• lobut@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    R1s statement in response from the article:

    “rabbit r1 is not an Android app. We are aware there are some unofficial rabbit OS app/website emulators out there. We understand the passion that people have to get a taste of our AI and LAM instead of waiting for their r1 to arrive. That being said, to clear any misunderstanding and set the record straight, rabbit OS and LAM run on the cloud with very bespoke AOSP and lower level firmware modifications, therefore a local bootleg APK without the proper OS and Cloud endpoints won’t be able to access our service. rabbit OS is customized for r1 and we do not support third-party clients. Using a bootlegged APK or webclient carries significant risks; malicious actors are known to publish bootlegged apps that steal your data. For this reason, we recommend that users avoid these bootlegged rabbit OS apps.”

    So there’s literally no reason for this to have been a device at all.

    • bcgm3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      No rea$on at all, except for that one little rea$on that we alway$ $eem to keep coming back to…

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Except that some people may like this form factor for these features. Of course it can be delivered in phones, but it does seem at least possible to me that some may prefer a device like this.

      • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I love the dumb little form factors those guys do. The only thing stopping me is that I know it is overhyped bullshit which I will be bored of in a week. If it were easy to develop my own software to completely replace what’s on it I might be convinced.

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I completely agree. If they take another swing, I hope they’ll make it much more open for development. Or just update these.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, if you weren’t convinced this was a waste of money before finding out that it’s like this, you’re not going to be convinced by this.

    • infeeeee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      AOSP and lower level firmware modifications

      But it’s android, so linux, so GPL2, so they have to share these modifications (if they really exist). It’s bootleg until soneone sues them.

        • infeeeee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          They wrote “lower level firmware modifications”, AOSP runs on Linux kernel, and firmware modifications usually mean they modified the Linux kernel. This device seems like a regular Android phone, and afaik this rules apply to all Android phones, that’s why Android rom cooking can exist.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            They may be compelled to release any driver code associated, however firmware is not covered by relation to kernel. Linux runs on mostly proprietary firmware. The “linux-firmware” package in many distributions that contains hot plug firmware is mostly proprietary blobs.

            That said I doubt they had much significant firmware work, it may just be logo and some tweaked configuration from their SoC vendor. They likely had to modify AOSP a bit more to allow their launcher unfettered access to the device in ways not modeled by standard AOSP, but that’s user space that isn’t GPL.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        You’d be surprised how many companies ignore GPL. Providing broken links to the source code tarballs, telling you to send an email request to get the code then proceed to ignore the requests, etc. Only the most famous case got sued, the rest simply got away with it.