Related
T-Mobile sneaks "rootkit" into G2 phones - reinstalls locked-down OS after root
Not that there haven't been preventative measures before, but it looks like the G2 will be "unrootable" to start. Might be something to consider before jumping in with the G2. Very sad as this phone looks like a winner in all other ways.
Here is the original article on BoingBoing.
Hmmm... I'd be interested to know where the original OS ROM is stored, as that would take up a lot of space...
If it's true, then we next find how it "decides" it's rooted, and look at fooling that. If not, look at changing the image to be flashed with a custom ROM or dummy one.
Still failing that, perhaps looking into what calls this chip, and if boot process could be made to skip this.
Something seems strange about this, though I've not researched it properly yet... anyone seen it reported on other sources yet?
pulser_g2 said:
anyone seen it reported on other sources yet?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://gizmodo.com/5656921/t+mobiles-g2-rootkit-will-reinstall-stock-android-after-a-jailbreak
Master™ said:
http://gizmodo.com/5656921/t+mobiles-g2-rootkit-will-reinstall-stock-android-after-a-jailbreak
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, that links back to XDA, so I had a quick read of the latest... I was considering buying the G2/whatever it's called, but I have now changed my mind.
Yes folks, I just made a purchasing decision based on some silly little security chip, and I encourage others to do likewise. I am sure the security will be broken on it, at which point (if it's a permanent root/custom flash) I would re-consider my position, but as it stands, I refuse to buy it.
I have no idea who decided this was needed, but I certainly will not be buying from them in future. If it's T-Mobile, I will switch network (despite the fact they're a good network in the UK), if HTC I will look to other manufacturers.
[/rant
It's not that much different to what Motorola is doing with the Droid X, Droid 2 and Milestone, where if it detects any meddling it will brick the phone.
But in the long term, it's OUR phones, we can do whatever we please. Trust me it will be bypassed, if a lock can be made by a human, it can be BROKEN by a human. Look at the Desire for example.
They should do what they did with the N1, if the user unlocks the bootloader, and meddles with it until they bugger the phone, and they try sending it back for warranty, it's the users fault.
Just_s said:
Not that there haven't been preventative measures before, but it looks like the G2 will be "unrootable" to start. Might be something to consider before jumping in with the G2. Very sad as this phone looks like a winner in all other ways.
Here is the original article on BoingBoing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Explain to me how write protection == rootkit. In fact, it's quite the opposite - a rootkit (of sorts) allows us to exploit our way into a rootshell and install su to /system/bin/. This is nothing more than clever write-protection in the mmc.
And as usual, HTC is late on delivering the kernel source so we can really see what's up...
pulser_g2 said:
Yes folks, I just made a purchasing decision based on some silly little security chip, and I encourage others to do likewise. I am sure the security will be broken on it, at which point (if it's a permanent root/custom flash) I would re-consider my position, but as it stands, I refuse to buy it.
I have no idea who decided this was needed, but I certainly will not be buying from them in future. If it's T-Mobile, I will switch network (despite the fact they're a good network in the UK), if HTC I will look to other manufacturers.
[/rant
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would HTC look to other carriers?
I ranted about this back in the WinMo days, but XDA is essentially picking up the slack for manufacturer/carrier actions. You said so yourself; you're not considering the G2 for a purchase anymore....until XDA or another dev forum finds a way around the security measure. And you will not buy from them...so long as HTC doesn't work with the carrier anymore, but if sales remain the same, they'll have no reason to stop.
So manufacturers/carriers don't need to change the way they implement security measures, they just need to keep making desirable phones and so long as others pick up the slack, they'll be able to capture the sales of the userbase that likes rooting their phones. This is going to continue being the case -- Android manufacturers will create phones and users will buy the phones on the promise that forums like XDA will make it better.
For real change to occur, sales have to be greatly affected.
Looks like the anti-root movement is beginning to snowball into a full fledged avalanche. I currently have a Droid X and it seems its locked bootloader has cause many devs to give up. Sure we have root and a few roms and themes to get rid of bloatware, but it isn't as great as a full unlock, not to mention lack of a true SBF for OTA 2.2 users.
HTC was going to be my next choice after I got bored with my X in about a year or so (more like 6 months). But it seems now that they've developed this tech for the G2, I'm sure all other carriers will want it on all future HTC devices. As soon a Samsung steps it up and creates their own locked bootloader, we'll all be SOL. What's left? Dell? Sony Ericsson?
Seems like all carriers will only be selling phones with locked bootloaders. I thought HTC was on our side, but the G2 is proof of the contrary. We need a manufacturer that embraces devs. With the recent bootloader unlocking failures seen with the Droid X and the difficulty seen with the Milestone, does anyone here think the development community can overcome the bootloader challenge?
HTC response to G2 complaint
emailed HTC to voice my displeasure. rather than ignoring my email, they felt compelled to reply with some low level, non-commital, and utterly moronic dribble especially in light of t-mobile already having released its lame-o statement. i also find it rather questionable that google had any part in this. too bad that HTC is following the Motorola model of duping folks into thinking they bought a device when all that money actually just buys time-limited, pre-defined functionality.
Without root Android wont be the same, looks like I'll be going back to Winders if this is the direction they are going to take it. They are taking all the fun out of it.
Hello,
I’m going to step across the NDAs and explain the issues behind the Android Froyo update to Samsung Galaxy S phones in the United States. I think most of you have come to this realization yourself now: the withholding of the Froyo update is a largely political one, not a technological one: Froyo runs quite well on Galaxy S phones, as those of you that have run leaked updates may have noticed.
To explain the political situation, first, a primer on how phone firmware upgrades work for carriers. When a carrier decides to sell a phone, a contract is usually written between the phone manufacturer and the carrier. In this contract, the cost of updates (to the carrier) is usually outlined. Updates are usually broken into several types: critical updates, maintenance updates, and feature updates. Critical updates are those that resolve a critical bug in the phone, such as the phone overheating. Maintenance updates involve routine updates to resolve bugs and other issues reported by the carrier. Finally, feature updates add some new feature in software that wasn’t present before. Critical updates are usually free, maintenance updates have some maintenance fee associated with them, and feature updates are usually costly.
In the past, most phone updates would mainly consist of critical and maintenance updates. Carriers almost never want to incur the cost of a feature update because it is of little benefit to them, adds little to the device, and involves a lot of testing on the carrier end. Android has changed the playing field, however – since the Android Open Source Project is constantly being updated, and that information being made widely available to the public, there is pressure for the phone to be constantly updated with the latest version of Android. With most manufacturers, such as HTC, Motorola, etc. This is fine and considered a maintenance upgrade. Samsung, however, considers it a feature update, and requires carriers to pay a per device update fee for each incremental Android update.
Now, here’s where the politics come in: most U.S. carriers aren’t very happy with Samsung’s decision to charge for Android updates as feature updates, especially since they are essentially charging for the Android Open Source Project’s efforts, and the effort on Samsung’s end is rather minimal. As a result of perhaps, corporate collusion, all U.S. carriers have decided to refuse to pay for the Android 2.2 update, in hopes that the devaluation of the Galaxy S line will cause Samsung to drop their fees and give the update to the carriers. The situation has panned out differently in other parts of the world, but this is the situation in the United States.
Some of you might have noticed Verion’s Fascinate updated, but without 2.2 : This is a result of a maintenance agreement Samsung must honor combined with Verizon’s unwillingness to pay the update fees.
In short, Android 2.2 is on hold for Galaxy S phones until the U.S. carriers and Samsung reach a consensus.
Some might wonder why I didn’t deliver this over a more legitimate news channel – the short answer: I don’t want to lose my job. I do, however, appreciate transparency, which is why I'm here.
Interesting.. thank you for that
Sent from my GT540 using XDA App
this has been an issue since the Samsung Omnia (SGH-i900) came out. Promises of updates to no avail. No updates, just do it yourself!
Finally something that makes sense to me. I do have 2.2 on my phone thanks to the folks here on XDA.
I work for Sprint at a service and repair store. We had a memo that the Epic was suppose to get Froyo on Dec 26th, but that they pulled it because it bricked half their test phones and needed more work. I do know that the Intercept had an official update go out for Froyo that bricked roughly 10% of customer's phones and we were instructed to put them back on 2.1, I do know someone who has a legitimate carrier copy of Froyo on their Intercept, its not a Galaxy phone but its still Samsung. What you're saying Samsung is doing(which sounds right/true) is pretty petty. HTC released an update to Froyo for the Evo about 2 weeks after the phone launched. That's what manufacturers should do IMO.
In regards to the Epic, i'd like to remind people that originally, it was marketed as having 2.2. Then, closer to release, they changed it to 2.1 "with 2.2 coming soon after." Well, "soon after" has come and gone.
I bought the Epic partly because it suited me better than the Evo, but also because of 2.2. I knew that i would have a current version running. Froyo was part of the basis of my bargain. At this point I'm fed up with samsung. We've been getting teased with 2.2 almost every month for literally 5 months now, and at least for 1-2 months prior to the phone being released (which makes it upwards of 6 months). It is ridiculous.
People who have this phone should just return it when something new comes out. Samsung has breached their promise. Im sure there will be people here who will comment about the fact that you can always root your phone or that they are happy with eclair; that's fine. I bought this phone with the assumption it would perform on par with 2.2, and not have any annoying lags and bugs.
If everyone complains and ditches boycotts samsung phones, then maybe they will change their ways. From everything i have ever read, i never see anyone mention the fact that samsung marketed this device as having 2.2 and subsequently, promising it within a short period of time.
Just my .2 cents
This is one major reason that I am contemplating trading my Epic out for an Evo, I am tired of Sammy's bull****.
I am realizing that even though it is a good phone, it will soon be "out of date" with the lack of support from every one.
All this is bull****. Us cell carriers suck.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
samsung
personally after owning a moment i will never own a samsung phone again. thank got i got an evo shift
Interesting. Kinda contradicts with Samsung's marketing agenda during launch of the Galaxy S line in the States. During the launch event in NYC it was clearly stated by Samsung that all variants of Galaxy S line will receive Froyo firmware update, no where it was mentioned that if you are on a US carrier the device upgrade will be subject to terms and conditions set between the manufacturer and the carriers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf3uGTAeQy4
FF to 4:45
I think it's pretty god damn egregious that they'd charge large sums of money for code thats open source and freely available. I'd also think it has to be against some sort of law or license.
Hot_Hands said:
I think it's pretty god damn egregious that they'd charge large sums of money for code thats open source and freely available. I'd also think it has to be against some sort of law or license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Disclaimer: I am not defending Samsung. Upgrading an embedded platform (regardless is the software is open source or not) is an extensive process that takes the time of engineers and testers...so it does cost Samsung money. I think the argument that just because Android is open source, Samsung has no reason to charge carriers for updates is off-base. This type of R&D cost money....maybe not a whole bunch, but some investment dollars are still allocated.
With that said, if Samsung led the public to believe that US Galaxy S devices would be upgraded to Android 2.2, then they need to absolutely hold up their end of the bargain. A lot of these corporate types lack long-term thinking. Samsung could begin to build a good fanbase if they pickup the slack in the customer support department by providing timely upgrades, fixes, and other types of support. This fanbase will continue to buy their products and recommend others to do so. This is why Apple consistently ranks highest customer satisfaction, they provide software support for their products for at least a year, mostly two.
At this point, their public image (in my eyes) has taken a dive. I own the Captivate, a Samsung monitor, and digital camera. But these will be my last three Samsung products forever and I will not recommend any others Samsung products.
Great post. Makes me dislike Samsung even more now!
Thanks for bringing this side of the story to light, and risking your job to do so. If this story holds any bearing, Samsung is an entirely terrible company who hold zero care for their customers. They are only concerned with profits and pushing out new products instead of making their current customers happy and possibly turning them into repeat customers. Pitiful.
Great OP, which leads to three comments / thoughts.
First, if a carrier, such as T-Mobile USA decided to carry the rumored Vibrant 4G, this would suggest that either 1) they have renegotiated their contract with Samsung or 2) that they don't care about their customer base - given what their existing Vibrant customers have experienced. We will know, in due course, what path T-Mobile USA has chosen to walk.
Second, it sounds like the iPhone has an advantage over Android based products because Apple is in a position to update the operating system without involving the carrier. If this is the case, then financially, one would expect carriers to start pushing the iPhone to their customers. I don't see this happening yet as many carriers have really built up their Android lines. But it will be interesting to see what happens now that other carrier(s) start to carry the iPhone.
Third, it seems like this is an area where Google really needs to step in and set expectations - with carriers, manufacturers, and consumers. Right now, we are witnessing a growing dissatisfaction with Samsung. However a recent report showed that the best manufacturer for pushing updates - HTC - only had a 50% track record. Consumers, who are locked into a 2 year contract, will grow frustrated if their only means of getting the latest operating system (including some "non-critical" bug fixes) is to purchase another phone at full price. This will affect how Android and Google are perceived.
Seriously, why do we need to keep telling people this:
Never
Ever
Ever
Buy a phone for promised future updates.
You buy it for what it can do now, if it can't do that, then you have zero right to complain when it doesn't.
Yet in all seriousness, what does it matter to anyone on this forum? We all have the capabilities to upgrade our devices to the latest roms. Yes, pushed out updates give us updated drivers, packages and all around system fixes, but seriously guys, even with a N1 I don't even wait for OTAs.
OP, can you maybe link to some official documentation on this? Not that I doubt you for a second, but putting out some dox would light a serious fire under Samsung's ass...
So does this have anything to do with the fact that AT&T was/is(?) dumping the Captivate on the marketplace?
Last July, it was giving away Captivates. I have heard rumors that some folks are STILL able to procure free Captivates.
Is this the beginning of a falling out between Samsung and AT&T?
Awesome, thanks for the news. This article explains a lot but on a different note, I'm not sure about "effort on Samsung’s end is rather minimal" is 100% accurate. Have you seen how crazy TouchWiz is integrated into stock Android OS, it is pretty ridiculous when comparing to to Motorola's Moto Blur...
No update - No problem
No worries. The lack of update to Froyo forced my hand. I found the wonderful world of XDA and also taught myself how to choose custom ROMs, tweak features, and remove Sprint bloatware that I never wanted anyway.
So this little spat of theirs has actually provided great benefit to me. I've learned how to customize my phone and I've learned that Samsung is a ****ing nitwit of a company. The Galaxy S is my first and last Samsung phone. I'm very happy with it, currently, with my custom ROM. However, when the time for an upgrade comes, so long Sammy.
I hope your extra fees for open source software covers your future losses from me and others jumping ship.
Oh wait, no I don't.
I have a VZ GS3 but I was pretty bummed to find that the bootloader was locked (coming from a GNex with the JB leak on day 1). I'm strongly considering returning it and buying the VZ Developer version when it becomes available.
Now, the problem I have is I'd assume I'm in the minority of people out there that will actually fork over the cash for full retail unlocked GS3 on Verizon -- that said does anyone have confirmation or even a hunch if the development for that phone will be completely separate from all other devices?
As much as it seems like all things I'd look for in a phone (great vz network, unlocked, awesome hardware, etc.) the whole idea is having a good development community. I'm good enough to follow directions (most of the time ) but if there's no community behind it the purpose IS NULL.
Thoughs?
mikepic said:
I have a VZ GS3 but I was pretty bummed to find that the bootloader was locked (coming from a GNex with the JB leak on day 1). I'm strongly considering returning it and buying the VZ Developer version when it becomes available.
Now, the problem I have is I'd assume I'm in the minority of people out there that will actually fork over the cash for full retail unlocked GS3 on Verizon -- that said does anyone have confirmation or even a hunch if the development for that phone will be completely separate from all other devices?
As much as it seems like all things I'd look for in a phone (great vz network, unlocked, awesome hardware, etc.) the whole idea is having a good development community. I'm good enough to follow directions (most of the time ) but if there's no community behind it the purpose IS NULL.
Thoughs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I personally believe the best ROMs (and the best support) come out for the most popular devices, as they have larger communities, both developer and otherwise. You obviously recognize this, otherwise you wouldn't be asking this.
How many people on Verizon have a consumer Galaxy S3? Probably hundreds of thousands. Maybe even a million, giving a rough estimate by how many total units were sold worldwide.
I can only see a very small fraction of people bothering with selling/returning their phone to buy this developer edition. Probably a couple thousand tops, if even.
Samsung needs to provide a better alternative, such as an unlocking tool- and Verizon can void our warranties if they'd like- that's a given.
I'm with the group that says "Don't settle and buy this."
Will it be possible to just use ROMs from the Sprint SGS 3 forum if you get the Verizon dev version of the SGS 3?
I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?
AnthomX said:
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.
burhanistan said:
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.
AnthomX said:
I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices. Congress has given the carriers most of the deciding power over what extent the end-user may manipulate the software on the device. After a petition gained enough friction and reached the White House, the executive branch has agreed consumers deserve the right to invoke their will over devices sold to them without criminal liability, there has yet been any legislative change regarding the matter.
Ultimately, what we can do is multi-faceted to get the attention of carriers [AT&T] to cave to our demands:
1: We can vote with our money by refusing to purchase devices distributed by them, citing their abuse of power over devices sold to consumers -- leaving us no freedom to do as we please with merchandise we contractually own.
2: We can appeal to authority by raising the issue to a federal level to be examined by either higher courts, consumer affairs, Better Business Bureau, or writing your congressman.
3: Start an online petition and hope it gains enough traction to put AT&T and other carriers in a negative light publically on the national stage.
These options work well with numbers and have a better chance of success when done in conjunction with one another. The armchair approach has very little chance of success and often doesn't even merit a reply by way of spokesperson.
AnthomX said:
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!
antde201 said:
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AGREED very much Burhanistan, I know that is a hit for AT&T, but you know, they could offer repair services at a decent rate that could fix these bad flashes, as most of the time only a JTAG is needed. Which leads into support and encouragement for the Android communities. But, one can dream. They are more about that profit margin than a profit margin AND great customer service.
Antde, I am looking at starting a petition, maybe gain some traction there? Who knows, but I think you are right, in the end, AT&T doesn't want our business, and I am ok with that. Unfortunately it will be a headache similar to swapping from Apple after using them for so many years. Time to bust out the aspirin I guess. We will see.
Becasue carriers dont care about what we think about locked bootloaders.At the end of the day this device is making millions for them think about it to them it doesnt make a difference.I myself work for a carrier in the U.S and trust me to them what ever rants and complaints we post mean squat....
Anyways its going to be unlocked soon when the VZW releases so whatever I dont even get why we should make such a big deal locked bootloaders always get hacked ...
burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's more to a carrier's decision to lock down a device's bootloader than just pure spite and asserting their control. Carriers are also charged with mobile security, protection of their assets (bandwidth), and again security.
An unlocked bootloader theoretically opens the floodgates to a plethora of security threats to both the device and information stored and/or shared therein. Google and their partners are pushing mobile security to both stay relevant in the mobile OS market and to appeal to other markets where they may have been previously overlooked, such as defense and business.
You also have to consider the possibility of unregulated mobile tethering which falls under the umbrella of loss prevention to any business.
Lastly, as you and others have mentioned, the possibility of insurance claims due to bricked devices. Though I'd argue that this area doesn't pose much risk to the carrier directly as you void your warranty as soon as you flash a custom ROM.
So with all of these facets together, you'd see how it would be a no brainer to a corporation to purchase the secure version of an OEM device. Especially if you've chosen to adopt a subsidized device. The contract you sign is subject to whatever terms they produce and if you do not agree, you're free to stay with your current device and leave when your contract expires. I don't care for this sentiment, but it's the reality they have procured.
I think they did it to fight back against tethering.
ATT getting phone manufacturers to lock their phones started a while back. IIRC the first big uproar was for the HTC Vivid. IMHO it's for security and ATT keeping their big accounts. BB ruled for so long because of security. iPhones are the same way. Companies want a secure device. Moto (one of the main ones that market to business use) has always had the stingiest bootloaders regardless of carrier.
poofyhairguy said:
I think they did it to fight back against tethering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya because that really stopped us from tethering... Oh wait..
Perhaps upon reading that, you call to mind Thomas Jefferson pulling out his Android to thwart impeding forces. I actually like that idea, but I know that the time in which John Locke wrote the contributing phrase was much different than today. It was a time of change and also a time when people realized their full potential to make a difference. In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, and in an exercise of my own Personal Liberties, I have started a petition to require cell phone carriers to allow bootloader unlock on any Android device that is not under contract or subsidy. Many of you will know immediately what this means, and the exponential benefits of such a law. Many of you will flip to the next activity complacently believing this does not affect you. If you do not understand, I wish to enlighten you as to how this affects each and every Android user in the world. Signing the petition takes only a few moments of your time and adds to the greater good of our technology and innovation as a Nation.
So what exactly does this “Bootloader Unlock” thing mean?
Well, that is a great question. Most simply put, according to Motorla’s website, “bootloader is a little bit of code that tells your device's operating system how to boot up”. That does not mean much to the average user, I am sure. What it means in my own words is it is a piece of code that dictates what I can and cannot do, in terms of software modification, to my own personal Android device. On my wireless provider whom I will call Big Red, their requirement is that OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers, or simply phone makers) lock this bit of code to prevent modification by the end-user or customer. I am certain, to those that do not wish to modify their devices, this sounds like a good fail-safe to avoid breaking their devices. I am also certain that to those like myself, those who have the experience and knowledge to do things like flash custom firmware or software and modify our devices to suit our own personal taste and needs, this is a huge roadblock and an impediment on what we can do with our own personal property and how it can be improved. In order to modify system files as the user sees fit, a thing called Root is required. Root is, most simply privileged access to a phones file system. A locked bootloader means that in order to gain “Root” access, a security exploit must be found and exploited in order to modify system files. These exploits are literally holes that must be (and typically are) patched in software updates sent out by the service providers or manufacturers to protect the end-user. While the efforts of the security experts are always going to be required to keep us safe and updated, I personally do not want to rely on someone to hack the software so it can be modified. This should be an inherent ability of any user who does not have a subsidy or contract obligation. I also feel that any device that can be updated by the user allows the people who develop for Android to Innovate and push our technology farther forward. When manufacturers are required to lock down a device, ultimately, the user is the one who loses. My first Android device, the Droid 1 or A855 ran an under-volted overclocked kernel (simply another piece of code that tells a device how to boot and how to run its processor among other things) that ran 1.7ghz on it’s ~600mhz processor. I used that phone at least twice as long as I would have if it hadn’t been bootloader unlocked. Also, on the note of the OG Droid, I can say that this was the phone that helped Verizon to compete with the Iphone, bolstering the customer base and creating mass knowledge of the Andoid platform. This was done with a bootloader-unlocked device. It seems that once the market was realized, bootloader locking became the normative. The Droid line has been bootloader-locked ever since. There are several examples of the same hardware being sold, under different names, with the bootloader-unlockable right out of the box. The most recent example of this is the Motorola xt1250, or Moto Maxx (US CDMA). The international version of the same phone, the xt1225 is also bootloader-unlockable. All three are known as the Quark. They are identical in hardware aside from exteriors. Big Red required their version to have the bootloader locked. There is no way to have it unlocked for now.
So Why Would I Want to Sign This Petition?
Honestly, you may not care about Android at all. You could conceivably have never been interested, and care less. However, the technology available to you today is available because of innovations and advancements that have been made across a wide technological array of development. Android is no different. Love that Halo or Heads Up inspired feature ____ manufacturer just put on your new phone? People who develop are to be thanked. The possibilities are endless for what can be done and applied across many platforms. The future of mobile technology can be greatly advanced by creating open access for all who are inclined.
Catharsis
Okay, I admit it. It is really, really unlikely our politicians actually act upon this petition, even if 100,000 signatures are reached. As much as I like to think our law should “fix” things that are wrong, I can agree with one of my favorite developers from back in the day, @adrenalyne, when he said [government typically does not, and should not interfere with private business.] I can agree with that on the same grounds by which I feel we should be granted bootloader unlock on…if and only, if, no one’s rights are infringed upon. I feel it is all of our right to do what we please with our own personal property. There was a great analogy given on XDA Developers forum in the bounty thread where this all started by @Wynnded In essence, it said the carrier provides the highway, the OEM provides the device, but it is the carrier’s highway, so if the carrier requires the OEM to lock it down so be it. Personally, I feel that if the carrier has a highway, it is a toll-road, as I pay for my service. I purchase my vehicle outright, so if I want to modify it, and I pay for my vehicle, making no obligation to said toll operator, it is not within their range of rights to tell me I cannot modify my vehicle in the way I see fit. Thank you for your time. –kitcostantino @ medicbeard on twitter #unlockthedroids
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...e-not-subsized-or-attatched-contract/QfTmsspy
Original thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/dro...unlock-bootloader-root-turbo-t2927958/page115
Sources:
https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/standalone/bootloader/unlock-your-device-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooting_(Android_OS)
I ask for no donations, nor anything else. Simply share this if you feel so compelled. Really, it hurts nothing even if you don’t.
#unlockthedroids