CyanogenMod Installer Application Removed from Play Store

Post by ceol » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 3:19 AM UTC

Touche wrote: post #58

coldtea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That had literally nothing to do with the end user, and everything to do with trying to enforce a monopoly. That word, monopoly. I don't think it means what you think it means. What they were trying to enforce was a common programming language for all apps that they could improve in tandem with the OS, so they wouldn't be held hostage in the future to be backwards compatible to some popular runtime (like Flash once…

Objective C is so good that no one ever chooses to use it outside of Apple world.

Post by eieio » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 3:28 AM UTC

interpol_p wrote: post #103

MichaelGG wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The app doesn't void your warranty. It encourages you to perform further actions that may void your warranty. Major difference. The article is clear that Google admits the app itself is not harmful.

I don't think that's a good enough distinction. If it's from the official store it should not even indirectly lead to harming your device or warranty. If an app tells you to throw your phone in the air — and I was both the phone hardware manufacturer and app store curator — I wouldn't allow it on my store either. It's going to increase customer complaints.

Post by shooper » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:16 AM UTC

naner wrote: post #28

With the CM Installer in the play store many lay-people started using it, rendering their phones unusable[1] when any little issue cropped up. Also the process wasn't foolproof even for people capable of dealing with technical issues[2]. It isn't polished enough to go in the play store IMO. I don't know WTF the cyanogenmod team was thinking, non-technical people messing with CM will just lead to negative press. 1: ht…

Post by fpgeek » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:30 AM UTC

ceol wrote: post #110

fpgeek wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of Apple's decisions are about the end user, often to the detriment of the developer. Mandatory app review, Apple deals entirely with customers, unified in-app purchase interface. Please explain to me how Apple effectively blocking users of Amazon apps from having the in-app stores (ebooks, mp3s, etc.) they have on Android is in the user's interest. When you're done with that, do the same for Apple's effective…

Conjecture: End users can be confident everything that they purchase in an app is tied to their iTunes account. Purchasing an Amazon e-book using the Kindle app means the end user — who is not the most tech-savvy — needs to have an Amazon account and they need to be aware that anything purchased in the Kindle app (and only the Kindle app) doesn't get associated with their iTunes account, which is a different behavior…

Post by shooper » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:33 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #88

iamshs wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is only one person whose phone is rendered unusable and not many as you insinuate. Same thing happened with PS4 launch when people reported issues, but statistic turned out to be http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/11/android-roms-the-easy...

If an app bricks one phone in ten thousand, that's too much for the Play store. That doesn't mean the package can't exist outside of the Play store. In fact, the ability to install something outside of the Play store framework seems like one good test for whether someone is ready to make the jump.