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

Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

xda-developers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 204 posts

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#41

Post by opan »

jankotek wrote: post #31
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel LineageOS + F-Droid is often underrated when it comes to these discussions about alternate ecosystems. If we're ready to let go of name brands, then F-Droid has some very high quality apps[1] built with passion over profit. But I agree that the initial friction to setup LineageOS on the device is far too high for a non-technical customer, Something which could be only resolved if a devices ships with LineageOS…

I had run LineageOS for some time. It works, but FDroid is missing too many apps, even opensource like Signal. I have to update apks manually every few months.

This exact issue years ago made me think less of (and stop using) Signal rather than F-Droid. You're better off with XMPP or Matrix, plus an ordinary SMS app.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#42

Post by falcolas »

sp332 wrote: post #36
devney wrote: post #24

On the surface this seems blatantly illegal: after the sale is made the no-longer-owner removes functionality. Can someone please explain how this is legally not some sort of theft, or bait-and-switch, or ... something? I read comments about firmware licensing, or Japan's camera noise thing. Those sound like Samsung problems, while disabling a camera sounds like an actionable user problem.

It's not really an after-sale thing. They sold a phone with a booby trap set already. If the customer springs the trap, that's a customer action, not a Samsung action.

Most laws tend to frown upon traps. And the blame goes to the one who sets the trap, not the one who trips it, even if the victim was engaging in otherwise illegal actions.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#43

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

jankotek wrote: post #31
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel LineageOS + F-Droid is often underrated when it comes to these discussions about alternate ecosystems. If we're ready to let go of name brands, then F-Droid has some very high quality apps[1] built with passion over profit. But I agree that the initial friction to setup LineageOS on the device is far too high for a non-technical customer, Something which could be only resolved if a devices ships with LineageOS…

I had run LineageOS for some time. It works, but FDroid is missing too many apps, even opensource like Signal. I have to update apks manually every few months.

Yes it's a shame that Signal is not on F-Droid, but there's a self updating apk available[1] for side-loading which doesn't use Google Push Notifications if not available and as for why it's not there on F-Droid here's their official response[1], Which IMO makes some reasonable (against forks using their servers) and unreasonable (against normalizing side-loading) justifications.

[1] https://community.signalusers.org/t/wiki-signal-android-app-...

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#44

Post by CountDrewku »

anonymousiam wrote: post #16

The new Samsung phones are less attractive for many reasons. A few months ago I upgraded my S8+ to a S20+. I considered the S21+ or Note, but none of those have a microSD slot. I suspect that my next phone will be one of these: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/

Is this actually reliable enough to use as an everyday device? As much as I'd like to leave the big 2 I'm not going to carry something that might be unusable when I really need it.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#46

Post by ByteWelder »

anonymousiam wrote: post #16

The new Samsung phones are less attractive for many reasons. A few months ago I upgraded my S8+ to a S20+. I considered the S21+ or Note, but none of those have a microSD slot. I suspect that my next phone will be one of these: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/

A $900 device with low tier hardware specs (720p screen, 32GB eMMC storage, etc.) is not a particularly appealing offer. I understand that the value comes from the security aspect, but I personally don't find that worth a $700 markup.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#47

Post by dheerajvs »

zinekeller wrote: post #29
makeitdouble wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW there is no law in Japan about shutter sound, makers are following the consensus by their own will (don’t want to be the only ones to not follow) This is usually just a trivia, but in these cases it’s informative on what length makers feel obligated to go to protect that shutter sound part. Which is, not much in general. If you use a foreign SIM card it won’t follow that rule, same for some of the capture modes,…

Note: India actually has a law over this which is (to emphasise how serious the law is) even coded into AOSP (not on the camera app itself), where it won't allow you to silence the shutter if either you're roaming inside India (regardless of the origin of your SIM card) or you have an Indian SIM card (regardless of where you are roaming). I can't remind a similar law on any East Asian country though.

Huh? There's no such law. I have turned off the shutter sound option in every single phone I've purchased here in India so far.

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#48

Post by InitialLastName »

devney wrote: post #34
JCWasmx86 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably somewhere deep in the EULA/ToS and furthermore it is shown, while unlocking the bootloader. Whether this is legal or not, is surely an open question.

That raises whole other legal questions.... One basic pillar of contract law basically everywhere is that one can not be bound by a contract that they didn't read, even if they signed it. Usually these cases involve coercion or not knowing the language. If nobody can read the EULA because it's 10 pages of densely written legalese, can they even be bound by it? Since BigCo deliberately made their EULA harder to read t…

> One basic pillar of contract law basically everywhere is that one can not be bound by a contract that they didn't read, even if they signed it.

Wait, there has to be more nuance to this, right? Like, I can't just sign a contract and say "I didn't read it" when a term I don't like comes into force. Is there a precedent for where that line is?

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#49

Post by [deleted] »

JCWasmx86 wrote: post #32
devney wrote: post #24

On the surface this seems blatantly illegal: after the sale is made the no-longer-owner removes functionality. Can someone please explain how this is legally not some sort of theft, or bait-and-switch, or ... something? I read comments about firmware licensing, or Japan's camera noise thing. Those sound like Samsung problems, while disabling a camera sounds like an actionable user problem.

It's probably somewhere deep in the EULA/ToS and furthermore it is shown, while unlocking the bootloader. Whether this is legal or not, is surely an open question.

[deleted]

Re: Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the bootloader

#50

Post by zeveb »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #12

I can almost guarantee this is due to licensing issues with the camera firmware. Modern cameras aren't just hardware any more. They're a mix of hardware and advanced processing algorithms that really do make a huge difference in the final output. Those algorithms are often licensed from 3rd parties with specific licensing requirements. Sony has been reasonably good about enabling open-source and fixing these things i…

> I can almost guarantee this is due to licensing issues with the camera firmware.

I think that a good pro-market regulation would be to require that all hardware be sold with the firmware required to operate it under some sort of open source license.

Once one has bought a device, one should be able to continue operating it.

Post reply on HN