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)."
3.99 are you out of your mind? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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:Obviously required by the studios (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obviously required by the studios (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obviously required by the studios (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: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: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.
Re:Android (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 old "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?" Google is saying if you use a rooted phone, you don't get access to their marketplace. Google and/or the studios are a little worried that people with rooted phones might find a way to steal movies. If you don't agree with the paranoia, you shop elsewhere. It's similar to how some stores don't let kids in groups of more than 2 enter, or allow you to bring in a backpack or large bag, they don't want you shoplifting. Also similar to how certain businesses post signs about not allowing weapons (even though the constitution allows you to own those weapons). They aren't saying you can't own a gun, they're saying you can't take it into their store, THEIR property. Google doesn't want rooted phones in THEIR store, and that's their right. Trust me, keeping out a few teenagers (some of whom just might have been planning to steal stuff anyway) doesn't hurt a store's business, and the maybe 10% of rooted android devices out there won't be missed by Google either.
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?
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: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.
Workaround? (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: "Are you a rooted phone?"
A: "Ummm, why no, I'm not. Yessir. Not a rooted phone at all."
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:The start of the "trusted computing" era (Score:0, Insightful)
>> kicked off, ironically, by Google.
You just described what every videogame console has already been doing.
Re:The start of the "trusted computing" era (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:Android (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: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: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:Android (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: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: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: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: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: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.