Comments on: Android jailbreak battle ensues; welcome to mobile, Google

By: Craig

Craig — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:41:42 +0000

I thought the initial reason they were patching this was because the root account had no password whatsoever, leaving the phone open to possible “attacks”. *shrug* I guess they clarified themselves on that one.

Then again, you could complain that certain services didn’t work while not on T-mobile, thus the handset was never “truly open”. Just depends on how far you want to take the idea of “open” in a business setting. Having an OS that developers have almost complete access to is impressive in itself. Having a phone that someone else can abuse without you even knowing about it however, isn’t.

By: DavidB

DavidB — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:15:05 +0000

No kidding. People wonder why businesses and government aren’t running to iPhone and Android? Sorry, as a sysadmin, give me Blackberry smartphones any day over devices so easily hacked.

By: Ginkgo Balboa

Ginkgo Balboa — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:55:17 +0000

Notice Blackberries haven’t been jailbrken? Cool.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:34:27 +0000

I’m with Guy on this. The platform (Android) is open source, the device (G1) is under T-Mo/Google control, and that should come as a surprise to no one.

In addition, what the nay-sayers seem to be forgetting, is that this was not merely a jailbreak method that was patched, it was a huge security hole that would allow anyone to gain root access to a G1 via WiFi if a particular app was running. As much as I would want to make my phone open, that hole made it open to anyone, and HAD to be patched. I’ve never seen anyone fault a linux dsitributor for patching a security flaw in their OPEN SOURCE operating system.

Will Google patch jailbreaks if they don’t pose security threats? Quite possibly, but neither you nor I know what their contract with T-Mobile and HTC includes.

Just like with linux, if you don’t like what the distributor of the operating system is patching/updating, take the code, build your own version of the OS, and stop complaining. Then you don’t have to worry about Google messing with your stuff.

By: GlennP

GlennP — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:07:29 +0000

whats the point in jailbreaking an open device anyway?

By: jjukebox

jjukebox — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:23:54 +0000

im with mchale. they said it was open but they dont want you to jailbreak. pretty stupid. i had a g1 for a week, and took it back. Went and bought an iphone 3g, and I have NO regrets what so ever.

By: Guy

Guy — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:18:23 +0000

There’s a misconception that because something is open source it ought not be controllable.

You are free to take your Android driven handset, and do whatever you want with it, however, don’t expect it to work with the system/network/infrastructure/tools that Google has designed unless you abide by their requirements. Plain and simple. Open course does not mean free reign, it’s more like you have the ability to inspect the code to satisfy your metrics before buying.

By: jr

jr — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:00:59 +0000

It does seem kind of odd to create patches that prevent users from willingly removing restrictions created in an open source product. This isn’t really like the iPhone (or shouldn’t be) where you have a closed OS and Apple wants you to buy everything from them. Unfortunately you have a situation where T-Mobile are the one’s with something to lose, if for example Android users can tether their device, so they are going to dictate that the OS has to be locked down to some extent. Ultimately it would make more sense if the carriers would just charge based on metered usage instead of trying to lock the phones. So instead of blocking tethering, just charge people for the data, let the device be open, that’s clearly what people want. Google and T-Mobile have an opportunity to take a leadership role instead of caving to the way ATT and Apple do things.

By: McHale

McHale — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:57:29 +0000

My only point is that Google went out of it’s way to point out that it was completely open and developer friendly. So what did they do, they removed root access once they found people were using it.

http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html

I guess I really have no problem with Apple doing it – they never claimed their OS was open to developers who wanted control of the core. So my appologies to Apple for lumping them in with my above rant against Google.

-Mc

By: Perspective

Perspective — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:37:15 +0000

McHale: You might be right, but more accurately you should call them “very wealthy D-Bags.” And, if you worked for Google or Apple (which would likely require a brain transplant), you’d be a “D-Bag” too. Personally, I don’t think controlling something you’ve created is such a bad thing. . .the “jailbreakers” know that they can’t create an iPhone or a G1, so it makes them so upset that the devices creators won’t share. Forget the ridiculous arguments against the incoming U.S. Administration; it sounds like the real “socialists” are jailbreakers.

By: McHale

McHale — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:05:15 +0000

Puts “the first truly open platform for mobile devices” in a different perspective, doesn’t it? As Google finds out that people are doing something cool or useful with their OS they go out of their way to stop it.

Proves that they *ARE* just a bunch of D-Bags like Apple.

-Mc