×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rooted Devices Blocked From Android Movie Market

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-movie-for-you dept.

Android 321

tekgoblin writes "Google has released the Android Movie Market to Android tablets with Honeycomb 3.1 and in a few weeks for users with Froyo and Gingerbread. However Google has stipulated that the Android Movie Market will only be available to Android devices which are not rooted. So if you have a rooted Android device, don't expect to download anything from the Android Movie Market any time soon (or at least until a workaround is found)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

321 comments

Android (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213156)

Android has kinda been a fiasco. Security problems, malware, hardware fragmentation, software piracy and now this blocking of rooted devices. Wasn't Android supposed to be open? I guess not. It doesn't hurt Google's bottom line tho, they still get the advertising revenue and even got the geeks to do the marketing for them.

Re:Android (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213178)

Android has kinda been a fiasco. Security problems, malware, hardware fragmentation, software piracy and now this blocking of rooted devices. Wasn't Android supposed to be open?/blockquote

No kidding. It's almost as bad as the iPhone.

Re:Android (5, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213228)

The device IS open. The store is not. Their store, their rules ( actually its most likely the MPAA's rules ). I don't see a problem with it really. No one is forcing you to use their stores.

Now when they start trying to prevent you from rooting, or limiting where you can connect to, THEN we have an issue. Until then, its just a choice.

Re:Android (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213352)

Sounds exactly like they're limiting what you can connect to. The android fanboyism is strong with this one.

Re:Android (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213482)

They are? Last I checked, you're free to use any third-party video store with Android. For that matter, you could run one of the half dozen BitTorrent clients [android.com] directly on the phone/tablet in question and get your media that way, if you're so inclined - they're not blocked from the Market (and even if they were, you can always install an .apk).

The way this is different from Apple is that there any third-party video store app would have to do transactions through Apple, and pay the 30% cut.

Re:Android (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213774)

Do you not see the humour in the fact that one you've "rooted" your "open" phone, you're now locked out of the store run by the maker of that "open" phone?

I don't care how it's different from apple. I'm just pointing out that Android fanboys are just as blind to the idiocy relating to their chosen platform as the Apple fanboys.

Re:Android (2, Insightful)

hellwig (1325869) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213538)

What? They aren't blacklisting websites or even blocking third-party apps. They are simply blocking rooted phones from their movie store. Are you going to start complaining that WP7 and iOS phones can't connect to their store either?

Google is not saying what you can and cannot do with your phone. Google is saying what you can and cannot do with their movie marketplace, there's a BIG difference there. How dare Google dictate what people can and can't do with Google's movie store? You ever heard of the old "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?" Google is saying if you use a rooted phone, you don't get access to their marketplace. Google and/or the studios are a little worried that people with rooted phones might find a way to steal movies. If you don't agree with the paranoia, you shop elsewhere. It's similar to how some stores don't let kids in groups of more than 2 enter, or allow you to bring in a backpack or large bag, they don't want you shoplifting. Also similar to how certain businesses post signs about not allowing weapons (even though the constitution allows you to own those weapons). They aren't saying you can't own a gun, they're saying you can't take it into their store, THEIR property. Google doesn't want rooted phones in THEIR store, and that's their right. Trust me, keeping out a few teenagers (some of whom just might have been planning to steal stuff anyway) doesn't hurt a store's business, and the maybe 10% of rooted android devices out there won't be missed by Google either.

Re:Android (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213694)

Why would I complain? I have a "dumb" phone on a hasn't-been-available-in-a-decade plan, since that's all a phone is to me, and to this day there still isn't a cheaper plan for the way I use the phone.

I do, however, find amusing the desperate excuses being made about how android is still better than any of the others, when it is finally revealed that Google is just as willing to build up their walled garden as any other company.

Re:Android (2)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213244)

Wasn't Android supposed to be open?

The issue isn't with the OS, it's with the store which has to deal with the movie studios supplying the store.

Re:Android (0, Troll)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213380)

I know this will get modded down, but I think AC has a point.

People will say "It is open - I can see the source". But shouldn't it mean something, in practice?

If we only have a platform that is open on the theoretical level - if users have to root a phone (something most people will never do) for it to be open, if making your phone open entails giving up other features, if manufacturers are actively hostile to people doing this and attempt to install countermeasures to rooting and sideloading...is this really "open"?

Or do we have a situation not unlike the iPhone and jailbreaking - a walled garden?

Re:Android (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213434)

If we only have a platform that is open on the theoretical level - if users have to root a phone (something most people will never do) for it to be open, if making your phone open entails giving up other features, if manufacturers are actively hostile to people doing this and attempt to install countermeasures to rooting and sideloading...is this really "open"?

So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?

Re:Android (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213462)

It's part of the marketing campaign to spin away the openness of all these products. It's a failed strategy that highlights just how toxic the closed products are: you don't get to choose whether you want open or closed.

It's DRM that's not open and isn't ever going to be. If you want DRM'd services like movies badly enough to give up the openness, that's your choice. For music we don't have to put up with that crud any more. As far as I can tell the people who pay for DRM'd services like Netflix and this Android Movie Market validate the DRM business model and defer the day when the video vendors give up on DRM - perhaps forever.

But having a model that lets people choose? That seems fair even if I don't like how people choose. A reasonable person can't find fault with that.

A fiasco in every way but one important one. (0, Troll)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213468)

Android is the marketing triumph of the mobile phone age. It demonstrates very clearly that there is tremendous value in the "open" brand. And that's what it is here, make no mistake. Android devices in practice are as open as Ferrari laptops are made by Ferrari.

Let's look at how open they are:

- Carrier locked, walled garden, locked-down out of the box = Little choice, little freedom
- Must root to be able to use important features
- When you root, you are locked out of other important features
- Fewer apps than iOS = Less choice = less freedom
- Less polished user interface, more fragmentation = less flexibility, smaller userbase, less choice = less freedom

iPhone jailbreak == Android root
After jailbreak == You can use all iTunes, Apple App Store, AND alternate sources
Vastly more apps == Vastly more choice, freedom
Less fragmentation, more polish == More ease of use, larger community, more choice, more freedom

In all practical terms, the iOS ecosystem is less restrictive. Somehow, however, the only thing that matters is the branding—the ideological and theoretical terms of the equation. Here somehow Google has managed to brand Android as "open" (despite the above) and this makes all the difference.

As a result, activist geeks and savvy tech users FLOCK to Android and push it to their families and friends, assuring all that this is important because Android is OPEN, while iOS is CLOSED.

They then immediately go about rooting the Android phone as the first order of business and then explain (rationalize) about how not all apps are compatible, rooted phones won't have access to things like movies, may create problems with carriers, etc., but all of this is justified by their OPENNESS... Unlike those poor iOS users that must "jailbreak" their phones.

It's 1984 style doublespeak. In one case, rooting = "open" = good. In another case, rooting = "jailbraking" = evil. It's the same damned act, with the same damned consequences, only in the case of the jailbreak, you end up with more functionality and more choice in the end.

Re:A fiasco in every way but one important one. (4, Informative)

gordo3000 (785698) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213700)

that isn't true. a major difference between jailbreaking and rooting is whether or not the vendor continues to provide you updates. A jailbroken iphone cannot be updated for security or for new features in the OS without possibly losing everything gained from jailbreaking. With jailbreaks, you end up with less functionality in some aspects and more in others and the things you lose can be very consequential.

On the other hand, a rooted android phone does not (generally) run that risk. There is now 1 example of a store you cannot access for now with a rooted android device.

as to your points about polish, your opinion is your opinion but don't turn an argument into a chance to market a device.

as to app count, if this research is reasonable,
http://asia.cnet.com/crave/study-android-to-overtake-ios-app-count-in-july-62208428.htm [cnet.com]

then android will have more apps soon (July). And if the graph is reasonably accurate, the pace of android submissions continues to accelerate.

and as we all have read, android marketshare is outstripping iOS by a large clip. Hell, when I got my phone 2 years ago the best choice was an iPhone but even I'm excited to switch from what I've seen. I think the last great benefit to apple is being on AT&T so you can check things online while on the phone, which can be really useful. But I haven't looked to see if other networks support that yet and it isn't an iPhone exclusive.

Re:A fiasco in every way but one important one. (0)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213758)

With jailbreaks, you end up with less functionality in some aspects and more in others and the things you lose can be very consequential.

On the other hand, a rooted android phone does not (generally) run that risk

Yeah, if you never get updates for your device in the first place, rooting won't make upgrading worse

(Or at least until a workaround is found) (5, Funny)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213160)

Which will be in about a week.

Re:(Or at least until a workaround is found) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213194)

72 hours.

Re:(Or at least until a workaround is found) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213234)

conventional media: HACKERS FIND WAY TO ILLEGALLY DOWNLOAD VIDEOS DESPITE GOOGLE's PROTECTION.

Great, really looking forward to this Catch-22 for power-users.

Re:(Or at least until a workaround is found) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213366)

It'll take a week for people to realize they could just torrent the movie instead of paying money for a 24 hour version?

Re:(Or at least until a workaround is found) (4, Interesting)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213382)

"Hello." -Carl Sagan

Re:(Or at least until a workaround is found) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213744)

OK, I'll turn in my geek card. What does this comment mean? Google, it does nothing.

Re:(Or at least until a workaround is found) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213580)

There's always BitTorrent [google.de] and Gnutella [google.de] .
Done, and done!
Do I get a trophy? ;)

Rats! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213164)

And I was totally planning on abandoning Netflix and BitTorrent in favor of yet another half-baked movie service!

Crap. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213172)

Yeah Android is soooo "open. ^This really proves it.

Re:Crap. (5, Informative)

RobbieCrash (834439) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213220)

Google's Android Market != Android

Google dictating the terms of the Android Market being limited does not mean that Android is closed any more than Amazon requiring you to have an Amazon account to use their market does.

Re:Crap. (2)

rockman_x_2002 (1791612) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213526)

This, plus I gather the MPAA has a part in twisting Google's arm to put certain stipulations in place to cover them. It just doesn't sound like the kind of thing Google would worry about themselves unless there were someone else involved in the deal. All speculation, of course. But food for thought.

3.99 are you out of your mind? (3, Insightful)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213216)

I didn't even know there was a such thing as a "Android Movie Market", an honestly don't care, I don't plan to pay $3.99 to "rent" a movie to my phone. I'll be happy once Netflix comes to Droid.

Re:3.99 are you out of your mind? (3, Informative)

mariasama16 (1895136) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213240)

Go to http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1076150 [xda-developers.com] , there's2 different modified versions of the Netflix.apk which people have reported success with. Root not required.

Re:3.99 are you out of your mind? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213280)

Netflix is already available for my nexus one straight from the market

Re:3.99 are you out of your mind? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213356)

Congratulations? The OP clearly stated "Droid" in his post. Netflix is having issues getting on every phone due to implementing DRM support required by the movie industry. I suspect that these modified apk's leave the movies somehow open as a result, which will not make the movie industry happy.

Re:3.99 are you out of your mind? (2)

Drathos (1092) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213476)

Before you go with the hacked versions, give the original apk a shot. Works on my Droid running CM7. Got it from xda-dev [xda-developers.com] before the hacked versions were posted (it's also posted in the thread with the hacked versions).

I did have it sort of lock up once (kept playing, but wouldn't react to any input and couldn't exit it), but that was the only issue and it's worked fine since.

Re:3.99 are you out of your mind? (3, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213318)

For $3.99, it had better run on my 50" 1080p plasma TV.

Re:3.99 are you out of your mind? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213524)

Already did, https://market.android.com/details?id=com.netflix.mediaclient

Obviously required by the studios (5, Insightful)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213224)

For all the idiots that are going to complain about Google reneging on their openness promises this was obviously required by the content owners. There is no way the studios will allow any of their precious precious movies to run on a device without them being absolutely certain that they know where the data goes from the network connection to the screen and they can ensure nobody copies it.

Believe me, I know. I run Linux and there is no way to get any of the legal paid for movie services on my computer. iTunes does not work, Netflix does not work, the Amazon thing does not work. (I can only get free services like Hulu).

So it is not Google's fault, Google has no choice about it. In fact they are to be commended on convincing the studios to release their movies on Android at all, because I am sure Android's open source scares the hell out of the studios.

Re:Obviously required by the studios (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213262)

You can rent movies/use Netflix on a jailbroken iPhone. How is it the studios that are requiring this?

Re:Obviously required by the studios (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213400)

Much like the DRM in iTunes was Apple's fault, but DRM on an Android device is to be commended.

It's hilarious watching the Android fanboi's falling over themselves to defend this. Their ability to spin their own reality would make an Apple fanboi proud...

Re:Obviously required by the studios (3, Informative)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213404)

You're an idiot.. you can rent movies/use Netflix on a rooted or non-rooted Android. Just like you can use Netflix on a non-jail broken iPhone.

The issue is the studios and the license for the Movie Market. Just like Netflix doesn't *always* have the same movies.. they get added and removed as the license agreements with the studios change/expire, etc.

Just read this article here for a freakin idea of how the studios control the show:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/netflix-loses-dexter-californication_n_839577.html [huffingtonpost.com]

An idiot would be wrong, not correct (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213586)

You're an idiot.. you can rent movies/use Netflix on a rooted or non-rooted Android

The whole point of the main article was that in fact you will not be able to play rented movies on a rooted Android device.

Just read the freaking article summary for a clue of your very own.

I'll help you out:

"However Google has stipulated that the Android Movie Market will only be available to Android devices which are not rooted."

Re:Obviously required by the studios (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213282)

I really wish Big Content would get some kind of a clue. Stopping a legit method does not stop other methods from working

Which is not to say that (1)

jra (5600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213326)

Google's Android crew isn't *privately* rooting for you to find a way to do it anyway.

Just shut up about it already, so you don't get them in dutch with the studios, alright?

Re:Obviously required by the studios (3, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213378)

Once again the studios are #winning by making it harder to give them money than to just download the movie you want in an open format. [/sarcasm]

Re:Obviously required by the studios (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213422)

Correction:

Amazon's video streaming DOES work in Linux. It's flash-based. I've used it. Netflix does not work because it requires silverlight (and moonlight doesn't work).

Re:Obviously required by the studios (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213426)

Er, yes it is entirely their fault.

They said "Android will be open", if that means they have to say "Sorry we cannot give you streaming movies but we did say it was open and the movie industry have said that means we cannot do it." then so be it.

The current situation is that "Android is open*"

* for a given value of "open", terms and conditions apply, may not be able to use all features if you really are open.

Had they said that from the beginning "We will be mostly open

Re:Obviously required by the studios (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213454)

Android is very open. That doesn't mean that all apps for it will also be open. If you don't understand that then you have no basis for judgment.

Re:Obviously required by the studios (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213452)

Personally I don't understand what they think would be different. Look at TPB today. What would TPB look like if they dropped DRM? Oh, exactly the same because it's all there anyway. It's like they're all dreaming that some day they'll find a DRM that works and manage to secure every link. Or that "casual pirates" haven't heard of the Internet. You'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to have found it. Sigh...

Re:Obviously required by the studios (3, Insightful)

theurge14 (820596) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213496)

So basically all the Android users who made fun of iOS users for ages are up in arms because Android continues to follow down the iOS path.

Its own path thanks (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213564)

I can still play rented movies on a jailbroken iPhone.

Apple does nothing that detects jailbroken phones. They don't care.

Plainly Google does.

That is different...

Re:Its own path thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213736)

No that's " Thinking Different"

Re:Obviously required by the studios (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213542)

For all the idiots that are going to complain about Google reneging on their openness promises this was obviously required by the content owners

How does that change the fact that Google is reneging on their promises?

We criticized Google for filtering search results in China, so why should we not be critical in this case?

Re:Obviously required by the studios (4, Insightful)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213568)

There is no way the studios will allow any of their precious precious movies to run on a device without them being absolutely certain that they know where the data goes from the network connection to the screen and they can ensure nobody copies it.

You know, high tech devices like DVD players for example.

Wont take long to circumvent I'm sure. (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213242)

Just look at how they got NetFlix running on a rooted Nook Color. I'm sure there will be a work around. Not that I'm going to care one way or another since I dont see the point in buying DRM heavy single platform movies.

Since you have root... (1)

boondaburrah (1748490) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213252)

There's probably a way to only allow the app to see certain things, blinding it to whatever would give away rooted-ness.

In any case, Netflix works on rooted devices, so it's not like there's missing functionality. In theory, Amazon Instant Video should work as well (with flash player) Other than that, I'd need a bigger SD card to fit movies transferred from my computer.

Also, I personally still can't see why I want to watch movies on a 4-inch screen. (or a screen I have to hold, for that matter (tablets))

Re:Since you have root... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213358)

Also, I personally still can't see why I want to watch movies on a 4-inch screen. (or a screen I have to hold, for that matter (tablets))

it's for travel. If we could simply get some kind of legal acknowledgement that all format-shifting is legal then your tivo or whatever would transcode your favorite shows and load them onto your devices for you so you could watch 'em on the train to work or what have you.

Obviously this is useful for only a subset of the population... but it's significant

Let the accusations begin (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213254)

Before we go all crazy on Google, we have to understand that Google has a business to run and any movie marketplace site like this will have to come up with notices like these to even get started. I don't think the fault is completely with Google on this one. It is the movie making production companies that want to enforce these kinda things to avoid piracy.

Re:Let the accusations begin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213330)

just because it's a business doesn't mean the consumer should just shut up. part of capitalism is the business listening to what customers want.. that can't happen if the customers are epxected to stfu. it is not an entitlement to make your expectations known.

Re:Let the accusations begin (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213492)

If (customers_who_want_movies > customers_who_want_rooted_phones) then
phone.lock();
movies.play();
end

Root Knowledge (1)

SirCowMan (1309199) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213288)

How do they know it is rooted? That would be the bigger concern to me.

Re:Root Knowledge (1)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213470)

That's east, they ask the OS to do something that only a rooted phone can do, like running a process that requires root privileges.

Re:Root Knowledge (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213554)

Why would the OS respond to such a request?

Re:Root Knowledge (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213632)

Why would the OS respond to such a request?

Because it is asked.

My understanding of Root on Android (BTW, I've rooted every Android phone I've had) is that user intervention is required when a program asks for root privileges (I.E. you have to tap "accept").

Not knowing how Google intends to detect rooted phones, I'd say logically, the easiest workaround is to tap "deny" when asked for super user access.

In the case of third party DRM requirements, Google tends to do the minimum amount possible to get it working, then not worry about people that get around it.

Not that this matters to me, I live in Oz and regional restrictions will ensure that I wont get this service until 2034 and a US$2.99 movie will cost A$3450.00.

Re:Root Knowledge (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213726)

Google can probably tell without doing that. I can only imagine that they'd just see if Superuser or any of the other root programs were installed on the phone they'd know. They could probably also look for the changes to the phone's config.

Services that work with GNU/Linux? Just one! Amazo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213294)

It is sad that there is only one major movie service that really works with GNU/Linux. Maybe two. Amazon primarily. Hulu second. Now you also have allot of television sites and similar that work. But most are just a rehash of movies and TV shows. Comparatively the big three or four are not doing enough to support GNU/Linux.

Re:Services that work with GNU/Linux? Just one! Am (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213340)

Comparatively the big three or four are not doing enough to support GNU/Linux.

why should they?

Re:Services that work with GNU/Linux? Just one! Am (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213406)

Netflix.. seeing how it runs on a lot of Bluray players, TV's, phones, etc that use Linux at the core....

great move there... (1)

CTU (1844100) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213308)

Remove an option for people with rooted phones to legally download movies. No wonder piracy is so common, at least they can get the content they want without jumping through hoops, well in this case it is just unlikeable restrictions. Still, That would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

It's OK (2)

JanneM (7445) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213314)

I don't have a rooted device, but I'm not going to access the Movie Market anyway (let me guess it's not available where I live; I haven't bothered to find out).

I see a movie about two or three times a year. When I do, we go to a movie house - big screen, plush seats, expectant crowd - and make an evening of it. Movie, then dinner somewhere, perhaps a beer or two someplace. Part of a full nights entertainment.

Watching a movie - made for big-screen immersion - by myself on a small screen, with distractions all around - no thanks, I'll rather do without.

Re:It's OK (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213368)

Exactly. I can't watch more than a few minutes of video on a tiny little screen like that. It's not fun. It's not entertaining. I've got a 47" HDTV to watch video entertainment on. They can keep their mobile video crap.

Re:It's OK (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213642)

I have to second that. Once you have a decent setup with a nice screen it's hard to watch something longer than a couple minutes on a 4" screen. Having a tv with built in wifi would be a good start but being able to manage the functions via remote. Make mobile rentals just like renting a movie, your phone is in the same area as the tv and it plays what ever you have access to, NetFlix, Hulu,etc. It would be like bringing relatively large collections on your mobile and being able to watch them on any screen you are close to. What would be really sweet would be if manufacturers would just add a short-range radio that can handle 1080p and switch through inputs like we do with video1,2,etc. You could literally sit down at any equipped monitor and run a desktop off it maybe in a dual screen setup. /rant

Superuser.apk (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213316)

I'm curious how they plan on detecting if it is rooted or not. The easiest rooting method for my phone (if your using stock roms) or any custom rom you install on your own, uses the Superuser app to request root access anytime an app wants it. If they just try to run a root command, its going to pop up asking to allow or not and all you have to do is disallow. Blammo. Your phone looks like its unrooted.

Re:Superuser.apk (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213416)

Couldn't they just search for the most common locations of the superuser app, or watch to see if a superuser app pid comes up? I mean it wouldn't be that hard to find out if the phone has been rooted

Why would you watch a movie on your phone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213324)

Seriously, are movies and tv shows that important that you can't walk out of the house without watching a movie? Last thing I want to worry about when driving at night is if the dude driving next to me is on the phone, texting, emailing, and now watching a freaking movie.

Little overlap (3, Interesting)

Bifurcati (699683) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213332)

I would expect that the people who know how to root their phone are also unlikely to pay $3.99 to rent a movie - I can't imagine there's a lot of overlap or heartache here amongst the users.

On the other hand, these are also the most tech savvy users who might actually be swayed by a convenient and cheap (and legal) movie downloading system. Certainly I used to buy music from a certain Russian site because the cost was worth the convenience of high quality music on demand.

Re:Little overlap (2)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213446)

That's actually a bit insulting. You're essentially saying people who root their phones because they don't like to be told by the corrupt phone companies what to do that they are criminals? movie pirates?

A lot of people pay for netflix out of convenience. It is a reasonably priced service. Why would someone who roots their phone not want it?

Re:Little overlap (1)

Bifurcati (699683) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213514)

Apologies if I offended; you're right, perhaps that wasn't a fair comparison. I still think there would be a correlation - maybe not as strong, though?
More to the point, in Australia we can rent physical DVDs from $2.95 (new release) overnight. On Tuesdays, all DVDs are $1. If one of the intentions of these sort of stores is to make inroads against piracy, you'd have to be working at beating these price points, even with the convenience of home based downloads.

Re:Little overlap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213612)

Considering there are redboxes everywhere... $1 overnight dvds $1.50 overnight bds with constant discounts, seems silly to be confined to pay $4 for something similar. I do subscribe to netflix because it is cheap and easy, and use redbox for newer movies I may want to watch. Cheap and easy, most of these rentals seem too locked down and expensive... thus expensive and not-so-easy.

Re:Little overlap (1)

dmuir (964412) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213616)

Almost. You also have to factor in time and money spent going to the rental shop. Petrol isn't cheap! That said, I still think paying $6 on iTunes for a new release is a wee bit steep.

Re:Little overlap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213528)

Except if Netflix's business model were $4 per movie, they would be a lot less popular. In any respect, I think he is right to a degree, anyone who knows how to root their phone (and many who don't), will know that there are many options out there, some free, some expensive, some legal and some illegal. Given the options, I don't think they will go with Android marketplace beyond getting the Netflix app.

Re:Little overlap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213498)

As we learned from the humble indie bundle the folks rooting their phones would indeed be unlikely to pay $3.99 to rent a movie. If the same trends hold, they'd likely pay closer to $15.

catch-22 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213374)

I can't run Gingerbread (or Froyo or Honeycomb) unless I root my device, so it's an intersection of moot points.

If you run a rooted phone (1)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213386)

You are unlikely to care about Android Movie Market. So what's the problem?

I certainly don't care.

Re:If you run a rooted phone (1)

rockman_x_2002 (1791612) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213506)

This was what I said over on Gizmodo when the story broke there.

In all honesty, if you have a rooted phone, you already know how to stream your own movies from your PC to your phone, or have some other method of getting movies ripped from optical media and into a format that works quite well on your phone (which is either just as good or better than the convenience of downloading through the Android Movie Market in the first place).

hmmm (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213450)

I wonder if there's somewhere else to download and watch the movie? Some place that doesn't care how I've configured my OS or my hardware. If there were such a place, one would think the content owners almost want me to go there to get their movie by making it impossible to get the movie directly from them. Ah... if only there were such a place...

Well that makes it easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213472)

Oh, so I can pirate then.

Making ethical dilemmas easy since 2011. Is there anything Google can't do?

Why (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213510)

Why would you want to watch a movie on a small phone sized screen? (Shouldn't you be keeping an eye on the road?)

I can understand watching 'live' events (like news, weather and sport)on a mobile device, you can't be home at the time its happening. But a movie can wait until you are sitting down in comfort in front of a big (er) screen)

Unrooting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213536)

There's always a way to remove the root access. Turn it off and enjoy the show.

Err ... how can they tell? Insecurity? (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213566)

Apart from the DRMesqueness, I would like to know how an app (suid root or not) could tell if the box had been rooted? AFAIK, when a [tiny]box is rooted, the root entry in /etc/passwd (or maybe /etc/shadow) is changed. That's it.

Sure, an app can read /etc/passwd (or suidr /etc/shadow) but how will it know what should be there? Is unrooted some fixed PW ??? This would be worth quite some cycles on a clustercracker.

Workaround? (5, Insightful)

mclearn (86140) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213590)

If you've rooted your phone, then what guarantee does ANY question posed to the phone have of being legit?

Q: "Are you a rooted phone?"

A: "Ummm, why no, I'm not. Yessir. Not a rooted phone at all."

The start of the "trusted computing" era (1, Insightful)

chipwich (131556) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213600)

And so the era of mandatory "trusted computing" begins, kicked off, ironically, by Google.

If you wish to consume licensed IP content on a device in your possession, then the content owners will determine what computing functions are allowed on such device. And the device remote kill-switch will make you think-twice about content misuse.

Re:The start of the "trusted computing" era (1)

chipwich (131556) | more than 2 years ago | (#36213654)

btw, Trusted Computing [wikipedia.org] is almost as much of an oxymoron as Digital Rights Management [wikipedia.org] .

This Orwellian doublespeak makes my brain hurt. They only sound like features because marketing won't call it "Limited Application Execution" and "Digital Restrictions Management". Has anyone seen my tinfoil hat?

Re:The start of the "trusted computing" era (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213676)

>> kicked off, ironically, by Google.

You just described what every videogame console has already been doing.

Re:The start of the "trusted computing" era (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213724)

Which is where one must ultimately make the decision, "Do I really want that content?"

The problem with the direction that the media is heading is it makes the underlying assumption that people need their content. Where in actuality, it is a want.

Re:The start of the "trusted computing" era (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36213752)

Just because you're dumb enough to trust google does not make this ironic.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...