4 ms·
I think this is completely reasonable. If people want to sideload the app then by all means go for it. The Play Store shouldn't allow apps that can potentially
by mirsadm 13y ago
I think this is completely reasonable. If people want to sideload the app then by all means go for it. The Play Store shouldn't allow apps that can potentially damage your device (or void your warranty).
- ajross 13y agoIt's reasonable and not. The installer is a tool for assisted rooting. Yes, that's dangerous and voids warranties. But just search for "root" on the Play Store and you'll find thousands of apps designed to exploit and utilize that status. These are great features, and Google clearly allows them... That said, part of me is chuckling internally that CM got caught being unable to distribute their proprietary (windows-only!) "installer" solution through Google's proprietary distribution channel. There are open source paths to a solution here, and CM didn't even try...
- notatoad 13y agoAn application that only runs if your warranty is already voided, and an application that actually voids your warranty are two very different things. You've got to remember google's position here - for the majority of phones sold, they aren't the manufacturer or the warranty provider. If they allow cyanogen in the play store and it creates a huge warranty headache for Samsung or Sony or any other OEM that includes the play store by default, it jeopardizes google's ability to distribute the Play Store.