[HN Gopher] Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if ...
___________________________________________________________________
Samsung kills the cameras on the Galaxy Z Fold 3 if you unlock the
bootloader
Author : Abishek_Muthian
Score : 314 points
Date : 2021-08-24 11:01 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.xda-developers.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.xda-developers.com)
| fucksamsung wrote:
| can somebody please get a fucking class action lawsuit going
| against these cunts (someone please for free money fuck them up
| their stupid asses)
| dcdc123 wrote:
| What is up with that site repeatedly expanding the border to
| cover the edges of text on mobile? Such a toxic design.
| mithusingh32 wrote:
| XDA has gonna from the go to site for Android related
| everything. To an ad website.
|
| If you don't have a blocker like pihole or something similar,
| it is unusable on mobile.
| summm wrote:
| Or just use Firefox mobile...
| gpas wrote:
| Or Vivaldi
| cupcake-unicorn wrote:
| A lot of phones have issues with the built in cameras when
| flashing third party firmware. The roms that seem to work better
| with these phones integrate the original binary blobs from the
| manufacturer. I guess the question is can you do that in this
| case?
| DudeInBasement wrote:
| Samsung kills credit score when phone unlocked... Our future
| today
| anonymousiam wrote:
| 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/
| stkdump wrote:
| Won't that be a downgrade though, even from your old S8+?
| CountDrewku wrote:
| 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.
| ByteWelder wrote:
| 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.
| swiley wrote:
| Comparing specs between Linux and Android is an Apples vs
| oranges comparison IMO. I think a lot of people are unaware
| of the huge overhead that Android (and even iOS) has.
| ByteWelder wrote:
| The intention of the statement was to show that it is low-
| end hardware at a high-end price point. Performance of eMMC
| flash memory isn't magically going to be "hugely" faster
| because it's ran on a different OS. That 720p screen will
| perform the same too. Android performance overhead is not
| relevant to this.
| teddyh wrote:
| The value comes from the _freedom_ aspect. Some people value
| freedom higher than others, some even say that you can't put
| a price on freedom.
| slaw wrote:
| It is $850 markup. For $107 you can get UMIDIGI A11. decent
| phone with Android 11, global LTE bands, 4 GB Ram and 128GB
| Storage.
|
| https://www.umidigi.com/page-umidigi_a11_overview.html
| Hackbraten wrote:
| Ben, is that you?
| slaw wrote:
| I am not Ben. Bootloader is also supposedly easy to
| unlock.
| zionic wrote:
| After Apple's incredible reversal on privacy/spyware inclusion
| in iOS 15 I've chosen to cancel all future purchases with them
| and buy this. Hoping my american-made one comes soon.
|
| I will likely continue to carry my 12 pro max 512GB for a while
| as my primary camera/use old school apps, but my linux phone
| will be how people reach me/where I store my media and files.
|
| I purchase ~5 iPhones/year for my family (soon to be 6) and
| upgrade them every year (selling the old hardware). I refuse to
| participate in their closed ecosystem if they insist on
| shipping malware.
| 29083011397778 wrote:
| If you plan to use the Librem 5 (or Pinephone like me), I
| would _highly_ recommend setting up a Matrix server. They 're
| very easy to administer, hardware requirements have been
| dropping for months, and it means you don't have to switch
| chat apps.
|
| Would it be nice to switch to whatever your preferred
| messenger is? Absolutely. But some people won't make the
| jump, and this allows you to switch more completely to the
| Linux phone.
| tomcooks wrote:
| No idea why you're getting downvoted, unless the corporate
| drones from the company that abandoned you (a loyal customer,
| as far as I can tell) are trying to do damage control
| zuminator wrote:
| Not trying to dissuade you from the Librem 5 but fyi the Note
| 20 Ultra does have a microSD card slot. Samsung were planning
| to remove it from the Note 21 Ultra but that device was
| cancelled.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I understand the appeal, but that's paying flagship prices for
| a phone with 7 year old hardware specs. You're paying for
| freedom, but trapped in 3 GB of RAM and 32 GB of internal
| storage (expandable, but you still need to store core software
| on that internal space).
| vbezhenar wrote:
| AFAIK similar thing happens with Sony smartphones. They claim to
| officially support AOSP. But:
|
| "If you unlock the bootloader, you may void the warranty of your
| device and/or any warranty from your operator. See your device's
| warranty statement for details. Additionally, due to the modified
| device software, Sony's repair network will likely have to
| replace key components before it can properly test, repair and
| verify your device using our repair tools and software.
| Consequently, if Sony performs a warranty repair, Sony will
| likely charge you a significant service fee for the additional
| costs caused by your modification of the software."
|
| And regarding camera:
|
| "Certain pre-loaded content on your device may also be
| inaccessible due to the removal of DRM security keys. For devices
| running recent software versions, for instance Xperia Z3, the
| removal of DRM security keys may affect advanced camera
| functionality. For example, noise reduction algorithms might be
| removed, and performance when taking photos in low-light
| conditions might be affected. The secure user data partition may
| also become inaccessible, and you will not be able to get any
| more official software upgrades if you unlock the bootloader."
|
| I was very enthusiastic about Sony smartphones when I first read
| about them officially supporting AOSP, but after reading those
| terms I just bought cheap Android One Xiaomi instead, who
| supports unlocking bootloader with a single click, does not void
| your warranty or break your camera and you can easily re-flash
| original firmware.
| rex_lupi wrote:
| "Re-locking the bootloader does make the camera work again, which
| indicates that it's more of a software-level obstacle. With root
| access, it could be possible to detect and modify the responsible
| parameters sent by the bootloader to the OS to bypass this
| restriction."
| drcursor wrote:
| This is probably due to some copyrighted binary blob used on the
| camera driver of the front facing camera, given how much magic it
| needs to do to compensate for the opaque pixels.
| xiaq wrote:
| It could be for compliance with Japanese law which forbids taking
| photos without a shutter sound? This in principle doesn't apply
| when you're not in Japan, but after unlocking Samsung has no way
| to tell.
|
| Edit: reading the article about SONY (https://www.xda-
| developers.com/sony-xperia-android-pie-unloc...), DRM keys seems
| to be a more likely cause, which drcursor's comment also
| mentions.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| 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, etc.
| zinekeller wrote:
| 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.
| sumedh wrote:
| I have use multiple phones with Indian sim card with no
| shutter sound.
| dheerajvs wrote:
| 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.
| vageli wrote:
| I searched around in the AOSP source code but nothing
| jumped out. Can you link to the code?
| josephcsible wrote:
| If this were the case, then why doesn't every phone have the
| same restriction? And why would it make its first appearance
| from a Korean company on a phone for the American market?
| xiaq wrote:
| Different legal opinions and Samsung being more risk-averse I
| guess?
|
| However reading the article about SONY (https://www.xda-
| developers.com/sony-xperia-android-pie-unloc...), DRM keys
| seems to be a more likely cause...
| baybal2 wrote:
| > Japanese law which forbids taking photos without a shutter
| sound?
|
| _Why???_
| TheCoreh wrote:
| IIRC people secretly taking upskirt photos in trains was a
| significant/frequent problem
| commandlinefan wrote:
| ... who can just turn the video on and off really quick (or
| even write a very simple app to turn the video on for one
| frame).
| baybal2 wrote:
| O_O I am shocked. That's really bizarre
| gsich wrote:
| Videos: exist
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Japan's cybersecurity minister was proud of never having used
| a computer
| (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/15/japan-cyber-
| se...). What do you expect from such ignorance? Laws that
| make sense (like holding creeps accountable)?
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I had an Xperia Z3 Compact from Sony and it had this same
| restriction. Much of its camera functionality (including de-
| noising) was DRMed and if you unlocked the bootlader it would
| delete the keys. No way to restore them.
| dbeley wrote:
| Unlike the Z Fold 3 it doesn't kill the camera completely, you
| end up with a lower quality camera without its post-processing
| features but it's still usable.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Ok yes, it would technically only turn your camera into a
| potato instead of disabling it completely
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| While that is a bummer for advanced and/or privacy seeking users,
| it is understandable.
|
| I have considered membership in the CalyxOS Institute where you
| get a Google Pixel 4a phone all set up with CalyxOS. Something
| similar with the most modern hardware would be better, but the
| situation with Samsung, is what it is.
| summm wrote:
| It is not understandable, and we shouldn't accept asshole
| behavior like this. If we do, other manufacturers will follow
| one by one, and in 2 years you won't have any options left.
| Like it was with removable batteries. SD cards. Headphones
| jack.
| devney wrote:
| 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.
| nikanj wrote:
| It's legal because 1) There's a binding arbitration clause 2)
| Samsung have more money for lawyers for you.
| eitland wrote:
| Is 1.) a EULA/click through?
|
| If so I think it is void in Europe. You probably still have
| to fight but you should stand a chance if you have some
| resources and want to fight.
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| 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.
| devney wrote:
| 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 than
| necessary, that probably counts as "acting in bad faith"
| which is an entirely different legal avenue for the EULA to
| be void.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| I can't help thinking that the correct "malicious
| compliance" strategy for legislators to tackle this is to
| pass a law that says any time a user is required to agree
| to an EULA on a device which is capable of playing audio
| files, the device should have to play an unskippable audio
| recording of the EULA being spoken out loud by a voice
| actor, at a normal talking speed.
|
| Adding a 30 minute wait before someone can use your product
| or your website would ruin the customer experience, and
| would encourage at least some companies to question which
| clauses are actually needed.
| tzs wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| It's printed quite clearly in the quick start guide that
| it'll break your phone if you do it. Maybe people should
| read the little booklet, but as you can see it's not hidden
| under a pile of text.
|
| > Approved firmware versions
|
| > This device will only operate with
|
| > firmware versions that have been
|
| > approved for use by your wireless
|
| > carrier and the device manufacturer.
|
| > If unauthorized firmware is placed on
|
| > the device it will not function
|
| https://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/202108/202108
| 1...
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > 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?
| devney wrote:
| Of course there's more nuance to this. As I mentioned,
| these cases usually involve coercion (someone held a gun
| to your head and made you sign the contract) or not
| speaking the language (interpreter wasn't
| available/translated wrong/deceived).
|
| This question then rests on: Can the user reasonably be
| expected to read 10 pages of dense legalese?
|
| I think the real-life answer is an obvious NO. Current
| law generally assumes YES, except in cases where it
| doesn't. You see how there's some conflict here which I
| expect to be clarified by some court soon.
| bluGill wrote:
| For those who can't be bothered to read wikipedia, this
| only applies when the courts can find you read it to the
| best of your ability and misunderstood it. Mostly it
| applies to those who can't read (either at all or the
| language of the contract) and so trusted someone else to
| tell them what it meant and they were deceived.
|
| If you could have read the document but didn't, that is
| your own fault and the contract stands. Only if you
| couldn't have read the contract, or you clearly could not
| understand it does the contract not apply.
| devney wrote:
| "If you could have read the document but didn't, that is
| your own fault and the contract stands." That's the
| point, isn't it? Gideon v. Wainwright clearly established
| that no non-lawyer can be expected to win against a
| trained lawyer. Since BigCo has a team of trained lawyers
| making the EULA impossible to read, ... Well, Gideon
| didn't go this far, but if we extend the logic in that
| ruling, there's certainly a major precedent that nobody
| can be expected to understand the EULA, and thus it might
| be void.
| eitland wrote:
| I support this interpretation.
|
| I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a native speaker but I have
| spent way too much time on EULAs and groklaw and stuff
| when I was younger and my honest conclusion is a
| competent lawyer can probably make a planet size hole in
| a contract without most of HN noticing: many because they
| don't read it (I'm here now), many because English is not
| their first language an even among those who know English
| well(I used to be in this camp), legalese is almost a
| separate language.
| [deleted]
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| There is much more to it and I wouldn't trust any legal
| advice given to you by OP.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_est_factum
| josephcsible wrote:
| Imagine if the wrapper for a ream of paper said "by opening
| this wrapper, you agree to pay us $5 if you print double-
| sided on any of this paper". That's what EULA/ToS on things I
| already own feel like.
| [deleted]
| hhsbz wrote:
| If you tamper with the device it's your responsibility, innit?
| It's not like they disabled a properly functioning device that
| uses the original firmware with an OTA update.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| > _If you tamper with the device it 's your responsibility,
| innit? It's not like they disabled a properly functioning
| device that uses the original firmware with an OTA update_
|
| And more to the point, Samsung is under no obligation to
| allow bootloader unlocking at all, much less ensure that it
| continues to provide any specific set of functionality.
|
| The alternative here isn't "Samsung stops disabling the
| camera when the bootloader is unlocked," it's "Samsung stops
| allowing bootloader unlock."
|
| This is always the game with Android phones - you have to do
| your research to understand whether you can install your own
| software on them, and what might be lost if you do so. If you
| don't want a bunch of headaches, just buy a Pixel series
| straight from Google.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| It's not up to Samsung to allow bootloader unlock or not.
| There will be exploits that will allow for a bootloader
| unlock or worse unless they allow for it.
|
| Besides, we don't have to be happy with the status quo, we
| can legislate for bootloader unlocking to be allowed.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| > _Besides, we don 't have to be happy with the status
| quo, we can legislate for bootloader unlocking to be
| allowed_
|
| Unfortunately, that's not the world we actually live in.
| This thread is in response to the (great?) grandparent
| who suggested:
|
| > _On the surface this seems blatantly illegal: after the
| sale is made the no-longer-owner removes functionality_
|
| Our governments may theoretically have the power to force
| vendors to provide functionality like this to end users,
| but it's hard to imagine that actually happening (can you
| imagine how hard Apple would lobby against unlocking
| iPhones, for example?).
|
| The only thing we can do is stop buying devices from
| vendors who exhibit such user-hostile behaviors.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Ford would be in serious trouble if it
| deliberately bricked the entertainment system when you change
| the oil outside of a dealership.
| hhsbz wrote:
| If you mess with the central electronics of the car I'm
| sure the car could choose to disable itself and they
| wouldn't owe you a cent.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| They would likely fall afoul of EU right-to-repair laws.
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| There is in my opinion a difference between a car and a
| phone.
|
| If a car fails, people can die. If a phone fails, it
| normally doesn't have a huge impact.
|
| If a car disables itself, because the central electronics
| were messed with by laymans, not some repair shop, it is
| in my opinion totally okay, as it would otherwise
| endanger humans.
|
| But for a phone/other non-critical electronics, there is
| in my opinion no reason why its functionality should be
| reduced, just because you did something harmless like
| unlocking the bootloader. (In this case, the camera could
| still make photos, just without the fancy
| patented/copyrighted algorithms)
| acdha wrote:
| Is that a legal distinction where you live? If not, this
| all needs to be phrased in the context of "I think this
| is reasonable and am advocating for legislation with my
| elected representatives".
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| Thanks, rephrased it a bit to make it obvious
| acdha wrote:
| Yeah, I'm with you in spirit but it's a tough fight with
| some very entrenched interests.
| sp332 wrote:
| 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.
| falcolas wrote:
| 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.
| bluGill wrote:
| That depends on the trap and how you set it. If you dig a
| hole for a house and someone falls in you are not liable.
| q-rews wrote:
| That sounds wrong and likely varies wildly across
| jurisdictions.
|
| If you dig a hole on your property you better secure it,
| or else _kids might fall in._
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Yes, that's actually why tort reform is such a big topic
| in American jurisprudence. Because property owners are
| liable if a bunch of kids suffer injuries on their
| property by falling into a hole, almost regardless of
| intent. Yes even if it's properly secured with fencing,
| in many jurisdictions the trespassers sue for damages and
| succeed often.
|
| Even failing to shovel the snow and having someone trip
| and injure themselves is enough grounds for some sort of
| tort liability.
|
| To a lesser extent it's true in Canada and the UK too I
| believe.
| a3n wrote:
| It's an "attractive nuisance." You'd better lock your hot
| tub and garage freezer too.
| falcolas wrote:
| As always, intent is king. If you make a hole intended to
| be a trap for trespassers, you likely will be liable. If
| the hole has a different, legitimate purpose, then you're
| likely not liable if you've marked the hole properly.
|
| https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-
| injury/liabili...
| alibert wrote:
| Could it be that the camera is directly connected to the security
| chip responsible for things like biometrics, payment, etc. and
| that unlocking disable it?
| rex_lupi wrote:
| quite unlikely
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Somehow it does not make me feel better. I have hardware that
| becomes more restricted the moment I want to actually use it as
| I see fit.
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| Sadly this seems to be the trend of the last few years, that
| hardware is locked down and you sometimes have to use
| exploits to have full control over your device
| senectus1 wrote:
| I have one of these on the way and never intended to root it, but
| this outrages me.
|
| I get that Samsung reserves the right to say "its been rooted and
| is now longer certified "safe" by us, but BREAKING the
| functionality of the device that I paid for and own is vandalism.
| danuker wrote:
| You can cancel or return it. Money is a signal every company
| has to pay attention to.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| I have been hearing "vote with your wallet" for more than 30
| years. It has never, ever, made a difference in the direction
| of hardware.
| jrockway wrote:
| It depends on the circumstances. If everyone on HN orders a
| phone from some new phone startup, and then everyone
| returns it a few weeks later, that could spell the end of
| the company. But for companies like Apple and Samsung,
| making products is just kind of a hobby side business --
| they could collect interest on the balance of their
| corporate treasury indefinitely and make more money than
| you could ever imagine.
| somebody_amzn wrote:
| > Re-locking the bootloader does make the camera work again,
| which indicates that it's more of a software-level obstacle
|
| My guess is that their camera supplier has a secret blob that
| they want to retain encrypted...
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| 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 in the past, so I'd give them the benefit of
| the doubt that they'll try to find a way to enable the cameras on
| unlocked phones in the future.
| zeveb wrote:
| > 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.
| alerighi wrote:
| Even if that is the case, what is the reason to forbid the
| access to the camera completely? Just remove the stock camera
| app with the proprietary algorithms in them. And let other
| applications access the camera trough the stock Android camera
| API.
|
| A camera is in the end a sensor that captures some video, why
| locking down that video stream? I get the algorithms, but leave
| the raw video stream to be used by other applications.
| intricatedetail wrote:
| Then they shouldn't use such camera. Simple. This should be
| illegal!
| danuker wrote:
| > they'll try to find a way to enable the cameras on unlocked
| phones in the future.
|
| In the meantime, I will only buy what ACTUALLY gives me control
| RIGHT NOW, namely, what is supported by LineageOS:
|
| https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| 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 think even F(x)tec, Fairphone requires the
| user to flash LineageOS) but then again memories of that
| fateful tie-up with device manufacturer which ended
| CyanogenMod would be fresh within LineageOS team.
|
| Now that's the catch-22, Alternate exists but not for
| everyone.
|
| [1] https://github.com/SimpleMobileTools
| scns wrote:
| https://e.foundation sells devices with /e/ preinstalled
| jankotek wrote:
| 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.
| opan wrote:
| 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.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| One has to already bend heaven and earth to bring people
| who don't care about Privacy from WhatsApp, Messenger to
| Signal.
|
| Only reason someone is able to do that now is because
| WhatsApp, Messenger gets into some legal trouble and the
| media advertises Signal.
|
| Preaching about significance of interoperable protocol
| and suggesting apps which use them is beyond the capacity
| of even those media.
| afiori wrote:
| The solution is always the same, focus on a stellar UX.
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| 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-...
| m4rtink wrote:
| You need to manually update apps from Fdroid due to
| artificial limitations introduced by Google for third
| party app stores - only Google Play and possibly device
| vendor apps stores can update apps automatically on non-
| rooted device.
| dmm wrote:
| If you install signal from the apk they(moxie, signal)
| provide it works without google play services and it will
| update itself automatically, just requiring you to click
| a confirmation every few weeks.
|
| Calyxos ships with Signal installed. I think it's an
| install time option? And it updates in an identical
| fashion.
| enriquto wrote:
| > it will update itself automatically
|
| is it possible to disable the auto-update? i'd rather see
| signal stop working than auto-update behind my back.
| klyrs wrote:
| I use lineage, and the signal apk from the website, and
| signal nags me to upgrade -- that doesn't happen
| automatically as far as I can tell. I've disabled the
| "install unknown apps" permission, but I don't know
| precisely what "unknown" means in this context.
| agilob wrote:
| Signal team fought a long war against any forks or
| unauthorised builds of Signal. There are (or were) FDroid
| repositories with Signal compatible builds, but Moxie
| stated that any such build will be considered malware.
| Signal team was making such builds increasingly difficult
| to produce.
|
| Official F-Droid repo doesn't allow proprietary
| dependencies on which Signal depends for some messages
| (push?)
| paulcarroty wrote:
| > Signal team fought a long war against any forks or
| unauthorised builds of Signal.
|
| Yeah, this is main reason why I avoid Signal together
| with Google Services usage.
| [deleted]
| fouc wrote:
| Why doesn't Signal maintain an F-Droid compatible build?
| (if there's a dependency problem, then they should
| considering dropping it, release a Signal lite perhaps)
| h4waii wrote:
| Probably the same reason they don't maintain a Flatpak,
| Snap, or any other package other than for Debian/Ubuntu
| for Signal-Desktop.
|
| Which according to the GitHub discussion, the answer is:
| ????
| SahAssar wrote:
| Signal is open-source in the "look at it, but don't even
| try to tun it" way. I'd rather support a protocol that
| supports federation and encourages alternative clients.
| autoexec wrote:
| FDroid has Silence and Jami which is what I switched to
| after signal started collecting and permanently storing
| user data in the cloud.
| arsome wrote:
| Personally I refuse to buy any device that requires me to go
| crying to the manufacturer for an unlock key.
|
| Google and OnePlus devices can be unlocked locally with no
| need to contact anyone and beg, so no one can refuse your
| unlock on a device you already paid for.
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| Google devices cannot be unlocked locally. My USA spec
| Pixel 5, purchased unlocked from Best Buy, had to be
| connected to the internet - and I don't remember, but I may
| have also had to put a SIM card in - before it could be
| unlocked. Apparently a background service automatically
| checks with Google's servers whether the device is eligible
| for unlock (is it paid off or still under financing, and
| which carrier is it from?) and then automatically fetches
| the unlock code if Google decides to allow it. But the
| default state until that happens is locked with no
| possibility of unlocking.
|
| So it's very unlikely that you'll be refused the unlock on
| a device you just purchased, and if you are then you can
| just return the device, but I don't like the internet
| requirement since that means Google's unlock code service
| and all the other Google applications on the phone sent out
| a bunch of information about my device to Google.
|
| When I tried initially unlocking the option was grayed out
| and unusable. I had to find information about the internet
| connection requirement online.
|
| I don't know whether OnePlus does something like that - my
| OnePlus 7 Pro was connected to the internet before I
| attempted to unlock it, but I'm receiving a OP 9 Pro today
| and would like to unlock it as soon as I get it without
| connecting to the internet or putting in a SIM card. Will
| see how that goes.
| floatboth wrote:
| This discussion is not about carrier unlock! This is
| about `fastboot oem unlock`.
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| Yes. That's what I'm talking about. Not carrier unlock.
| Bootloader unlock is blocked until the phone is fully
| paid off (if purchased under loan), and I believe
| T-Mobile requires a 40 day wait before bootloader unlock
| is allowed even if you pay in full upfront, and I think
| Verizon prohibits it completely. Google enforces these
| rules on their devices and requires the phone to connect
| to Google to authorize bootloader unlocking. It's an
| automated version of the manual bootloader unlock codes
| that some manufacturers do.
| the_pwner224 wrote:
| The OnePlus 9 Pro also required an internet connection,
| and I had to enable Google Play Services for the OEM
| unlock option to be enabled. I bought this phone unlocked
| directly from OnePlus.
| arsome wrote:
| Interesting, I can't find any such requirement online
| about OnePlus devices, but I did come across this
| mentioning that a law passed in California forced Google
| to do this on some devices:
|
| https://android.gadgethacks.com/news/psa-enable-hidden-
| setti...
|
| Pretty sad if true.
| flyinghamster wrote:
| T-Mobile US's LG devices came with unlockable bootloaders
| as well, but that only helps if someone develops a ROM for
| it. Even then, more and more important functionality is
| getting locked behind closed doors. On my Stylo 5, it's not
| the camera, it's VoLTE. What good is it to run a custom ROM
| if I can't make and receive phone calls?
| floatboth wrote:
| Who makes voice calls anymore?
|
| Also, did TMUS just drop 3G voice / CSFB already?! o_0
| jeroenhd wrote:
| For me, personally, a major reason to unlock the
| bootloader is to install Magisk. Running an entire ROM is
| nice if you can find a trusted and supported one, but
| failing that, root access is the next best thing.
|
| I've got background clipboard sync back in KDE Connect
| through a Magisk module. No need for an entire LineageOS
| ROM (would be nice if it were officially supported) if
| everything I want can be done another way.
|
| VoLTE is incredibly fragile. You can often force enable
| it and it'll just work, but there's so much that can go
| wrong that I wouldn't risk it.
| keanebean86 wrote:
| I have an LG G8 from T-Mobile. It hasn't been updated
| since February. Rumor is they're rolling out android 11
| in Q4 which is more than a year after 11 was released.
|
| Contrast that with my wife's S10 that's got 11 around
| February.
|
| At this point I have very little faith LG will follow
| through with updates for even the original two years let
| alone android 12.
| codazoda wrote:
| LG has exited the phone business.
|
| https://www.lg.com/us/notice
| flyinghamster wrote:
| Yikes. My Stylo 5 recently got an update, bringing its
| patch level to June 1, 2021 (still Android 10). I guess I
| should consider myself lucky. Considering that LG decided
| to quit the market, I'm not too hopeful, either.
|
| I'm honestly considering going back to a flip phone once
| the Stylo becomes unusable. Sure, I'd end up losing some
| neat things, but the bargain we're being offered with
| smartphones is looking more Faustian every day.
| atatatat wrote:
| You'll have the control to...not even lock your bootloader.
|
| Use GrapheneOS, if you want something resembling security.
| floatboth wrote:
| The GrapheneOS developers like to talk as if relocking the
| bootloader is unique to Google Pixels and providing a
| custom key is unique to them.
|
| But that's not true. Every OnePlus device in the last few
| years allows avb_custom_key as well, Xiaomi Mi A2 does too,
| probably many others. And ROMs like Pixel Experience
| publish their custom keys too.
| summm wrote:
| But then they don't allow me to have root at the same time.
| They claim it is for security reasons but fail to explain
| why and get really unfriendly. Maybe some power-trip? So
| now I can choose between vendor lock-in and random-
| programmer-lock-in.
| ByteWelder wrote:
| If you want to free yourself from the clutches of Google, I
| recommend the LineageOS microG fork:
| https://lineage.microg.org/
| ddtaylor wrote:
| The average consumer only wants to purchase the cross-section
| between what is the cheapest and works the best. For most
| consumers Open Source is not a feature.
| danuker wrote:
| With various right-to-repair legislation popping up
| everywhere, I am not so sure.
|
| Software restrictions are one way to ensure planned
| obsolescence.
| [deleted]
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Actually, there is a specific set of features that
| guarantees planned obsolescence:
|
| * Irreplaceable battery (or one that is difficult to
| remove by the user).
|
| * on the iPhone, the Lightning socket and the Home
| button. The former starts to wear out after ca. 5 years;
| the Home button lasts a bit longer. Apple will repair
| both these for you but at this point you will be tempted
| to buy a new device instead because of the costs
| involved.
|
| * the support for older devices is being dropped from
| SDKs. With time, it becomes more and more difficult to
| develop apps for your device. For many developers this is
| something completely natural and reasonable. For me it's
| not. I'm not asking Apple to support iPhone 4s (would be
| nice, but it's unrealistic), but just to let me still run
| and provision apps on my old MacBook with a previous
| version of Xcode. It used to work well in 2012, why can't
| I do it now? Upgrade, upgrade, upgrade, produce tons of
| electric waste, buy more, buy more. OK, I _am_ buying new
| devices, but I care about the old ones. I won 't throw
| away a perfectly working phone that will serve me another
| 10 years just because it is not considered modern enough.
|
| EOL-ed smartphones are powerful computers, they have tons
| of different uses, I wish manufacturers recognized it and
| collaborate with their customers to reduce the amount of
| electrowaste.
| qweqwweqwe-90i wrote:
| For most people, EOL phones have 0 use.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I think this will change as devices become more long-lived
| (I still use an Android 5.x device today) and more
| repairable.
|
| For many it won't matter, but for many it will.
|
| You can see a similar thing today with automobiles. Some
| people only buy for features and let it go after a couple
| years, but many others also consider longevity and repair
| and parts costs.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Buying a LineageOS-supported device doesn't necessarily help.
| I bought a Pixel 2 from the Google store, and later replaced
| it under warranty due to a bad microphone. Now the bootloader
| is permanently locked, and security updates ended in 2020.
| This is a widespread issue with no known solution:
|
| https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/14920605/google.
| ..
| sneak wrote:
| It doesn't matter whether it's the tyranny of Samsung being
| dicks or the tyranny of the copyright cartel jamming the
| fiction that is intellectual property down our throats (and
| thereby being dicks) that is fucking up one's phone.
|
| Perhaps the law needs to recognize that buying hardware should
| come with rights to the firmware. If all hardware is useless
| without firmware, then all hardware is useless without
| additional and separate rights, and that is a stupid and
| inefficient world in which to reside.
| amelius wrote:
| I think we should have a clear separation between hardware
| and software companies. This is how it worked in the old days
| when the internet was built. Hardware companies are getting
| too much power over our data, and we need more freedom of
| choice in how our data is treated and by whom, regardless of
| the hardware that we own. A company can be "good" one day and
| "bad" the next day. We shouldn't be forced to throw away any
| hardware when that happens.
|
| Does that mean concessions on how well everything is
| integrated (in the view of the company and some people)?
| Probably, but that is of minor concern imho.
| squiggleblaz wrote:
| > I think we should have a clear separation between
| hardware and software companies. This is how it worked in
| the old days when the internet was built.
|
| I think that's an exaggeration, isn't it? Aside from the
| old PC industry (still surviving today), most computers
| were produced as a whole: whether it was Sun microcomputers
| and SunOS or Atari STs and GEM or Apples and MacOS, they
| were paired.
|
| The development of separate and competing operating systems
| and computers, with interchangeable parts and well
| understood standards, was an innovation but a temporary
| one.
|
| > and we need more freedom of choice in how our data is
| treated and by whom, regardless of the hardware that we own
|
| To that end, we need operating system developers to design
| data-first systems, where the user is in control of their
| data. Moreover, the liability for data loss and leaks in
| service-provided cloud storage should be so high that
| companies will be nervous about storing your data. It's so
| frustrating to me the number of apps where you install
| them, and you can't do anything with them without having a
| user account - even though there's no legitimate reason for
| them to have a user account for me!
| PeterisP wrote:
| IMHO mainstream consumers are clearly voting with their
| wallets that the benefits of hw/sw integration are more
| important to them than the drawbacks of hw/sw integration.
| amelius wrote:
| That's because consumers are greedy and shortsighted
| actors which need help from an external entity to prevent
| them from getting trapped in a local optimum.
| surajrmal wrote:
| All modern investment in this space is explicitly trying to
| push for better hardware software co-design. This is seen
| as the path forward in light of Moore's law dying. There
| has always been a boundary where your ownership of software
| truly begins. In PCs it was at the firmware, and with smart
| phones it has been at some arbitrary location the os vendor
| has seen fit. The web had been the most crippling place for
| user control of software, and they own no part of the
| devices software or hardware.
| amelius wrote:
| > All modern investment in this space is explicitly
| trying to push for better hardware software co-design.
|
| I'm ok with hardware vendors writing their own firmware.
| The problem I have is when they push updates, and take
| over control of _my_ hardware.
|
| So hw/sw codesign is fine, as long as it is sold as a
| hardware unit that I control.
|
| > This is seen as the path forward in light of Moore's
| law dying.
|
| At this point I care more about having control over my
| data and devices than about Moore's law.
| alerighi wrote:
| The thing was that with computers we had the BIOS, that
| defined an open (well, in the first days it was proprietary
| but became a de facto open specification) that allowed
| interoperability between hardware and software, to the
| point that it provided the most basic functions to be able
| to boot whatever operating system you liked.
|
| We should have done the same on the mobile, there is no
| reason why this works on computer and not on smartphones,
| if not commercial reasons. Why on a macbook I can install
| Linux but on an iPhone I can't boot whatever operating
| system I want? It's not a matter of security, because it's
| the user that chooses to change the operating system.
| Siira wrote:
| I don't care that the evil company A has an obligation to evil
| company B to screw me. I just despise being screwed.
| m4rtink wrote:
| But why should customers care? They bought a device for good
| money and it stops working due to the user installing a
| different OS ? Good thing in the EU custom OS installs dont
| break warranty (even if vendors try to make you think
| otherwise).
| atkailash wrote:
| Absolutely does not make it ok though. We paid/pay for the
| device. What we do with it is our business and it should work
| as expected (assuming drivers exist...licensing shouldn't
| prevent this)
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| Then put that junk in a secure enclave (that unlocking doesn't
| touch), or in a separate chip. Don't screw over your users who
| want to have some control over the device.
| swiley wrote:
| Never buy devices with non-free firmware. They're always full
| of garbage like this.
| brnt wrote:
| Doesn't that rule out any phone?
| teddyh wrote:
| Not, reportedly, the Librem 5 phone.
| grishka wrote:
| But it still contains a cellular modem and a wifi module,
| both of which run proprietary firmwares.
| ERD0L wrote:
| A phone, sure, a smartphone, not a chance
| teddyh wrote:
| The Librem 5 is absolutely a smartphone:
| https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| Your linked page calls it a "phone" not a "smartphone",
| so you're proving GP's point.
| teddyh wrote:
| What. By that definition, the Google Pixel 5a is not a
| "smartphone" either, since its product page does not use
| that term, either:
| https://store.google.com/us/product/pixel_5a_5g?hl=en-US
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| Your leg is being pulled.
| yellowapple wrote:
| By what metric is it somehow not a smartphone?
| andrew_ wrote:
| my needs are more utilitarian - I need a smart phone that's
| waterproof. Not a single one of the libre* phones are
| waterproof, let alone reasonably water resistant, so they're
| a nonstarter for me. I'm a nerd but I'm also outdoorsy. My
| phones have gone for swims in the Gulf of Mexico and been
| caught in squals more times than I can count.
| rightbyte wrote:
| My experience is that water proof phones ironically are
| more prone to water damage since they don't drain. Simple
| moist in a tent can kill it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-24 23:02 UTC)