3 ms·
If you don't have root, you are not the device owner, you are a lessor to whatever companies and carriers are subsidizing your out of pocket costs. This include
by 1970-01-01 3mo ago
If you don't have root, you are not the device owner, you are a lessor to whatever companies and carriers are subsidizing your out of pocket costs. This includes iPhone and it's walled garden approach (delete Siri - you cannot, GBs of space is permanently wasted on most users and it still drains the battery when fully disabled). Locked, unlocked, and root are terms the general public has no clue about.
Whenever someone buys an unrootable phone, ask them if they enjoy living under HOAs. That's the same level of control they've agreed to without root. Framing it this way will neatly land your point and just maybe reset their concept of what they should have purchased.
- charcircuit 3mo agoDo you believe the same thing about a toaster that you don't have a root account for? Do you think people didn't own things before the idea of root was created in the 1970s? Computers don't have to follow the same design choices as were done 50 years ago.
- zb3 3mo agoIf the toaster acts against my interest and I can't change its behaviour then yes, absolutely. It doesn't have to be named root, the point is that my device should act in my interest to the fullest extent permitted by the law. But those running illegal monopolies no longer fear the user and blantantly ignore their choices (yes vs "remind me later" is a good example), if I can't enforce my choice, I don't own that.
- charcircuit 3mo agoAndroid in fact has an entire Settings app allowing users to configure a lot about the device. There are a lot of choices exposed to users. Exposing this ability to the user didn't require root.
- zb3 3mo agoThe number of choices exposed to users is irrelevant, what's relevant is that choices which I'd want exposed are not exposed, and without root, there's no extension mechanism which'd let me load my code into for example the system server process. What you also seem to be ignoring is that the fact that for example there's no simple runtime internet permission toggle is NOT an accident, this functionality is deliberately not directly exposed despite creating no "security risks" and you know it very well.
- charcircuit 3mo agoAnd if you wanted a toaster with a setting to enable which side of the bread gets cooked you may have to look for a niche product instead of using main stream toasters similar to how you may need to use a niche operating system like GrapheneOS for your special handling of internet permissions. Even if a toaster doesn't have such a setting or an easy way to add, you still own it. When products are designed they have a specific design that they implement.
- zb3 3mo agoIf the manufacturer could add this setting via a software update, but I couldn't - by design - then I stand by my definition that I don't own it, because it's not my interest that gets prioritized there. However, it's pointless to focus on what's not available but could - it's the WHY that matters. A toaster without fancy functionality might be mine, but a toaster that only cooks a specific brand of bread, or that displays ads doesn't feel like mine. This is not just a lack of a feature - it's deliberately not there to prioritize the manufacturer over my experience..
- 1970-01-01 3mo agoToasters are heating elements with slots for bread. The 70s saw ten men walk on the moon and return to Earth to tell us all about it. Whatever point you were trying to make wasn't made.
- charcircuit 3mo agoAnd phones run apps. Neither require root to be able to accomplish their designed purpose.
- 1970-01-01 3mo agoAnd drugs are bad. Neither require root to work. Point not found.
- charcircuit 3mo agoExactly. Root is unrelated to the problem at hand.
- 1970-01-01 3mo agoPer the title, root is directly related to the problem at hand. "On non-rooted Android 17..."