CyanogenMod Installer Removed From Google Play Store 255
sfcrazy writes "[Wednesday] Google asked the CM team to voluntarily remove the [CyanogenMod installer] app from the store or they would be forced to remove it administratively. CM team chose to remove the app voluntarily. According to the CyanogenMod team, Google initially said that the app was in violation of Google's Play's developer terms. When the CM team reached out to the Play team, they found that 'though application itself is harmless, and not actually in violation of their Terms of Service, since it 'encourages users to void their warranty', it would not be allowed to remain in the store.'" You can still install manually, though.
Where's the outrage?! (Score:2, Insightful)
If this were Apple removing an app, everyone would be complaining about the walled garden!
Re:Where's the outrage?! (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is that Apple only allows you to install apps from the official app store. To allow unofficial apps on an Android device, all you need to do is tick a box in the settings menu.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, you are totally wrong..
You go into security settings and tick a box in there. I know as i did it last night with Wireshark.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about for iOS, or Android? It seems like you're making a joke because of the Wireshark thing, but I'm afraid don't get it, because Wireshark doesn't work like that.. :p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, pay $99 a year just to install apps on your device? Can you actually install any app, or only your own apps? I think a much better option would be to root it.
Re: Where's the outrage?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So you have basically the choice between a phone (or tablet) where you can install stuff that you don't want and one where you can't install what you want.
Yeah, it would be great if you could add 3rd party software sources' signing keys like on nearly every GNU/Linux OS... Android isn't GNU it's just Linux.
No third-party curator (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Are there examples of software that are available for Android but not for iOS. And I don't mean eye candy stuff, but software that's really missed? I own an iPad and so far I haven't bumped into anything.
I am asking, because prior to my first iOS device someone was trying to convert me to Android because iOS didn't have Tweetbot (back then).... Which was sad and funny, because I can probably count all the tweets I wrote over the years on two hands...
IDEs, emulators, and (Score:5, Informative)
Are there examples of software that are available for Android but not for iOS.
I can think of a few things Apple forbids under its guidelines [pineight.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
Timothy doesn't bother me. Kdawson was awful though; that guy couldn't wipe his ass without hatching a conspiracy theory, and I did stop visiting slashdot for a while because of it. If I really wanted that, I would be a regular visitor at prisonplanet and listener of Alex Jones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Where's the outrage?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0."
Wrong. I just had to remove one from my fiance's iPhone 4S two days ago. It's a stock model, unmodified.
Re: Where's the outrage?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Know how many people get viruses or malware on their iPhone (without jailbreaking) ... 0.
Looks like you don't know enough people. It has been done, without jailbreaking, and we only know because the developers publicized that fact themselves. [gatech.edu]. If you want to keep the same answer, perhaps you could rephrase the question as "How many times that Apple admit that they served up viruses or malware in their App Store?"
So you think its better to run extra software, waste more ram, cpu and storage space ... so that you don't get something that iOS users just aren't going to get in the first place?
But what if I don't _want_ a misplaced sense of security based on faulty assumptions?
You utterly fucking fail at understanding security. [...] The only known threats on iOS devices have come to jailbroken phones and the jailbreaks themselves.
It [arstechnica.com] ain't [forbes.com] just [skycure.com] a river [arstechnica.com] in [theregister.co.uk] Egypt. [arstechnica.com]
And that's not even considering threats [pod2g.org] that [arstechnica.com] come [phonearena.com] from [apple.com] Apple [independent.co.uk] itself [forbes.com], without any need to install apps or change settings. Something magical happens and things just work.
Until then [I] just make it obvious [I'm] nothing more than a fanboy.
No argument here.
Re: Where's the outrage?! (Score:4, Interesting)
The only known threats on iOS devices have come to jailbroken phones and the jailbreaks themselves.
Apparently you utterly fucking fail at understanding security. Those jailbreaks exploit holes in the walled garden to install tools that do other things, like allowing users to install their own software. Malware authors can exploit those same holes to install their crap.
Even if the garden wall was perfect and didn't have holes, you still have to trust the guard who doesn't work for you, but for the gardener.
When Android doesn't require essentially every app you install to get access to private data BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN FUCKING INSTALL IT, then you MIGHT be able to start talking differently here. Until then you just make it obvious you're nothing more than a fanboy.
Well that time is now because Android doesn't require this. There are so many problems with every security model but by defending iOS in such a half-assed way, you have proven that you are nothing more than a fanboy as well.
Re: Where's the outrage?! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the reason why Android is ridden with malware attacks (97% of all mobile malware).
Can I get a citation please? Seems a rather high percentage.
Also, this was always the problem with Windows and yet when they try to push towards a walled garden arrangement people cry foul to that so IMHO you can't please everyone.
Re:Where's the outrage?! (Score:5, Insightful)
How about being outraged on the premise that installing of software is a warranty violation. I'd not be at all surprised that Verizon was involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where's the outrage?! (Score:4, Informative)
When I read an article it suggested that even just rooting the device was a warranty violation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You need to unlock the bootloader to root.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've needed to unlock it for every phone I've rooted, although perhaps there is a way to get superuser active on some without doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually, rooting and unlocking the bootloader are two separate issues. My phone was rooted for a long time before I unlocked the bootloader.
Re: (Score:2)
Exploit based, I assume? I haven't had to rely on that, although if you don't have to unlock the bootloader it's a better way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where's the outrage?! (Score:5, Informative)
HTC and Samsung don't cover damage caused by unauthorized modification (which would include installing another OS), but lacking anything which would point to that as the cause, there's no disclaimer. Google's Motorola, OTOH, specifically says they won't cover the product at all, damaged or not.
read it again (Score:2)
Techncially they only deny warranty coverage if the different operating system damaged the product, caused it to be unsafe, or caused it to malfunction.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the key phrase in that disclaimer:
What that means is that IF it is actually the modification that's broken your device, then you're on your own. However, if your device is broken for some other unrelated reason, your warranty is still intact.
Per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the same law that prevents car manufacturers from voiding your warranty for using non-OEM replacement parts), the burden of proof lies on the warrantor (not you) to show that the modification, rather than some warr
Re:Where's the outrage?! (Score:4, Informative)
Also, they're posting "return to factory" images. (Score:3)
Actually, that rule changed a few weeks ago: ...
From the article:
- They are also retroactively reinstating the warranties of people who already asked for an unlock code and had their warranty voided as a result.
- They are posting "return to factory images". (Nice pun, that. They let you flash your phone back to the factory image, which you'll want to do before returning it to the factory for service.) [custhelp.com]
I guess losing a touch more than a third of a billion dollars ($342 million) in one year C
Re: (Score:3)
Is it really software? Or firmware? When do you make the distinction?
We have been spoilt for a long time by the ability to install what we want on a PC. There's the BIOS which will take care of starting up the computer and then an operating system which is user installable. In any case it's practically impossible to break a computer by installing an operating system to the point where it can't be recovered by simply starting the install of another system.
However historically things that did break the comput
Re: (Score:2)
(though considering you posted this 2 minutes after the story went live, when there were no other comments.. you're clearly just a shill who knows there is is no reason for outrage)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Abrasive first post within a minute or two of story being posted. Sometimes they've actually been several paragraphs long. Some people are literally paid to try to sway opinion here. If you pay attention, then you'd notice. Others have put up much more informative posts about the actual company that does all this bullshit, though I can't remember the name. It's not paranoia, it's simply how business and marketing works these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Stories are available to subscribers before they go live and they are available to everyone on the firehose. (It's pretty obvious if a firehose story is going to go live.)
I'm not denying that there are paid shills here, but there are other innocuous explanations for long replies posted soon after a story goes live.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the content of it made it very obvious in the cases that I'm thinking of. There was one where a guy was going on and on about stuff like Windows Server and Visual Studio, while clearly having very little idea about software development methods and philosophies outside of the Windows world. It was kind of amusing in a way. He'd had this massive pro-MS anti-Google post lined up for the minute that the story went live. I think that's when I realised that people are actually being paid to do this stuff, a
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I meant shill as in a literal paid shill. I'm not sure if it's still the same guy that was being a North Korea apologist all the time though.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what mfgs stands for (manufacturers? Management fags? whatever). I've no idea of the actual readership figures these days either, but for example earlier today Bruce Schneier linked to one of todays' Slashdot discussions which was discussing a fairly high profile article he'd just uploaded. I don't know any other sites better for interesting and informative technical discussions. I keep seeing posts like yours, but it actually seems likely that they're also shill posts. If these ACs really have
Re: (Score:2)
The AC is right. Comment counts used to be the high hundreds, commonly over 1000. I've been reading this site for around 10 years, commenting for a couple, and the readership has defiantly fallen. No one I know follows Slashdot other than myself, and I'm checking it less and less.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not easy to untick "official sources only" and download from the Cyanogen mod website? Compared to going through the process of flashing a new ROM to your phone, that is very, very easy. It's not using an "iron fist", it's more they're like waggling a finger in a token gesture to placate the service providers. It's just as easy as before to put a new ROM on your device (which is to say: not always simple, but usually possible somehow).
Re:Where's the outrage?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google shouldn't have to allowed a known "potentially" dangerous app in their store. Anyone with the expertise required to use this firmware can go and get it from the Cyanogen website. It doesn't need to be advertised in the app store for non-technical people to download. Without researching it I'm sure a laymen would think firmware is some kind of a game and could mess up their device without knowing it. Then who's going to take the blame. I suspect it would be Google for distributing it, a laymen will never take responsibility for using something they didn't understand.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to gain traction, 'distribute in other ways' won't fly because it's far simpler to install an app from Google Play than to download from a site into sd card, tick a box in some settings, get a file manager to navigate to app and tap click to install it.
Re:Where's the outrage?! (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want to gain traction, 'distribute in other ways' won't fly because it's far simpler to install an app from Google Play than to download from a site into sd card, tick a box in some settings, get a file manager to navigate to app and tap click to install it.
Your argument hinges on the belief that the users who want CM are unable or unwilling to perform those actions. That assertion is unproven at best. You also don't need a full file manager; you can simply use an APK installer. Some of them are truly teensy tiny. Also, web browsers will sometimes install APKs directly. I don't use Chrome, because it sucks, but Fennec will do it. And you can also open downloads directly from the downloads manager if you download them with the included crap browser.
Now, personally, I do use ES File Explorer for this purpose, both for downloading and for opening the APK, but there's no actual need.
I am running CM nightlies on Franco's kernel. I flashed recovery manually, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't say I like that they're out of the store but I can see why google did it...
Re: (Score:2)
Common sense should dictate it. If you are seriously suggesting that not having your app in the Play store isn't a MAJOR hindrance to adoption, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
If you are seriously suggesting that all apps are created equal, you're just an asshole.
Some neckbeards looking for hipster apps not available elsewhere are not representative of the market at large, which was what GP was talking about.
How convenient that the CM installer is basically a hipster app. How many people do you know actually using features provided by CM that aren't provided by a clean stock reflash, or through other means? Neckbeards are the primary audience! People who can't manage to reflash their phones without the installer will also be unable to reflash their phones with it. Google provides you information on how to unlock their device
Re: (Score:2)
How many people do you know actually using features provided by CM that aren't provided by a clean stock reflash
What are you talking about? A good reason to use CM (or other alternative rom) isn't features, it's the lack of "features": the "stock" images provided by the manufacturers/carriers are loaded with all kinds of shitware. Something like CM can improve performance by not having a bunch of shitware loaded. The other big problem with stock images is that they're usually old; the mfgrs don't bother
Re:Where's the outrage?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I really want to say just getting their story on
Re:Where's the outrage?! (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't a one-click method to install the CM firmware though - just a method of making the installation via PC less painless. All the app does is basically enable USB debug and help with the ADB setup.
Ars did a pretty decent writeup of the installation process here; http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/android-roms-the-easy-way-testing-the-new-cyanogenmod-installer/ [arstechnica.com] - it's certainly not a one-step job.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is they have decided to shift control of application installation into firmware, not for the benefit of the consumer but to lock the consumer into their market place and severely limit competitive choice. Is likely to be very worthwhile to start driving in that wedge between Android and the annoying Goggle App store and start pushing for more FOSS applications on places like http://sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]. People who buy unlocked phones expect them to be 'Unlocked' not not just partly unlocked.
PC ow
Re: (Score:2)
people have been updating hardware drivers (firmware) on PCs for decades
It seems to me the difference is hardware drivers tell one device how to interact with another device, where as firmware tells a device how to work with itself. Screwing up firmware means the device might not work properly period making it very hard for a non-technical person to fix, screwing up hardware drivers means you can't connect or use another device like a printer, sound or video card, which is pretty easily remedied because the primary controlli
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm absolute miffed by the number of comments, already, on this story where the commented doesn't know the difference between software and firmware and doesn't understand why that would void a devices warranty."
Slashdot is no longer a tech site and has not been for some time. It was bound to happen and there's too much profit involved to change it back.
What is needed is a replacement for Slashdot for techies. The promise that such a site can be grown to profitability and the tech audience abandoned later i
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want to fiddle with the SD card? Your mobile browser is perfectly capable of downloading the APK, opening it without a file manager and then if it won't install it's one tick in the settings.
FDroid, Yandex, Amazon, direct download... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure if it's a good thing they removed it from the official store or not. If it was up to me I'd probably allow it with big red letters saying "THIS WILL VOID YOUR WARRANTY AND MIGHT BRICK YOUR PHONE". OTOH people installing stuff from official Google App Store don't expect these things to happen, so maybe it's a good thing for the masses that this app was removed... And tech-savy people will find ways to get Cyanogen installed anyway.
--Coder
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're the first post and you're wondering where the outrage is?
Re: (Score:2)
And rightfully so, however, Google isn't making it impossible to install the CM mod or the installer.
I can understand their point of view, if a newb user is using this to install a different firmware and screws it up, he/she can't fix it and will try to claim warranty, which it will not be given. Then there would be courtcases and other shitstorm stuff that would damage Google because the user was stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is a walled garden. The difference is this one has a huge gate that you can walk through at any time. You can even go inside someone else's walled garden.
In that way, Android's a bit like the Chelsea Flower Show - many gardens to choose from.
Voluntarily? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it sounds more like "resigning" before you get fired.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, should have forced it on them, nothing to gain except "goodwill" from google and frankly I don't see them working with that (it's not goodwill to get asked to have it removed in the first place).
also, since when does google ask for that anyways? afaik they just remove it normally, doing it this way is abnormal.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they aren't violating the current Terms of Service (TOS), but probably will. I expect and update to the Google Play TOS soon. I think it is better to ask for it to be removed instead of not giving any info or giving vague ones (Apple style) of why it is removed.
Re:Voluntarily? (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps making Google look bad isn't their #1 goal. Righteous indignation is cool and all but they're a business.
Re: (Score:3)
It's pretty hilarious that you'd get so worked up over it, when it was Google that created and open sourced Android, which makes it easier for projects like Cyanogen Mod to exist in the first place.
Google are still allowing it to be installed - they're probably just trying to play nice with the phone service providers by doing this.
It would be pretty stupid if one of the apps in your app store requires you to root your device to get any functionality at all. There are some Play Store apps out there where so
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is how things work I guess. Apple bought Siri, which was funded by DARPA, etc. I didn't actually know that though, thanks. I'd never heard of Android before Google made it mainstream.
Re: (Score:3)
Article was corrected (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So why was it pulled then? Just because Google wanted it to be gone? Or maybe because CM was trying to get shipped on devices?
Cyanogen Mod Goes Commercial To Make "Available On Everything, To Everyone"
http://slashdot.org/story/13/09/18/1626237/cyanogen-mod-goes-commercial-to-make-available-on-everything-to-everyone [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny the way you characterize the removal at Google despite knowing nothing about what exactly happened internally. If this was Microsoft, Slashdot would immediately jump to the worst possible conclusion.
Reached out (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't "reach out to Google", they contacted Google. Using "reached out to" in this context makes it sound like they are trying to make an emotional appeal to an elderly stroke patient. The perfectly usable verb "contact" is also one word instead of three.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrongo. The phrase "reached out to" was used because it's become the trendy way to say "contact". It's showing up in all kinds of copy, news and otherwise, and it's revolting. It's PR speak at its worst and you're witnessing its universal adoption.
Install manually? (Score:2)
Can everyone side-load these days or do some carriers still lock that down?
Encouraging? (Score:2, Funny)
Go on... void your warranty. All the cool kids are doing it.
What, What? (Score:2)
I feel okay with this. (Score:4, Insightful)
The sort of people who want to install CM will still have absolutely no problem going to the website and doing it manually. This presents no barrier to them exercising their choice of how to use their hardware.
On the flip side of that, having it in the Play store presents something of an outright danger to people who don't know any better (aka "the vast majority")... "Oh, a new version of Android? Hey, I have an Android, I should grab this!". Ten minutes later, their battery dies, or they get sick of watching the installer screen and interrupt it. Oops! Partial brick-time, and now Google (via Samsung/HTC/etc, via Verizon/Sprint/etc) gets to deal with thousands of self-inflicted warranty issues.
Again, at the risk of sounding like an apologist, Google has made compromises that let power-users do whatever the hell they want, while providing 99% of the "walled garden" experience most users want.
Void warranties? How? (Score:2)
How can the act of simply installing software void a warranty?
When you come down to it, today's smartphone is just a compact, pocket-size general purpose computer with a radio transceiver in it. I fail to see how anyone can legitimately claim that installing software on it (even changing an OS) can void the warranty - particularly such a computer that comes with GPL software which is designed by the very license for user customization. If there is a chance it will be bricked, then that's a manufacturing de
Re: (Score:2)
kimvette's comment so eloquently and thoroughly demonstrates why Google felt obligated to remove the app from their storefront.
Brick (Score:2)
Because a phone is not a PC, that's why.
The bootloader of the phone lives on the same flash chip as the OS. For a moment let's just put aside the fact that recovering a phone from a bad flash using it's "download mode" is an arcane procedure involving special software that most people won't have. Beyond that, a failed flash of an OS can brick your phone in such a way that even the "download" mode of your phone does not work, and the only way to fix it is to crack open the phone and JTAG the memory directly.
Re: (Score:2)
"Because a phone is not a PC, that's why."
That's funny, because mine sure as fuck plays games, edits documents, and lets me use things like Skype, AIM, and web browsers just like a fucking PC. I can even plug in a game controller and use that to play games instead of relying upon touch screen controls.
Or did you forget PC = Personal Computer, which defines a smartphone almost to a T?
Why not make the app to do a download/install/run? (Score:2)
One thing to try to appease Google Play is to change the app, so it's a set of instructions/downloads as follows:
* If Unknown Sources isn't ticked on, the first screen tells the user to go to Setttings/Security and tick on Unknown Sources (maybe that screen could be loaded by the app to make it even easier?).
* Next, the app downloads the apk from the CM site and installs it.
* Ask the user to uncheck Unknown Sources if they had to check it on in the first step.
* Run the downloaded app (exiting the original a
Re:Google is a pile of shit (Score:5, Funny)
Just unplug the router, fashion a tinfoil hat and wear it while crying yourself to sleep in a corner. Google is the internet, get used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution to your problem lies on the foundations of it.
i.e.: Ask yourself why you want to block all Google hosts and open your mind to a new solution to that same problem. One that while less evident may well be more feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm increasingly trying to find reasons not to block. Their G+ tracker icons and toolbar are now all over the place (even saw the toolbar on Liveleak, of all places, at one point). They've extended their Real Name harassment to anyone who logs on to GMail. (They've done it only once for me, for now, as opposed to the every-reload rain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like it or not, mobile software is tightly-coupled to the hardware, and the warranty. I expect the manufacturers consider this more akin to wiping the firmware on your TV, microwave, or car.
Re: (Score:2)
...None of which actually void your warranty unless the manufacturer can prove that that's the problem was caused by your modification (per the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act).
For example, if you hack your car's ECU for more horsepower, it's not going to void the warranty on the suspension.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people running CyanogenMod still run pretty much the same Google apps as those running stock, as far as I've ever seen. I don't think there's any alterior motives for this.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, though, without all the bloatware that Google puts in "stock" Android, Google doesn't get all the user data they normally would. Especially now that they've forced everybody into Google+.
Re:Google. The new Apple/IBM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh do fuck off. Warranties are limited in nature. It's got nothing to do with stopping you from doing what you want with your own property and everything to do with the fact that if you fuck up your own phone, it's not the manufacturer's problem to solve.
Google deciding not to distribute an application is not akin to making you into their slave. Pointing out that a warranty might be voided if you do certain things is not akin to making you into their slave. All your analogies to "walking off the plantation" do is highlight that you have absolutely no sense of perspective on this matter.
Re: (Score:2)
"All your analogies to "walking off the plantation" do is highlight that you have absolutely no sense of perspective on this matter. "
WHOOSH
GP was referring to the user data that "stock" Android collects for Google, as opposed to Cyanogenmod, which by itself collects none.
Re: (Score:3)
Several problems with your statement there...
1. Google didn't just "point out" that this application may void your warranty. It was already pointed out in large red, bold le
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If by 'encourage(s) users to void their warranty'" you mean "use the thing you paid for however you see fit in concordance with a thousand year history of English, Formal and natural law, then yeah, I guess you could say it voids your warranty.
That's something of an overstatement. Can you show us a thousand year history of products coming with warranties and a body of law that deals with it?
Companies that SELL stuff normally take a position that if you modify it in such a way that it no longer performs the purpose for which they designed it to be used, that's your responsiblity and has nothing to do with their warranty whether written or implied.
It's just amazing seeing, first Apple, and now Google, transform themselves into the modern IBM with their ever encroaching and desperate "lock in" policies.
Apple has always been playing the lock in game. Try running any software written for your Apple comp
come on, get real (Score:2)
If you reflash your computer BIOS with something random that you cooked up, do you think the manufacturer should be on the hook to fix it? You screwed it up, you're responsible.
Embedded devices are *not standardized*. Alternate kernels could cause things to overheat, raise the voltage too high (or drop it too low), apply voltage to the wrong pins, etc. If you do this and damage your device, do you really think that the manufacturer should fix it for you?
And conveniently enough, just booting an alternate
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I support removing CM installer from the play store.
Not because rooting/unlocking voids warranties, but because installing from within the OS is a terrible idea and much more likely to (soft) brick the phone
It's like trying to install a desktop OS without having a bootable cd/usb to fall back on.