9 ms·

It seems like no matter how blatantly Google carries out it's updated "Microsoft from the 1990's" act there will be a coterie of apologists on HN explaining awa

by g8oz 13y ago

It seems like no matter how blatantly Google carries out it's updated "Microsoft from the 1990's" act there will be a coterie of apologists on HN explaining away it's actions. The Cold War provided an appropriate label for this crowd: "useful idiots".

devindotcom 13y ago
This was a TOS violation, nothing 90s-Microsoft about it.
- zhuzhuor 13y ago
  quoted from the article: After reaching out to the Play team, their feedback was that though application itself is harmless, and not actually in violation of their Terms of Service,...
  - patrickaljord 13y ago
    They updated the article, the app is in violation of the TOS. > Update: Removed reference to stating the app was not in violation of TOS – this was a mischaracterization of Google’s statement.
- colechristensen 13y ago
  Having a rule in the TOS doesn't make it right. And you are right, it's not 90s-Microsoft, it's worse. I'd say it's reasonable to believe that vast majority of average users _never_ acquire software outside of the walled gardens of Mirosoft, Google, and Apple's app stores. There sure are benefits to these walled gardens, but the loss of freedom to corporate whim should be a very serious concern to everyone here.
  - thezilch 13y ago
    What freedoms were lost, exactly?
    - colechristensen 13y ago
      Besides the limitations spelled out in the TOS and the often reported issues with that, there are the invisible issues with developers not creating products which they know won't be approved. There is a basic freedom lost when you allow yourself (the entire software market) to be subject to arbitrary corporate control especially when there is inadequate competition. It's clear that the terms are there only to serve the corporate interests and can change at any time if corporate interests change (hello G+ & YouTube)
      - thezilch 13y ago
        Being in <store> is now freedom? Should Google allow virus/spy/spamware to run free on their store? Libertas! How different is spamware from software that can brick one's device?
      - css771 13y ago
        I don't see why such a big deal is being made of this. If users want it, they can install the app from the CM website. The Windows app is also being installed from their website. Google doesn't want people to hold it liable for potential bricking of devices and took it off its store. What's the issue here?
    - drcube 13y ago
      The freedom to install the software of your choosing? The freedom to actually own your own computer? Seriously?
      - thezilch 13y ago
        No installation freedoms were lost; you can still install the software from the article or the secondary software installed by the article's software. No ownership freedoms were lost -- whatever that has to do with the article. Seriously.
        drcube 13y ago
        You can install what you want -- maybe, if your carrier lets you or you find an exploit to root your non-Nexus phone -- on Android only. That's not the case with iPhones or Windows phones. And yes, this is worse (read: less freedom) than you got with a Windows machine in the 90s.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  So is every packet filtering app that requires root, and many other categories of apps requiring root.
guelo 13y ago
Microsoft didn't have an app store to censor in the 90s. You're thinking "Apple from the 2000s".
- coldtea 13y ago
  Or he isn't using the title THAT literarly, how about that?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
byjove 13y ago
I'm not sure what "Microsoft from the 1990's" or the "Cold War" have to do with anything here. There have been reports of users bricking their devices using the app (check the various support forums) they then try to swap them only to find out they have voided the warranty. Google is asking CyanogenMod to properly inform users about those risks. Yet inevitably some on the comments here are cringe worthy
shooper 13y ago
The funny thing is that many of the same people you talk about were vehemently against UEFI Secure Boot on Windows 8 being on by default although it actually protects tens of millions of normal users from undetectable rootkits and bootkits because it made installing Linux slightly more difficult by needing to fiddle with the boot settings. Now the reason being given for this removal is that it needs root(a lot of apps in the Play Store require root on Android, including ROM managers) and that it may brick a few devices, while ignoring the fact that for many who are stuck without security updates because of OEMs and carriers actually benefit from CM. Also wonder if this news was strategically timed before Thanksgiving when most people are on vacation traveling or busy with family.
- chinpokomon 13y ago
  The installer itself doesn't require root and that isn't why it was pulled. It was pulled because trying to install an unapproved OS on the device may have left the device in a state that non-technical users may not know how to fix. when their device is now "broken" manufactures say that installing the unapproved OS voids the warranty. The finger pointing goes back to Google for allowing an application in the Play Store that voids warranties. Since no application on the Play Store should break a user's device, they asked CyanogenMod to remove the application. This in no way is meant to prevent users from voiding their warranty, users can still side load the application or they can use more traditional ways of installing a custom ROM. I'm not sure why this decision is ruffling feathers. CyanogenMod has over a million installs to date, and is still thriving. The installer made things a little less complicated, but removing it from the Play Store won't really slow them down.
haberman 13y ago
Let's recap. Prior to today, a community-developed fork of Google's open-source operating system could be installed by using an app from Google's own app store (which sometimes bricked the phone). After today, a community-developed fork of Google's open-source operating system can be installed by downloading the installer from the CM website. This somehow makes Google like 90's Microsoft? How many operating systems or web browsers did Microsoft open-source? How many forks of their software did Microsoft tolerate? Calling Google "90's Microsoft" is like calling Obama a socialist: it shows an utter lack of perspective of what a real socialist looks like. (If you want to see a real socialist, read about Kshama Sawant who was just elected to the Seattle City Council and wants to collectivize Amazon.com and Boeing). I wouldn't even bother responding to stuff like this, but it's getting upvoted on HN which is depressing.
- gcb1 13y ago
  let me see... google and the open handset aliance advertise an open source OS, that you cant install without voiding warranties and bending to proprietary radio and firmware code. just like pc manufacturers of the 80/90s (bios was reverse engineered from IBM and then tightly controled by ami. it only looked slighly open because IBM was much more closed. same with android standing next to apple.
  - haberman 13y ago
    > that you cant install without voiding warranties So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? How does that make sense? Is this people's expectation of Google, that if they don't give you whatever you want (at their own expense) then they are like 90s Microsoft?
    - shooper 13y ago
      >So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? Yes >How does that make sense? It makes sense the same way that installing Linux and/or wiping Windows doesn't void a PCs warranty. Should users be allowed to install any programs including keylogging malware on Windows computers? Shouldn't Microsoft protect them by locking it down so that only approved apps from their app store can be installed? Like mobile app stores?
kunai 13y ago
Bullshit. Pulling CM from the Play Store is something Google is entitled to do as per their ToS. They didn't pull it because they wanted to drive away competition; they pulled it because CM was harming people's devices. I am by no means still a fan of Google anymore, but credit has to be given where credit is due. They are still pulling the Microsoft schtick with Google+, but pulling CM isn't it in the slightest.
derleth 13y ago
CM phones home by default. There's a word for software like that: Malware. The Play Store shouldn't have malware.
- fidotron 13y ago
  That's a nice ideal, but practically every app using the internet access permission is phoning home. Mobile app analytics is huge, including by Google themselves.
- shooper 13y ago
  Not sure if your post is sarcasm, but IIRC you need to enable a checkbox before CM sends metrics data back. Also, by your metric of phoning home, 99.999% of apps in the Play Store should be banned since it's malware. In fact, Android itself meets that definition.
- css771 13y ago
  Are you kidding me? They tell me exactly what data they collect and for what purpose. To say that is malware is either extreme sarcasm or extreme stupidity.
  - derleth 13y ago
    Then why isn't it opt-in?
- yareally 13y ago
  Seriously? You realize how many apps on the market use Google Analytics or some other form of Analytics? Nearly all of them, including Google's Apps. Nearly all of them give absolutely no way to opt out either short of host blocking. However, CM gives you an option to under device settings.
  - derleth 13y ago
    So that's the standard we want to hold them to? Just a little better than Google? Why isn't it opt-in?

by g8oz 13y ago

devindotcom 13y ago

This was a TOS violation, nothing 90s-Microsoft about it.

zhuzhuor 13y ago
quoted from the article: After reaching out to the Play team, their feedback was that though application itself is harmless, and not actually in violation of their Terms of Service,...
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  They updated the article, the app is in violation of the TOS. > Update: Removed reference to stating the app was not in violation of TOS – this was a mischaracterization of Google’s statement.
colechristensen 13y ago
Having a rule in the TOS doesn't make it right. And you are right, it's not 90s-Microsoft, it's worse. I'd say it's reasonable to believe that vast majority of average users _never_ acquire software outside of the walled gardens of Mirosoft, Google, and Apple's app stores. There sure are benefits to these walled gardens, but the loss of freedom to corporate whim should be a very serious concern to everyone here.
- thezilch 13y ago
  What freedoms were lost, exactly?
  - colechristensen 13y ago
    Besides the limitations spelled out in the TOS and the often reported issues with that, there are the invisible issues with developers not creating products which they know won't be approved. There is a basic freedom lost when you allow yourself (the entire software market) to be subject to arbitrary corporate control especially when there is inadequate competition. It's clear that the terms are there only to serve the corporate interests and can change at any time if corporate interests change (hello G+ & YouTube)
    - thezilch 13y ago
      Being in <store> is now freedom? Should Google allow virus/spy/spamware to run free on their store? Libertas! How different is spamware from software that can brick one's device?
    - css771 13y ago
      I don't see why such a big deal is being made of this. If users want it, they can install the app from the CM website. The Windows app is also being installed from their website. Google doesn't want people to hold it liable for potential bricking of devices and took it off its store. What's the issue here?
  - drcube 13y ago
    The freedom to install the software of your choosing? The freedom to actually own your own computer? Seriously?
    - thezilch 13y ago
      No installation freedoms were lost; you can still install the software from the article or the secondary software installed by the article's software. No ownership freedoms were lost -- whatever that has to do with the article. Seriously.
      - drcube 13y ago
        You can install what you want -- maybe, if your carrier lets you or you find an exploit to root your non-Nexus phone -- on Android only. That's not the case with iPhones or Windows phones. And yes, this is worse (read: less freedom) than you got with a Windows machine in the 90s.
Zigurd 13y ago
So is every packet filtering app that requires root, and many other categories of apps requiring root.

guelo 13y ago

Microsoft didn't have an app store to censor in the 90s. You're thinking "Apple from the 2000s".

coldtea 13y ago
Or he isn't using the title THAT literarly, how about that?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

byjove 13y ago

I'm not sure what "Microsoft from the 1990's" or the "Cold War" have to do with anything here. There have been reports of users bricking their devices using the app (check the various support forums) they then try to swap them only to find out they have voided the warranty. Google is asking CyanogenMod to properly inform users about those risks. Yet inevitably some on the comments here are cringe worthy

shooper 13y ago

The funny thing is that many of the same people you talk about were vehemently against UEFI Secure Boot on Windows 8 being on by default although it actually protects tens of millions of normal users from undetectable rootkits and bootkits because it made installing Linux slightly more difficult by needing to fiddle with the boot settings. Now the reason being given for this removal is that it needs root(a lot of apps in the Play Store require root on Android, including ROM managers) and that it may brick a few devices, while ignoring the fact that for many who are stuck without security updates because of OEMs and carriers actually benefit from CM. Also wonder if this news was strategically timed before Thanksgiving when most people are on vacation traveling or busy with family.

chinpokomon 13y ago
The installer itself doesn't require root and that isn't why it was pulled. It was pulled because trying to install an unapproved OS on the device may have left the device in a state that non-technical users may not know how to fix. when their device is now "broken" manufactures say that installing the unapproved OS voids the warranty. The finger pointing goes back to Google for allowing an application in the Play Store that voids warranties. Since no application on the Play Store should break a user's device, they asked CyanogenMod to remove the application. This in no way is meant to prevent users from voiding their warranty, users can still side load the application or they can use more traditional ways of installing a custom ROM. I'm not sure why this decision is ruffling feathers. CyanogenMod has over a million installs to date, and is still thriving. The installer made things a little less complicated, but removing it from the Play Store won't really slow them down.

haberman 13y ago

Let's recap. Prior to today, a community-developed fork of Google's open-source operating system could be installed by using an app from Google's own app store (which sometimes bricked the phone). After today, a community-developed fork of Google's open-source operating system can be installed by downloading the installer from the CM website. This somehow makes Google like 90's Microsoft? How many operating systems or web browsers did Microsoft open-source? How many forks of their software did Microsoft tolerate? Calling Google "90's Microsoft" is like calling Obama a socialist: it shows an utter lack of perspective of what a real socialist looks like. (If you want to see a real socialist, read about Kshama Sawant who was just elected to the Seattle City Council and wants to collectivize Amazon.com and Boeing). I wouldn't even bother responding to stuff like this, but it's getting upvoted on HN which is depressing.

gcb1 13y ago
let me see... google and the open handset aliance advertise an open source OS, that you cant install without voiding warranties and bending to proprietary radio and firmware code. just like pc manufacturers of the 80/90s (bios was reverse engineered from IBM and then tightly controled by ami. it only looked slighly open because IBM was much more closed. same with android standing next to apple.
- haberman 13y ago
  > that you cant install without voiding warranties So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? How does that make sense? Is this people's expectation of Google, that if they don't give you whatever you want (at their own expense) then they are like 90s Microsoft?
  - shooper 13y ago
    >So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? Yes >How does that make sense? It makes sense the same way that installing Linux and/or wiping Windows doesn't void a PCs warranty. Should users be allowed to install any programs including keylogging malware on Windows computers? Shouldn't Microsoft protect them by locking it down so that only approved apps from their app store can be installed? Like mobile app stores?

kunai 13y ago

Bullshit. Pulling CM from the Play Store is something Google is entitled to do as per their ToS. They didn't pull it because they wanted to drive away competition; they pulled it because CM was harming people's devices. I am by no means still a fan of Google anymore, but credit has to be given where credit is due. They are still pulling the Microsoft schtick with Google+, but pulling CM isn't it in the slightest.

derleth 13y ago

CM phones home by default. There's a word for software like that: Malware. The Play Store shouldn't have malware.

fidotron 13y ago
That's a nice ideal, but practically every app using the internet access permission is phoning home. Mobile app analytics is huge, including by Google themselves.
shooper 13y ago
Not sure if your post is sarcasm, but IIRC you need to enable a checkbox before CM sends metrics data back. Also, by your metric of phoning home, 99.999% of apps in the Play Store should be banned since it's malware. In fact, Android itself meets that definition.
css771 13y ago
Are you kidding me? They tell me exactly what data they collect and for what purpose. To say that is malware is either extreme sarcasm or extreme stupidity.
- derleth 13y ago
  Then why isn't it opt-in?
yareally 13y ago
Seriously? You realize how many apps on the market use Google Analytics or some other form of Analytics? Nearly all of them, including Google's Apps. Nearly all of them give absolutely no way to opt out either short of host blocking. However, CM gives you an option to under device settings.
- derleth 13y ago
  So that's the standard we want to hold them to? Just a little better than Google? Why isn't it opt-in?