Canta | Uninstall any Bloatware, System App without Root just by using Shizuku
Canta | Uninstall any Bloatware, System App without Root just by using Shizuku
How to:
- Install Shizuku & activate it (you can follow this Android Police guide for more in-depth explanation)
- Install Canta
- Select an app and click the trash button
Features:
- no bricking - if you remove essential app you will need to do factory reset, but that's it!
- auto detect previously uninstalled apps if you've already removed any using adb
Screenshots:
https://i.imgur.com/3uuMvVJ.png
you will need to do factory reset
Or you could just reenable the app with adb. 🙄 This isn't doing anything you couldn't do with a one-liner.
Yes, but as this app is designed for people like me who don't have access to other hardware then factory reset would be my only option.
Why just not use universal android debloater?
If you don't have a desktop you can't use it so to have something that does the same that you can use on mobile is pretty cool.
Can someone eli5 what Shizuku is? I keep hearing about it on a number of Android App YouTube videos as well.
The app lets you use system features that are normally not available for regular apps. Basically it runs a service which has access to some System API's that can be granted to regular apps so think of it like you would have root without having root.
It's just a on-device GUI for the built in debugging tools, which might be used to grant permissions apps can't usually request by themselves.
It's like USB ADB, but on device.
From their readme:
For the project as a whole, it is not free. You are FORBIDDEN to distribute the apk compiled by you (including modified, e.g., rename app name "Shizuku" to something else) to any store (IBNLT Google Play Store, F-Droid, Amazon Appstore etc.).
I don't get it?
What part of "don't steal out shit" is hard to understand?
Redistributing modifications or otherwise modifying, improving and sharing software isn't stealing...
Their "exception" basically defeats the point of the free license it uses (Apache2.0). It's more source-available than libre or open source, thinly veiled by the Apache license at the top of the project. I find it interesting that they chose a free license to base it on in the first place if they then go on to invalidate a good chunk of it's user protections.
If they really don't want people to pass off other work as theirs, they could have just used the 4-clause BSD license, with it's advertising clause, or Apache 1.0, also with an advertising clause (not great for libre licenses, but would fit and wouldn't be quite so bad as what they've done).