7 ms·

Shouldn't the customer also have a right to do whatever they want with the device they paid good money for? Google is intentionally disabling the device without

by ksk 9y ago

Shouldn't the customer also have a right to do whatever they want with the device they paid good money for? Google is intentionally disabling the device without providing any evidence of breach of terms. I don't agree that this is their right.

joshuamorton 9y ago
This gives a consumer the ability to do whatever they want with a device[1]. Its a change aimed at stopping OEMs from providing unlicensed devices. (Edit: or really from providing official Google apps on those devices. There's nothing wrong with forking Android for your device, but Google does want to control whether or not Gmail runs on it, especially if that device doesn't meet certain standards.) [1]: See the "custom ROM" thing at the bottom. There's a caveat that the current implementation has a limit of 100 device ids. There's some discussion/debate about what that will end up meaning. If it ends up meaning 100 devices, that's fine for any consumer use pattern. It may in practice end up meaning 100 flashes, which is/could be problematic for certain users (custom ROM developers, as an example).
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  Apparently google isn't smart enough to realize people aren't rational. People think of finite resources differently than infinite resource and any such counter is perceptively a counter ticking away towards losing access to accessing your email and apps and the logically emotional response is to ditch google entirely next upgrade cycle even if you will never reasonably reach zero.
  - landryraccoon 9y ago
    If you were right, Apple wouldn't be printing money as much as they do. Android users will ditch google and switch to... What? Apple? Where you can't install anything at all except through the tightly controlled Apple app store?
    - glogla 9y ago
      Well if you get zero openness with both Google and Apple, you might as well get the privacy protection of Apple with it, right?
      - jhasse 9y ago
        openness isn't zero with Android, e.g. you can install alternative app stores.
        michaelmrose 9y ago
        You mean where the ones where the apps you want don't exist or the one which works on Amazon. Apt sources don't require permission to use them with a particular device.
        jhasse 9y ago
        Still more apps than in iOS's alternative app stores.
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        What percentage of apps are available on third party app stores? Openness isn't zero with Android, it's just an obscene fractional portion that might as well be zero.
        jhasse 9y ago
        Often you can sideload the ones you're missing. Also there's the AOSP. And openness to use a custom launcher, browser engine, overlays, ...
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        AOSP is crippled/barely functional due to parts being abandoned in favor of Google Apps. And as far as sideloading, where are you supposed to get the apps? The Play Store won't let you download them off the web, because that would let them out of the walled garden. Most companies won't link their APKs, they just link you to the Play Store. You might get lucky and it's popular enough to be on APKMirror, but there's really not a "good" way to sideload. Oh, and most apps require Play Services to run now, and won't work even if you do sideload them.
- ksk 9y ago
  In cases where users' freedoms for legitimate uses are curtailed I believe we should be siding with the end users. Maybe in time we will see microsoft banning chrome, firefox, steam etc from running on devices not certified by MS. Its "their OS" so "its their right".
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    But the end user can do whatever they want. The end user is free to install a custom ROM and use GApps. They have to jump through an extra hoop. This would be like Microsoft banning Lenovo from sticking unlicensed copies of windows on Lenovo laptops. Something which Microsoft already does.
    - ksk 9y ago
      Well my analogy was that the 'service' MS provides is the OS Platform API, and its blocking applications from executing on their platform. Which would be ridiculous. A user should be able to run any software they want. Similarly, as a user (paid or otherwise) of Google's services, unless specific evidence is given that the user is abusing their services, Google is in the wrong here of blocking someone preemptively.
      - joshuamorton 9y ago
        What end user do you feel is being blocked from using what software? I have a feeling you misunderstand what's actually happening here.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Google is not blocking third-party apps from running on its platform. It's blocking its own proprietary apps from running on third-party platforms which happen to share the same base. A more appropriate analogy might be MS not releasing Internet Explorer for the Mac... which they haven't since IE5.
zokier 9y ago
> Google is intentionally disabling the device What? They are blocking the device from using Googles services. The device will continue to work just fine. Which leads to > do whatever they want with the device they paid good money for Yes, customer has the right to do whatever they want on their device, but that does not extend to (ab)use Googles service in whatever way they want.
- ksk 9y ago
  >but that does not extend to (ab)use Googles service in whatever way they want. That makes no sense. How have they abused it? There is no evidence of breach of terms provided.
  - SparkyMcUnicorn 9y ago
    The artical talks about OEM distributors/resellers abusing the terms.
    - ksk 9y ago
      The article is about blocking users. Google should sue the OEM's if they feel any terms have been violated.
vorpalhex 9y ago
Yes, and the consumer has the right to do whatever they want with the hardware and OSS components of Android. They don't have any right to use the Play Store or other Google specific components. You can sideload your own. FWIW, Google is allowing power-users a work around where you register the device to your own account, and then you can use their products. It seems as if they're targeting bootleggers who may be selling tampered products to non-savvy consumers, which isn't unreasonable imo.
- ksk 9y ago
  >They don't have any right to use the Play Store or other Google specific components. You can sideload your own. They do, if they purchased the device (and have a legitimate account with google). Google AFAIK has not provided any evidence to affected users detailing how they have breached their terms.
  - vorpalhex 9y ago
    Android is an operating system that is open source. The Google Play Store is a proprietary software package that is released on some devices which use a proprietary licensed version of Android. Using the open source operating system known as Android does not entitle you magically to Google's other proprietary software. Google only gives the Play Store to some certified hardware handsets, that meet requirements they arbitrarily decide on. There was an issue with vendors, who were using open source Android (legally), sideloading the proprietary Google play store without permission (illegal) and then selling that to Consumers. Again, you can sideload your own different store that isn't Google Play. Your account isn't being banned or restricted - you can sign in on Google Play on a valid device that's allowed to have it - but this is Google's only recourse against manufacturers sideloading the Play store when they aren't allowed to.
    - ksk 9y ago
      >There was an issue with vendors, who were using open source Android (legally), sideloading the proprietary Google play store without permission (illegal) and then selling that to Consumers. Users are seeing this also with Google's own hardware. https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=76004552&postcount=1361 https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=76004552&pos... The more I read about it, the more I am against Google's actions here.

by ksk 9y ago

joshuamorton 9y ago

This gives a consumer the ability to do whatever they want with a device[1]. Its a change aimed at stopping OEMs from providing unlicensed devices. (Edit: or really from providing official Google apps on those devices. There's nothing wrong with forking Android for your device, but Google does want to control whether or not Gmail runs on it, especially if that device doesn't meet certain standards.) [1]: See the "custom ROM" thing at the bottom. There's a caveat that the current implementation has a limit of 100 device ids. There's some discussion/debate about what that will end up meaning. If it ends up meaning 100 devices, that's fine for any consumer use pattern. It may in practice end up meaning 100 flashes, which is/could be problematic for certain users (custom ROM developers, as an example).

michaelmrose 9y ago
Apparently google isn't smart enough to realize people aren't rational. People think of finite resources differently than infinite resource and any such counter is perceptively a counter ticking away towards losing access to accessing your email and apps and the logically emotional response is to ditch google entirely next upgrade cycle even if you will never reasonably reach zero.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  If you were right, Apple wouldn't be printing money as much as they do. Android users will ditch google and switch to... What? Apple? Where you can't install anything at all except through the tightly controlled Apple app store?
  - glogla 9y ago
    Well if you get zero openness with both Google and Apple, you might as well get the privacy protection of Apple with it, right?
    - jhasse 9y ago
      openness isn't zero with Android, e.g. you can install alternative app stores.
      - michaelmrose 9y ago
        You mean where the ones where the apps you want don't exist or the one which works on Amazon. Apt sources don't require permission to use them with a particular device.
        jhasse 9y ago
        Still more apps than in iOS's alternative app stores.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        What percentage of apps are available on third party app stores? Openness isn't zero with Android, it's just an obscene fractional portion that might as well be zero.
        jhasse 9y ago
        Often you can sideload the ones you're missing. Also there's the AOSP. And openness to use a custom launcher, browser engine, overlays, ...
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        AOSP is crippled/barely functional due to parts being abandoned in favor of Google Apps. And as far as sideloading, where are you supposed to get the apps? The Play Store won't let you download them off the web, because that would let them out of the walled garden. Most companies won't link their APKs, they just link you to the Play Store. You might get lucky and it's popular enough to be on APKMirror, but there's really not a "good" way to sideload. Oh, and most apps require Play Services to run now, and won't work even if you do sideload them.
ksk 9y ago
In cases where users' freedoms for legitimate uses are curtailed I believe we should be siding with the end users. Maybe in time we will see microsoft banning chrome, firefox, steam etc from running on devices not certified by MS. Its "their OS" so "its their right".
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  But the end user can do whatever they want. The end user is free to install a custom ROM and use GApps. They have to jump through an extra hoop. This would be like Microsoft banning Lenovo from sticking unlicensed copies of windows on Lenovo laptops. Something which Microsoft already does.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Well my analogy was that the 'service' MS provides is the OS Platform API, and its blocking applications from executing on their platform. Which would be ridiculous. A user should be able to run any software they want. Similarly, as a user (paid or otherwise) of Google's services, unless specific evidence is given that the user is abusing their services, Google is in the wrong here of blocking someone preemptively.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      What end user do you feel is being blocked from using what software? I have a feeling you misunderstand what's actually happening here.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Google is not blocking third-party apps from running on its platform. It's blocking its own proprietary apps from running on third-party platforms which happen to share the same base. A more appropriate analogy might be MS not releasing Internet Explorer for the Mac... which they haven't since IE5.

zokier 9y ago

> Google is intentionally disabling the device What? They are blocking the device from using Googles services. The device will continue to work just fine. Which leads to > do whatever they want with the device they paid good money for Yes, customer has the right to do whatever they want on their device, but that does not extend to (ab)use Googles service in whatever way they want.

ksk 9y ago
>but that does not extend to (ab)use Googles service in whatever way they want. That makes no sense. How have they abused it? There is no evidence of breach of terms provided.
- SparkyMcUnicorn 9y ago
  The artical talks about OEM distributors/resellers abusing the terms.
  - ksk 9y ago
    The article is about blocking users. Google should sue the OEM's if they feel any terms have been violated.

vorpalhex 9y ago

Yes, and the consumer has the right to do whatever they want with the hardware and OSS components of Android. They don't have any right to use the Play Store or other Google specific components. You can sideload your own. FWIW, Google is allowing power-users a work around where you register the device to your own account, and then you can use their products. It seems as if they're targeting bootleggers who may be selling tampered products to non-savvy consumers, which isn't unreasonable imo.

ksk 9y ago
>They don't have any right to use the Play Store or other Google specific components. You can sideload your own. They do, if they purchased the device (and have a legitimate account with google). Google AFAIK has not provided any evidence to affected users detailing how they have breached their terms.
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  Android is an operating system that is open source. The Google Play Store is a proprietary software package that is released on some devices which use a proprietary licensed version of Android. Using the open source operating system known as Android does not entitle you magically to Google's other proprietary software. Google only gives the Play Store to some certified hardware handsets, that meet requirements they arbitrarily decide on. There was an issue with vendors, who were using open source Android (legally), sideloading the proprietary Google play store without permission (illegal) and then selling that to Consumers. Again, you can sideload your own different store that isn't Google Play. Your account isn't being banned or restricted - you can sign in on Google Play on a valid device that's allowed to have it - but this is Google's only recourse against manufacturers sideloading the Play store when they aren't allowed to.
  - ksk 9y ago
    >There was an issue with vendors, who were using open source Android (legally), sideloading the proprietary Google play store without permission (illegal) and then selling that to Consumers. Users are seeing this also with Google's own hardware. https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=76004552&postcount=1361 https://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=76004552&pos... The more I read about it, the more I am against Google's actions here.