Rooted Devices Blocked From Android Movie Market 321
tekgoblin writes "Google has released the Android Movie Market to Android tablets with Honeycomb 3.1 and in a few weeks for users with Froyo and Gingerbread. However Google has stipulated that the Android Movie Market will only be available to Android devices which are not rooted. So if you have a rooted Android device, don't expect to download anything from the Android Movie Market any time soon (or at least until a workaround is found)."
(Or at least until a workaround is found) (Score:5, Funny)
Which will be in about a week.
Re:(Or at least until a workaround is found) (Score:5, Interesting)
"Hello." -Carl Sagan
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Rats! (Score:2, Funny)
And I was totally planning on abandoning Netflix and BitTorrent in favor of yet another half-baked movie service!
3.99 are you out of your mind? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Before you go with the hacked versions, give the original apk a shot. Works on my Droid running CM7. Got it from xda-dev [xda-developers.com] before the hacked versions were posted (it's also posted in the thread with the hacked versions).
I did have it sort of lock up once (kept playing, but wouldn't react to any input and couldn't exit it), but that was the only issue and it's worked fine since.
Re:3.99 are you out of your mind? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:3.99 are you out of your mind? (Score:4, Informative)
For $3.99, it had better run on my 50" 1080p plasma TV.
Well, given quite a lot of the higher end phones come with HDMI now, there's a pretty good chance.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously required by the studios (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the idiots that are going to complain about Google reneging on their openness promises this was obviously required by the content owners. There is no way the studios will allow any of their precious precious movies to run on a device without them being absolutely certain that they know where the data goes from the network connection to the screen and they can ensure nobody copies it.
Believe me, I know. I run Linux and there is no way to get any of the legal paid for movie services on my computer. iTunes does not work, Netflix does not work, the Amazon thing does not work. (I can only get free services like Hulu).
So it is not Google's fault, Google has no choice about it. In fact they are to be commended on convincing the studios to release their movies on Android at all, because I am sure Android's open source scares the hell out of the studios.
Re:Obviously required by the studios (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is not to say that (Score:2)
Google's Android crew isn't *privately* rooting for you to find a way to do it anyway.
Just shut up about it already, so you don't get them in dutch with the studios, alright?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Correction:
Amazon's video streaming DOES work in Linux. It's flash-based. I've used it. Netflix does not work because it requires silverlight (and moonlight doesn't work).
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't understand what they think would be different. Look at TPB today. What would TPB look like if they dropped DRM? Oh, exactly the same because it's all there anyway. It's like they're all dreaming that some day they'll find a DRM that works and manage to secure every link. Or that "casual pirates" haven't heard of the Internet. You'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to have found it. Sigh...
Re:Obviously required by the studios (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically all the Android users who made fun of iOS users for ages are up in arms because Android continues to follow down the iOS path.
Its own path thanks (Score:3, Insightful)
I can still play rented movies on a jailbroken iPhone.
Apple does nothing that detects jailbroken phones. They don't care.
Plainly Google does.
That is different...
Re:Its own path thanks (Score:5, Informative)
. Jailbreakers released a fix.
Re:Obviously required by the studios (Score:4, Insightful)
For all the idiots that are going to complain about Google reneging on their openness promises this was obviously required by the content owners
How does that change the fact that Google is reneging on their promises?
We criticized Google for filtering search results in China, so why should we not be critical in this case?
Re:Obviously required by the studios (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way the studios will allow any of their precious precious movies to run on a device without them being absolutely certain that they know where the data goes from the network connection to the screen and they can ensure nobody copies it.
You know, high tech devices like DVD players for example.
Re:Obviously required by the studios (Score:4, Insightful)
Movie DVD encryption was broken twelve years ago but that doesn't mean they didn't try.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious other choice Google has is to NOT provide such service. That should be a realistic alternative.
Or will really everyone suddenly buy an iPhone at twice the price of an Android phone just to watch movies? So not having a movie market, would that really dent their competitiveness? That market is probably US-only anyway.
Or will Android users simply resort to piracy to get their movies on their phones instead? In which case the movie companies lose out more than when there would be an unrestricted
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that they've done the Cloud Music storage deal without licenses, I don't buy that line of reasoning.
As I said above, "open" is a state, (Score:3, Interesting)
not an intention. A door is not "open" when it is shut simply because you intend for it to be open. Shut is shut.
Android's source is open.
Android as a platform is nowhere near it.
Techies care a great deal about the former.
Everybody else only cares about the latter.
But techies have done a good job of convincing everyone else that open source code for Android OS == open platform in the marketplace, in practice.
And the debates rage here on Slashdot as if there was some question about whether Android, in realit
Re:Obviously required by the studios (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the idiots that are going to complain about Google reneging on their openness promises this was obviously required by the content owners.
Google then should not have made a promise it could not reasonably be expected to keep. No one forced them to. How does this make people who complain idiots exactly?
Re: (Score:3)
"So it is not Google's fault, Google has no choice about it."
Yeah right, Google could just say NO. But than Google would lose a few million bucks, but why do I care? They had a choice and they choose to just accept the terms of the movie studios. So why shouldn't I be pissed at Google and the movie studios?
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, people can play this content on their personal computers. I too am dissatisfied with Linux support, but anyone claiming they don't support Linux it's due to DRM is full of it. So long as they let a Windows PC (which gives the users administrative access) play back the content, the argument is moot.
Re:Obviously required by the studios (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the idiots that are going to complain about Google reneging on their openness promises this was obviously required by the content owners.
That's a load of crap.
Google could've said no. Just as they should've said no when it was china doing the asking.
"You want to sell movies in Android? Then sell to those who rooted the devices, too, because it has jack to do with piracy. You fight your piracy wars on your own turf and where it has considerably less collateral damage to legit user experience."
Having a spine when it counts is what not being evil is all about. Being not evil only when it's parallel to profit, is not being not evil.
I really need and use the features that rooting the device provides. Without it, I'd be a lot less inclined to even buy Androids. Denying that in the name of DRM is just ridiculous. And Google should've said so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Much like the DRM in iTunes was Apple's fault, but DRM on an Android device is to be commended.
It's hilarious watching the Android fanboi's falling over themselves to defend this. Their ability to spin their own reality would make an Apple fanboi proud...
Re:Obviously required by the studios (Score:4, Informative)
You're an idiot.. you can rent movies/use Netflix on a rooted or non-rooted Android. Just like you can use Netflix on a non-jail broken iPhone.
The issue is the studios and the license for the Movie Market. Just like Netflix doesn't *always* have the same movies.. they get added and removed as the license agreements with the studios change/expire, etc.
Just read this article here for a freakin idea of how the studios control the show:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/netflix-loses-dexter-californication_n_839577.html [huffingtonpost.com]
Wont take long to circumvent I'm sure. (Score:2)
Let the accusations begin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care *who* 'wants' it, Google is going along with it (and has been going along with it from even before movie studios were involved). The whole reality that one has to root/jailbreak your phone means the vendor is not being completely open.
Though less 'open', WebOS at least gives end users more sanctioned control over their device. You enter a well-documented code to enable the option to provide root shell and sideload applications. Too bad they have not seen success in the market, *but* I would
Re: (Score:2)
phone.lock();
movies.play();
end
It's OK (Score:3)
I don't have a rooted device, but I'm not going to access the Movie Market anyway (let me guess it's not available where I live; I haven't bothered to find out).
I see a movie about two or three times a year. When I do, we go to a movie house - big screen, plush seats, expectant crowd - and make an evening of it. Movie, then dinner somewhere, perhaps a beer or two someplace. Part of a full nights entertainment.
Watching a movie - made for big-screen immersion - by myself on a small screen, with distractions all around - no thanks, I'll rather do without.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I can't watch more than a few minutes of video on a tiny little screen like that. It's not fun. It's not entertaining. I've got a 47" HDTV to watch video entertainment on. They can keep their mobile video crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Superuser.apk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't they just search for the most common locations of the superuser app, or watch to see if a superuser app pid comes up? I mean it wouldn't be that hard to find out if the phone has been rooted
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering if they're going to be making a distinction between rooting and unlocking. My Nexus One was unlocked using just the stock tools that Google provided through HTC for that specific purpose. There's no reason why I can't just re-lock the phone and none but Google and myself is the wiser.
It seems to me that given that I didn't need to download any cracks that it shouldn't count against me. Owners of handsets that needed to be rooted in order to be unlocked may be in a different situation. Although
Little overlap (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, these are also the most tech savvy users who might actually be swayed by a convenient and cheap (and legal) movie downloading system. Certainly I used to buy music from a certain Russian site because the cost was worth the convenience of high quality music on demand.
Re: (Score:3)
That's actually a bit insulting. You're essentially saying people who root their phones because they don't like to be told by the corrupt phone companies what to do that they are criminals? movie pirates?
A lot of people pay for netflix out of convenience. It is a reasonably priced service. Why would someone who roots their phone not want it?
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, in Australia we can rent physical DVDs from $2.95 (new release) overnight. On Tuesdays, all DVDs are $1. If one of the intentions of these sort of stores is to make inroads against piracy, you'd have to be working at beating these price points, even with the convenience of home based downloads.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That is the stupidest thing I ever heard. I rooted my phone because it was still at 2.1, my phone company never pushed out the promised update (only shipped it on the same model if you bought a new phone), and it had so much stock crap in it, the phone was unusable. I rooted my phone to run CM7, not to get pirated software. I still buy apps from the Android Marketplace and from Amazon.
Just because you CAN run pirated apps on a rooted phone doesn't mean that that is the only reason people root their phones.
If you run a rooted phone (Score:2)
You are unlikely to care about Android Movie Market. So what's the problem?
I certainly don't care.
hmmm (Score:2)
Why (Score:2)
Why would you want to watch a movie on a small phone sized screen? (Shouldn't you be keeping an eye on the road?)
I can understand watching 'live' events (like news, weather and sport)on a mobile device, you can't be home at the time its happening. But a movie can wait until you are sitting down in comfort in front of a big (er) screen)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Rooted! (Score:2)
Err ... how can they tell? Insecurity? (Score:2)
Apart from the DRMesqueness, I would like to know how an app (suid root or not) could tell if the box had been rooted? AFAIK, when a [tiny]box is rooted, the root entry in /etc/passwd (or maybe /etc/shadow) is changed. That's it.
Sure, an app can read /etc/passwd (or suidr /etc/shadow) but how will it know what should be there? Is unrooted some fixed PW ??? This would be worth quite some cycles on a clustercracker.
Re: (Score:2)
Workaround? (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: "Are you a rooted phone?"
A: "Ummm, why no, I'm not. Yessir. Not a rooted phone at all."
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, what guarantee in general do you have posing that question to a phone? And I'd wager about the same if your server queries browsers about their useragent.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it's just that you may have to tailor the answer to the asker. Most apps you want to know the phone is rooted - that's the purpose of rooting the phone after all.
Still the workaround seems simple indeed: figure out the root detection method, and provide the correct answer to the app. Oh and simple does not necessarily mean easy :)
The start of the "trusted computing" era (Score:2, Insightful)
If you wish to consume licensed IP content on a device in your possession, then the content owners will determine what computing functions are allowed on such device. And the device remote kill-switch will make you think-twice about content misuse.
Re: (Score:2)
This Orwellian doublespeak makes my brain hurt. They only sound like features because marketing won't call it "Limited Application Execution" and "Digital Restrictions Management". Has anyone seen my tinfoil hat?
Re: (Score:2)
A google search for DRM:
The first result is the "digital rights management" page of Wikipedia, where in the introduction the proper term "digital restrictions management" appears already, in bold.
The second hit is WP's disambiguation page.
And the third link points to the "digital restrictions management" page from defectivebydesign.org.
So not all is lost :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is where one must ultimately make the decision, "Do I really want that content?"
The problem with the direction that the media is heading is it makes the underlying assumption that people need their content. Where in actuality, it is a want.
Re: (Score:3)
You just described what every videogame console has already been doing.
But unlike Android, consoles aren't sold on a platform of openness. If non-rooted Andoid gains adoption because of this, then Google will have done more to neuter Linux than Microsoft ever could.
Re:Android (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Android (Score:5, Insightful)
The device IS open. The store is not. Their store, their rules ( actually its most likely the MPAA's rules ). I don't see a problem with it really. No one is forcing you to use their stores.
Now when they start trying to prevent you from rooting, or limiting where you can connect to, THEN we have an issue. Until then, its just a choice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong. The OS is open. The devices aren't. The network isn't. The store isn't. Kinda marginalizes the value of an open OS.
Re:Android (Score:5, Insightful)
They are? Last I checked, you're free to use any third-party video store with Android. For that matter, you could run one of the half dozen BitTorrent clients [android.com] directly on the phone/tablet in question and get your media that way, if you're so inclined - they're not blocked from the Market (and even if they were, you can always install an .apk).
The way this is different from Apple is that there any third-party video store app would have to do transactions through Apple, and pay the 30% cut.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you not see the humour in the fact that one you've "rooted" your "open" phone, you're now locked out of the store run by the maker of that "open" phone?
I don't care how it's different from apple. I'm just pointing out that Android fanboys are just as blind to the idiocy relating to their chosen platform as the Apple fanboys.
Re:Android (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you not see the humour in the fact that one you've "rooted" your "open" phone, you're now locked out of the store run by the maker of that "open" phone?
I don't see the humor. I suppose I see the irony, but it doesn't in fact make the phone less open, any more than TiVo made Linux less open. The main difference is that it's not normal for Android phones to allow users to install their own OS without first finding an exploit of some sort, and that is a problem, but I don't see that being at all related to the video store -- the issue here is with the store, not the devices.
I'm just pointing out that Android fanboys are just as blind to the idiocy relating to their chosen platform as the Apple fanboys.
I suppose that's the definition of a fanboy, but I don't think you've shown that. Android as a whole is not idiotic, and neither is iOS. Aspects of them are idiotic, and I don't see anyone here "blind" to the problems with Android, though, curiously, there seem to be too many people who see the Apple App Store's closed nature as a good thing. Still, even among people who own iPhones, it seems like most people accept Apple's tyranny as something they can live with, not as something they'd prefer -- that is, they see it as a worthwhile exchange for a better experience overall.
And hey, AC, at least you've found a way to feel superior to fanboys of both [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What? They aren't blacklisting websites or even blocking third-party apps. They are simply blocking rooted phones from their movie store. Are you going to start complaining that WP7 and iOS phones can't connect to their store either?
Google is not saying what you can and cannot do with your phone. Google is saying what you can and cannot do with their movie marketplace, there's a BIG difference there. How dare Google dictate what people can and can't do with Google's movie store? You ever heard of the
Re: (Score:3)
There's no walled garden. There's a door that has a requirement to enter, but I can just walk around and use a different door to get to the same area.
Limiting access in a single instance != walled garden. I can still use the regular Android market, or the amazon market, or install applications individually on my own, or any number of other ways of getting applications. Sorry, but there's no walled garden here...
Re: (Score:3)
Why? I bought my phone in the store, not from my carrier. Samsung does not prevent me from using a custom ROM. There is nothing in my contract barring me from using any phone I want. You are spreading FUD.
Re: (Score:3)
Just goes to show how, yet again....piracy wins!
So true. They've just driven everyone with a rooted phone to seek alternate sources of entertainment. I don't know what all the options are, but one of the easiest, cheapest, and most popular is "for free from the internet".
Media companies are hilarious. I can download full-sized Blu-Ray rips from the protocol that shall remain nameless on the day of release, but they are protecting the crappy Android quality movie files from the most savvy users.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't Android supposed to be open?
The issue isn't with the OS, it's with the store which has to deal with the movie studios supplying the store.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with thier policy is that a rooted device can be programmed to say "I'm not rooted, honest!"
However they had to make this official policy in order to get the media conspiracy to licence their vids. I'm just waiting for the day someone breaks ranks and the most of DRM disappears overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
If we only have a platform that is open on the theoretical level - if users have to root a phone (something most people will never do) for it to be open, if making your phone open entails giving up other features, if manufacturers are actively hostile to people doing this and attempt to install countermeasures to rooting and sideloading...is this really "open"?
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing it means is that the word "open" has lost it's meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
I find the best choice is: none of the above.
Re: (Score:3)
If EITHER of the devices does what you want (i.e., in my case - make phone calls, check email, browse intarwebs and store contacts) then what is wrong with either choice?
To me, the phone is a tool just like a hammer or a screwdriver. I don't care whether or not the castings/tools are available for me to easily make my own screwdrivers or hammers, so long as the ones I can purchase do the job that I purchased them for with a minimum of fuss. My iPhone does that. I'm quite sure an android phone would do
Re: (Score:2)
- Must root to be able to use important features
like what?
Re: (Score:2)
Updating the OS. Particularly to a custom version.
That IS the banner feature of "open" Android, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
To what end? If the phone you purchased does what it says it can do on the box, then why is rooting it to run custom firmware an "important feature". Sure, it might be a desirable feature for a limited subset of users, but if it works as described/marketed, then I don't see how running custom unsupported firmware is an "important feature" other than for curiosity's sake.
Has any android handset been sold / had official marketing to say that "yes, you can run custom firmware"? If not, then don't be surp
Re:A fiasco in every way but one important one. (Score:5, Informative)
that isn't true. a major difference between jailbreaking and rooting is whether or not the vendor continues to provide you updates. A jailbroken iphone cannot be updated for security or for new features in the OS without possibly losing everything gained from jailbreaking. With jailbreaks, you end up with less functionality in some aspects and more in others and the things you lose can be very consequential.
On the other hand, a rooted android phone does not (generally) run that risk. There is now 1 example of a store you cannot access for now with a rooted android device.
as to your points about polish, your opinion is your opinion but don't turn an argument into a chance to market a device.
as to app count, if this research is reasonable,
http://asia.cnet.com/crave/study-android-to-overtake-ios-app-count-in-july-62208428.htm [cnet.com]
then android will have more apps soon (July). And if the graph is reasonably accurate, the pace of android submissions continues to accelerate.
and as we all have read, android marketshare is outstripping iOS by a large clip. Hell, when I got my phone 2 years ago the best choice was an iPhone but even I'm excited to switch from what I've seen. I think the last great benefit to apple is being on AT&T so you can check things online while on the phone, which can be really useful. But I haven't looked to see if other networks support that yet and it isn't an iPhone exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. You're confusing an unlocked iPhone with a jailbroken one. Updated versions of iOS on a given device are often jailbroken as they come out, or very shortly afterward. You don't lose any features at all when you jailbreak.
Re:A fiasco in every way but one important one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, talk about fanboyism right?
-Carrier lock. Apple has a much harder hand on walled gardens, what with not even allowing "competing" apps very often, and we all know how belowed AT&T is. Plus, Nexus One/S anyone? My S had no branding whatsoever, no carrier lock, I have built-in tethering and wifi tethering, I can choose any app that I could possibly like without any restriction.
-Android is at approximately 360,000 apps (Androlib [androlib.com]), while iOS is at roughly 390,000 (148Apps [148apps.biz]). If you think an 8% difference is enough to make Android the most evil thing ever, just go have fun with Jobs then. I like how 8% is "vast", though, especially considering this is just from the official Android Market.
-Less polished user interface? Matter of taste I guess. I find the Android interface very attractive, and fragmentation is a term invented by deniers. It was called "flexibility" before that. Flexibility to choose how your OS looks and feels, flexibility to pick your applications, launcher, theme, flexibility to do things that the developers might not initially have thought about, flexibility to make your device your device. The fact you can easily develop apps for Android without having to jump through hoops is a bonus, as somebody who knows how to code but has no interest in publishing apps.
-I don't exactly know why you're trying to make Apple look like the underdog here, because they clearly are not. Furthermore, I've never, ever seen anybody considering both rooting good and jailbreaking bad. Either they see both as acceptable/good, or they see both as bad. You're just cherry-picking negative reactions to jailbreaking and positive reactions to rooting to make your case, which is fallacious.
So I'll let you have fun with your conspiracy theories and go back to customizing my Nexus S. Ah, the possibilities!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A fiasco in every way but one important one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, sort of, but not quite. Android is open. Much like a BSD license, when one puts essentially no restrictions on something, one of the things that may happen is that people seek to close it up. You could argue that Google could have gone out of their way to prevent it, but you can hardly blame them for it happening. Ultimately this is just another version of the BSD vs. GPL debate. Whose freedom do you protect?
Further, there are phones and carriers that have these open versions of Android installed, meaning you DO have a choice. Vote with your wallet.
A movie store? Which at this point merely SAYS you're "locked out" of it? Do you not think that somebody will devise a way to have a rooted Android phone go "yeah man, I'm completely locked down! Movie please?" Assuming such is even necessary as we speak.
Fewer apps = less choice = less freedom eh?
Well, shit. I hope linux users read your post so that they can understand how their operating system has less freedom than Windows. Poor deluded souls!
Oh I get it. You're an Apple fanboi.
I didn't particularly agree with anything you had to say, but at least up until now they've been facts (albeit ones spun to your liking). Now you're annointing your opinion as fact. Not only that, you've wandered so far into the realm of ridiculous that I hope you have a fucking rope tied to your waist to find your way back. How good a UI is has to do with user freedom? Give me a break.
Fragmentation? It's an issue -- for developers. Even if we're going to let you have a pass on this one without spinning it in the opposite direction, you've already included it. It means less apps. Maybe.
All of these being simple flaws in your own argument, without making a counter-argument at all and taking most of your points without contention. Obviously it is quite easy to contend pretty much every single one of them if somebody who actually cares about the Android vs. iPhone pissing contest were so inclined.
In short: Your post is nothing but your opinions, presented as facts. In your terms, it is a fiasco in every way.
Re:A fiasco in every way but one important one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at how open they are:
Yes, let's.
- Carrier locked, walled garden, locked-down out of the box = Little choice, little freedom
This is a problem. However, if the existence of these is enough to make Android "not open", then neither is Linux, BSD, or, well, anything. There are TVs which run Linux, and they sure as hell don't let you install anything you want on them. Those TVs are not open, therefore Linux isn't? Is that what you're saying?
- Must root to be able to use important features
Which?
- When you root, you are locked out of other important features
Again, which? The only one we know of so far is a single video store, far from the only video store. If that's "important" to you, I feel sorry for how empty your life must be.
- Fewer apps than iOS = Less choice = less freedom
Even if this were true, and it's not clear it is, the apps which we do have are barely restricted even in the official market, and you don't have to buy them from the official market. In fact, unless the carrier locks the device, there's nothing stopping you from installing software from other sources, and you don't need root to do so.
See if this helps: Let's suppose that all iOS had was fart apps, while Android has both fart apps and actually useful apps. Would iOS then have "more freedom" because it had 10 billion fart apps, while Android only had a few hundred useful apps that were actually unique and useful?
And I haven't even addressed the massive amount of additional freedom developers get. I mean, let's start with, I don't need to buy a Mac to develop with. I can choose my own tools to a large degree, but even if I go with the official SDK, I can keep right on using my Linux laptop, or even a desktop that isn't an overpriced workstation. If I can make a programming language compile to Android, I can use it -- there has never even been the threat of limiting it to one or two languages as Apple tried to do.
- Less polished user interface,
WTF does a user interface have to do with freedom?
more fragmentation = less flexibility,
Problem: The PC is already "fragmented", and Linux itself even moreso. What "flexibility" have they lost? And what "flexibility" is missing from Android, for that matter?
smaller userbase,
First, dead wrong -- Android actually has a much larger userbase. I don't know where you get that from.
Second, WTF does this have to do with freedom? Again, from this, I'd have to conclude that Linux and OS X are both less free than Windows.
less choice = less freedom
But you haven't shown less choice.
iPhone jailbreak == Android root
I can buy a Nexus S which is literally designed to be rooted. Where can I buy an iPhone that Apple hasn't tried their damndest to prevent me from rooting, let alone given me the tools to do it right in the official SDK?
After jailbreak == You can use all iTunes, Apple App Store, AND alternate sources
After rooting, the only thing I can't use is one video store. I suppose that puts a jailbreak ahead if I were to grant your premise that it's equivalent to rooting my Android phone -- except I don't need to root it to use alternate sources, and alternate sources pretty much make this video store irrelevant.
Vastly more apps == Vastly more choice, freedom
Even if there were numerically more apps, you haven't shown that this is "choice" in any meaningful sense.
Less fragmentation, more polish == More ease of use...
That is the only one I can give you, since:
larger community,
Factually wrong.
Re:Crap. (Score:5, Informative)
Google's Android Market != Android
Google dictating the terms of the Android Market being limited does not mean that Android is closed any more than Amazon requiring you to have an Amazon account to use their market does.
Re: (Score:2)
This, plus I gather the MPAA has a part in twisting Google's arm to put certain stipulations in place to cover them. It just doesn't sound like the kind of thing Google would worry about themselves unless there were someone else involved in the deal. All speculation, of course. But food for thought.
Re: (Score:3)
And it's not the Android Market itself - it's the movie market...
I have no intention of watching a movie on my QVGA screen, so I'm sticking with Cyanogenmod.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I personally still can't see why I want to watch movies on a 4-inch screen. (or a screen I have to hold, for that matter (tablets))
it's for travel. If we could simply get some kind of legal acknowledgement that all format-shifting is legal then your tivo or whatever would transcode your favorite shows and load them onto your devices for you so you could watch 'em on the train to work or what have you.
Obviously this is useful for only a subset of the population... but it's significant
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix.. seeing how it runs on a lot of Bluray players, TV's, phones, etc that use Linux at the core....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the OS respond to such a request?
Because it is asked.
My understanding of Root on Android (BTW, I've rooted every Android phone I've had) is that user intervention is required when a program asks for root privileges (I.E. you have to tap "accept").
Not knowing how Google intends to detect rooted phones, I'd say logically, the easiest workaround is to tap "deny" when asked for super user access.
In the case of third party DRM requirements, Google tends to do the minimum amount possible to get it working, then not worry about people th
Re: (Score:2)