Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

fitzsim.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 359 posts

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#131

Post by r00tanon »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #111
r00tanon wrote: post #101

ELI5 - everything about a phone only works when the carrier allows it to connect to the network. So, the way this is done is to, well, connect to the network and allow the phone to be unlocked - which according to the article is what happened? So the real complaint is that the Pixel can't be loaded with a customized Android OS (or Linux, etc.) without being connected to the internet first and this is bad because the…

> this is bad because the vendor might Because the vendor can anytime say 'fuck you' and disable/remove the process which allows unlocking the bootloader. Edit: already happened with Pixel 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854552

So anyone who has already unlocked their Pixel 2 is good to go right? Getting the latest Pixel unlocked requires an internet connection, but once done it's done.

So the complaint is that in the far future the vendor might not support that on a six year old phone (by that time)? But, it is supported now, so what's the beef?

My old Pixel 2 only works now plugged into power and on WIFI because the battery is dead. I can get super-pissed off at Google for not supporting battery replacement on the Pixel 2, but it's a 6 year old phone. How long should I expect them to support it knowing at the time about the sealed battery. I can't get that pissed seeing as I bought it knowing the facts at the time :)

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#132

Post by JeremyNT »

jacooper wrote: post #99

Honestly be glad that google still allows bootloader unlocking. And the WiFi requirement is very small, and the article is overblowing it.

Yeah, the state of affairs with Google is better than any other mainstream vendor.

It seems lame that you have to phone home to unlock a new device, but it's nothing compared to what they could be doing.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#133

Post by chaxor »

r00tanon wrote: post #101

ELI5 - everything about a phone only works when the carrier allows it to connect to the network. So, the way this is done is to, well, connect to the network and allow the phone to be unlocked - which according to the article is what happened? So the real complaint is that the Pixel can't be loaded with a customized Android OS (or Linux, etc.) without being connected to the internet first and this is bad because the…

One issue for this process that I have seen when talking about the Pixel is:

    -  ***You can't actually back up your Pixel***
It's enormously frustrating, because this is the typical advice before moving to a different OS. But apparently, actually mounting the device or seeing it via `lsblk` is from what I can tell impossible. I tried for a while to simply make a direct image with `dd` to try out other OSes etc but I couldn't even figure out a way to mount it, or in the cases it could be mounted it was using some insanely stupid fuse fs that was specifically made to be difficult to use. They want you to use some ridiculously complex and idiotic idea that revolves around using the cloud for backups, which I couldn't figure out precisely what was done because it isn't open source, so I refuse to use it. It's insane that you can't just `dd if=/dev/sdX of=phone.img` or something simple.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#134

Post by smeej »

lostgame wrote: post #65
George83728 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I’m guessing with this you’d use an alternative store like F-Droid instead of the Play Store? Not necessarily, but that's the best way to do it. Between apps from F-Droid and a browser, you don't need any apps from the play store. Your bank doesn't have an app on F-Droid you might say? Well that's what the browser is for.

Ha. Your example is rather specific seeming to me, as I actually work on one of the big 5 Canadian banking iOS apps here in Toronto. For obvious reasons; we don’t ship to alternate stores - even if such a thing as iOS sideloading existed; we wouldn’t support it, and we of course do not support anything but the Play Store on Android. It’s obviously partly a support cost issue - there would be less than 1% of our milli…

Security in banking apps in the U.S. is an absolute joke. I'm glad to hear Canada takes it more seriously.

I've used everything from giant multinational banks to local credit unions in the U.S., and none of them will even let me sign in with U2F. Many of them still have password character limits.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#135

Post by KennyBlanken »

judge2020 wrote: post #116
MereInterest wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not allowing a bootloader to be unlocked on a company-owned device does sound like a desirable feature, but only for company-owned devices. Applying that setup to all phones assumes that the default phone is a company-owned device and is subject to external control.

A different SKU for enterprise managed devices would cripple IT departments that don't pay the big bucks to e.g. verizon to manage their device provisioning & MDM enrollment.

Has it occurred to you that the feature you're defending allows Google to lock customers into their provisioning/MDM? That this is worse than Verizon controlling provisioning/MDM, because at least Verizon is subject to market competition (ie you can buy the device from other parties), whereas Google doing it means you have no choice whatsoever?

You're also grossly exaggerating things. We're not talking about a change that would prohibit management, just one that would not allow them to do zero-touch enrollment into their management systems.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#136

Post by squarefoot »

George83728 wrote: post #52
lostgame wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I’m guessing with this you’d use an alternative store like F-Droid instead of the Play Store? (Pardon my ignorance, I’m an iOS dev and have been for a decade; I don’t really know the Android landscape.)

> So I’m guessing with this you’d use an alternative store like F-Droid instead of the Play Store? Not necessarily, but that's the best way to do it. Between apps from F-Droid and a browser, you don't need any apps from the play store. Your bank doesn't have an app on F-Droid you might say? Well that's what the browser is for.

Don't bank apps complain if the phone is rooted or runs anything than a stock OS?

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#137

Post by smeej »

yellowapple wrote: post #100
mindslight wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, why would you ever want an app for your bank on your mobile phone ? So that when you get mugged, it can turn into a kidnapping? I use some bank apps because they're quicker than the websites. But I do this with a cheap Nexus 7 tablet that stays at home with a label saying "full take" stuck to the top to remind me to not trust it with any sensitive information. Segregating apps onto different devices is the way t…

> Erm, why would you ever want an app for your bank on your mobile phone? To easily check balances and make transfers wherever I am. This is possible without the app, but the app makes it easier/quicker than the mobile site in most cases. > So that when you get mugged, it can turn into a kidnapping? How do you suggest a mugger to find out whether such an app is even installed, let alone do anything about it, in this…

> How do you suggest a mugger to find out whether such an app is even installed, let alone do anything about it, in this day and age of full-device encryption being the default?

They make you do it, the same way they made you give them the device in the first place.

I don't know why anyone thinks it would turn into a kidnapping, but it's pretty easy for someone who has already forced you to give them your phone to use the same technique to force you to unlock it.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#138

Post by KennyBlanken »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #112
kortilla wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. Have you considered that the delay between getting the device and getting it connected could be well outside of the return window or people could be purchasing them in countries without such consumer rights? Smartphones aren’t only for the developed world.

Who buys a brand new phone but also has no internet connection for weeks? Do they have all the apps they need pre-downloaded? I don't think that's a big group.

It's quite common for people from elsewhere in the world to buy electronics in the US, Europe, Japan, etc and then bring them back to their home countries for a fraction of the cost of what the official or unofficial importer(s) want. That's why you end up with all sorts of region-locking nonsense, companies trying to protect their importers who have a monopoly on distribution of a particular device.

Re: Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

#140

Post by Ch4otic »

jacooper wrote: post #99

Honestly be glad that google still allows bootloader unlocking. And the WiFi requirement is very small, and the article is overblowing it.

For all we know it's just Google activating the device to ensure it wasn't stolen and reflashed with another OS. Apple requires a device to be activated before it's usable.
Post reply on HN