Whats the problem here?
The bootloader is obviously unlockable otherwise you wouldnt be able to install other operating systems, and so you can flash a new recovery and install su.zip and boom rooted FP2?
@keesj:
I assume there’s lots of pressure on the Software Development of FP2 right now after the start of delivery an the upcoming stage of mass-beta-testing.
So this may be an excuse for the “your phone, yours to break” thing. (Which is a really bad statement, as it’s definitely perverting Fairphone’s selling claim. I hope that’s not the final statement on FP2’s software support.)
I can understand two reasons for your decision to keep the OS closed:
- Security for banking apps (who uses them? Is this really important?)
- Google not allowing FP to use their version of Android together with the option of rooting. Why? They say it’s about security. I’d say, keeping user from having control over the data they provide, is also in Google’s interest.
Why would we users want to have root-access?
We want to use certain apps (x-privacy, hello Google!).
But furthermost: as experience with the FP1 has shown, especially for the crowdfunders who get an early phone, this thing coming out of the box is quite buggy.
On the FP1 there where big issues with the volume-buttons crashing my phone. GravityBox (via xposed, which uses root) was the only way to make that phone really usable. I think it took several month unless FP came out with a software update to adress the issue.
As I don’t use my FP2 yet, I haven’t ancountered any bugs myself. But as I read, there seems to be an issue with the LED. And the workaround provided requires (guess): root access.
So besides the discussion if an “open” phone would include the software (I want to shout YES on this), there’s the question if we, the users, shouldn’t have the opportunity to get a way to work around the “Kinderkrankheiten” (=childhood deseases) of your product.
All this discussion about root or not is giving me the impression that Fairphone is going to be just another hardware producer and doesn’t care about the OS. You want to outsource the developement to the community I assume.
This might be okay for some of your users. But users like me, who just thought, to have found a smartphone that gives me easy access to digital privacy, you will loose that way. FP2 is just another black box. For a price of over 500 Euros I can have much better and much more up-to-date black boxes (which may be easier to root, btw.).
Software needs to be “fair” too!
Apart from the annoyment about the consequences of the primary message of @keesj, the above strongly wonders me. When security-statements about root were true (including metaphors about seatbelts), the current 60.000 FP1-ownders are in great danger. I wonder why, until now, no FP-1 owners have been contributing to the discussions.
If I understand @keesj’s statement correctly, a rooted phone basically opens up the possibility for an app to (autonomously?) change its owns permissions or the persmissions of another app. I don’t know much about android-security and rooting and I will definatly look into it more deeply. My (and apparantly that of many others) understanding of root-access has always been equivalent to that of administrator rights in windows or the Sudo command in linux. Maybe there is more to it that I am not aware of?
Somehow, the statements of @keesj seem rather implausable: 60.000 FP-1 owners are not driving without a seatbelt, or FP would feel more responsible for them, since they sold them a car without seatbelts. Therefore I find it very hard to believe that rooting my phone is similar to breaking it.
Can anybody (both pro, contra or neutral) post a better source for information about rooting phones?
I am a Fp1 owner and very happy with it.
I don’t mind the decision that the FP2 should not be sold rooted - actually I think it is a wise decision. I knew it would not be and that rooting instructions would be supplied later. However I wasn’t aware that it would not allow to use the Google apps. Correct me if I am wrong: are they, instead of providing rooting instructions, going to provide a rooted ROM without the Gapps? If that is the case, it is a big blow to my expectations… At least I hope they will provide both.
Wikipedia is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_(Android_OS)
@r0kk3rz, unfortunatly, it doesn’t work.
As I mentioned above, using a (smart)phone as a payment device really is a bad idea. Banks are pushing it, but I expect a backlash in the next couple of years.
@keesj: Correct me, if I’m wrong, but apps like KingRoot do show, that it’s very easy to get root acces by exploiting known (?) security bugs of Android.
So you talk about security, why does this work? These bugs shall be fixed asap! This means, for me as end-user it’s hard get root-acces easily, but the bad guy, who wants to steal my data can.
In addition to that, I woldn’t recommend using banking-Apps on the smartphone to anybody. See this talk at 32c3 (unfortunately in German), where Vincent Haupert explained how easy the manipulation of the banking-process is (because it’s super easy to bypass the security mechanisms)
@keesj, if you are under legal obligations to not allowing root when GAPPS are installed, please come out clearly about this. That’s something I might grumble about but understand.
Your current statements have me scratching my head. They seem to be written by big companies like Samsung and the likes spreading FUD around rooting while ignoring all the other, more urgent, security and privacy problems on Android.
That seems similar to all the statements the movie and record industries make around DRM.
Time and time again, it has been shown that it hardly stops the pirates, but restricts the (legal) rights of the fair owners.
This is where you are going wrong. You don’t seem to be able to see this from other points of view. You maybe right with regards to bank security but a lot of people like to use them. I’m not talking about NFC payments but simple stuff like checking balances. Many banks websites don’t work well on mobile browsers.
You can’t make a device just with the techie people in mind, Fairphone have to make inroads to the mass market if they want to make any changes.
@keesj: I disagree deeply with your statement. It is an overestimate of the security of a non-rooted-phone. We currently know apk being able to root FP2 (so FP2 not rooted is not secure).
You said some resonable arguments, but having already a final decision in mind, your arguments miss the point. I feel disrespected by your approach. I did not know at the time of ordering, that root would be not supported. When Did Fairphone comunicate this information? At some - late - point, there was a statement, FP2 would not be rooted, but easy to root.
At the time I bought a FP1 for my wife, knowing its miserable Mediatek chip. Every Nerd knew at the time, that sources would be worse than for any Qualcom driven device. I was pretty sure, that there would be no later Android Version for FP1. But I wanted to support you!
And still I very much liked the triple combination for the FP1:
- root
- GAPPS
- Security Updates OTA
I could have bought a NEXUS device instead. But as soon as you root it, you have to manually install Updates. Or you have to go for a Custom ROM to get the above triple combination.
But any Nexus device will have plenty of Custom ROMs. - My ordered FP2 will probably have some Custom ROMs, but sure not many - and probably we have not enough good Devs for Nexus-Rom Quality.
Do you really want me to cancel my order? Just because you did not understand my needs as a customer? Do you want me to get a NOT-FAIR Phone instead?
What really would be great is an official communication regarding the timeframe needed to make the root thing possible, whatever the solution (although I think the possibility to root the vanilla OS should be given to the users).
TBH, it has been nearly 6 months I’m expecting to change my phone, my previous one is on the brink of falling apart now, and I cannot enjoy the phone I received several days ago because I cannot restore my data and my paid apps (which, like titanium backup, require a root access).
For what I understand, expecting the phone not to be rooted does not mean that the app developers by default require it not to be rooted (except for some apps; someone on the forum gave the example of a German banking app, AFAIR).
What’s a little bit disappointing is that this choice has been made several months after the first orders (I have found trace of the root thing there : blog post on the 23rd of September, 2015. I have ordered my phone on the 16th of July (at the time I did my order, less than 1000 phones were sold !), and I started this adventure with a really good feeling thinking we were really going to change the world.
Now for me this choice is quite clearly a bad gesture towards what I will call the “intermediate geeks”, i.e. the people that are tech savvy enough to know how to root a phone (and hopefully not make it explode), but not actively working on the internals (I don’t know of Android’s internal mechanisms, although I know what app deserves to require the root access). I clearly understood the reason for your position regarding the root access, but for me it’s overprotective for a phone manufacturer not to allow root access to their phones with GAPPS (given other manufacturers don’t seem to give much of a s**t about it).
I was really eager to receive my FP2, but now it’s staying patiently in its box waiting for its potential to be unleashed. And I’m filled with doubt as to what to do with this box … Shall I send it back ? I would feel bad because I abide to your values. Still, for now, the customer that I am feels bad because I didn’t receive 100% of what I ordered.
Hi everybody,
I want to weigh in here on an issue that is clearly very important to all of you writing here. The Fairphone team hears you!
I admit our communication about what we’re offering in terms of root and a non-Google services phone has not been very clear, so I want to take the time to reiterate what we’re offering, when, and why.
We’re offering:
- Android 5.1 Lollipop with Google services, no root access
- Open source version with no Google services, root access
When and why:
- Android 5.1 Lollipop with Google services, no root access
This version is shipped to Fairphone 2 owners ready out-of-the-box. We cannot offer a version with Google services and root enabled. To get approval to ship a phone with Google services, a phone must pass compatibility tests and one requirement is that they are not shipped with root access.
But still, we want to follow our goals of ownership, longevity and transparency, so we are currently working on a version that is Google-free and *rootable (EDITED) via our development site code.fairphone.com.
2 . Open source version with no Google services, root access
The software team is working on this version, but there is no timeline to announce yet. There are still a few open questions about the open source version that we are working to answer, eg:
- How the open source, rootable version will be downloaded and installed by the user (documentation)
- When this open source version will be available
- How updates will work with the open source version, and how frequently they will happen in relation to the updates to the Google-services version of Fairphone 2 OS
In addition to this work that the internal Fairphone team is working on, developers can use the sources on code.fairphone.com to compile and root the Fairphone 2 themselves. We welcome this discussion and development on the forum.
I understand we have disappointed a vocal group of people here in this thread. I hope now we have provided more clarity on the software offering, and each person should decide for him/herself if this is up to your standards. If you’re not satisfied with what we can offer at this point, then you are completely entitled to a full refund within 14 days of receiving your phone. We’d be sorry to see you return your phone (and hope you will stay active in our community). But we want to make sure your expectations of the product are reached, so if you would like a refund please contact our support team.
I apologize again on behalf of the Fairphone team that these software issues were not more clear prior to you buying or receiving your Fairphone 2. I hope we can keep the forum and this discussion positive going forwardand constructive. I really appreciate the time you all put in to contributing to the forum and keeping our community active!
Best,
Joe
19 Likes
Why haven’t you said this clear sentence in the beginning? The statement from @keesj sounds like that was Fairphone’s voluntary decision. If this clear sentence had been fallen at the first post, the bashes against Fairphone wouldn’t exist here.
But thank you for clarifying.
But, with the open source version, are we going to be able to flash directly “by ourselves” the gapps ( for example, openGapps ) ?
Thanks for that long expected input.
Still the options suck… I would like to use a rooted phone with GAPPS as I have been doing since my first smartphone. I’m not a developer so I can’t work on the issue…
As the phone is already shipped now you can release an “official inofficial” or “inofficial official” tutorial on how to root… and keep GAPPS…
For the time being I’m still hesitating to go back to my FP1 and use my old ROOTED WITH GAPPS Samsung S3 for apps like sumup. This upgrade will be easy… You have info everywhere on the net.
Still have some days to figure out what I’ll do… Send the phone back or not.
Thanks, Joe.
I still don’t understand, though, why other Google phones seem to be easily routable while the FP2 with Google supposedly isn’t. Can anyone explain it to me as one of those semi-advanced non-developer users who enjoyed the freedom of root on the FP1 (Backups, XPosed, the early storage issue…) without knowing that much about Android’s deeper structure?
For me it would be enough if I could get a “superSU.zip” verified for this phone, so I could install it via Bootloader.
Spielmops