 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6 | reply to openbox9
Re: hmmmm.... said by openbox9:Is this sarcasm Robb? This post seems to contradict your response to sonicmerlin  below. AT&T has the choice to whatever it wishes with Android so long as it abides by the license. ...and I have the choice to point and laugh. It is newsworthy, but I don't think anyone should force anyone to do anything.
said by openbox9:Admittedly, I know little about Android and the other Android offerings. Don't other Android devices need to be rooted to have full "open" access? Can this device not be rooted? No, I can load whatever from whatever. It doesn't have to be approved by anyone.
What I don't have out-of-the-box is root access. And while I can get that quite easily, I can understand why these guys don't want to support users who root and then subsequently have problems due to the escalated privileges. There are no applications that require root (for example, I tether on an unrooted phone).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords |
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Fair enough...although I don't believe anyone mentioned that this isn't newsworthy.
FWIW, this thread started from the idea that if you don't like the limitations, don't buy the product. No different than many other threads of endless complaining about a limited product/service. Choice is nice. |
