Hacker News Reader

Comment by thezilch | Hacker News Reader

What freedoms were lost, exactly?

The freedom to install the software of your choosing? The freedom to actually own your own computer? Seriously?

No installation freedoms were lost; you can still install the software from the article or the secondary software installed by the article's software. No ownership freedoms were lost -- whatever that has to do with the article. Seriously.

You can install what you want -- maybe, if your carrier lets you or you find an exploit to root your non-Nexus phone -- on Android only. That's not the case with iPhones or Windows phones. And yes, this is worse (read: less freedom) than you got with a Windows machine in the 90s.

No, you can just sideload the ADB from outside the Android Market.

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?

Can you sideload anything on Windows or Apple phones? No. And on most carrier locked Android phones, you have to find an exploit to root your device before they let you sideload apps. So my point, that you are less free today with modern smartphones than you were with your PC under MS dominance in the 90s, stands.

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.

> And on most carrier locked Android phones, you have to find an exploit to root your device before they let you sideload apps.

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.

http://cache.vzw.com/multimedia/mim/mot_droid_razr_hd/razrHD... PDF Page 15:

    To let your smartphone install apps that are not from 
    Google Play, tap Apps  >Settings >Security & Screen Lock
     and check Unknown sources

Ditto AT&T:

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.

http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB410684&cv=820

    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.

Ditto Sprint:

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.

http://eguides.sprint.com/support/eguides/sprintvital/conten...

    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.

Fair enough. I've seen phones that disable the setting for allowing sideloaded apps. But fortunately it's not as prevalent as I thought.

Can you name any handset that do that?

I've honestly never seen it before, and I'm curious what manufacturer would actually do this nowadays.

My old Motorola Backflip, for one. Apparently AT&T removed the "unknown sources" setting from their phones prior to 2011[1]. I think my girlfriend's Samsung Exhilarate from a year or two ago is locked out of installing apps from unknown sources, but I should make sure before I go talking out of my ass again.

[1] http://www.sleetherz.com/2011/05/att-users-now-you-can-insta...

Besides the limitations spelled out in the TOS and the often reported issues with that, there are the invisible issues with developers not creating products which they know won't be approved.

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)

Being in <store> is now freedom? Should Google allow virus/spy/spamware to run free on their store? Libertas! How different is spamware from software that can brick one's device?

I don't see why such a big deal is being made of this. If users want it, they can install the app from the CM website. The Windows app is also being installed from their website.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com