Prior to today, a community-developed fork of Google's open-source operating system could be installed by using an app from Google's own app store (which sometimes bricked the phone).
After today, a community-developed fork of Google's open-source operating system can be installed by downloading the installer from the CM website.
This somehow makes Google like 90's Microsoft?
How many operating systems or web browsers did Microsoft open-source?
How many forks of their software did Microsoft tolerate?
Calling Google "90's Microsoft" is like calling Obama a socialist: it shows an utter lack of perspective of what a real socialist looks like. (If you want to see a real socialist, read about Kshama Sawant who was just elected to the Seattle City Council and wants to collectivize Amazon.com and Boeing).
I wouldn't even bother responding to stuff like this, but it's getting upvoted on HN which is depressing.
So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty?
How does that make sense?
Is this people's expectation of Google, that if they don't give you whatever you want (at their own expense) then they are like 90s Microsoft?
Yes - but why don't you think what you said through a bit...
I flash my motherboard with a custom BIOS image I've hex-edited together.
Now, it won't boot correctly.
Yes, it's reversible - I can probably figure out a way to flash the original image back on.
However, the motherboard manufacturer is hardly going to tolerate me taking it back going, you need to fix this. That's hardly reasonable.
They're going to be...err...you did something stupid and unsupported. You fix it. They might give me advice, but the onus is certainly not on them.
Or say I flash my car's ECU to give me another 5 HP of output. Then my car stops starting up reliably. I can't exactly take it back to Honda and say, fix it. They'll be like, we sold you a working car - you did something out of spec, and overrode the ECU software - we aren't fixing it.
Yes, it's reversible - I can flash the right ECU image back on and it will start up correctly - but the onus isn't on them to hand hold me through that process.
Cheers, Victor
I have.
>I flash my motherboard with a custom BIOS image I've hex-edited together.
Congratulations.
>Now, it won't boot correctly.
woops
>Yes, it's reversible - I can probably figure out a way to flash the original image back on.
In most cases. It is possible to brick some hardware, but easily-brickable hardware is probably not something that OEM's should ship; that's just asking for trouble.
>However, the motherboard manufacturer is hardly going to tolerate me taking it back going, you need to fix this. That's hardly reasonable.
They might if they like selling things. AMD tolerated and even encouraged overclocking, finding that it won them more sales than problems that it may have created.
>They're going to be...err...you did something stupid and unsupported. You fix it. They might give me advice, but the onus is certainly not on them.
Well, yes and no. They ought to either publish a spec that would tell you how to fix it, or let you ship it to them and re-flash it for a reasonable fee. People do send motherboards back all the time claiming that it "broke" or was "DOA" when they may know full well what broke it. Right or wrong, a company will have to do a postmortem engineering analysis on a part to prove it was tampered with, and they will need to be able to prove tampering if they don't want bad press from consumers. I'm not saying that makes lying right, but that is probably the reality for a lot of cases.
>Or say I flash my car's ECU to give me another 5 HP of output. Then my car stops starting up reliably.
>I can't exactly take it back to Honda and say, fix it. They'll be like, we sold you a working car - you did something out of spec, and overrode the ECU software - we aren't fixing it.
Again, the consumer can say "I didn't do anything, I'll sue you. I'll tell the local TV station." Now the dealer has to risk a lawsuit, bad press, in which case they will need a professional engineering analysis; or the Dealer could just re-flash the firmware. I'm not sure how it is handled these days, but the customer can create a lot of doubt about the origin of the problem, and make it difficult for the dealer/carmaker to prove malfeasance on the customer's part.
>Yes, it's reversible - I can flash the right ECU image back on and it will start up correctly - but the onus isn't on them to hand hold me through that process.
If markets worked the way I was taught they ought to, then customers would never tolerate that. Then you could expect to take your car to the dealer, and for a reasonable fee they'd re-flash your ECU firmware or whatever, and then try to sell you some new floor-mats and an oil change. Unfortunately in many cases you're right; you can expect to be treated like a chump at the car dealership's service dep't. which is why "Right to Repair" laws are important. I think it is interesting now that Toyota has tried the "Cosmic Ray Defense" for exploding firmware how a car-maker (especially Toyota) might react to a customer with a bricked ECU who offers no explanation as to why his ECU is bricked.
>Cheers, Victor
Cheers indeed, and happy Thanksgiving, unless you are Native American, in which case, my apologies. (If you're not in the US be thankful Columbus didn't find your country instead.)
Because software shouldn't brick the phone. It should ALWAYS be possible to download and restore the pre-installed operating system and factory settings (it definitely was on my last android phone - an xperia - which I 'bricked' multiple times trying to get cyanogen to work).
This really does remind me of the bundle/don't bundle internet explorer wars. "Oh, but you can just download netscape if you really want it!"
It's not software, it's a damn operating system.
Yes
>How does that make sense?
It makes sense the same way that installing Linux and/or wiping Windows doesn't void a PCs warranty.
Should users be allowed to install any programs including keylogging malware on Windows computers? Shouldn't Microsoft protect them by locking it down so that only approved apps from their app store can be installed? Like mobile app stores?
If PCs in the 1980's could be destroyed simply by improperly installing an OS, you bet manufacturers would void warranty for software misuse.
NOTE: no sarcasm here, I'm genuinely interested on why android phones can be software bricked and can't have a boot loader like anything else.
Have you ever actually tried getting warranty support for a Windows PC you installed Linux on? The last time I tried even just mentioning the word "Linux" was enough to get many support departments to drop you like a hot potato. In my experience, the minimum bar for support is keeping around a Windows partition and any diagnostic/recovery partitions they have, whether or not you want them otherwise. If you're unlucky, you'll have to blow away your Linux install even if it's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Modded Windows PCs are easier to deal with because you can usually erase all traces of Linux/other OSes if you need to for support (no eFuses and similar nonsense), but the on-the-ground support policies aren't all that different from modded phones.
You need to take another look at user grade warranties for PCs. Many of them are void if the users installs a different OS. Especially if they break the HPA partition where the OS reinstall stuff is kept.
Say there's a Toro site for add-ins (flashing lights or whatever, I have no idea how you'd mod a mower...lol).
And some of those add-ins will void your mower, and potentially break your machine. It's certainly within their prerogative to say "We won't host them. But you can just go to <some website> and get it from them instead". In fact, doesn't Google make a search engine? Surely, it's not hard to just Google for Cyanogenmod and find their hompage? In fact, if you can't do that, then probably shouldn't be flashing a ROM...
If you had a board and wanted to start porting android to it today everything you need to make it happen is there and out with permissive licensing too. What more to do you want out of a software project?
You should have stopped there. Removing Cyanogenmod may not be it, but the rest of your post just opens it up for pointing out how Google is just like Microsoft.
> How many operating systems or web browsers did Microsoft open-source?
Red herring. Selling software and Operating Systems is Microsoft's core business, and you expect them to give it away? How much software that is the core of Google's business has Google given away? I see nothing of the search, advertising and distributed systems infrastructure being open sourced.
> How many forks of their software did Microsoft tolerate?
Hah, why don't we ask Acer that? The moment there's any leverage at all, Google will use it to squash forks. Conversely, has Microsoft ever tried to stop WINE or ReactOS? (Honest question, actually, I don't know.)
Now let's ask some more relevant questions:
1. How many times has Google been investigated and fined by the FTC and DOJ for illegal business practices?
2. How many times has Google been investigated by US and EU government agencies for privacy breaches?
3. How many times has Google been investigated for anti-competitive behavior in the US and the EU?
4. How many times has Google been accused (and sued) by smaller companies for unfair business practices?
5. How many times has Google been accused of intentionally providing poor support for a competitor's product?
6. How many times has Google been sued for infringing somebody else's IP?
7. Has Google been sued by Sun for "hijacking" Java?
8. Has Microsoft been made to pay damages for abusing standards-essential patents?
9. Has Microsoft been sued for colluding in anti-poaching agreements?
Some things Google has escaped (e.g. antitrust in the US), and some don't apply to Microsoft (abusing FRAND patents, anti-poaching collusion, illegal pharma ads), but most apply to both: investigations, settlements and fines in the US and EU for anticompetitive conduct, privacy breaches and illegal business practices; accusations of crippling competitors' products (Netscape etc. for Microsoft, competing service providers like Yelp, YouTube/Maps on Windows Phone for Google); accusations of stealing IP and unfair business practices (e.g. Apple's UI lawsuit and i4i for Microsoft, Author's Guild and SkyHook for Google); and so on.
Anecdotally, having been privy to some negotiations with Google in two separate companies, they very much throw their weight around.
> I wouldn't even bother responding to stuff like this, but it's getting upvoted on HN which is depressing.
As much as you'd not like to admit it as an employee -- and it may not be apparent to the rank and file from inside -- there are very clear parallels in how both companies behave. Google is certainly throwing their weight around these days, which is precisely why Microsoft was hated in the 90s.
Not really. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with "throwing your weight around," as you put it. For example, that's exactly what IBM was doing when they decimated SCO's absurd lawsuit.
Microsoft was hated because they aggressively pushed out competitors in dishonest ways, because they intentionally made it difficult to interoperate with their software through proprietary protocols and file formats, and because they attacked open source.
Some of your questions directly illustrate why "throwing your weight around" can be a good thing. Did Sun/Oracle accuse Google of "stealing" Java? Yes, but do you really want to live in a world where people can copyright APIs, thereby giving creators of popular APIs a large amount of control over everyone else? I surely don't (and I say this as someone who has dedicated literally years of my life into designing APIs) but Oracle and Microsoft would like that world.
I don't "expect" Microsoft to give away anything, but the fact that their business model depends on tightly controlling it makes them an inherently less open source-friendly company than Google.
To me that sounds a lot like "throwing their weight around" :-) As my post hoped to show, Google simply does it in different ways.
Well... if you believe Yelp, the SkyHook lawsuit and various antitrust complaints in the US and EU, "pushing out competitors in dishonest ways" is something Google is doing as well. And we all know how interoperable YouTube is with Windows Phone devices. And we saw how Google pressured OEMs into not supporting competing software (cf SkyHook, Acer).
So maybe not that different after all.
> Some of your questions directly illustrate why "throwing your weight around" can be a good thing.
No doubt Microsoft supporters will say the same thing about Microsoft's antics :-)
> Did Sun/Oracle accuse Google of "stealing" Java? Yes, but do you really want to live in a world where people can copyright APIs, thereby giving creators of popular APIs a large amount of control over everyone else?
Well, that's the purpose of IP, isn't it? If you create something popular that others find very useful, you deserve enough control to ensure proper compensation.
Otherwise you get what Google did to Sun. Sun sank millions in developing -- and billions in marketing -- Java to make it the dominant development language that it is and to create, out of nothing, a huge Java-savvy workforce. Google, to bring developers to their new platform, simply hijacked the ecosystem with nothing in return to Sun (now Oracle). Of course, Sun was very careless in its control of Java, but I think Google derived immense benefit from Sun's investment and is being extremely selfish in insisting on not respecting their rights.
> I surely don't (and I say this as someone who has dedicated literally years of my life into designing APIs) but Oracle and Microsoft would like that world.
I too have devoted years of my life designing APIs. I see little distinction in the creative effort that goes into either code or API, and I think both deserve equal protection.
In fact, personally, I see Google's world as worse than Oracle/Microsoft's world. Google's arguments in the Oracle case, taken to their logical conclusion, literally remove support for all copyright protection for software. Part of their argument is that APIs are not copyrightable because they're "functional". You know what else is functional? All the code in the world!
But then, Google's software remains locked away in data centers, away from the world's eyes, further protected by trade secret. Of course, it sees no value in other types of protection, only liabilities.
Me, I'd rather live in a world where valuable works cannot be taken without permission, especially since a lot of my work is exposed to the world. I've open sourced a lot of stuff too, but which of my work can be taken freely should always be my decision.
> I don't "expect" Microsoft to give away anything, but the fact that their business model depends on tightly controlling it makes them an inherently less open source-friendly company than Google.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with being a "less open source-friendly company" either.
No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy that you should avoid. Saying there is someone out there that is worse actually does nothing to address the original point.
Let me demonstrate, "You think Romney was conservative? Look at X tea party member that wants to own slaves." Do you see how that doesn't do anything to refute that Romney is conservative?
Perhaps, but this is not No True Scotsman.
No True Scotsman involves ignoring a counterexample to a general/universal claim.
For example, if I said "No Republican would vote to increase the deficit" and you countered by saying "actually, George W. Bush is a Republican and did in fact vote to increase the deficit," and I responded by saying, "well, no TRUE Republican would vote to increase the deficit," that would be No True Scotsman. Because I'm ignoring the fact that my broad, sweeping rule has a clear counterexample.
Those elements are not here in this case. I did not make a broad sweeping claim, instead I made a specific one (Obama is not a socialist). Ergo, it is not No True Scotsman.
> Let me demonstrate, "You think Romney was conservative? Look at X tea party member that wants to own slaves." Do you see how that doesn't do anything to refute that Romney is conservative?
"Liberal" and "conservative" describes a spectrum of political belief. If some tea party members have much more extreme views than Romney, then yes, it would demonstrate that Romney is less conservative than more extremely conservative people, but does not refute that he is right-of-center.
Oh, you say he isn't gay? No true homosexual Scotsman, it seems.
I am by no means still a fan of Google anymore, but credit has to be given where credit is due. They are still pulling the Microsoft schtick with Google+, but pulling CM isn't it in the slightest.
After reaching out to the Play team, their feedback was that though application itself is harmless, and not actually in violation of their Terms of Service,...
> Update: Removed reference to stating the app was not in violation of TOS – this was a mischaracterization of Google’s statement.
And you are right, it's not 90s-Microsoft, it's worse. I'd say it's reasonable to believe that vast majority of average users _never_ acquire software outside of the walled gardens of Mirosoft, Google, and Apple's app stores. There sure are benefits to these walled gardens, but the loss of freedom to corporate whim should be a very serious concern to everyone here.
That's a pretty basic task for any Android user. In fact, if you can't do that, then you probably have no business whatsoever installing a customer ROM.
Think of it as a basic intelligence test - you want to change your car's air filter - first step is to pop open the bonnet. If you can't do that, then you probably want to seriously consider, gee, should I just get a mechanic to do this?
This isn't like some test to pass before changing your oil. It's like requiring Ford's permission to install some fuzzy dice or a custom seat cover.
This is wrong.
Allowing this is built in to Android and it's a user togglable setting.
Verizon explicitly mentions sideloading and how to enable it:
http://mobile.vzw.com/LocationAgent
For Android devices, please confirm the device's Location Services
setting GPS and Verizon Location Services (if present) are set to
on and the device's Settings > Security > Unknown sources is checked.
To let your smartphone install apps that are not from
Google Play, tap Apps >Settings >Security & Screen Lock
and check Unknown sources
https://www.wireless.att.com/businesscenter/en_US/pdf/att-to... PDF Page 3:
In order to install these apps, you must ensure the 'Unknown Sources'
box is checked [...] Follow the instructions on your phone to enable
this feature and continue with AT&T Toggle installation.
Before you begin, you'll need to set your Android smartphone
to allow downloads from non-Market sources by selecting Unknown sources
in the Settings menu on your device.
http://eguides.sprint.com/support/eguides/htcone/content/htc...
Go to Settings > Security, and then select the Unknown sources
option to allow the download and installation of the tool
through your Web browser.
If you want to install apps from sources other than the Google
Play Store app, you must allow the installation of apps from
unknown sources first.I've honestly never seen it before, and I'm curious what manufacturer would actually do this nowadays.
[1] http://www.sleetherz.com/2011/05/att-users-now-you-can-insta...
There is a basic freedom lost when you allow yourself (the entire software market) to be subject to arbitrary corporate control especially when there is inadequate competition. It's clear that the terms are there only to serve the corporate interests and can change at any time if corporate interests change (hello G+ & YouTube)
Google doesn't want people to hold it liable for potential bricking of devices and took it off its store. What's the issue here?
There have been reports of users bricking their devices using the app (check the various support forums) they then try to swap them only to find out they have voided the warranty. Google is asking CyanogenMod to properly inform users about those risks.
Yet inevitably some on the comments here are cringe worthy
Now the reason being given for this removal is that it needs root(a lot of apps in the Play Store require root on Android, including ROM managers) and that it may brick a few devices, while ignoring the fact that for many who are stuck without security updates because of OEMs and carriers actually benefit from CM. Also wonder if this news was strategically timed before Thanksgiving when most people are on vacation traveling or busy with family.
This in no way is meant to prevent users from voiding their warranty, users can still side load the application or they can use more traditional ways of installing a custom ROM. I'm not sure why this decision is ruffling feathers. CyanogenMod has over a million installs to date, and is still thriving. The installer made things a little less complicated, but removing it from the Play Store won't really slow them down.
Why isn't it opt-in?
Mobile app analytics is huge, including by Google themselves.