Related
Dear Muhd Fadzil,
Thank you for contacting HTC.
With reference to your query, we are currently developing new bootloader unlocked software for your phone. HTC is still committed to allowing our customers to unlock the bootloaders if they wish, however we are still implementing the policy and many updates were already finalized prior to our change in policy. We apologize for the inconvenience, but be assured that we are working on a solution for our customers and our commitment has not changed. Please stay tuned to our official channels for ongoing updates on how we will be implementing this policy. Thank you for your patience.
Thank you for your continuous support of our products and services. Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us again.
We look forward to be of service to you again.
HTC
Hotline: 1800-238-7788
Service Hours : 8 am - 8 pm, Monday - Saturday (except Public Holidays)
what i ask them was whether will they void the warranty for s-off or unlocked bootloader and this is what they gave me... lol
That's their way of saying yes without creating a riot. Just wait for it to be released here. The funny thing is, is that most, if not all, rooters will likely avoid htc root and use an xda root. Wouldn't it be funny if no one used htc methods?
Matt
This is exactly the same response every one else gets, when asking any question regarding unlocking the bootloader.
You will draw people in with the mis-leading title, as they will think there is genuine info about HTC's stance on warranty and achieving S-OFF.
Mods please delete/lock. (or at least change the title)
This had been posted many times and if you googled even a segment of the response you would know it was an automated response. See how it had nothing to do with your answer lmao. Although no one really knows for sure, more than likely doing so through their method will leave some type of watermark on your phone our flash in their system. whether or not out it will void ur warranty is unknown. dun dun dun dun dunnnn.....*cues the ominous music*
+1 alexp999
Especially as his message has nothing actually to do with the state of the Warranty, and gives us no information we've not already seen at least 200 times (ish) - if I were any more cynical I'd almost be led to think he'd deliberately titled the post in that way to get the traffic!
I just enquired myself on the live chat, they said yes it would void warranty, but that's to be expected tbh
Shouldn't the warranty cover the hardware still? I mean you can't break the power button by unlocking the bootloader
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using XDA Premium App
bruce2728 said:
Shouldn't the warranty cover the hardware still? I mean you can't break the power button by unlocking the bootloader
Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that is why i ask them HTC ... but as most of you guys respond saying those are just automated system and my ans cant be found... to whether unlocked bootloader would void the warranty... sigh... was trying to like help people out here... well certain thing are better to wait... lol... by saying the policy i guess it would be that they are discussing on or about the warranty issues...
itsjoshy said:
I just enquired myself on the live chat, they said yes it would void warranty, but that's to be expected tbh
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait a minute, you got a confirmation that it would certainly void the warranty? Did you take screenshots, that would actually be news...
Just because some slack jawed customer service rep says it will void the warranty doesn't mean anything. If it voids the warranty they will have to publish this somewhere in an official announcement to cover their asses. Until someone can show me that, the warranty is in full effect regardless of whether the bootloader is s-off or not.
alexp999 said:
This is exactly the same response every one else gets, when asking any question regarding unlocking the bootloader.
You will draw people in with the mis-leading title, as they will think there is genuine info about HTC's stance on warranty and achieving S-OFF.
Mods please delete/lock. (or at least change the title)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes it did reel me in like an unwitting dunce, change the thread name ffs, your going to get a lot of people coming here hoping for a method to s-off.
As for HTC, they will unlock the bootloader but keep the simlock intact, probably with some other restriction in place too, better to wait for the guys @ alpha rev to release their work, which shouldn't take too long now.
Hopefully.
I get a piece of news,our t-mobile sensation's update is developing but htc even doesn't have a test version,so if alpharev's s-off doesn't support our devices,we have to wait for htc's s-off or alpharev's new version
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using XDA App
Paten said:
Just because some slack jawed customer service rep says it will void the warranty doesn't mean anything. If it voids the warranty they will have to publish this somewhere in an official announcement to cover their asses. Until someone can show me that, the warranty is in full effect regardless of whether the bootloader is s-off or not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You surely never expected to keep warranty and an unlocked bootloader? Have you not seen how it is done on the Nexus? There is a disclaimer on the phone before it unlocks it. Id personally use AlphaRev when that come's out and that way you should easily be able to flash back to stock if need be..
Of course it will void warranty! Even rooting your device (should) void your warranty. Jailbreaking your iDevice will void warranty. Why peoples even ask these questions..?
Sent from my Desire HD using XDA Premium App
A little rumor of irc chan Official alpharevx :
[12:19:22] * idanfima changes topic to 'Sensation-Devs.com - .seen <nick>, !news || MOTD: AlpaRevX will release S-OFF hboot versions 1.17.x and 1.18.x forthcoming Sunday *rumor* || #sensation-support for help! OC'ing included || New facebook page! http://goo.gl/O201Z'
Maybe Sunday!
Thing is, though, regardless of unlocking the bootloader so long as you have an RUU for your device I don't think HTC should say it invalidates your warranty as it can be reverted to stock easily - and even easier with S-OFF!
I don't see why HTC are making such a big deal about it all
s-off != bootloader unlock
So S4G is supported haha..
Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using XDA App
Dear God please stop allowing people to create pointless threads that contain no new information....thanks AMEN
It doesn't matter what I expect. If HTC is going to void its warranty because you use a process they themselves put in place, they need to put that in writing. Internet chatter or the word of a call center script monkey doesn't mean anything. Until it is shown in official company correspondence with all legal disclaimers included it's all bull****.
I'm writing this message since a lot of people are probably thinking that their warranty is still intact, since a lot of posts here and elsewhere claim that it is.
Before I unlocked my Telus One X, I wanted to be sure my warranty would be honored so I read all the materials I could, including the warranty text, the message on HTCDev.com, and various posts on this, and other forums.
Everything indicated that the warranty would only apply to direct consequences of the unlocked bootloader, eg: bricking your phone. This is reasonable, and it would be reasonable to assume that hardware defects would continue to be covered. I'm totally OK with that.
However, it seems that this is not, in fact, the case.
My One X recently started having a backlight issue, where squeezing the phone in the middle would cause the backlight to go out. Eventually, the backlight stopped working altogether, though I could see the screen if I looked hard enough in the right light, and it played sounds and received calls normally. I brought it in to my Telus dealer for repair and, since I'm in Canada, it was shipped to a company called FutureTel.
After a week, I had to chase down the status of my repair. Essentially FutureTel stated, according to the representative at the Telus dealer, that the phone was "beyond repair" and gave me the option of buying a replacement phone. I was given no more information.
This didn't make sense to me, so I started calling around to all involved. The dealer told me to call Telus.
Telus: We have nothing to do with that. The dealer sent it to HTC. You need to call HTC.
This is where it starts getting extremely odd...
HTC: We don't warranty these phones. We sell them to Telus/Rogers/Bell, and they "modify" them so we have nothing to do with it. We can't even provide a warranty due to this modification. For warranties, they contract FutureTel. You need to call them directly, here's their number
FutureTel: The warranty was denied due to "illegal software." (I asked what law was violated, and she wouldn't elaborate) We only handle warranties based on HTC policies. They are the only party that actually provides the warranty. Call them
HTC (again): Previous HTC guy was wrong. We set the policy, and the policy states that "If you root the device, your warranty is void."
This really bugged me, since I didn't see any such statement on any documentation from HTC or Telus, so I asked for clarification: "Where is this stated, and what, exactly, does it say?"
He responded with a lot of vague "in the warranty", and "on our website" answers but could not definitively find any such statement. I quoted the text from HTCDev.com and he said that didn't matter. It's the warranty, and directed me to a page on their website under support listing the warranty policies.
There is a curious omission of Canada in the list, and we went back and forth many times with him claiming I followed his instructions wrong before he eventually said, "just look at the United States one."
The thing is, It doesn't actually state what is claimed to be stated in that document, despite claims that it did. Under "LIMITED WARRANTY STATEMENT" Section 7, it lists the instances that void the warranty. Nothing about unlocking or bootloaders or software of any kind.
I kept asking for the exact section that voids the warranty, and eventually, he pointed to a section under the software EULA:
ANY THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE THAT MAY BE PROVIDED WITH THE
SOFTWARE IS INCLUDED FOR USE AT YOUR OPTION. IF YOU CHOOSE
TO USE SUCH THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, THEN SUCH USE SHALL BE
GOVERNED BY SUCH THIRD PARTY’S LICENSE AGREEMENT. HTC IS NOT
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY THIRD PARTY’S SOFTWARE AND SHALL HAVE NO
LIABILITY FOR YOUR USE OF THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you are familiar with EULAs and agreements, you know what this means: The phone comes with software preloaded that wasn't written by HTC: eg: Facebook. If you use that software, then it's own license will be in effect. Read this as: "Facebook is responsible for their own software. We just handed it to you"
No matter what I tried, I couldn't get the guy to accept the actual interpretation of the passage and he continued to state that it means that if I "use any 3rd-party software, the warranty is void."
Right then.
I asked for an escalation in hopes of getting someone who can parse the English language. Unfortunately, I got the same thing. She pointed to the exact same passage, claiming that it voids the warranty. I tried to point out how ridiculous that reading was: "With your interpretation, that means that any software I install, even via the Play store, voids the warranty." Her response: "It says nothing about apps."
Great. That section is entirely about apps...
So, I asked them that if this is the case, then to please amend the text on HTCDev.com to state clearly that the warranty is void if you continue. She said she would pass that along. (right...)
So here is the bottom line: HTC WILL NOT COVER YOUR PHONE IF YOU UNLOCK THE BOOTLOADER. If you are worried about your warranty and you are considering using HTCDev to unlock it, do not assume you will be covered as many other posts state.
If you want coverage, and you want to unlock, you really only have 2 options:
Unlock using another method that does not "mark" the phone
Get 3rd-party coverage from you provider or somewhere else. It seems that people have had good luck with those, despite bootloader status
I thought this was mentioned and must be agreed upon as soon as the HTCDev unlock process begins.
jacobas92 said:
I thought this was mentioned and must be agreed upon as soon as the HTCDev unlock process begins.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here is all it says on the matter:
It is our responsibility to caution you that not all claims resulting or caused by or from the unlocking of the bootloader may be covered under warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also:
Please understand that you will not be able to return your device to the original state and going forward your device may not be held covered under the warranty for all claims resulting from the unlocking of the bootloader. HTC bears no responsibility if your device is no longer usable afterwards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And:
This is a technical procedure and the side effects could possibly necessitate repairs to your device not covered under warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It specifically mentions issues related to the unlocking in all cases. There is no text that specifically voids the entire warranty at any point in the process. Also, in searches of XDA and other sites, I found MANY posts claiming that hardware issues are still covered and to have at it. I wanted to warn people about these posts since they come up at the the top when you Google it.
There are threads where people say they have gotten repairs, but it seems that they most likely had 3rd-party warranties via the carrier. (Sprint and Verizon both came up.)
When I unlocked my bootloader, I thought it was pretty clear that my warranty was void.
If youre unlocking your bootloader, you should at least have enough understanding of software and hardware to know that it's not hard to blame most hardware issues on software modifications. Obviously a large company will avoid added costs if they can.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
ILiPri case
exad said:
When I unlocked my bootloader, I thought it was pretty clear that my warranty was void.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Based on what, though? I, along with many others, saw no reason to expect the whole warranty to be void, especially since there is no language to indicate this.
If you're talking about HTC not helping you if you brick your phone, then of course we would all expect that, and the language specifically says so.
A LOT of people are on these forums claiming that the phones WILL be covered for hardware defects, and this is not the case.
The worst part is that they are pointing to language relating to 3rd-party software that is pre-loaded by HTC themselves as the reason they won't honor the warranty. If this is how they are claiming that section is to be interpreted, then they can point to anybody who installed literally anything from the Play Store and say the warranty is void.
I'm not saying what they're doing is right. I'm just saying it's to be expected. I have yet to see such thing as a morally sound company.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
Same exact thing happened to my phone, and a few other peoples. Seems weird.
Sent from my Nexus 4
jimfunk said:
Based on what, though? I, along with many others, saw no reason to expect the whole warranty to be void, especially since there is no language to indicate this.
If you're talking about HTC not helping you if you brick your phone, then of course we would all expect that, and the language specifically says so.
A LOT of people are on these forums claiming that the phones WILL be covered for hardware defects, and this is not the case.
The worst part is that they are pointing to language relating to 3rd-party software that is pre-loaded by HTC themselves as the reason they won't honor the warranty. If this is how they are claiming that section is to be interpreted, then they can point to anybody who installed literally anything from the Play Store and say the warranty is void.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's pretty much common sense. You're messing with a phone and changing software that is unofficial to the phone. There's reasons why it flags the phone in the hboot. If you brick you may be lucky enough to fool your provider and get a free one back but same with iPhones. If you break your phone while it is jailbroken and don't restore it before you take it to apple they won't repair your phone without a cost. It's still pretty much common sense
Sent from my HTC One XL using xda app-developers app
Megadoug13 said:
It's pretty much common sense. You're messing with a phone and changing software that is unofficial to the phone. There's reasons why it flags the phone in the hboot. If you brick you may be lucky enough to fool your provider and get a free one back but same with iPhones. If you break your phone while it is jailbroken and don't restore it before you take it to apple they won't repair your phone without a cost. It's still pretty much common sense
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's common sense if I brick it, but not if there's a hardware defect, especially when the unlock was provided by HTC. There is also no language in any of the agreements that voids the warranty.
Not familiar with Apple, but if I buy a notebook and install Linux on it, my warranty is still intact, even though I replaced the bootloader. I've gone through that multiple times.
Finally, the whole point of this post was to make people aware that HTC won't honor the warranty, since there are many threads here where people say they will. I read those threads, along with all of the warranty information, and the text on HTCDev.com, before I went ahead with it. There was nothing official to indicate the warranty was void, and in fact many people suggested it would be honored.
jimfunk said:
Not familiar with Apple, but if I buy a notebook and install Linux on it, my warranty is still intact, even though I replaced the bootloader. I've gone through that multiple times.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Comparing apples and oranges. You're partitioning and overwriting rewriteable Disk Space. This does not cause any damage. A better comparison would be flashing a modified bios on a videocard or motherboard which is ALSO NOT COVERED by any manufacturer.
When overwriting Read only memory, there is more risk involved and it takes skilled people to restore and repair. Software is specifically designed to work with the hardware contained within. This is also one of the reasons your phone OS may seem zippier than your PC.
I can completely understand why a company would not warrant a phone that's been messed with. It's difficult to narrow down the cause and eventhough some hardware failures are unlikely to be caused by unlocking your bootloader it can be difficult to determine. Then after they've spent time and money determining if bootloader unlocking is the cause of the hardware defect, the customer may not even want to pay to have it fixed.
exad said:
I can completely understand why a company would not warrant a phone that's been messed with. It's difficult to narrow down the cause and eventhough some hardware failures are unlikely to be caused by unlocking your bootloader it can be difficult to determine. Then after they've spent time and money determining if bootloader unlocking is the cause of the hardware defect, the customer may not even want to pay to have it fixed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it's obvious that the cause was a manufacturing defect, the software doesn't matter.
In any case, the warranty text, and the text on HTCDev.com are clearly stated, regardless of what is "obvious" to you. There is NO reading of the materials that indicates that the warranty is void, and there ARE people out there telling others that it would be covered.
The whole purpose of a pre-defined agreement is that everybody knows where they stand BEFORE entering into that agreement. Neither party can change the rules afterwards, or enact hidden policies without ensuring that all parties are informed. There are laws in the US and Canada for exactly this kind of thing. If the whole thing was solely up to the discretion of the manufacturer, there wouldn't be warranty agreements in the first place.
jimfunk said:
If it's obvious that the cause was a manufacturing defect, the software doesn't matter.
In any case, the warranty text, and the text on HTCDev.com are clearly stated, regardless of what is "obvious" to you. There is NO reading of the materials that indicates that the warranty is void, and there ARE people out there telling others that it would be covered.
The whole purpose of a pre-defined agreement is that everybody knows where they stand BEFORE entering into that agreement. Neither party can change the rules afterwards, or enact hidden policies without ensuring that all parties are informed. There are laws in the US and Canada for exactly this kind of thing. If the whole thing was solely up to the discretion of the manufacturer, there wouldn't be warranty agreements in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
*Shrug*
"There are those who will insist on disabling S-ON purely to have full access regardless of security implications or to primarily promote specific tools and installation techniques that have taken the more convenient route of assuming all security is off. If a command line tool is deemed as inconvenient, developers can easily develop alternatives that would allow others to install their custom roms without having to alter their device’s Security-ON status. As duly noted in the accompanying email with your unlock_code.bin, please remember that unlocking your bootloader may void all or parts of your warranty and your device may not function as intended by HTC. Unlocking the bootloader is for development purposes only."
pulled that from FAQ on HTCDEV.com
exad said:
may void all or parts of your warranty and your device may not function as intended by HTC. Unlocking the bootloader is for development purposes only[/B]."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This language is vague, and feeds the apparent consensus on these forums that HTC will still honor manufacturing defects as long as it's obviously not caused by the unlocking.
The reason legal language is written the way it is, is to ensure that the terms are clear. If they want to make it known that it will void the warranty, they should use different language, such as "unlocking your bootloader WILL void your warranty and your device may not function as intended by HTC"
This ambiguity has led to incorrect information being passed on these forums and showing up in Google searches on the topic.
It sounds like you are misreading the purpose of my post as a "poor me" story. It is not. I am taking my lumps and getting my phone fixed elsewhere. I simply wanted to make sure that anybody else curious about the topic will find some clear information when they search, instead of finding the many other posts that state that the warranty IS covered.
jimfunk said:
This language is vague, and feeds the apparent consensus on these forums that HTC will still honor manufacturing defects as long as it's obviously not caused by the unlocking.
The reason legal language is written the way it is, is to ensure that the terms are clear. If they want to make it known that it will void the warranty, they should use different language, such as "unlocking your bootloader WILL void your warranty and your device may not function as intended by HTC"
This ambiguity has led to incorrect information being passed on these forums and showing up in Google searches on the topic.
It sounds like you are misreading the purpose of my post as a "poor me" story. It is not. I am taking my lumps and getting my phone fixed elsewhere. I simply wanted to make sure that anybody else curious about the topic will find some clear information when they search, instead of finding the many other posts that state that the warranty IS covered.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately, while I whole heartedly agree that more people should know this, I doubt many will find this thread before it's too late.
if the device is s-off, the tampered message can be removed, ruu can be installed, the s-on flag can be set again, and the bootloader can be re-locked. That would remove any trace of root or unlocked bootloader.
I sent my devices back relocked, ruu'ed to the tampered flag was removed, and s-off for a microphone problem and HTC fixed it under warranty.
I think it depends on country, but in the end if you believe HTC/telus is breaking a contract or other laws you should get a lawyer and prove your point.
In Australia, where I live, the warranty is from the place of purchase and extends for a length of time that can be reasonably expected for that device.
Manufacturer warranties are not law and are purely given by manufacturers in good faith. If I buy from Telstra, Telstra must give a warranty and the warranty at least extends for the length of a contract the phone was puchased with eg 2 years.
Telstra having arrangments with HTC to fix warranty issues is upto Telstra and htc, it has zero to do with the customers statutory warranty from Telstra that is covered and protected by Australian consumer law.
Telstra can not void the devices warranty based on unlocking the bootloader.
Similar Harvey Norman's cannot void based on a void sticker over a screw being broken on a tv set.
Sent from my HTC One XL using xda app-developers app
ImagioX1 said:
I sent my devices back relocked, ruu'ed to the tampered flag was removed, and s-off for a microphone problem and HTC fixed it under warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm about to relock my phone, apply the ruu files and send it in for warranty. I was wondering if there is a thread to a proper proceedures in doing so? More to the point what you did with removing the tampered flag. If you were successful then would you mind giving more advice as to how.
Aren't disclaimers about our voided warranty posted all over forums?
Sent from my One X using xda app-developers app
dethpikil said:
Aren't disclaimers about our voided warranty posted all over forums?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They also say your phone might experience explosions of puppy kisses. What is said on these forums has no bearing on warranty status in any country.
At best they are advice related to warranty status as the dev understands in their own country.
I think in most cases it is based on what is understood to be the case in USA. A country known to offer very little consumer protection.
Reading around I've found some passing mention of Block C, how bootloaders should be unlocked on it and such because of Open Use terms set by google. I created a petition here: https://www.change.org/p/federal-co...-circumventing-security-ver?just_created=true that although it may not relate completely to XDA in every sense, needs support I feel. An XDA article on the topic may be found here for more information on the subject: http://www.xda-developers.com/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/
Thanks in advance for any support, hopefully we can work around having to hack into the thing(s) and just get what we should've gotten all along.
Cheers :fingers-crossed:
Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Question: would a bootloader be considered a "user application" in the sense that an application would be software? Or as firmware does it not extend to that?
BTW, here is a copy of my FCC complaint and text within. If anyone who is reading this has experience in the field and any pointers or arguments I could make that would be great:
For a great majority of phones currently sold by Verizon, many of which utilize Block C of the 700Mhz spectrum, the bootloader is locked. The original terms of Open Access allows for two exceptions only, the second being that the device must comply with other regulations, and the first that limitations may be made for "management or protection of the licensee's network." Locked bootloaders are in violation of Open Access, and thus the response from Verizon is that the allowance of such modification could cause breach in security, and thus such restrictions are necessary for that management. The counterargument to this is in part that phones from outside the network, sold by other manufacturers, as well as some sold through Verizon itself by certain manufacturers do not have any such restrictions. This lack in continuity wholly breaches any argument that security of the network could by improved by locking those devices in such a way that the original terms outweigh those exceptions.
Next comment by me:
Upon receiving reply from the subject of complaint, I have not thusfar been given what I would deem any substantial evidence that it is 1) a method of securing the licensee's network that is reasonable or consistently applied in any effective manner 2) not placing substantial burden on the customer relative to that originally applied by the OEM and 3) that it does not restrict the ability of any consumer to install applications (software, by nature including the operating system and related components) excluding for reasonable network management. This final point is troubling as of yet for the very reason that no specific examples or evidence was given to prove that it is necessary or that any plausible abuse or breach in security of the network may be exclusively performed by an end user with only a device with an unrestricted base firmware
And my last comment as of yet:
Thusfar, I have not yet received any written transcription, summary, or identifiable confirmation of receipt by the fcc from Verizon of the contact over phone that I have had with Verizon over this matter. I still find no reasonable objection to, or exception from, the contents of paragraph 222 and footnote 500 of FCC-07-132A1 that would allow for the restriction placed on these devices. Reasonable network management, as quoted as an exception by Verizon, has not been backed up or supported by any example or feasible hypothetical that a locked bootloader provides, in a direct manner, any noticeable or even quantifiably existent protection to the integrity of the carriers system over that of a phone without the restriction.
dreamwave said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.
Spartan117H3 said:
Verizon isn't going to do anything because you're in the minority. Locked bootloaders appeal to corporate/military for the security of Exchange. Bootloaders are not end user software, it is firmware, and firmware that isn't touched often at best. If you need proof of how locked bootloaders make a device more secure... all of XDA is your example. Anything that allows custom code to be flashed is a security risk.
If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it.
The thing with root is its just injecting things inton a firmware to see if it will take. Any failure just means a stock rom needs to be flashed. While I can't stand the locked bootloader issue either, it's been beaten like a dead horse just as badly as people asking for root for OE1 and OG5 in basically every thread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.
Also, a major distinction in footnote 502 vs 500:
502: We also note that wireless service providers may continue to use their choice of operating systems, and are not
required to modify their network infrastructure or device-level operating systems to accommodate particular devices
or applications. Device manufacturers and applications developers are free to design their equipment and
applications to work with providers’ network infrastructure and operating systems, and must be given the applicable
parameters as part of the standards provided to third parties.
500: We note that the Copyright Office has granted a three-year exemption to the anti-circumvention provisions of
Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for “computer programs in the form of firmware that enable
wireless telephone handsets to connect to wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is
accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.” It found
that software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers to make non-infringing use of the
software in those handsets. 17 Fed. Reg. 68472 (Nov. 27, 2006). We also note that a court appeal of the exemption
ruling is ongoing.
1st point: a distinction between the operating system, and "firmware" as a "program", and by extension an "application"...but not necessary to argue as it, within 500, notes that "software locks on mobile handsets adversely affect the ability of consumers...handsets," and although this exception may have expired the original text acts as a type of precedent that establishes 1. that firmware is independent from the operating system and 2. that its restriction does not conform to "open access" or constitute "reasonable network management"
veedubsky said:
Would be nice if we could get it unlocked. Not like they are loosing money off these phones now since they are so old by today's ever so speedy tech market.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help
dreamwave said:
the main reason they do it is because some people who brick their phones doing stuff they can't apply the warrantee to and still call tech support trying to get help
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.
veedubsky said:
Yea well they could always have a sign here clause that will relinquish them from any liability then unlock your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well
dreamwave said:
That's my point but they wouldn't listen in the original chat with them on the phone so...oh well
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also with all the help here and rescue resources (also knowing that there is that SLIGHT chance to completely brick your phone) you can almost reverse anything... Except some people freak out and first thing they do is call VZW
dreamwave said:
The burden of proof is on them (as per the regulations), that they must prove that any restriction they make specifically allows for their network (not the phone) to be more secure. They need to prove (even if I am a minority complainee) that it falls under reasonable network management. I know that many parts have been harped on to no end, but what I'm arguing here seems not to have been argued in this way before. Many of the original complainees have not offered much beyond simply touting "open access", no real legal backing. Also, about the minority thing: the FCC has internal courts that are there to deal with complaints that don't necessarily affect a majority. They work like most other courts in that they decide what is right, not who has more money. I'm glad I'm dealing with the FCC now as in times past they were a bit more unresponsive to complaints by many people but now seem to be taking a more proactive approach to most everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.
Spartan117H3 said:
So, you're on XDA. You know what an unlocked bootloader brings. And there is proof on here what an unlocked bootloader can do. Your argument is that they have yet to show you proof... but they could simply point to this forum if they were so inclined to respond to you. An unlocked bootloader allows for unsigned code. Unsigned code is a security risk because it's not verified by them. So how is this not reasonable proof?
I brought up the minority issue because you are REQUESTING an unlock, and as a minority, you are not their main customer base/source of profit, so they have little desire to appeal to you. I am NOT talking about being a minority in terms of not being heard in the case of a LEGAL issue, because there are class action lawsuits for that.
They could always simply start saying that their software is closed source, and you're not allowed to modify it/you agree to these terms when buying the phone. It seems that they're locking down the phones without making this disclaimer, because once again... it is only the minority who cares. That is why many of the developers jumped ship to T-Mobile or the Nexus phone.
I don't like the locked bootloader situation myself, but that just means I too will jump ship to the Nexus 6 when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined
dreamwave said:
Unsigned code is already possible to run in just installing an application not from the play store. To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one. Also, the petition was only really there to raise awareness about the issue to the public. The FCC is the only place I'm really able to do much against verizon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
dreamwave said:
And even if they make it closed source, forbidding the modification of the phone would be the subject of the exact terms of complaint that I've outlined
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But then there's this:
dreamwave said:
To their network, an unlocked bootloader doesn't allow any code to be run on their network that can't already be run to the same extent on a phone with a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.
Spartan117H3 said:
That app is sandboxed within the android os, meaning the app is limited by whatever the OS allows it to do. To be able to replace the firmware on the phone is a huge difference. I'm sure the 18k bounty made more headlines than this thread did, considering it was for both AT&T and Verizon, and that many different news outlets reposted it. It doesn't matter if many people know about it, because most people don't care if it doesn't involve them. This type of stuff has been done by other companies as well. Notable examples:
UEFI - Has to be signed before it can boot before windows 8/8.1 (but you can request to have things reviewed and signed, Ubuntu did this).
Intel - they locked down their processors and now sell/mark up K versions to enthusiasts who want to overclock.
But then there's this:
If you have an unlocked bootloader, couldn't you run whatever you wanted on their network which would be the reason of making it closed source/addressing the quote above this quote? I'm not quite understanding this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.
dreamwave said:
what I'm disputing is the direct security impact to their network an unlocked bootloader poses compared to a locked one. If it is possible to run the same code on a locked bootloader that would post a direct threat to the integrity of their network then it doesn't constitute reasonable network management.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.
Spartan117H3 said:
But it's not. Unlocked bootloader allows much more freedom/allows you to run code that you can't on a locked one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?
dreamwave said:
Code that can directly impact the security of their network infrastructure, not just your phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.
Spartan117H3 said:
In the case of Samsung phones, it would undermine the security of at minimum the device that connects to the Exchange service. To the extent, I have no idea, I'm just here speculating/learning, but I thought that was one of the reasons they gave for locking it down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it
dreamwave said:
The thing is that they can only restrict devices like that if it has any impact on their network infrastructure, if they can't prove it does they can't really do anything about it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't they claim something as simple as, a keylogger on a phone from a corporate/military person which would impact Exchange? Dunno. But that could be done with root. Bootloader makes it possible to root phones that aren't usually rootable though.
how to relock bootloader when flashing stock rom ???
You dont, lmao
You can't relock the bootloader, it is not possible that we are aware of... the real question is WHY? It does not gain you back your warranty, which is the only real reason to relock the bootloader on some devices.
When you went through the unlock procedure on Moto's website, it is spelled out quite plainly that by accepting the Terms and Conditions and receiving the unlock token, your warranty is null and void... forever. It doesn't even matter if you actually use the token to unlock or not, as soon as you accept the T&C and the email is generated, that's it, warranty gone. Moto doesn't even care if your device is unlocked or not, they don't check... they will lookup your IMEI or serial number, and immediately see that it has been blacklisted for warranty status. Period... The ONLY exception is for some EU countries, where their laws prevent voiding the warranty because of modification of the device.
You can flash it back to stock, but it will always be unlocked.
Directly from the Moto landing page to start the process of unlocking:
You have only yourself to blame. Unless you have a Developer Edition device, once you get the unlock code, your device is no longer covered by the Motorola warranty; in other words, please don't blame us if things go wrong, even if they appear unrelated to unlocking the bootloader.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or read the full 7-page legal mumbo jumbo, that you had to agree to, specifically item #5:
(5) THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO ALL UNLOCKED DEVICES EXCEPT FOR DEVELOPER
EDITION DEVICES, BY OBTAINING THE UNLOCK CODE FOR THIS DEVICE,
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE DEVICE’S BOOTLOADER IS SUBSEQUENTLY
UNLOCKED OR ITS SOFTWARE OR OPERATING SYSTEM IS MODIFIED, USER AGREES
TO WAIVE AND VOID ALL WARRANTIES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY
MOTOROLA OR YOUR WIRELESS CARRIER, BOTH EXPRESS AND IMPLIED,
INCLUDING ANY WRITTEN WARRANTY THAT ACCOMPANIED THE DEVICE AT THE
TIME OF PURCHASE OR DELIVERY, AND AGREES THAT ANY RIGHTS OR REMEDIES
PROVIDED BY SUCH A WARRANTY ARE NULL AND VOID. NEITHER MOTOROLA, NOR
YOUR WIRELESS CARRIER, MAKES ANY WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, AND
MOTOROLA AND YOUR WIRELESS CARRIER DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES OF EVERY
KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE IN CONNECTION WITH AN UNLOCKED DEVICE. USER ACKNOWLEDGES
AND AGREES THAT ALL SUCH WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED AND THAT ALL
UNLOCKED DEVICES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," WITH NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND;
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
acejavelin said:
You can't relock the bootloader, it is not possible that we are aware of... the real question is WHY? It does not gain you back your warranty, which is the only real reason to relock the bootloader on some devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Explained it very clearly.
sticktornado said:
Explained it very clearly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol... Actually, I went a little overboard. I think I had explained this 3 or 4 times yesterday before this post and was a little frustrated and went bit crazy when I had to do it again, but it is all factual. This was at no fault of the OP, they just got the tl;dr version.
I have a Skyuniverse Elite A5 that i want to root. I've reached out to manufacturer several times with no luck on instructions to unlock boot-loader. its running android 9 (go edition) currently. Id like to root with magisk so i would need the stock boot.img however there is very, very minimal information on this device. where to begin on a device that has this many speed bumps? i need instructions on how to unlock my boot loader, clone my stock firmware to acquire necessary files, and rooting a ARM Cortex-A53 device with build ID: Elite_A5_1700_V1.0_202000618 Kernel Version 4.4.147 (24414) kernel architecture armv71. Thanks in advance
nonamemaddox5446 said:
I have a Skyuniverse Elite A5 that i want to root. I've reached out to manufacturer several times with no luck on instructions to unlock boot-loader. its running android 9 (go edition) currently. Id like to root with magisk so i would need the stock boot.img however there is very, very minimal information on this device. where to begin on a device that has this many speed bumps? i need instructions on how to unlock my boot loader, clone my stock firmware to acquire necessary files, and rooting a ARM Cortex-A53 device with build ID: Elite_A5_1700_V1.0_202000618 Kernel Version 4.4.147 (24414) kernel architecture armv71. Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have to get the bootloader unlocked first, there is nothing you can do until that happens. There is no "other way".
Sent from my SM-S767VL using Tapatalk
Droidriven said:
You have to get the bootloader unlocked first, there is nothing you can do until that happens. There is no "other way".
Sent from my SM-S767VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What would you recomend I try if manufacturer, carrier, and OS proprietary owner's all are not willing to provide any assistance? I've tried every fastboot command I could find, not even a specific code is given like some devices and even if I did acquire some special code there is no avenue to request unlocking from anyone. I'm finding it hard to believe that they are legally allowed to control how i use my device that i paid for. I can't stand not being in control of my phone. i feel like im being left in the dark about all the processes that are running because i literally am. i cant even view logs of anything. just what is running; not what exactly they are doing. this isnt right
nonamemaddox5446 said:
What would you recomend I try if manufacturer, carrier, and OS proprietary owner's all are not willing to provide any assistance? I've tried every fastboot command I could find, not even a specific code is given like some devices and even if I did acquire some special code there is no avenue to request unlocking from anyone. I'm finding it hard to believe that they are legally allowed to control how i use my device that i paid for. I can't stand not being in control of my phone. i feel like im being left in the dark about all the processes that are running because i literally am. i cant even view logs of anything. just what is running; not what exactly they are doing. this isnt right
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have no choice but to do what we all do here when we have a device that has no valid bootloader unlock method, that is to just accept the fact that you are not going to unlock the bootloader without an unlock code from the manufacturer/carrier or paying for a bootloader unlock service from a shop/website that is not guaranteed to successfully unlock the bootloader.
The manufacturer and the carrier don't "have" to provide us with bootloader unlock information if they don't want to.
As a matter of fact, not giving us the bootloader unlock information actually protects their interests as far as network security and their warranty on the device is concerned.
Manufacturers lose a lot of money repairing/replacing devices that have been hardbricked due to user error/ignorance during the user's attempt to unlock and modify the device. When I device has been hardbricked, the manufacturer has no way to know that the device has been modified and that the warranty is now no longer valid due to the device being modified. Therefore, they end up paying to repair/replace devices that have technically had their warranty voided by the users modifications.
Sent from my SM-S767VL using Tapatalk
Well I completely understand where you're coming from and also understand that that is the normal methods that most users must abide by however I will do everything in my power to ensure that I can do what I want with my device. Of course manufacturers and cell phone carriers do not want users to unlock the bootloader and acquire root privileges. They hide behind the facade that they are limiting a devices use to prevent improper user operations in which could malfunction the device. That's the official statement, however if one were to acquire root privileges one would be able to view and stop all the data acquisition processes that are running in the background and everyone's device currently without their knowledge or permission. Every single application has a main objective and a more important secondary function, "capture any information that they can sell". I'm beginning the process of litigation in this matter. Manufacturer's, cell phone carrier's, and all of Google's various Android Operations cannot provide any legal documentation regarding terms and conditions and policies on rooting or installing custom operating systems. Now is the time to force them to update their policies while they do not have any currently implemented. They are no rules written about this matter they are just going with the flow essentially, mostly because nobody is aware of this. It's time you and everyone else take ownership of their devices and prevent others from profiting without your knowledge, permission, and stipulations if you choose to share your information. It's important to remember that it is okay to share information as long as you are compensated for it and are aware of its intentions. Imagine buying a pair of shoes and when you begin lacing them how you wish you are somehow unable to do so. The holes are there, the strings are in your hands, but the manufacturer doesn't want you to lace them up how you wish because if you did they wouldn't be able to make any more money off of the shoes. They have already sold the shoes, they are not in possession of them anymore; you are, however they are still trying to tell you what to do with your shoes. If you can't graspe the audacity of all this I suggest you begin researching. I used you as a framing device to convey my message so if you are offended by any of my statements please know that I was also referring to the general public as well as you. Nothing I said was intended to hurt or bother you.