7 ms·

This is one aspect and admittedly Android is better than Apple, but the other aspect (and more fundamental) is the ability to gain root on the system and do wha

This is one aspect and admittedly Android is better than Apple, but the other aspect (and more fundamental) is the ability to gain root on the system and do whatever you wish, and here both Google and Android (in the former case if not Google themselves then all the 3rd party Android vendors) lock down their devices. Rooting through exploits is not an acceptable solution.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
All Google phones and Android One devices have unlockable bootloaders.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  Not unless they are sold through a wireless carrier that aggressively locks down bootloaders on even the Pixel phones
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zelly 7y ago
    Yes do NOT buy a Pixel from ebay/amazon because they are all Verizon or Sprint bootloader locked, even if they can work on other carriers. Carriers lock bootloaders so you can't circumvent their tethering paywalls. Only Pixels from the official store are rootable.
- SamBam 7y ago
  Rooting the Pixel 2 (I haven't tried the other Pixels) is not trivial for the average user, it still involves downloading third-party software and doing stuff on the command line. I had hoped that the pure-Google devices would have just had a switch: "I am now root," but alas it wasn't to be.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    I'm not sure that's important. If you make it too easy, it's a security hole. So, you have to wipe the device, which makes since in preventing a hostile actor from pressing the, "I am mow root" button and either dumping everything or installing malware. I also don't see an issue with google not putting a fancy gui front-end on their dev tools. They're built for advanced users, and in some ways, that's a barrier to entry to the avg. guy can't mess up his system or get phished into pressing the "root button."
  - panpanna 7y ago
    > not trivial for the average user That is a very good thing. I wish they also made "install from unknown sources" a bit harder. Don't get me wrong, I love openness. But there must be a barrier of entry.
    - BlueTemplar 7y ago
      That would have been acceptable if in parallel Google didn't own Google Play... Remember how installing apk's was claimed to be a viable alternative to Google Play for even the average user ?
      - panpanna 7y ago
        Yes, that's a real problem. At the same time, as long as Google is very clear why they are doing that I think they will be okay. After all, they already do this on Chromebook. Now, why should they do this? Because I have seen malware sites tricking people into first enabling 3rd party apps and then installing their apk.
  - TheCraiggers 7y ago
    I don't believe that is correct. All you need is adb and the various Android command line tools. Those are all first party. If you downloaded a third party tool to make it easier, that's fine I guess, but it's not a requirement. Some of this I can understand. Root permissions does introduce some additional security considerations. We haven't fixed this in decades of computer usage in a way that preserves security, ease of use, and giving people easy access under the hood. My mother would click any number of scary UAC prompts in Windows just to get to the webpage she's trying to get to. That's not Windows' fault, but it is reality.
- ganeshkrishnan 7y ago
  Unlocking bootloader is not the same as rooting.
  - wolrah 7y ago
    > Unlocking bootloader is not the same as rooting. True, but having an unlocked bootloader makes rooting trivial. Those wanting to root devices with locked bootloaders have to depend on exploiting security flaws in their OS to do so. This means intentionally ignoring security updates and potentially maintaining a vulnerable device just to be able to retain root. These exploits tend to be device specific as well and often carry a risk of at least soft-bricking. Those with an unlockable bootloader can just unlock and flash in something like Magisk in a pretty much universal fashion.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Unlocking bootloader makes rooting safely possible.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Nevertheless, rooting has artificial disadvantages due to "Safety"Net. So the situation on Android isn't acceptable either.
  - kllrnohj 7y ago
    Blame the companies that want & use DRM, not the DRM provider. It's the same thing that happened on PC ages ago. If you don't like DRM, don't support games & apps that use DRM. Complaining to SecuROM that they are supplying market demand isn't useful. At least SafetyNet isn't a badly made rootkit that destroys your hardware and it's only real flaw is being semi-functional DRM.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > Blame the companies that want & use DRM, not the DRM provider. I've got enough blame for everyone involved, don't worry. > Complaining to SecuROM that they are supplying market demand isn't useful. Appealing to the ethics of an entity that doesn't have any is not useful. But I wasn't writing to Google. > At least SafetyNet isn't a badly made rootkit that destroys your hardware and it's only real flaw is being semi-functional DRM. "Whatabout SecuROM"?
      - kllrnohj 7y ago
        > "Whatabout SecuROM"? I don't understand what you're attempting to get at with this. PC DRM back in the day was notorious for rootkit vulnerabilities and even bricking CD/DVD drives (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ). The point was just at least SafetyNet isn't straight up broken like the wild-west of arbitrary DRM providers of yester-year.
        anoncake 7y ago
        This is whataboutism. Please stop.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

lern_too_spel 7y ago

All Google phones and Android One devices have unlockable bootloaders.

tomatotomato37 7y ago
Not unless they are sold through a wireless carrier that aggressively locks down bootloaders on even the Pixel phones
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zelly 7y ago
  Yes do NOT buy a Pixel from ebay/amazon because they are all Verizon or Sprint bootloader locked, even if they can work on other carriers. Carriers lock bootloaders so you can't circumvent their tethering paywalls. Only Pixels from the official store are rootable.
SamBam 7y ago
Rooting the Pixel 2 (I haven't tried the other Pixels) is not trivial for the average user, it still involves downloading third-party software and doing stuff on the command line. I had hoped that the pure-Google devices would have just had a switch: "I am now root," but alas it wasn't to be.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's important. If you make it too easy, it's a security hole. So, you have to wipe the device, which makes since in preventing a hostile actor from pressing the, "I am mow root" button and either dumping everything or installing malware. I also don't see an issue with google not putting a fancy gui front-end on their dev tools. They're built for advanced users, and in some ways, that's a barrier to entry to the avg. guy can't mess up his system or get phished into pressing the "root button."
- panpanna 7y ago
  > not trivial for the average user That is a very good thing. I wish they also made "install from unknown sources" a bit harder. Don't get me wrong, I love openness. But there must be a barrier of entry.
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    That would have been acceptable if in parallel Google didn't own Google Play... Remember how installing apk's was claimed to be a viable alternative to Google Play for even the average user ?
    - panpanna 7y ago
      Yes, that's a real problem. At the same time, as long as Google is very clear why they are doing that I think they will be okay. After all, they already do this on Chromebook. Now, why should they do this? Because I have seen malware sites tricking people into first enabling 3rd party apps and then installing their apk.
- TheCraiggers 7y ago
  I don't believe that is correct. All you need is adb and the various Android command line tools. Those are all first party. If you downloaded a third party tool to make it easier, that's fine I guess, but it's not a requirement. Some of this I can understand. Root permissions does introduce some additional security considerations. We haven't fixed this in decades of computer usage in a way that preserves security, ease of use, and giving people easy access under the hood. My mother would click any number of scary UAC prompts in Windows just to get to the webpage she's trying to get to. That's not Windows' fault, but it is reality.
ganeshkrishnan 7y ago
Unlocking bootloader is not the same as rooting.
- wolrah 7y ago
  > Unlocking bootloader is not the same as rooting. True, but having an unlocked bootloader makes rooting trivial. Those wanting to root devices with locked bootloaders have to depend on exploiting security flaws in their OS to do so. This means intentionally ignoring security updates and potentially maintaining a vulnerable device just to be able to retain root. These exploits tend to be device specific as well and often carry a risk of at least soft-bricking. Those with an unlockable bootloader can just unlock and flash in something like Magisk in a pretty much universal fashion.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Unlocking bootloader makes rooting safely possible.
anoncake 7y ago
Nevertheless, rooting has artificial disadvantages due to "Safety"Net. So the situation on Android isn't acceptable either.
- kllrnohj 7y ago
  Blame the companies that want & use DRM, not the DRM provider. It's the same thing that happened on PC ages ago. If you don't like DRM, don't support games & apps that use DRM. Complaining to SecuROM that they are supplying market demand isn't useful. At least SafetyNet isn't a badly made rootkit that destroys your hardware and it's only real flaw is being semi-functional DRM.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > Blame the companies that want & use DRM, not the DRM provider. I've got enough blame for everyone involved, don't worry. > Complaining to SecuROM that they are supplying market demand isn't useful. Appealing to the ethics of an entity that doesn't have any is not useful. But I wasn't writing to Google. > At least SafetyNet isn't a badly made rootkit that destroys your hardware and it's only real flaw is being semi-functional DRM. "Whatabout SecuROM"?
    - kllrnohj 7y ago
      > "Whatabout SecuROM"? I don't understand what you're attempting to get at with this. PC DRM back in the day was notorious for rootkit vulnerabilities and even bricking CD/DVD drives (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... ). The point was just at least SafetyNet isn't straight up broken like the wild-west of arbitrary DRM providers of yester-year.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        This is whataboutism. Please stop.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]