# Anyone else running their Fire with a non Amazon firmware?



## Okkoto86 (Oct 29, 2010)

Just curious. Its an odd sort of contrast, I spend allot of time on XDA and no one there is running stock software anymore, and it feels like everyone here is still stock. And I don't mean a couple side-loaded apps, I mean an actual new rom or at least root with the play store. 

I tried a few diff roms but landed on one of the new Ice Cream Sandwich roms (gedeROM v1.15) and its fantastic. The new kernel squashes almost all the bugs, HD video works with hardware acceleration now, basically feels like a 7" Xoom. It's just as powerful as an iPad with ICS, and you can still access all the Amazon stuff with the apps, and the VOD can be accessed through the web browser.

Shots of my home-screen below, what are you guys runnin?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

As rooting the device is against the Amazon ToS and voids the warranty, it's not something most of our members have done nor do we discuss how to do it.  I would guess changing the firmware would also be against Amazon's ToS....


----------



## Okkoto86 (Oct 29, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> As rooting the device is against the Amazon ToS and voids the warranty, it's not something most of our members have done nor do we discuss how to do it. I would guess changing the firmware would also be against Amazon's ToS....


Understandable, if im breaking any forum rules feel free to close it. It can void your warranty but the truth is its all software, there's nothing you can do to it that you cant undo as long as you do your research before hand. The U.S. Copyright Office specifically said rooting and jailbreaking and things are not in any way against the law (link), regardless of what Amazons ToS says, so its not like piracy.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Not a problem.  Note that things don't have to be against the law to be against Amazon's Terms of Service.  I'm happy with my Fire as is anyway...  

Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm with Betsy. . . I kind of like the Fire interface.    

As to 'terms of service', my position is that if I agreed to the terms, I should not just ignore the fact of that agreement unless there is something pretty dire going on.

And Kindleboards position, in general, is that if it's against Amazon's Terms of Service, it's not an appropriate topic for discussion here.  We're not naive. . we realize the information is all over the rest of the internet.  But it's not here.


----------



## gadgetgirl003 (Mar 22, 2009)

I agree with Ann and Betsy in not seeing any need to root the Kindle Fire. I think many of the people on  The XDA site root their devices just because they can. I think that Amazon is doing a good job of making plenty of apps available for the Fire. I appreciate that Amazon allows us to load apps from other places if we so desire without rooting also.


----------



## joeyp (Mar 16, 2012)

i think ann and betsy's position is ridiculous, so kindle boards is just a shill for amazon is that it? if the information is on some other board on the internet, why pray tell do people need to come to *THIS* site then? why not just frequent that site ? I havent rooted my kindle nor have i changed my Rom and I have no plans to do so,* but the very fact that Ann or Betsy or this site for that matter, feel that they have the right or responsibility to act as our community conscience is offensive to me. And I would think it would be to us all.*

All this proves is that Kindle boards is a spokesman for Amazon and could care less for the needs or interests of the community at large that comprise it membership. I for one am not an ostrich and having Amazon decide for me what I am permitted to hear about or discuss, especially when it is by no means illegal, is absurd.

there is no justification for this Ann and Betsy, if information was controlled the way you believe it should be Louis Pasteur and Jonas Salk would probably have died as street urchins and the world would be a poorer place. you both should be ashamed, especially you Betsy since I know from your own posts that your personal kindle has 3rd party apps on it.. it makes your stance highly hypocritical. Just as you have the right to determine your own ability to do as you deem proper, so should we all


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

Geez. Overreact much? It isn't Ann & Betsy's position - Kindleboard's position has always been that things that violate Amazon's TOS can't be discussed here. There are plenty of places to get & discuss the info - this just isn't one of them. They aren't saying you can't discuss them - they aren't trying to control the entire internet - you just can't discuss them here on this board.


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

Meemo said:


> There are plenty of places to get & discuss the info - this just isn't one of them. They aren't saying you can't discuss them - they aren't trying to control the entire internet - you just can't discuss them here on this board.


joey-p - I completely agree with Meemo.
No one has compelled you or anyone else to participate in this board. Definitely there are other places to discuss the ideas that you want to pursue - and there are those of us who are members of this board who do follow some of those other places for exactly this purpose. After reading the board's rules before I signed up (or very shortly after signing up - don't exactly remember), my choosing to continue on this board was a free & conscious decision I made. I understand what I was getting into & what I might and might not be able to discuss on this board. No *constitutional* rights impacted here in following board rules!


----------



## Okkoto86 (Oct 29, 2010)

Seriously joeyp, slow your roll dude.  Ann and Betsy (love the new avatar btw  ) I hope you know I obviously don't feel that way.  If you notice joeyp they didn't close the thread.  The thread simply fizzed out because most likely most of the members on here are stock.  Im cool with that, was just curious if there where any other Kindle people who modded.  Most on the XDA aren't kindle people.  If a few of the members here saw this thread and decided to hang out with us on the xda that's cool too.  But there's no need for that kind of reaction.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

Joey, dude, chill. You really had no right to come down on poor Ann and Betsy like that. They've done a great job for this site for many years. 

KB has a sensible rule on the subject IMO. Sticking to Amazon TOS as a matter of policy is safe and ensures this site doesn't get the wrong kind of attention from Bezos and co.

I don't see anything wrong with rooting if that's what strikes your fancy but isn't something I feel the need to do personally. The Fire is already surprisingly more "open" than I expected.


----------



## joeyp (Mar 16, 2012)

notice what i said people

*"All this proves is that Kindle boards is a spokesman for Amazon and could care less for the needs or interests of the community at large that comprise it membership. I for one am not an ostrich and having Amazon decide for me what I am permitted to hear about or discuss, especially when it is by no means illegal, is absurd."*

I stand by it. if all you get out of this post is as CS said: "KB has a sensible rule on the subject IMO. Sticking to Amazon TOS as a matter of policy is* safe and ensures this site doesn't get the wrong kind of attention from Bezos and co."*

That's the issue to me, as I said i'm on a stock kindle and have neither the need or desire to be on a different mod. I've sideloaded apps just as Betsy has. That is not the issue. The issue is trying to *"steer the conversation".* Jeff Bezos should not be the conscience for each of us and he doesnt need Betsy or Ann being it either

If this site is here as the defacto spokesman for Amazon or Jeff Bezos, then be honest and admit it, if not and it is a community forum which is there for the communal benefit, then be that. To me its about honesty and disclosure. In this country paid spokespersons are required to disclose when they advertise, so as to not mislead the general public, that's all i'm pointing out. We have every right to know if the opinions expressed by Betsy or Ann are truly their own, or bought and paid for by Jeff Bezos. And i'm not coming down unnecessarily harsh on them. I'm merely asking a responsible question we all should be asking so as to properly assess the value of their advice.

information as information has value, its when it ceases to be information and becomes propaganda that it becomes worthless. Think about that.....


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Hi joeyp, Welcome to Kindleboards. 

For the record, as it says at the bottom of every KindleBoards page, "KindleBoards is an independent resource for people who own or have interest in Kindle - Amazon's family of wireless reading devices, tablets, and content." The founder and owner of the site made a decision early on NOT to allow discussion on certain topics. That's not going to change. And, the site has been pretty successful in the last 4½ years with that policy. You are more than welcome to join the discussion, according to the policy. Or not. But if the rules are violated, posts will be deleted or edited. Various members have let you know about other forums where the rules are different; you might want to check them out.

You are also within your rights to object to the policy -- believe it or not, you're not the first to do so. Still, as I said, it's Harvey's board and he's the one who ultimately decides how we're allowed to play in his house.  I will also note that you agreed to the rules, as posted in  Forum Decorum, when you joined the site, so the apparent surprise expressed here is a bit perplexing. Your opinion has been noted, however. Perhaps now we can move on? 

Now, back on topic. . . . .

It is completely possible to run apps -- presumably other browsers -- without violating the terms of service; you just have to set the device to accept things from "unknown sources". I, personally, haven't seen the need to do that much, but I know others have and have had various degrees of success with how the apps function. Sometimes it's a problem of the app being optimized for either a phone screen or full sized tablet and, as the Fire is something in between, the results aren't the best. But many apps work just great! As to browsers, specifically, I've read many cases of folks successfully using other browsers -- Firefox, something called Maxthon, and others. It's good to hear it works for those who desire it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

joeyp said:


> you both should be ashamed, especially you Betsy since I know from your own posts that your personal kindle has 3rd party apps on it.. it makes your stance highly hypocritical. Just as you have the right to determine your own ability to do as you deem proper, so should we all


  joeyp Thanks for reading my posts. 

No, Jeff Bezos is not paying me. Nor is anyone else. I'm a volunteer here, as are the other moderators. I earn income through making and selling art quilts (see my signature).

As has been already pointed out, putting 3rd party apps on one's Fire is NOT against the ToS; Amazon has built in a menu option to allow one to do so. And everyone has the right to do whatever they want to any of their Kindles. However, if it's against the ToS, they'll have to learn about how to do it somewhere else. (By the way, if anyone wants to post about a new medical cure for a disease here, they are certainly welcome to do so. )



Okkoto86 said:


> Betsy (love the new avatar btw )


Thanks! Super-quilter will be back, but I felt the need for a change. 

Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> (By the way, if anyone wants to post about a new medical cure for a disease here, they are certainly welcome to do so.
> Betsy


Um. . . .no, Betsy. . .. that should be posted in Not Quite Kindle.


----------



## laurie_lu (May 10, 2010)

I thought about rooting my DroidX but am afraid of screwing it up.  My cell phone is my only phone at home and my only way to be reached for my job on call or for my kids to reach me.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Um. . . .no, Betsy. . .. that should be posted in Not Quite Kindle.


 

Well, I meant here on KB.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

joeyp said:


> I stand by it. if all you get out of this post is as CS said: "KB has a sensible rule on the subject IMO. Sticking to Amazon TOS as a matter of policy is* safe and ensures this site doesn't get the wrong kind of attention from Bezos and co."*
> 
> _If this site is here as the defacto spokesman for Amazon or Jeff Bezos, then be honest and admit it._


Please don't twist my words around to suit your own agenda. I _never_ said that KB is a spokesman for Amazon/Bezos. As Ann already pointed out, it's plainly written for everyone to see that "KindleBoards is an independent resource for people who own or have interest in Kindle - Amazon's family of wireless reading devices, tablets, and content."

I obviously can't speak for Harvey or why he's made the decisions he has, but I see nothing wrong with them. The fact is, Amazon *has* gone after other sites with "Kindle" in the name. Ereaderiq.com, for example, used to have the word "Kindle" in its address. I don't know what the reasons were for Amazon's objections in that case, and I don't know if that's even Harvey's rationale for adhering to Amazon's TOS for this site (that KB policy may in fact predate any of Amazon's shenanigans), but better safe than sorry, if you ask me.

This isn't 1995. Information is incredibly easy to find now. It's literally at your fingertips. So why complain because this board doesn't cater to one "unauthorized" aspect of Kindle usage? There are a million other places that do, and I'm sure there are people here who are also on sites like that as well. Becoming a KB member doesn't mean you can't also go to other sites/boards. I don't understand why this is even an issue.


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

Personally I can understand Harvey's position.  I don't know about him, but to me it would be a matter of liability.  If someone reads on Kindleboards all about how to root their Fire and ends up bricking said Fire, there could conceivably be a liability issue.  One would hope that the rooter would say "Geez, guess I shouldn't have done that if I wasn't sure what I was doing - now I'm hosed."  But you know darned well some folks would say "It's Kindleboard's fault - that's where I got the info on how to do it - I'm suing Harvey!"  As CS says, there are undoubtedly other reasons for Harvey's position as well, and I have no problem with that.  It's "his" board - he gets to set the rules.  If you don't like his rules, there are lots of other boards that are more "open" to free-wheeling discussions.  And there are boards that are even more restrictive than this one.  You'd be missing out on a lot of good info if you left this one, though.  

For the record, we've long been able to get the directions on how to hack Kindles to put our own personal screensavers on our eInk Kindles, because that isn't specifically against Amazon's ToS.  There are boards where you can't even discuss that.  

You're free to stand by your position, joeyp - and I'll stand by mine.  But it'd be nice if you wouldn't "shoot the messenger" by picking on Betsy & Ann, who've been moderating here for a long time - they don't make the rules, they just remind us of them - usually in a much nicer way than I'd ever be able to.  They've each actually had to slap my hand a time or two, and I'm still here.


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

At least they slap your hand instead of this:











(For NCIS fans, isn't that kinda like Gibbs slapping DiNozzo?)


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

No one here is a shill for Amazon. They happen to have very strict policies regarding what can and cannot be discussed. I drive them nuts when I happily mention some of these topics (on far to regular a basis) but I know what the line is. You can say that something is possible, you get the Mod post about violating Terms of Service, you don't discuss it beyond it being possible and you let it go.

There can be legal ramifications for web site owners who allow certain discussions. Kindle Boards probably wants to steer clear of those and so they maintain a strict policy.

If you are interested in another site that has a less strict policy, PM me and I will give you the name of said site. Note: They do not allow direct links or specific discussion of how to do some of this stuff but people will point you in the right direction. They do discuss hacking and rooting devices on a very regular basis. There is an entire Developers Corner for each of the devices out there.


----------



## joeyp (Mar 16, 2012)

once again if you bother to read my posts i have said i have no need or desire to change my kindle's OS and to try to paint it as that is inaccurate, no one in this thread even hinted at that. my total issue is one of trying to steer the conversation. I have no issue with the owner saying he wishes that certain things being discussed elsewhere for fear of being targeted by amazon, but that reason needs to be given *every* time

I happen to be a federal officer of the treasury department and there are certain rights that citizens have that should not be taken lightly, Advising individuals is one thing but unilateral actions that contravene a citizens rights are another matter entirely. As I have said repeatedly, My interest is strictly in the interest of free speech.. If Betsy or Ann had said, for example, that this site prefers that this discussion be taken elsewhere, so as not to draw unwanted attention from Amazon, I wouldn't have bothered to post at all. merely stating that something is not permitted here is not sufficient, a reasonable explanation must be given

unless appropriate disclaimers are given, and that means in every instance, you have the potential for instances where civil rights are being violated, And Ann for your edification terms of service have no legal standing under federal law, they are considered only as mitigation., no one is asking the owner to change his policy, merely that you specify the policy and the reason for it when it is enforced. in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). In that case, the Court unanimously ruled that while the First Amendment may allow private property owners to prohibit trespass by political speakers and petition-gatherers, *California was permitted to restrict property owners whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum from enforcing their private property rights to exclude such individuals.* Writing for the majority, Justice Rehnquist rejected the appellants argument for the common law's protection of property against trespass, writing that such an interpretation would "represent a return to the era of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), when common-law rights were also found immune from revision... [it] would freeze the common law as it has been constructed by courts, perhaps at its 19th-century state of development."[70] The Court did, however, maintain that public forums *could impose "reasonable restrictions on expressive activity.*

What this mean is that a public forum is considered a free speech zone and that all restrictions of such must be reasonable and expressed, absent that the court could uphold a first ammendment violation. once again, merely stating that something is not permitted here is not sufficient, a reasonable explanation must be given. in every instance.


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

Steph H said:


> (For NCIS fans, isn't that kinda like Gibbs slapping DiNozzo?)


Absolutely!


----------



## MamaProfCrash (Dec 16, 2008)

This site is privatly owned. This allows the owners to determine the rules of participation. If you don't like their rules, go some place else. There are a ton of places that you can go and discuss all manner of subjects that you are not allowed to discuss here. This is not a new phenomina. Web sites run by private individuals and corporations have been allowed to set their own rules for many, many years. 

The restrictions are reasonable and have been explained. You consent to them when you develop your name and password. If you don't want to abide by them or post at a site that has such restrictions then you are free to move to another site.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Joeyp...I did explain why such discussions are not allowed in my very first post in this thread:



Betsy the Quilter said:


> *As rooting the device is against the Amazon ToS and voids the warranty*, it's not something most of our members have done nor do we discuss how to do it.


and


Betsy the Quilter said:


> Note that things don't have to be against the law to be against Amazon's Terms of Service.


and


Ann in Arlington said:


> And Kindleboards position, in general, is that if it's against Amazon's Terms of Service, it's not an appropriate topic for discussion here. We're not naive. . we realize the information is all over the rest of the internet. But it's not here.


That you do not find that reason sufficient does not mean that the reason why such discussions are not allowed was not provided...

You don't have to agree, and as this thread has shown, you can certainly voice your opinion, but the rule is not going to change. Thanks for your thoughts on this matter.

At any rate, the OP has gotten his answer. I suggest we all move on.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

Simply put Free Speech issues are not applicable here in any way shape or form.

The owner of this forum has every right to restrict what is said on this forum in any way they deem appropriate and without explanation or justification. Basically, put another way, the host's rights to control his own property are not limited by the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not give individuals the right to say whatever they want whenever they want.

The First Amendment directly specifies what the *government* may not do, not what individual citizens may do.
All the First Amendment does for you is Prohibit the Government from limiting your speech -- it does not apply in the public and/or private sector.

In many cases the courts have already upheld restrictions on what can be said in "public" forums such as this as being acceptable.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

I'd love to know why this rule exists.

B.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

The rule (you're talking the rule for not discussing about modifying the Fire's OS?) exists because Harvey made the decision that he does not want discussions on the board about ways to violate Amazon's ToS for Kindle Devices.

Betsy


----------



## Okkoto86 (Oct 29, 2010)

Wow.  This is not where I expected this thread to go at all.  Joeyp, your missing something incredibly obvious, they didn't close the thread.  All that happened is Betsy said that because Kindle boards doesn't discuss rooting Fires, I probably wouldn't get much in the way of responses.  And guess what, I didn't get much in the way of responses.  They didn't tell me I couldn't discuss it, if that where the case they would have shut down the thread.

Have you considered that maybe the motives of not discussing how to do these things aren't diabolical?  Maybe, the owner realizes that many members here aren't tech savvy, and have a real chance hurting their kindles messing with them.  And say what you want about Amazon's ToS you will void your warranty and be stuck with a brick if you mess it up.  I doubt KindleBoards wants to deal with a bunch of complaints because people messed up their Fires.

I don't have a huge post count but I've been here a long time, Ann and Betsy and everyone else here are good people, they certainly don't deserve to be accused of what you are accusing them of.  Take it easy buddy.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Not to worry, Okkoto86...threads here frequently take unexpected turns.

Thanks for understanding.

Betsy


----------



## joeyp (Mar 16, 2012)

I am not accusing anyone of anything I am just making the point that as a public forum certain actions are required and for those who claim this is a private site and thus are not bound by the first Ammendment, you are wrong, *California was permitted to restrict property owners whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum from enforcing their private property rights to exclude such individuals.* Writing for the majority, Justice Rehnquist rejected the appellants argument for the common law's protection of property against trespass, writing that such an interpretation would "represent a return to the era of Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), when common-law rights were also found immune from revision... [it] would freeze the common law as it has been constructed by courts, perhaps at its 19th-century state of development."[70] *The Court did, however, maintain that public forums could impose "reasonable restrictions on expressive activity.*

As a public forum, the Justice determined that individuals are guaranteed certain rights. Thats what I am speaking to here. The owner of this site has certain obligations when he chooses for his site to become a public forum, just as the accused has the right to face his accuser. In a public forum a poster has a right to know exactly why his free speech is limited. In a given forum it is not enough to say so and so says you cant do that, The court determined that the reasons must be expressed (in other words clearly stated) and Reasonable. I just spoke up because it didnt appear to me that a valid reason was given and as such, reasonableness could not be determined.

As Ive said *merely saying harvey said so is not enough* the reason needs to be reasonable and expressed, such as the owner of this site has determined that it is not in our bests interests to discuss matters beyond Amazons terms of service. See the difference? it amazes me that people are so cavalier when it comes to their civil rights and responsibilities. I chose to try and educate and I expected Betsy and Ann as moderators to know the applicable laws. As a federal employee, I do so with the public on a daily basis, but I guess members here will choose whatever they wish. which is fine by the way, I just felt I had a responsibility to inform and I have done so. and with that I leave this topic


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

joeyp said:


> As Ive said *merely saying harvey said so is not enough* the reason needs to be reasonable and expressed


Thanks again for your comments. As I've said, the reasonable reason has been expressed. We never said only that "harvey said so." See my prior posts. If, for the sake of argument, we accept your legal analysis as correct (and I have no reason to believe OR not to believe your analysis), we've met that criteria.

I'm locking this thread as it's become repetitive. Thanks again for the input.

Best,

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------

