Google blocks rooted Android devices

Google blocks rooted Android devices from movie store Google has blocked rooted Android devices from its movie rental service. Rooting your phone doesn't meet "requirements related to copyright protection," see. [Ars] Due to demands dual boot android phone from the studios, as if Google has a saying on the matter. This is a redux of the DRM they stuck in Google Video, which ended in total, unmitigated disaster. I not naive enough to expect Google to avoid evil at all times, but being *stupidly evil* is pretty inexcusable. The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. It is almost as if they actually are trying to dapeng t8000 force everyone to use unlicensed torrents to get their media. I don't even bother with DVD's anymore and only want a BlueRay player to harvest the laser, who can sit through the mandatory warnings and previews. Someone on slashdot hit this on the head. Someone will just make a root level liar hack. MPAA Server:"Are you a rooted Android phone i9+++ ?" Rooted phone:"no modifications here, would I lie to you sweetie?" "...reated like a criminal just because I'm smart enough to get rid of CityID", exactly. I rooted mine to rid it of CityID, Madden, Need for Speed, and use programs like QuickClock, Titanium Backup, h3000 LazyDroid, and Wireless Teather. Who the hell is going to pirate movies on a phone?!? It'd make a lot more sense to just pirate the real thing on a computer and copy or stream it to your phone. I suspect this is a requirement coming from MPAA to allow movie rental on Android devices. I recall Nokia talking about something similar related to Maemo/Meego phones. They would have a special switch (software or hardware, not sure) that would allow people to mess around with the firmware internals (as done by the community on previous Maemo devices), but doing so would lock the user out of any DRM "protected" h3000 android phone content. The basic problem for them is that without content, their products are bricks in the eyes of non-geek customers. But to get content they have to bend over backwards to the demands of the content providers. Hell, this is why Google did not launch a music store alongside their music locker service. Their negotiations with the record companies (likely via RIAA) went nowhere as said record companies demanded that Google filter out file sharing form search results. Great. Hero H9 Now everything that comes up on my Android phone's screen will sound in my head like it's coming from River Song. Thanks a bunch... This is rather funny though, after hearing all the "well, I'm not going subscribe to the evil Jobsian overlord and his walled garden. I use Android because it's so OPEN" I think it's worth considering this in the context of trusted computing. star x10 The cost of rolling out trusted platform modules for cellphone is not inconceivable and I'm sure g0ogle can handle the technical details of implementation. Why would you buy or use a phone you did not have exclusive administrative control over and is actually working against you? And how is the annoying restriction on this one app making the platform not open? Because Google makes a BIG DEAL over the so-called openness of Android, by which they mean to differentiate themselves from the "closed" nature of IOS. It is clear that Google means to send the message that anyone, anywhere can grab the Android source code, or assume total control over an installed instance, but this is increasingly NOT the case. Early access to the latest Airphone NO.4 Android source is limited to those manufacturers who will stay "compliant." any vendor wishing to go their own way with the code will have to wait until some distant unspecified dat in the future. Of course, no vendor can take that kind of competitive handicap. And now, there is this little exception. As Gruber puts it, Google makes a big deal out of being open, so they are scrutinized on the basis of openness. Apple makes a big deal out of amazing design and polished UX, so they are scrutinized about those things. Nobody says peep about how clunky and boring Google's apps are. Indeed their entire beta-riddled portfolio feels like it never left the dorm room. It fairly reeks of Top Ramen and Mountain Dew. But Google clucks a lot about how "open always wins" so things like this smack of hypocrisy. #13 • 9:22 AM, May 23 • Reply Anon Much as I don't like the decision, this is likely a condition  star a3000 that was placed upon them by the people that they licensed the content from, rather than something that they just chose to do. I cannot say if they should have fought harder, but the studios are more likely the villains here than Google. Sad as it is its par for the course foe anyone who offers movies. It's funny how the evil Apple iPhone is looking as folks like Google keep closing up their supposedly "open" hardware. Not to mention, have any of you noticed all the massive security problems with Android phones? It's like Mac vs. PC security comparison all over again in that regard. So, why doesn't the iPhone aiphone sk168 have nearly as many security problems as the Android? Sorry, can't use the marketshare MYTH that's continuously and errantly propagated against Mac OS X computers vs Windows computers... Some of you are finally going to have to look at the architecture and actually know what you're talking about when it comes to security. Oh, and to any idiots who are going to say this... no... I don't think the iPhone (or Macs) are "impregnable". Google Andriod link went nuts above because it was too long I guess? Can't use url shortener, so guess I'll try this instead: Isn't that the same logic people use to support the TSA and the Patriot Haipad M701 Act in the US? "It's ok to be controlled by a larger entity (iOS by Apple, US people by government) because it means you're safer"? I've had an Android phone for over a year and it's been rooted for just as long. If the price I pay for having the freedom to install whatever I want from wherever I want and use whatever ROM I want on my phone is that I risk getting some malware, I'm totally cool with that. I'll gladly give up some security for freedom. #17 • 11:25 AM, May 23 • Reply RevEng in reply zenithink 2 to Cowicide Actually, it's quite simple. Apple has a solid update framework with regular updates to iOS and (almost) mandatory upgrades. Users are informed of updates when they plug in their phone and with the push of a button they get updated. It's one of those great features that comes with single-sourced hardware and control of the distribution zenithink zt 180 channel. Android doesn't have this at all; in fact, it has its antithesis. There is no auto-update functionality for the OS. Updates do come out, but not on a particularly regular basis, and users can't install them directly. Since the device manufacturers customize the hell out of the kernel, and it's a monolithic kernel architecture, customers have to wait for their manufacturer to create updated software for their phone, even after Google has released an updated OS. Many manufacturers never produce updates and few offer support even a year later; they eschew long-term support for a stream of new hardware releases. If you want the new Android, you'll have to buy the new Android phone. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a good solution to this for customers right now. Manufacturers aren't about to go out of their way to make updates more consistent, and since they are all using custom drivers, there is little Google can do to provide the updates themselves. I suppose Google could pressure them into being more responsive, but first Google would have to do so themselves; their track record for fixing things in Android and providing even basic features has been abysmal. Like the Linux system it's built on, if you want it done, you'll have to do it yourself (and there's a strong group of developers who do). Unfortunately, Google and the manufacturers are undermining the "openness" of the architecture, by locking people of out flashing new firmware or even getting root access and, as this article points out, punishing those who try. Their "openness" is a sham. FWIW, I don't like the iPhone and I own a Samsung Galaxy S Android phone. I think iOS is much better designed, but I can't stand how much they lock me into (and out of) their devices. For my purposes, Android is the lesser of two evils, but that's not saying much for either of them. I'm going to call false analogy on that one. I could go on for a while on this but they just aren't even kind of the same. Seriously, how does Apple control anyone? Aside from the mac zombies who will buy whatever the latest is, sight Android 2.3 Table PC unseen. DO they restrict your choices? sure but the tradeoff is that there will be working, secure, software/ hardware that you've bought. By contrast, some of the choices avaiable for competing platforms resemble a back alley watch vendor. I admit it's not a perfect comparison, but I still see it as Macs/iPhones and PCs/Android caters to two different markets: Apple caters to those who want sleek devices that work smoothly, but have the restriction of having to go through their (Apple's) systems and services. Since Apple controls every step of the process, from the hardware to software to distribution, they can ensure it's fast and high quality. Google/Android caters to those who want more personal control over their devices, including things like Telechips TCC 8803 wireless tethering and the ability to install applications from the SDcard, bypassing their market system. While Sprint and Verizon will crack down on this and lock some of those features, other things (non-approved applications) are still available. (Obviously rooting the phone can enable the wireless tether option, but that may be true of the iPhone as well--I really don't know--so I won't claim that as unique to them.) Save for this instance of Google blocking rooted devices, they usually seem quite accepting of custom ROMs and rooting. And yes, this does mean that Android doesn't always get updates or run as smoothly or that even all Android apps run on all phones as the hardware varies so drastically. It's a different approach than Apple: by allowing more variability and user-end modification, you inherently lose the quality-control Amlogic A9 and security that Apple values. It's a trade-off. It really just depends on of the two philosophies you like: do you want more control and variability with your device or do you want it to run smoothly and just work? Custom building PCs is the same thing--you run the risk of more stuff going wrong (and not getting tech support), but, in my eyes, you also get more control over the hardware which can give better performance. Ah, yes. The trains run on time*. I still don't see what this has to do with openness. The platform is still open. You can download the source, inspect it, recompile and install it. Are there apps that look for certain platform configurations and refuse to run in those configurations? Amlogic A9 7" Android 2.2 Table PC Why, yes, there are. Why is that surprising? That an app-writer (okay, yeah, who also wrote the OS) could write such a thing. Because such a thing is not prohibited by the OS. But -- that's an app. That's not a platform. And it has nothing to do with the source code that you can download, view, modify, and re-distribute. You're not mixing apples and oranges -- you're core-dumping FUD. On the updating of Android phones, Google announced at their IO conference recently that they where working with major brands to get a more consistent update schedule in place. Damn. I guess now we'll have to find some technological method of getting these video files onto a media device without using their service. I hope someone hurries up and invents one. Warning: Anonymous messages are held for moderation. This could take a (long) while. Or your comment may not be posted at all. Please consider creating an account and logging in. It's fast, free, and we don't spam, ever.