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

S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

#71

Post by grishka »

mschuster91 wrote: post #63
grishka wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google phones allow re-locking the bootloader with your own key, except it still results in a warning during boot, and there's no way you're passing SafetyNet with this, at least not without hacks like Magisk. Also even when you unlock the bootloader, the TrustZone OS, which runs with hypervisor permissions and manages all the exciting things like DRM and SafetyNet itself, is still off limits for you.

There is a fix for SafetyNet - it forces the client-side library to assume that there is no hardware co-processor.

It's bound to break in the future. Google will stop, if didn't already, certifying devices that lack the TEE.

The issue I'm pointing out is that this device integrity thing exists at all, and that Google ends up having more control over the device and its capabilities than its legitimate owner.

Re: S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

#72

Post by sangnoir »

anaganisk wrote: post #67
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick google search actually reveals Apple has 53% of the market in the U.S. [1] Also, to even compare that Android phones are 'cheaper' is rather bold, there's Samsung flip phones selling for $2000. [1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

US =/= World. And I said 50$ to anything, i never called them cheap.

You insinuated it by alluding to Kia vs. Rolls Royce, which is curious as Apple products are not luxury items, save perhaps the gold "watch edition" iWatch.

Re: S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

#73

Post by anaganisk »

sangnoir wrote: post #72
anaganisk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US =/= World. And I said 50$ to anything, i never called them cheap.

You insinuated it by alluding to Kia vs. Rolls Royce, which is curious as Apple products are not luxury items, save perhaps the gold "watch edition" iWatch.

Kia has cheap to expensive cars and Rolls Royce has exclusively expensive cars. May be Rolls Royce was a stretch. But I definitely clarified it in that comment itself by saying 50-Anything. Apple may or may not be called luxury items. But they’re viewed as premium items by general public around the world. People look towards iPhone in awe than a samsung galaxy s21 ultra.

Re: S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

#75

Post by qutreM »

pcr910303 wrote: post #53

I think the throwback on HN on this decision is due to the lack of details and context on the news? From what I've understood from the local news (I'm a South Korean), It's not about blocking handsets with forked Android (that already happens regularly AFAIK), but the requirement of shipping Google apps like Chrome and Google Assistant. The big elephant in the room here is Samsung phones, which do ship it's own custo…

> Samsung Internet (BTW, with ad blocking capabilities!)

which browser doesn't come with that capability available?

Re: S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

#76

Post by ziml77 »

HelixEndeavor wrote: post #29
iszomer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about splitting the difference like locking the bootloader at point of sale with guaranteed period for updates? After the period has lapsed, allow users to unlock the bootloader to extend with custom software upgrades or, a subscription base to continue with original POS policy. This weirdly intersects for the Right to Repair movement, or for consumers whom would rather be conservative on new device purchases and…

Reminds me of the idea I've been thinking about - kind of unrelated - but once a device is officially no longer supported by a company - particularly consoles and online games - they should make the source code available so people can continue from there on their own.

I've thought about that before too. As soon as something is no longer actively supported, it should become open for people to maintain themselves. Unfortunately, there's a lot of companies that would fight that with as much money as it takes, so it would never happen (at least not in the US)

Re: S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

#77

Post by ocdtrekkie »

turtlebits wrote: post #55
kijin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ordinary citizens don't really care. This is SK giving Samsung what they want: an Android-fork OS for their smartwatches and other gadgets where the app store can be controlled by Samsung, not Google.

I think the issue is Google blocking customizations if they want the Google Play store on the device. I don't think there is anything stopping Samsung from using AOSP.

You are incorrect. Google's AFA is viral in nature. Daring to ship a non-Google Android will cancel your ability to ship any devices with Google Play.

Re: S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

#78

Post by pessimizer »

snarf21 wrote: post #44
causi wrote: post #3

I hate when a law or legal decision is aimed 45 degrees off like this. Letting manufacturers bundle their fucked-up version of Android is a bad thing. What we need is mandatory unlockable bootloaders so the users can load whatever they want on their devices.

I know that a lot of us more tech inclined want this freedom. But grandma is never running toolchain on a computer to install custom software. What 99% of people want is cheap/free and they will give up privacy to get it. I see this as SK giving its citizens what they say they want. I wish that wasn't the case but it seems like that is the world we live in.

> I know that a lot of us more tech inclined want this freedom. But grandma is never running toolchain on a computer to install custom software

This is thought-terminating nonsense, constantly repeated. What my grandma wants is for me to pick what's best for her and install it. What she doesn't want is Google (or Samsung for that matter) keeping her grandson from doing what he thinks she'll like best.

edit: and to be clear, that's what all of my computer-illiterate family members want, although not all of them from me (there are other grandchildren, uncles, etc.). The radical idea that people would rather have decisions made by the people that they love and trust rather than companies that actively and constantly prey upon them should be accepted without question.

Re: S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

#79

Post by grishka »

sangnoir wrote: post #68
grishka wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google phones allow re-locking the bootloader with your own key, except it still results in a warning during boot, and there's no way you're passing SafetyNet with this, at least not without hacks like Magisk. Also even when you unlock the bootloader, the TrustZone OS, which runs with hypervisor permissions and manages all the exciting things like DRM and SafetyNet itself, is still off limits for you.

> Google phones allow re-locking the bootloader with your own key, except it still results in a warning during boot The warning is a great thing for security: I'd appreciate it if my phone showed me that warning after I've surrendered it to the border control agent (alternatively, a sketchy repair shop), or bought it pre-owned, or if I "lost" it and gets returned to me.

Let's start with the fact that unlocking the bootloader wipes the entire /data partition to prevent this exact scenario from happening.

Re: S.Korea fines Google $177M for blocking Android customisation

#80

Post by hef19898 »

craftinator wrote: post #12
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will still need to be the option for a locked boot loader though. If I’m Snowden, knowing my boot loader could be unlocked and a key logger side loaded isn’t reassuring.

No, locked bootloader's are the stuff of nightmares. Much rather be able to scratch all memory on the device and reinstall. Perhaps what I mean is "locked bootloaders at POS". Selling them locked should be illegal, but locking them yourself with your own key should be trivial.

Fun fact, CalyxOs managed to lock the bootloader on my Pixel 2... Found out after trying to get stock android back on it. Now I am all set with CalyxOs, so I don't care. I do get an error message that my device is loading a different OS. Not sure how I can get rid of that...
Post reply on HN