Nice legs you have. You wouldn't want something bad to happen to them, right?