Setup without Google

[xnyl 2]

I have problem with setting up my Fxtec pro1 phone. It wants me to accept Google privacy policy when turning on and does not let me decline or skip it. I can only turn the phone off. I do not need nor want any google features.

How do I bypass/decline Google privacy policy without loosing warranty?

I'm very unhappy because of this being forced on me.

[acrux 56]

13 minutes ago, xnyl said:

How do I bypass/decline Google privacy policy without loosing warranty?

Install LineageOS! It is just plain Android without Google "features" 🙂

[Wheeljack 212]

And before you ask:

f(x)tec supports (almost encourages) people installing othes operating systems. So unlocking the bootloader and installing Lineage does not void your warranty.

[FlyingAntero 869]

I think that you should be able to skip Google privacy policy if you do not add Google account to the phone. At least it worked for me.

[EskeRahn 5,454]

4 hours ago, FlyingAntero said:

I think that you should be able to skip Google privacy policy if you do not add Google account to the phone. At least it worked for me.

I just did a factory reset a few days ago, and was able to skip

[tdm 2,322]

Use ungoogled stock?

[xnyl 2]

I was thinking of using using degogled rom but I have some concerns.

I'll ask support for confirmation that the it will not be voided by use of unofficial software.

Are there any problems with reverting to stock rom after rooting(in case I need to sell the thing)? I have horrible experience with this on Sony Xperia XZ1 Dual. In case of that phone It's not really possible to go back to stock rom after unlocking the bootloader because some DRM keys are deleted(Technically it's possible but  it's hard and camera is degraded).

I'd say that Google stuff should be addon that you should be able to (not) install when setting up your phone.

@FlyingAntero & @EskeRahn: We are talking about something different. Maybe we have different version of software. I'm attaching image showing what I can see a screen by screen starting with one that I see after booting. Arrows are showing what i tap. I've tried taping everything apart from "Accept" button and got to some other screens but none were useful.

Thank You all for Your comments!

[Hook 3,013]

F(x) Tec advertises alternate OSes as a feature of buying the Pro 1, as well as promoting them on their twitter feed, so you can be sure it doesn't void warranty.  They also provide the means to restore stock (it restores an older version, but then you take the updates):

I've done the restore to stock a couple of times, so I know it works although I am now on Lineage.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Hook

[netman 1,424]

43 minutes ago, xnyl said:

Are there any problems with reverting to stock rom after rooting(in case I need to sell the thing)? I have horrible experience with this on Sony Xperia XZ1 Dual. In case of that phone It's not really possible to go back to stock rom after unlocking the bootloader because some DRM keys are deleted(Technically it's possible but  it's hard and camera is degraded).

There are no such worries with the Pro1 luckily, you should be able to revert to the stock rom just fine. The biggest caveat is that between going from stock to custom rom and back you can not retain userdata and we don't have a TWRP that can decrypt yet for making backups (we'll get TWRP eventually though). Of course there should be the warning some things are done at your own risk, but unless you are deliberately doing crazy things I don't believe you should worry at all - it is fairly straightforward to go back to stock from most conceivable situations.

With the stock rom I don't think there is a way to get in without logging in to google, but you can boot to fastboot mode with a key combination and unluck and flash via fastboot.

[FlyingAntero 869]

7 hours ago, xnyl said:

We are talking about something different. Maybe we have different version of software. I'm attaching image showing what I can see a screen by screen starting with one that I see after booting. Arrows are showing what i tap. I've tried taping everything apart from "Accept" button and got to some other screens but none were useful.

I might be wrong but I think that if you setup Android phone without Google account and do not connect the phone to network then you are pretty much "safe" even if you press that agree button. Then you can enable OEM unlock and flash what ever you want. Or you can also go through pre-installed apps and uninstall/disable everything related to Google (if possible) before connecting to network.

[internationaltraitor 84]

i wasn't able to bypass the privacy accept page from google.. but i did not ever insert my sim card in my phone.  i did however use my wifi (kind of big mistake).  i did not log into google for the set up either.  and then i flashed it to lineage.  if i would have known, that i can just boot straight into bootloader instead of agreeing to google, then that would have been the "safest" procedure.

Edited August 29, 2020 by internationaltraitor

[xnyl 2]

@internationaltraitor: I'm sorry to hear that there more people that are coerced to agree to google practices.

I've looked into possibility of making a bug report to google about this problem and run into catch-22 situation. One needs a Google account browse/submit bug  report. 😕

I've reached out to Fxtec support yesterday morning, describing the situation, linking to this thread and asking "Will I loose warranty/any other rights if I flash unofficial rom?".

I've took a look at ungoogled stock by tdm. Kudos to him but it's not for me. No sources and it's unofficial. Lineage however looks sensible. Qualcomm blobs (and their distribution) are fishy but I don't think it will get any better with Qualcomm. I have to compromise some.

I'm going to build my own image, while waiting for Fxtec support to answer.

edit:

@FlyingAntero: This kind of approach is wrong on in multiple ways. The situation will not change if we don't do something about it. Agreeing to contracts even when coerced puts one at legal risk. And frankly speaking being successfully coerced into accepting to some company privacy policies when their products are forced on you is humiliating.

Edited August 29, 2020 by xnyl
append

[FlyingAntero 869]

1 hour ago, xnyl said:

This kind of approach is wrong on in multiple ways. The situation will not change if we don't do something about it. Agreeing to contracts even when coerced puts one at legal risk. And frankly speaking being successfully coerced into accepting to some company privacy policies when their products are forced on you is humiliating.

Yeah, I know that but in the end you bought a device with Google services. F(x)tec has done their best to give options to customers (unlockable bootloader). It is not perfect situation but better than nothing. First F(x)tec tried to ship phones with already unlocked bootloader but that led to issues with non-technical customers. So F(x)tec had to change that so that they can make business.

There are other options available if you are looking for totally ungoogled device.

• Get your deGoogled smartphone now!

F(x)tec allow you to flash unofficial OS without loosing warranty.

Edited August 29, 2020 by FlyingAntero

[xnyl 2]

2 hours ago, FlyingAntero said:

Yeah, I know that but in the end you bought a device with Google services. (...)

There are other options available if you are looking for totally ungoogled device.

• Get your deGoogled smartphone now!

This is not a valid argument in my opinion. For few reasons.

There is no good technical reason why functionality independent of Google services of the device is blocked.

Ignoring non-alternatives of Apple, vendors that are known for installing spyware, etc. Smartphones that come with Google apps constitute overwhelming majority. And that's when we speak of getting any smartphone. (Almost) all of us are here because they wanted a smartphone with physical keyboard. We wouldn't wait through months of delays if that was optional for us. To my knowledge there are only few options available on the market. All of them have Google apps on them. And even if some of them didn't they are still significantly different technically.

Google uses this situation of users limited choice together with the way they made the setup wizard to force users into giving up their rights to privacy. This is evil. I'd hope that It's also illegal.

2 hours ago, FlyingAntero said:

(...) F(x)tec has done their best to give options to customers (unlockable bootloader). It is not perfect situation but better than nothing. First F(x)tec tried to ship phones with already unlocked bootloader but that led to issues with non-technical customers. So F(x)tec had to change that so that they can make business.

I have nothing against Fxtec here. They not the ones at fault. All choice they have is to use Google-free stock but it's not a viable option as it would make their product significantly less attractive for majority of customers. The evil one here is Google, blocking use of functionality of the device that is independent of services provided by them. No sane person is going to expect Fxtec to fight here. They are a for profit company, not an NGO fighting for freedom/fair competition. All I expect of Fxtec is if(when) Google releases a fix for this issue, Fxtec will include that fix in nearest software update. Anything more is a gesture of good will -- Arguably well deserved, considering our extremely generous amounts of patience with them.

2 hours ago, FlyingAntero said:

F(x)tec allow you to flash unofficial OS without loosing warranty.

I believe You, but I need to hear that from Fxtec for it to be legally binding. 😉

Edited August 29, 2020 by xnyl
Clarifications and grammar fixes.

[MvBoe 31]

4 hours ago, xnyl said:

I believe You, but I need to hear that from Fxtec for it to be legally binding. 😉

Screenshot from homepage:

 

[Rob. S. 1,659]

On 8/29/2020 at 2:30 PM, xnyl said:

There is no good technical reason why functionality independent of Google services of the device is blocked.

Of course not. But we do not live in a world in which things tend to be what they are for good technical reasons (let alone for reasons of human needs), and Google, of all companies, can hardly be expected to change that...

Renowned SF writer Cory Doctorow published a piece about the issue just a couple of days ago, it's titled "How to destroy Surveillance Capitalism" – but actually I think even he's still too optimistic.  

 

[internationaltraitor 84]

read the first 5 paragraphs,  had a good chuckle of his reality.  not interested in his writings.

[EskeRahn 5,454]

4 hours ago, internationaltraitor said:

read the first 5 paragraphs,  had a good chuckle of his reality.  not interested in his writings.

I too gave up about that point TLDR. *LOL*

An interesting aspect that he oddly does not seem to address is the consequences of cleverly targeting ads. If say you have been searching a bit for something on say shoes, it will make sense to present you with ads for boots. But if you have searched more intensively for boots, it might be an option to present you with ads with lesser discounts, as you are clearly already in the market. So you might end up with worse offers than if you to the algorithm seemed less interested...

We all know the mechanism when you visit a market place. The less interested the better prices are offered.
Actually an acquaintance of mine had a great tactic for getting good prices. He visited the market with his wife, that (genuinely) hated markets and haggling and thus was annoyed and uninterested while trying to get him away, and that gave them good prices....

[Doktor Oswaldo 904]

2 hours ago, EskeRahn said:

I too gave up about that point TLDR. *LOL*

An interesting aspect that he oddly does not seem to address is the consequences of cleverly targeting ads. If say you have been searching a bit for something on say shoes, it will make sense to present you with ads for boots. But if you have searched more intensively for boots, it might be an option to present you with ads with lesser discounts, as you are clearly already in the market. So you might end up with worse offers than if you to the algorithm seemed less interested...

We all know the mechanism when you visit a market place. The less interested the better prices are offered.
Actually an acquaintance of mine had a great tactic for getting good prices. He visited the market with his wife, that (genuinely) hated markets and haggling and thus was annoyed and uninterested while trying to get him away, and that gave them good prices....

Well I honestly don't think they are that far with personalized adverts. I would be happy to not getting adverts for a vacuum cleaner for the next 2 years AFTER I bought it.
In my opinion the real danger of all this, lies in the companies buying that data. Mostly insurances are extremely dangerous. Even here, where there are strict laws that everyone must have base insurance and companies can't reject you, some of them tend to loose the paperwork of older patients which are trying to switch to them because they are cheaper.
In a less regulated country this can be fatal. If we think that through, it will one day maybe be possible for the insurance to cancel your contract before YOU know that you are sick.

[EskeRahn 5,454]

8 minutes ago, Doktor Oswaldo said:

Well I honestly don't think they are that far with personalized adverts. I would be happy to not getting adverts for a vacuum cleaner for the next 2 years AFTER I bought it.
In my opinion the real danger of all this, lies in the companies buying that data. Mostly insurances are extremely dangerous. Even here, where there are strict laws that everyone must have base insurance and companies can't reject you, some of them tend to loose the paperwork of older patients which are trying to switch to them because they are cheaper.
In a less regulated country this can be fatal. If we think that through, it will one day maybe be possible for the insurance to cancel your contract before YOU know that you are sick.

Oh we already get personalized adverts, my thought was that looks like the same offer also is going to vary in discount depending on the data they got their dirty paws on for the person seeing the ad,

Including but not limited to insurance.  Many companies already vary the price of a car-insurance depending on how powerful the car is, that is they assume that if you got a powerful car, you are more likely to be driving it haphazardly. And though that most likely is true in mean, this obviously will not go for everyone(*). So IF used fairly they in theory could require a higher premium for those where they, by the collected location data, can conclude that it is actually a rotten driver. But though this may sound OK (despite the privacy issues) it is more complex. Say you normally share a ride to work with a co-worker that drives a bit crazy. They by your location data will have a hard time telling which of you are actually driving the days where the driving is crazy....

 

(*) I upgraded an old 115 HP Mitsubishi sedan that was beyond repair and bough another old car, a 250 HP Saab station car, and the insurance company I used wanted to quadruple the premium for the legally required insurance, so changed to another where it was a much more modest increase (If I remember right about 50% more). And sure I drive a bit more 'playful' in the Saab, though still not recklessly - I'm an old fart...

[Hook 3,013]

27 minutes ago, EskeRahn said:

(*) I upgraded an old 115 HP Mitsubishi sedan that was beyond repair and bough another old car, a 250 HP Saab station car, and the insurance company I used wanted to quadruple the premium for the legally required insurance, so changed to another where it was a much more modest increase (If I remember right about 50% more). And sure I drive a bit more 'playful' in the Saab, though still not recklessly - I'm an old fart...

Wait! What?  I'm supposed to drive more carefully if I'm an old fart... 😏

[tdm 2,322]

Well, I found the first 5 paragraphs rather interesting.  Probably because I live in the US, where a large portion of the population exhibits these traits.  While I think he does explain some of the tendency to ignore science and facts, I think he completely misses a large portion of the problem -- people who are genuinely against certain things because the status quo favors them over others and they don't want to change because they are selfish.  So they simply pretend the problem does not exist, and find people who agree with them and explain their willful ignorance with deception.