5 ms·

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.
        victorhooi 13y ago
        No, you can just sideload the ADB from outside the Android Market. That's a pretty basic task for any Android user. In fact, if you can't do that, then you probably have no business whatsoever installing a customer ROM. Think of it as a basic intelligence test - you want to change your car's air filter - first step is to pop open the bonnet. If you can't do that, then you probably want to seriously consider, gee, should I just get a mechanic to do this?
        drcube 13y ago
        Can you sideload anything on Windows or Apple phones? No. And on most carrier locked Android phones, you have to find an exploit to root your device before they let you sideload apps. So my point, that you are less free today with modern smartphones than you were with your PC under MS dominance in the 90s, stands. This isn't like some test to pass before changing your oil. It's like requiring Ford's permission to install some fuzzy dice or a custom seat cover.
Zigurd 13y ago
So is every packet filtering app that requires root, and many other categories of apps requiring root.

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.
      - victorhooi 13y ago
        No, you can just sideload the ADB from outside the Android Market. That's a pretty basic task for any Android user. In fact, if you can't do that, then you probably have no business whatsoever installing a customer ROM. Think of it as a basic intelligence test - you want to change your car's air filter - first step is to pop open the bonnet. If you can't do that, then you probably want to seriously consider, gee, should I just get a mechanic to do this?
        drcube 13y ago
        Can you sideload anything on Windows or Apple phones? No. And on most carrier locked Android phones, you have to find an exploit to root your device before they let you sideload apps. So my point, that you are less free today with modern smartphones than you were with your PC under MS dominance in the 90s, stands. This isn't like some test to pass before changing your oil. It's like requiring Ford's permission to install some fuzzy dice or a custom seat cover.

Zigurd 13y ago

So is every packet filtering app that requires root, and many other categories of apps requiring root.