And fuck you over with data mining everything all the time without you having any means to cut it out
Doesn’t seem to be any vendor option to avoid this other than Apple, or the niche guys like Fairphone.
Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
41–50 of 254 posts
Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
#42It is really a pity, as this means Android OS is closing down. Without supported Consumer Hardware available on the market in sufficient volume, even less end-users will use an alternative OS, which will affect quality and size of the alternative OS-market and fragment the remaining users even more. This will put the future of the entire alternative-OS ecosystem firmly back into the hands of Google. If they start fur…
I’ve always said that it’s been “Google’s Android”, and wellp —- Welcome to Google’s Android, where the garden walls have been turned into a razorwire fence and you’re not welcome to leave. It’s really funny that Apple’s finally allowing carefully controlled access outside of their own fences and slowly adding more APIs and expansion (hell, Apple are the only platform now with third party APIs for RCS in the EU) whil…
Of course it's been Google's Android, I don't think anyone ever questioned that. The whole reason why the OS still lives as a single entity and the app-ecosystem is not completely fragmented is due to Google's governance to keep it in check.
All the stuff Apple now slowly starts to allow on iOS due to EU's Digital Markets Act is still just scratching the surface of what Android already supports.
> hell, Apple are the only platform now with third party APIs for RCS in the EU
They provide third party API's to use APPLE's RCS-Service. The alternative would have been to support registering alternative RCS-services as default on the OS (and then, allow the user to choose a service).
> while Google’s spun an about face and will get away with it
Android already allows to install and configure alternative applications for RCS, in fact Samsung uses their own RCS Messaging service on its devices.
Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
#43It is really a pity, as this means Android OS is closing down. Without supported Consumer Hardware available on the market in sufficient volume, even less end-users will use an alternative OS, which will affect quality and size of the alternative OS-market and fragment the remaining users even more. This will put the future of the entire alternative-OS ecosystem firmly back into the hands of Google. If they start fur…
I’ve always said that it’s been “Google’s Android”, and wellp —- Welcome to Google’s Android, where the garden walls have been turned into a razorwire fence and you’re not welcome to leave. It’s really funny that Apple’s finally allowing carefully controlled access outside of their own fences and slowly adding more APIs and expansion (hell, Apple are the only platform now with third party APIs for RCS in the EU) whil…
Google is first and foremost an advertising company. They're going to do whatever makes them the most profit. It always had razor wire fences unfortunately.
Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fairphone does! https://www.fairphone.com/en/bootloader-unlocking-code-for-f...
Do anyone know why GrapheneOS doesn't support fairphone?
The curious thing is that being GrapheneOS open source, I would think that somebody could potentially create a ROM for them, even if it is not as secure as GrapheneOS would like. However, absolutely nobody has done it yet...
Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
You still own the device even if the bootloader is locked. It's like saying you don't own a CPU because you can't add your own instructions. There are always going to be limits to what you can easily customize for a device.
Adding cpu instructions is something that you can't physically do, however unlocking the bootloader is something you can do via software, and if a vendor chooses to lock it down they're basically taking away your ability to do anything you would want to do with a device. Sadly this is has been the case for a while and it's probably going to continue being the case.
> they're basically taking away your ability to do anything....
... with your property, with is a violation of your rights in most western jurisdictions.
Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve always said that it’s been “Google’s Android”, and wellp —- Welcome to Google’s Android, where the garden walls have been turned into a razorwire fence and you’re not welcome to leave. It’s really funny that Apple’s finally allowing carefully controlled access outside of their own fences and slowly adding more APIs and expansion (hell, Apple are the only platform now with third party APIs for RCS in the EU) whil…
Of course it's been Google's Android, I don't think anyone ever questioned that. The whole reason why the OS still lives as a single entity and the app-ecosystem is not completely fragmented is due to Google's governance to keep it in check. All the stuff Apple now slowly starts to allow on iOS due to EU's Digital Markets Act is still just scratching the surface of what Android already supports. > hell, Apple are the…
> Samsung uses their own RCS Messaging service on its devices
No? They’ve switched to Google Messages, and most/all carriers have switched to Google Jibe RCS (again, Google forcing its services into operator hands), which basically forces SafetyNet attestation to use.
Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
#47dont worry, samsung knows only 300 people will actually care. As for me, I already swore off Samdung for their whole Samsung account bs and apps they bundle and won't let me remove (or disable).
samsung is the only smartphone manufacturer that still makes phones (though not many) with all the features I want: microSD slot, dual physical sim, side-mounted fingerprint reader, headphone jack, nfc, and regular (long-lasting) security updates
they also have service centers pretty much everywhere in the world, so I can always get my phone fixed (for a reasonable price, as a result of their ubiquity) if and when I inevitably break it
would I also prefer the option to unlock my bootloader? yes. if I'm honest with myself, is it a deal-breaker? sadly, no, I no longer use custom ROMs
Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can physically do it with a microcode update. It's also anti-consumer that CPU vendors don't let customers who own the CPU perform whatever updates they want because they don't give out signing keys.
If malware could install microcode it could break the security of the system. There is more consumer benefit than harm by locking it down to trusted updates.
Trusted, sure
Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can physically do it with a microcode update. It's also anti-consumer that CPU vendors don't let customers who own the CPU perform whatever updates they want because they don't give out signing keys.
If malware could install microcode it could break the security of the system. There is more consumer benefit than harm by locking it down to trusted updates.
The security model could allow the end user to install keys for the root of trust for the CPU, much like how UEFI Secure Boot allows you to install your own keys. That CPUs don't have this functionality may not be purposefully anti-consumer (and just laziness), but the net effect is anti-consumer.
As it stands, besides preventing the user from making modifications to CPU functionality, the user is also forced to "trust" updates that might be created for specific anti-consumer purposes (say, compelled by government security services).
Re: Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8
#50More devices we no longer own and that are bound to become trash in a few years, and for what reason? So companies can make more profits?
You still own the device even if the bootloader is locked. It's like saying you don't own a CPU because you can't add your own instructions. There are always going to be limits to what you can easily customize for a device.
I don't believe a user lacking the ability to perform a microcode update impacts their freedom in any meaningful way. The CPU still executes whatever instructions it's given unless the user is deprived of that freedom.