Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Android Google

Over 50 Organizations Ask Google To Take a Stand Against Android Bloatware (zdnet.com) 98

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
In an open letter published yesterday, more than 50 organizations have asked Google to take action against Android smartphone vendors who ship devices with unremovable pre-installed apps, also known as bloatware. From a report: The letter, signed by 53 organizations, was addressed to Google CEO Sundar Pichai. Signees say Android bloatware has a detrimental effect on user privacy. They say many bloatware apps cannot be deleted and leave users exposed to having their data collected by unscrupulous phone vendors and app makers without their knowledge or consent. "These pre-installed apps can have privileged custom permissions that let them operate outside the Android security model," the open letter reads. "This means permissions can be defined by the app - including access to the microphone, camera and location - without triggering the standard Android security prompts. Users are therefore completely in the dark about these serious intrusions." The signees cite research from March 2018 that found that the Android ecosystem of pre-installed apps is a privacy and security mess. According to the research, 91% of all tested pre-installed apps weren't available on the official Google Play Store.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Over 50 Organizations Ask Google To Take a Stand Against Android Bloatware More

Over 50 Organizations Ask Google To Take a Stand Against Android Bloatware

Comments Filter:

  • Permanent bloatware / malware (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Friday January 10, 2020 @11:47AM (#59606746)
    For example, the Facebook app on my phone that I cannot remove and that tells me it is "disabled". If facebook thinks so highly of what it does, why do they feel they need to force it on people?

    • If Facebook thinks so highly of what it does, why do they feel they need to force it on people?

      Thinking highly of themselves and being evil are not mutually exclusive.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ftobin ( 48814 )

      Is there really a problem with apps being disabled? What you're describing is just how Android works with built-in apps: they're part of the image, whether they be FB or whatever contacts app your device maker's clock app.

      • }}} Is there really a problem with apps being disabled? {{{ - - - Yes. I do not want facebook on my phone. Period. I do not trust facebook at all.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ftobin ( 48814 )

          You don't have to trust FB, it's literally not running. Nothing within FB's control, only the OS's.

          • I do not know that facebook did not install something else that is still running. I would not put it past them. They have been less than forthcoming in the past. I do not want anything facebook on my phone. Why is such a simple request apparently so difficult?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ftobin ( 48814 )

              I do not want anything facebook on my phone. Why is such a simple request apparently so difficult?

              Apple would have you covered. Sounds like you made a poor choice of phone for your wants. No one promised you a rose garden. Your choices are largely the Android ecosystem or Apple.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Why did you buy a phone with Facebook that can't be removed if you have do little trust in them?

              There are plenty of good, affordable phones without Facebook. My brother picked up a used pixel 2 for 50 bucks and Google replaced it for a refurbished one under the battery warranty.

              • }}} --- Why did you buy a phone with Facebook that can't be removed if you have do little trust in them? --- {{ Nice try to turn this on to me. I'll go back to my original question - if facebook thinks their service is so good, why do they feel the need to force their app on phone users? It isn't about me, it is about facebook non-removable app.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Customers go in to s phone shop. "Does it have Facebook?"

                  There are two responses:

                  A) You can install it from the app store

                  B) Yes

                  Guess which one sells better.

              • }}} --- a phone with Facebook that can't be removed --- {{{ - - Why does facebook force their app onto phones of those who do not want it? There are plenty of people who want the app, why not let those who want it keep it, and those who do not want it remove it?
              • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Khyber ( 864651 )

            I want that extra fucking space back. I didn't pay full price for my phone to have a fucking thing on it I cannot remove.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ftobin ( 48814 )

              Did you ever check the size of the space it's using? It's not worth your breath asking for that 38KB back.

          • So why not use the limited storage for something else?

        • }}} Is there really a problem with apps being disabled? {{{ - - - Yes. I do not want facebook on my phone. Period. I do not trust facebook at all.

          Oh, you can't actually Delete built-in Apps?

          Funny. I can on my iPhone:

          https://support.apple.com/en-u... [apple.com]

          Farcebook isn't on the list because it isn't on the phone to begin with.

          • Sure, FaceBook isn't on there, but Apple has their own list of apps that can't be uninstalled. The Apple Health app is one such app.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

        The app may appear to be disabled, but it can have parts still active that you don't see when it's installed as bloatware because it has circumvented the security logic.

      • No you are describing how a business works. Android has the function to uninstall applications. The cell phone provider prevents you from performing a normal Android function. This is a business decision. You can fuck off now.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ftobin ( 48814 )

          If what you were saying was true, you wouldn't be able to disable FB at all (as there are some apps you can't disable).

    • Re:Permanent bloatware / malware (Score:5, Informative)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) on Friday January 10, 2020 @03:20PM (#59607660)

      Disabled (frozen) apps on Android are just as good as uninstalled. They don't run, don't respond to events, don't wake up the device, don't use RAM and don't communicate with anything.
      The only thing is that they take some storage space, but that's space that can't be reclaimed since it lives in the read-only system partition.

      In order to fully remove a system app, you need write access to the system partition. That is a problem because it breaks many security measures, and you still can't reclaim the storage space unless you re-partition your NAND.
      The ultimate solution is to use a custom ROM or create your own, but you lose OTA updates.

      That is to say, even though it is better not to have the bloat in the first place, disabling/freezing the app is the next best thing.

    • That Facebook app that I can't remove and appears to be disabled is the reason that I do not use financial/banking apps, and do not have even my name - much less other identity info, on my phone. I suppose pictures could be exploited somehow. I don't make app or any other purchases on the phone, either, and don't have a payment method at the Play Store..
  • I thought "bloatware" was software that took no steps to optimize, so a program that used to fit on a floppy is now a 20 gig download without a corresponding lift in features.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by olsmeister ( 1488789 )
      I thought it was the sweatpants I put on after getting back from the steakhouse.

    • My first android phone had 8g memory and it worked fine. My current on has 64g and that is just barely enough to hold the os and apps. Fortunately I have one that takes an SD card so I can affordably get more music and media on. Most phones now don't have this option, so it forces people to buy the larger 128g version of the phone that is significantly more expensive than a 64g SD card.

    • .Bloatware: What it is and how to get rid of it - - - Is your new Windows system laden with unnecessary -- or even harmful -- software? Here's a rundown of what to look for and how (or if) you can uninstall it. (https://www.computerworld.com/article/2966113/bloatware-what-it-is-and-how-to-get-rid-of-it.html)
    • Bad developed software is so big... Have you already installed software via apt/yum etc?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Livius ( 318358 )

      If the user never has the program do anything, then any space it is taking up is more than what's required.

  • It's been well known for a looong time that Android phones are cheap because they harvest data from the user's actions.

    We've past the age of information, and now we're in the age of misinformation. To be good at disinformation, you need all the real info that you can get.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      My CDN$50 phone doesn't have all that crap, just the usual Android crap like the play store and a couple of apps that I haven't tried to uninstall like the FM radio player and file manager.
      I'd guess it is similar with IPhone's, some Apple software that you can't remove and some helpful apps like an FM radio for when there is a disaster and no Internet. At least for 30 times what I paid that I'd assume you get useful things like FM radio.

  • "Unremovable apps" should be very limited (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Friday January 10, 2020 @11:52AM (#59606778) Homepage Journal

    You should be able to strip your phone or tablet down to a "bare minimum" that only has what is needed to install what you need.

    Basically, that means you can get rid of everything except the things that make the internet work and the things that let you either connect to an "app store" or other place to download things OR a way to download a tool that installs the above.

    If the device can install programs from a local source you don't even need that.

    Now most vendors would laugh at that suggestion.

    I'd settle for a very small set of "uninstallable" apps that "almost everyone needs" including "stock, non-fancy, no frills" apps that let you make phone calls, take pictures, control settings on the device, send and receive SMS texts, a note-taking app, a web browser app, a contact-list app, and of course an "app store" app. I would generally NOT prohibit installation of other apps that did the same things, like a better note-taking app, a better web browser, or even a better phone-call-making app.

    For a non-cell-connected device like most tablets, remove the phone-call and SMS-text apps. If the user wants to download a phone-over-internet or message-over-internet app he can.

  • When you own a dominant platform and it generates money for you, why would you care about the problems other people face ?
    Bloatware does not hurt the bottom line, so it is here to stay.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tx ( 96709 )

      Google would love to get rid of most bloatware. Many of the bloatware apps are competitors to Google's own apps, as the manufacturers and carriers want to get users into their own ecosystems rather than Google's, which actually does affect Google's bottom line. However Google is in a bind on that; if Google were to say manufacturers can't install their own alternatives to Google's apps, then they would be facing an instant anti-trust lawsuit. So your Samsung phone is going to ship with the Samsung mail app,

      • This is why lineageos.org is so needed: it don't install any Google app by default

      • The fact that a lot of bloatware can't be removed I think they might be able to address, however they face a similar issue there too; if they prevent manufacturers from shipping non-removable bloatware, but Google's own apps are non-removable, then it's anti-trust time again. But they really don't want to make the Google apps removable. But maybe they can put some restrictions on manufacturers without the lawyers getting involved.

        Or, how about this?

        They can do what Apple does, and make all non-essential (e.g. "Settings") Apps actually Delete-able.

        https://support.apple.com/en-u... [apple.com]

        But then, that wouldn't be in keeping with their Product... You!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tx ( 96709 )

          Apple doesn't have to deal with OEMs, so it's in a different boat entirely.

      • And that's the problem, the single biggest offender here is Google. My stock Android phone has zero vendor bloatware on it, but staggering amounts of uninstallable, unremovable, can't-be-disabled Google bloatware, none of which I ever use and a lot of which I don't even know what it does (Google Duo? WTF is that? And yes, I can Google it, but this is something I didn't ask to have installed, don't want installed, and never use, and have to do a Internet search just to find out what it is, that I neverthele

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The full list of 53 organizations that signed the open letter is available below....

      .

      American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

      Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)

      Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)

      Amnesty International

      Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC)

      Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

      Association for Technology and Internet (ApTI)

      Association of Caribbean Media Workers

      Australian Privacy Foundation

      Center for Digit

  • Bloatware is a good reason to buy a Pixel (Score:4, Interesting)

    by puck01 ( 207782 ) on Friday January 10, 2020 @12:07PM (#59606834)

    I'm not sure Google has much motivation to fix this problem. I had been a Samsung Galaxy user for many years - I owned the Galaxy S3, S5 and S7. I bought a Pixel instead just over a year ago due to a recommendation from a friend.

    I'll never go back to Samsung. Previously, I'd spend the first day or two of owning a new phone just turning off stupid notifications or uninstalling all sorts of annoying unnecessary applications. Sometimes longer as issues would pop up later.

    I was blown away with the Pixel because I basically had to do none of that. Just tweaked a few setting in a few minutes and I was good to go. The overall longer term all experience is much smoother, too.

    If the competing Android phones are making their phones suck on purpose, sounds like a potential win for Google. That is, if people are switching to Pixel phones as a result sounds like a win for Google. I guess it could hurt Android's reputation as a whole. Not sure how that balances out.
       

    • Or an Android ONE. I have a Nokia 6.1, there is only one 3rd party app which is the "Nokia Support" one, and it can be uninstalled. Everything else is pure stock android, and I get security update every month.

    • this may be a surprise to you, but pixels come with bloatware. you cannot uninstall the apps they come with.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by puck01 ( 207782 )

        Bloatware is a bit subjective.

        From my point of view, it didn't have anything getting in my way. I'll put it that way. I didn't see any apps I was concerned about. I could be wrong or we may have different perspectives on want counts as bloatware. My experience with the phone has been far superior than Samsung in this regard.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It was actually a selling point of Android early on. Customise as required to differentiate your phone from all the other Android ones.

  • I got a new Samsung tablet to try out the Android ecosystem again.

    The thing is swamped with bloatware, and all of it is the kind of crap you get from a hardware company trying to be a software company. Heck, Samsung feels so great about their app store that they disabled Google Play for me after I installed it.

    So, back to the way, way overpriced walled garden that I'm not all that thrilled to inhabit. At least I can get used/old devices and they'll still work with the latest apps.

  • This is all very well, but if a user really cares about privacy, then they are still better off using a custom ROM. In response to this, manufacturers would just harvest private data at a lower level, that's less user visible. For this to really work, you would need governments to vet everything that goes into a ROM. Yeah, like that will ever happen! I'm not against Google taking a stand, but I really can't see it having any effect, and it could make things worse by giving users a false sense of privacy.
    • The problem with custom ROMs, at least when I tried them, is that various things just don't work - or work as well as the stock ROM. The camera app isn't as robust, the WiFi was sketchy, etc. The custom ROMs are great for privacy, but always seem to be a lot of hassle to get everything "just right". I just didn't have the time to screw with it to make it all work.

      • Well, there are two types of custom ROMs. One is based on open source AOSP distribution. For these, the developers need to hunt down the proprietary drivers and figure out how to make things like the camera or fingerprint readers work. The other type of custom ROM is basically a modified factory ROM. These ROMs usually come with all or most preinstalled bloatware removed but these still continue using proprietary bits that allow things like camera continue to work.

        • Well, there are two types of custom ROMs. One is based on open source AOSP distribution. For these, the developers need to hunt down the proprietary drivers and figure out how to make things like the camera or fingerprint readers work. The other type of custom ROM is basically a modified factory ROM.

          There is a third type of ROM. this is the one you need for your specific model of phone - which appears in a dozen search engine results - but which, when you try to track it down... the links have expired, the forums are dead, and when you post a new request, the only replies are crickets and coyotes howling in the distance.

  • What are the Google power in that area?

  • Bloatware is big business (Score:5, Informative)

    by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday January 10, 2020 @12:56PM (#59607042) Journal

    (Disclaimer: I work for Google, on Android, but I am not speaking for Google. These are my own opinions based on my observations of the Android ecosystem.)

    I agree that this is a problem, but it's not one that is easy to solve. Google has limited ability to tell Android device makers how to carry out their business, outside of issues that affect compatibility. On compatibility-related concerns, Google can push back hard, because everyone in the industry understands that compatibility is paramount; without that Android will disintegrate into a bunch of disparate brands, each fighting for developer mindshare. And in most cases, security is a compatibility issue, as well, so pre-installed malware gets shut down hard and fast when it's discovered.

    But outside of that, Google must step carefully. Making demands that seriously interfere with the device makers' business will ultimately result in a coalition of device makers banding together to fork Android and shut Google out. And make no mistake, pre-installed bloatware is a big part of device makers' business, especially at the lower and middle tiers. Not so much on flagship devices, where end users shell out enough to make them profitable on a strict cash-for-device basis. But many low-end devices are sold at or even below the BoM (bill of materials) cost of the hardware, because they're extensively subsidized by pre-installed apps.

    A few years ago, Google tried to implement a technical solution to this problem: virtual pre-installation. This allows device makers to specify that upon first boot, and at every factory reset, the device will automatically download and install a set of apps. But because those apps aren't actually resident on the system partition, they actually can be deleted. I think they also don't get the full permissions that truly pre-installed apps do (not sure).

    As far as I can tell, this attempt to create a technical solution to a business problem has failed, utterly. Possibly in part because the virtual pre-installs don't have the same uber privileges as real pre-installs. And probably because the people paying for pre-installs don't want their apps to be deletable. I've heard grumbles about how even enforcing that users can disable apps is obnoxious interference by Google, but I'd guess that's treated as a compatibility requirement.

    At the end of the day, Google does -- and has to -- treat the device makers as partners, not subordinates. And many of those partners think that pre-installation is important to their business models. So I'm not sure what Google could do to "take a stand" against pre-installs that wouldn't threaten to shatter an Android ecosystem that already struggles with fragmentation. Of course, that sort of strategy is above my pay grade, so I'll watch the reaction just like the rest of you.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      I agree that this is a problem, but it's not one that is easy to solve... So I'm not sure what Google could do to "take a stand" against pre-installs that wouldn't threaten to shatter an Android ecosystem that already struggles with fragmentation.

      What you just described is that Android ubiquity, via low-cost devices, is inextricably tied to pre-installed apps using their privileges to mine personal data to make money. In other words, although privacy invasion isn't a necessary part of the Android OS, it is a necessary part of the Android ecosystem.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by t0rkm3 ( 666910 )

        It seems that there is an easy fix.

        Google creates an App that allows a user to remove ANY application installed on the Android OS, whether or not there is an uninstall component presented by the application.

        Anything less is confirmation that Google supports the practice, and probably markets this feature to the hardware vendors as a method to recoup investment.

        • Google creates an App that allows a user to remove ANY application installed on the Android OS, whether or not there is an uninstall component presented by the application.

          Not possible, not without lots of worse consequences. The system image is read-only, for many very good reasons.

          • Re:Bloatware is big business (Score:4, Informative)

            by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday January 10, 2020 @09:44PM (#59608874) Journal

            Google creates an App that allows a user to remove ANY application installed on the Android OS, whether or not there is an uninstall component presented by the application.

            Not possible, not without lots of worse consequences. The system image is read-only, for many very good reasons.

            Also, beyond that technical issue, Google trying to change the Android architecture enough to make such an app possible, and somehow forcing OEMs to allow that app to be installed and executed (Google would have to make it a compatibility requirement), would be no different in terms of partner relationships than simply dictating via contractual relationships that OEMs must not pre-install apps.

            And I can't overstate the magnitude of the technical task required to make such an app possible. The notion that the system partition is read-only is baked deeply into all sorts of security and operational assumptions, including the way that updates work and major chunks of the security model. And, I'm sure, lots of other stuff I don't even know about.

      • What you just described is that Android ubiquity, via low-cost devices, is inextricably tied to pre-installed apps using their privileges to mine personal data to make money. In other words, although privacy invasion isn't a necessary part of the Android OS, it is a necessary part of the Android ecosystem.

        Access to personal data isn't the only reason companies pay for preinstallation, but it's probably the biggest business model of the companies using this approach to essentially purchase market share for their apps.

        To be clear, I don't personally have any problem at all with people using their data as currency to buy goods and services. I do it, and I'm comfortable with it. I do see it as problematic that people often don't make this choice deliberately and fully informed. If I were king of the world,

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      Any attempt by Google to limit what OEMs install may be viewed by the EU and other jurisdictions as anti-competitive as well (Google is already under anti-trust scrutiny over Android in Europe and IIRC got fines for it)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        While I agree with your point from a legal standpoint, it makes no sense that Apple can tie their OS to their hardware, and reject any application that competes with their apps, but that Google and Microsoft have to tread lightly because any editorial control over their OS is potentially anti-competitive. The regulators allow you to be totally controlled, or totally open, but anything in between is illegal. That's dumb.

        • While I agree with your point from a legal standpoint, it makes no sense that Apple can tie their OS to their hardware, and reject any application that competes with their apps, but that Google and Microsoft have to tread lightly because any editorial control over their OS is potentially anti-competitive. The regulators allow you to be totally controlled, or totally open, but anything in between is illegal. That's dumb.

          I think Apple gets a pass mostly because their market share is so small. It's hard to make anti-trust arguments about a company with 17% of the European market.

          IANAL of any sort, so my opinion on the question is completely worthless, but there it is.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by atisss ( 1661313 )

      This sounds like, Google not realizing how much saying and power they have.

      I haven't heard anything of "Virtual pre-installed apps", but as long as vendors have choice, they will go the old way.
      Which Android version has virtual preinstalls?

      If forced by Google, Vendors would have choice to comply or fork (but without google services which is still pretty necessary for many non-chinese).
      So, that choice would also become choice of customers - either buy android device (from which you can remove bloatware), or

      • This sounds like, Google not realizing how much saying and power they have.

        Perhaps.

        Which Android version has virtual preinstalls?

        The feature is actually called Play Auto Install, and I think it was added in Lollipop or thereabouts.

        Apparently some OEMs actually have used it, because googling for "android play auto install" finds a bunch of forum conversations started by people asking how they can disable it :-)

        If forced by Google, Vendors would have choice to comply or fork (but without google services which is still pretty necessary for many non-chinese).

        Google services aren't trivial to replicate, but they're not that tough, either.

  • Disable all the junk (Score:5, Informative)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Friday January 10, 2020 @12:58PM (#59607046) Homepage Journal

    I have no hope that they'll fix this anytime soon, and my phone came with plenty of apps that I assume are spying on me that I wish I could remove.

    What I found particularly annoying were apps that not only couldn't be uninstalled, but they couldn't be disabled. Like the app on my S8 that is tied to the Bixby button, or the text messaging app (I've installed Signal, thank you). Well, it turns out that you can effectively disable any app on Android. You have to use ADB to do it (i.e., connect form a computer over the USB port). The trick is you can't disable the apps in general, but you can for a specific user, so you use the command 'disable user 0 com.google.gmail' or whatever to disable the app.

    I suppose if you set up multiple users on your phone, you will have to re-disable the apps for each user that doesn't want them, but otherwise it's just as good as disabling them outright.

    You can find various tutorials on this by searching on: android adb disable-user.

  • Please (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Friday January 10, 2020 @12:58PM (#59607048) Journal

    Somewhere deep inside my tablet is something that makes html 5 send home to Verizon to let it know what I'm watching, and where in the show.

    After the 2 year contract, I dropped Verizon to have no account, and run on home wifi only (which is all I ever used) and any app that runs video is now broken. Netflix, YouTube, Amc, others. Only video through web browsers that don't use rights management work, like liveleak.

  • The bloatware/spyware game has also created an interesting and very active community that is actively fighting it. The jailbreak/unlock/rooting/alternate OS worlds would not exist if Google ran their world with an iron fist. I've learned a lot about the way the android system works by learning what these people do to fight off business interests. It's exciting and sort of takes me back to the days of Win98lite, when the goal was a stable, secure, and fast booting OS. The downside? Planned obsolescence

  • Uninstallable Apps Need to go AWAY (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rastl ( 955935 ) on Friday January 10, 2020 @03:08PM (#59607594) Journal

    I have Google Plus on my phone. It's no longer a consumer application but I can't uninstall it.

    I have some kind of TV remote app that's no longer supported but I can't uninstall it.

    I have a whole lotta vendor apps I can't uninstall.

    The phone is sold with storage specs but they don't mention that half the storage is full of things you can't delete. I own my phone so in theory I can root it and clear out all that nonsense but I'm not tech savvy enough to want to do that.

    Unless it's absolutely necessary for the phone to function they should be able to be uninstalled. The actual amount of storage space should be prominent in the advertising (64GB storage, 12GB usable) so people know what they're getting.

    In my opinion.

  • They do not want to be individials. They hate being people! All those pesky choices. All that thinking for themselves...

    It is much more convenient, to subordinate themselves to a bigger swarm body. Whose head tells them what to want and what to do.

    Otherwise they would pick a device over which they have dominant control (root) by design.

  • I haven't bought a phone from a telco for over 10 years but Google has, I think, mostly solved this problem with their Android One [android.com] programme, and their Pixels. The problem is these phones seem to be more or less deliberately buried by telcos specifically because they are sold "naked".

    I picked up a Motorolo One Vision as a 2nd phone recently and in many ways I like it way more than my Pixel 3. It was half the price, came with 128GB storage, SD card/dual SIM slot, FM radio, 3.5mm connector. Runs latest Androi

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close