Related
This is VERY important information, please read all of it.
LOL I can see I made a mistake by posting this. There's just a bunch of arguing going on and most of you have seemed to disprove s lot of this. I was just relaying the information, maybe I'm too gullible to be here Either way, the information is relevant, but not confirmed by me or anyone, really besides P3droid. I see no reason why he would claim to have this information but just be making stuff up, but who knows. *shrug*
I'm assuming that most of you have seen it by now, but either way, I just felt there was a need to try to get the word out to everyone who might use a custom ROM. Some very disturbing information was brought to light recently by a respected member of the Verizon Droid and Droid X hacking community, known as P3droid. He is a member of Team Black Hat, similar to any development team here. He has made a lot of very important connections as a developer, some within the respective carriers. The information I'm going to share with you mostly pertains to Verizon, but P3droid *specifically* mentions that the implementation is cross-carrier.
My understanding of what's up:
The carriers have been working on an application that runs behind the scenes. The idea behind it is to track what happens on the phone and report back. It can detect unauthorized tethering, root, and custom ROMs. It works by periodically scanning your system partition for modifications, checking to see if your phone's MEID refuses OTA updates, and other unknown methods.
Can't we just remove it?
Sure, but your phone will be flagged by AT&T because the application isn't reporting back. They literally take your phone off of the network and force you to pay the ETF (early termination fee). [brought in to question by the people here, sounds implausible]
What can we do?
Stop tethering for now, I would officially consider it unsafe if you don't want to pay the ETF (maybe) or possibly have your phone flagged by AT&T.
If you want to be on the safe side, revert stock. However, as stated later, this will be very difficult to implement on a GSM network. As of right now, we should be OK, but as I said, better safe than sorry.
If any of your friends have unmodified Captivates, preferably with 2.2 (reverting stock doesn't count), get me a system dump, so I can see if the application in question is there. Directions: Make sure you have the android SDK installed on your computer, you can find it at developer.android.com. Once you have it set up and working, type (for Mac and Linux)
Code:
$ mkdir -p ~/Desktop/app
$ adb pull /system/app ~/Desktop/app
and for Windows,
Code:
cd Desktop
mkdir app
adb pull /system/app "C:\Documents and Settings\[yourusername]\Desktop\app"
Just remember, the Android root community is much bigger than we think. We have some real power. We just need to pull ourselves together and exert it.
What this means for us:
No more root
No more tethering
No more warranty-AT&T will flag your device as bad
Possibly no more connectivity
No more... anything
It is unknown which phones currently have the application preloaded, however it is known that several phones on Verizon have it installed.
Kaik541, a trusted acquaintance of mine pointed out that this would be difficult, if not impossible to implement on a GSM network. It is a very valid point, however I still think that the best plan of action is to proceed with caution.
A quick dialog between P3droid and me:
Have you heard anything about AT&T and unauthorized tethering?
Nothing too specific, just general chatter.
Looks like it's time to stop tethering either way. I'll let all the AT&T guys know, if they don't already
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And finally, hit up the source link for more infos.
http://androidheadlines.com/2011/04/will-rooting-your-android-phone-come-to-an-end.html
and
http://www.mydroidworld.com/forums/...otloaders-rooting-manufacturers-carriers.html
For up to date info, follow P3droid on twitter: http://twitter.com/P3droid and me (but mostly P3droid) http://twitter.com/ytt3r.
Reserved as a natural reflex
There were similar stories like this when iOS 3 or 4 was getting ready to come out. Turned out to be a hoax but it did throw up some red flags for me.
Someone needs to take a fine-toothed comb to the user agreements because I really doubt they can legally checkup on your device when they want to, especially without mentioning this software has been added to the device.
I highly doubt this is a hoax. We seriously need to cover ourselves. This is scary stuff.
Glorious Canada!
But in all seriousness, I believe that this can be dealt with. As for tethering, they have every right to kick you off the network if you aren't paying for a tethering plan (yes, tethering plans are a complete money grab, but you are still violating the TOS). For the OTA, we could spoof it, answering the call, downloading the update, then deleting it and reporting updated with out ever updating.
TheEscapist said:
Glorious Canada!
But in all seriousness, I believe that this can be dealt with. As for tethering, they have every right to kick you off the network if you aren't paying for a tethering plan (yes, tethering plans are a complete money grab, but you are still violating the TOS). For the OTA, we could spoof it, answering the call, downloading the update, then deleting it and reporting updated with out ever updating.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Luckily our Rogers Captivates don't do OTA updates! Not yet, anyways.
And Fully agree on the tethering.
We have some very talented people in this community. I, personally, don't know anything about android development. But I do have enough knowledge about development to know that anything can be reversed, tricked, or even stopped. We have the skills, man-power, and will. We'll be okay in the long-run.
I'm not worried.
We need to comb over the TOS and see if they can legally do this.
How would they hide this program?
they can't. I don't think its implemented yet on any gsm phones, but we know for a fact that the leaked gingerbread for droid x has it.
designfears said:
There were similar stories like this when iOS 3 or 4 was getting ready to come out. Turned out to be a hoax but it did throw up some red flags for me.
Someone needs to take a fine-toothed comb to the user agreements because I really doubt they can legally checkup on your device when they want to, especially without mentioning this software has been added to the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In Canada they have to inform you of changes, from that point you have 30 days to cancel your contract without any penalty, as it is a change of agreement. Not sure if this relates to you US guys and girls,
Also, if they do this, what is to stop you from buying a pay as you go sim card, and using it on your smart phones. The pay as you go plans here in canada have the same options as a contract plan......
So this almost makes no sense....
What a better way to lose a bunch of customers. Doesn't make sense to me either.
You'd think they realize that communities like XDA make having phones like this worthwhile.
Quickest way to kill off the Android platform would be to limit us to the crap roms the carriers put out. I never even thought of an iPhone until I heard this!
I fail to see how they could legally do this. Not to mention forcing an etf will result in people switching networks. No one would put up with that and stay with them.
If this is true, I wonder how hard it would be to hack the app and just have it send back false information.
cappysw10 said:
You'd think they realize that communities like XDA make having phones like this worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it would be things like side-loading apps or free tethering that they're primarily concerned about.
I wonder if the penalty will only go against giys who get subsidized phones. I buy my phones out right so for that to happen would be off putting.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA Premium App
seems very questionable from a legal standpoint. not sure how they can have anything hidden from a user that buys the phone from them, without actually disclosing that it's on there... without a massive lawsuit anyways.
wonder what google thinks of this?
They can't force a ETF that would be illegal if your not violating your contract i.e. tethering.
I have never tethered at all and would gladly cancel my att contract with paying the etf if this happened. IF ATT wont let me use my phone as I want as long as I am not stealing service I will take my service to a carrier that will END OF STORY.
Does this mean the Communities are a lot larger than we think? I originally thought that we were a small marketplace, and didn't have a major impact on things.
So if the Carriers and manufacturers are investing this kind of time, money and effort into stopping the modifications, We must be causing havoc.......
Still doesn't make sense............
Lucke said:
seems very questionable from a legal standpoint. not sure how they can have anything hidden from a user that buys the phone from them, without actually disclosing that it's on there... without a massive lawsuit anyways.
wonder what google thinks of this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read the linked threads.......They say Google is helping them.
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/06/6419016-google-tightens-reins-on-android-
It looks like Google is thinking of locking down also. It would protect us from Carrier modding woes, but what's gonna start happening when they decide not to release source codes....
Since unlocking phones (for carrier use) becomes illegal starting tomorrow, we have made a petition to fight back.
Please sign!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
RBarnett09 said:
Since unlocking phones (for carrier use) becomes illegal starting tomorrow, we have made a petition to fight back.
Please sign!
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can do nothing with a petition like this now, this is scheduled to be looked at every 3 years, in 3 years you will have a chance to be heard and get this changed, however, we are stuck with this for at least 3 years.
Milimbar said:
You can do nothing with a petition like this now, this is scheduled to be looked at every 3 years, in 3 years you will have a chance to be heard and get this changed, however, we are stuck with this for at least 3 years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed. I'm sure the White House is getting a nice chuckle from this petition.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda app-developers app
Here's the thing about what people may see as a pointless petition.
They are all pointless until created. No matter if this will make any difference or not.
Petitions aren't meant to go by guidelines or by what the current law or cycle of voting represents.
In fact, if we all just sat idly by while things happen around us and shrug our shoulders because well, that's what the law is and it doesn't come back up for discussion for 10 years, so let's just leave it as is, even though the majority of us are against it.
I guess my point is, no matter how small of a change or difference one person may think they will be or make, unless they start somewhere, they may as well roll over like everyone else.
Change starts with YOU!
(or you can accept things for the way they are dealt to you)
Santod is right. If enough people sign it will get attention and maybe it will be enough that it doesn't have to wait for three years before it is brought up again. If we keep allowing the cell companies to control how we use our property then eventually we won't have any control of it. This kind of crap needs to stop somewhere. This idea of not allowing us to decide if we want to stay with a specific carrier is bs. Would you like it if a bank said you had to remain in the same property, exactly the way it was originally purchased for the duration of the contract? Probably not.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Nexus 4, 7, 10 ... ++ More Nexus is the way to go now. Besides, I font see the point in an ithing or win8.
A reason to get one now and get away from VZW, I say.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Why is this crap being posted in forums for Verizon phones? It simply doesn't apply - VZW has never carrier locked their phones.
mike.s said:
Why is this crap being posted in forums for Verizon phones? It simply doesn't apply - VZW has never carrier locked their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently you don't understand.
It will be illegal for us to unlock our phones to use them how we want to... HTC or not.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
This law affects all carriers. The only way around it is to get your carrier to unlock the phone for you or buy an unlocked phone from the start. They are only making it illegal to unlock your phone without their knowledge or permission.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
This law affects all carriers. The only way around it is to get your carrier to unlock the phone for you or buy an unlocked phone from the start. They are only making it illegal to unlock your phone without their knowledge or permission.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This definitely won't stop most people.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
RBarnett09 said:
This definitely won't stop most people.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A $500,000 fine and 5 years in prison sounds like a pretty good deterrent to keep most people from doing though. I think they are mostly targeting the businesses that are capitalizing on something that the carrier will do for people most of the time. I think part of the problem is that people get a phone on contract and since the phone is subsidized when they don't pay their bill the phone company eats the cost of the phone. If they are able to unlock the phone and use it somewhere else they basically get a free phone.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Plus from what I heard on the radio if you own a phone already then you can unlock it and flash it to whatever carrier. Online petitions are a joke. As you can't prove the people existence because of of no signatures. I could type out ten thousand names names easily. You want change? You want action? Then call your congressmen or woman and voice your dislikes. Have your family,friends,coworkers, and so on to call. Tell them you are not happy and unless you see action you will vote for the other guy. Keep calling and if enough people calls something might be done.
Or you could go the easier route and just buy a google branded phone and not have to worry about the stupid law lol. It is funny people don't seem to care about stuff till its to late.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
disconnecktie said:
A $500,000 fine and 5 years in prison sounds like a pretty good deterrent to keep most people from doing though. I think they are mostly targeting the businesses that are capitalizing on something that the carrier will do for people most of the time. I think part of the problem is that people get a phone on contract and since the phone is subsidized when they don't pay their bill the phone company eats the cost of the phone. If they are able to unlock the phone and use it somewhere else they basically get a free phone.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Holy....
I was unaware of that kind of punishment. That's insane.
How would someone get caught unlocking a phone though?
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda premium
I'm pretty sure that the esn will tell the new carrier where the phone came from. Plus you would have to know because unlocking it is probably different depending on which carrier you are coming from. There was a law passed recently that makes it illegal to take a phone with a bad esn and unlock it to use with a different carrier as well. The major carriers also have the ability to make a bad esn phone no good across most of the other carriers too.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
Milimbar said:
You can do nothing with a petition like this now, this is scheduled to be looked at every 3 years, in 3 years you will have a chance to be heard and get this changed, however, we are stuck with this for at least 3 years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
tm24fan8 said:
Indeed. I'm sure the White House is getting a nice chuckle from this petition.
Sent from my ADR6400L using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who's laughing now!!!??
As I said before, it all starts with us guys.... :good:
Official White House Response to Make Unlocking Cell Phones Legal.
(NOTE: This is in regards to carrier unlocking, not bootloader unlocking)
Source: LINK
It's Time to Legalize Cell Phone Unlocking
By R. David Edelman
Thank you for sharing your views on cell phone unlocking with us through your petition on our We the People platform.
Last week the White House brought together experts from across government who work on telecommunications, technology, and copyright policy, and we're pleased to offer our response.
The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties.
In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network.
It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs.
This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs -- even if it isn't the one on which the device was first activated.
All consumers deserve that flexibility.
The White House's position detailed in this response builds on some critical thinking done by the President's chief advisory Agency on these matters:
the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
For more context and information on the technical aspects of the issue, you can review the NTIA's letter to the Library of Congress' Register of Copyrights (.pdf),
voicing strong support for maintaining the previous exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for cell phone carrier unlocking.
Contrary to the NTIA's recommendation, the Librarian of Congress ruled that phones purchased after January of this year would no longer be exempted from the DMCA.
The law gives the Librarian the authority to establish or eliminate exceptions -- and we respect that process.
But it is also worth noting the statement the Library of Congress released today on the broader public policy concerns of the issue.
Clearly the White House and Library of Congress agree that the DMCA exception process is a rigid and imperfect fit for this telecommunications issue, and we want to ensure this particular challenge for mobile competition is solved.
So where do we go from here?
The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear:
neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.
We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here.
FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue.
Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.
We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the wireless and mobile phone industries, and most importantly you -- the everyday consumers who stand to benefit from this greater flexibility -- to ensure our laws keep pace with changing technology, protect the economic competitiveness that has led to such innovation in this space, and offer consumers the flexibility and freedoms they deserve.
R. David Edelman is Senior Advisor for Internet, Innovation, & Privacy
Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.
Alright fair enough, good job guys!
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
Translation they agree but not really going to do much about it lol.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
santod040 said:
Who's laughing now!!!??
As I said before, it all starts with us guys.... :good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I signed it also, and just got my e-mail like 35min ago.
I don't know if it will change anything short term, but if nothing else.... at least next time it comes up for review it should turn out more favorably. Hopefully they will step in and push through some intermediate legislation before the next scheduled review though.
Milimbar said:
I signed it also, and just got my e-mail like 35min ago.
I don't know if it will change anything short term, but if nothing else.... at least next time it comes up for review it should turn out more favorably. Hopefully they will step in and push through some intermediate legislation before the next scheduled review though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be nice, but would require Congress to stop bickering for more than a minute...
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app
I saw this and thought the same, what's this really going to accomplish? And then the posted article where it apparently did accomplish something. Seems like that's not always the case... But in general, I guess it's not a ton of effort to click in and sign an online petition, so if my one vote does almost-nothing-but-still-something, I guess the return on investment is slightly higher than what I get for typing a single forum post.
Although, if the law is meant to keep people from ditching their carrier and not paying their bill and having the phone "for free", there is the spot they're going to get on their credit when it goes to collections. Getting denied for credit or getting a worse rate for the next 7 years doesn't seem completely devoid of consequence.
As most of you are aware it has recently become illegal to unlock carrier branded phones purchased after January 26th of this year. This is a petition to the White House to repeal or amend that decision. There are three days left to garner another 1500 signatures. Please take the time to create an account and sign this petition.
http://wh.gov/yA9n
Thanks
I've already signed it for myself,and for my wife. Now, if only my 3 friends on Facebook and g+ would follow the link I posted back when I signed, we'd only need 1497 more signatures. Lol
S!ent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
bps119 said:
I've already signed it for myself,and for my wife. Now, if only my 3 friends on Facebook and g+ would follow the link I posted back when I signed, we'd only need 1497 more signatures. Lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's all good. Just hit 105,500. So at least the government will take a look at it. 115,000 wouldn't hurt though.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/white-house-must-answer-for-ban-on-unlocking-cell-phones/
"The White House is going to have to provide answers on whether it thinks cell phone unlocking should be illegal. Unlocking cell phones unties them from specific carriers, allowing users to switch to a different cellular provider. This was legal until recently, when the Library of Congress decided not to renew the Digital Millennium Copyright Act exemption for unlocking.
Outraged cell phone users filed a White House Petition demanding the reversal of this policy. The petition was filed just days after the White House said petitions would only get an answer if they received 100,000 signatures within a month, rather than the previous threshold of 25,000.
The cell phone unlock petition passed 100,000 today, two days before the deadline. You can still sign it if you wish."
I sure I am not alone in feeling as though this is absolutely unacceptable, and hope the unlock law gets changed. It is understandable for the courts to try to help prevent or at least try to stop piracy and other unlawful acts, and to try to protect the carriers from exploitation, but for the very act of performing an unlock to now be a punishable crime is just terrible. I commend all of you who are part of the petition, or just against ethis new ruling and trying to get it changed. Good luck to you all in this endeavor.
Sent from my bootloader unlocked, s-off, CWM installed, and Rooted HTCEVOV4G using xda premium
While I agree that it should be changed, I think the law is more aimed at less than reputable carriers (Cricket comes to mind in Phoenix, at least) that will unlock and flash any phone to their network, regardless of its status (stolen, etc).
For that reason alone I would support the law, but only if it included a provision for allowing the legal owner to unlock the phone at his/her discretion.
Beamed out of the Void
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
For anyone who hasn't seen yet:
http://www.androidcentral.com/white...uld-be-legal?utm_source=ac&utm_medium=twitter
liquidzoo said:
For anyone who hasn't seen yet:
http://www.androidcentral.com/white...uld-be-legal?utm_source=ac&utm_medium=twitter
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sweet, so only a couple of years of bureaucratic crap to jump through and we got it!
There's no way in hell they're taking away those rights. I love modifying and adding meaningless crap to my phone, changing its values and maxing/undering whatever I want. It's an addiction really. It's no different than buying a car at a dealership. Are there laws and rules to what you can and can't add to your car? Sure, but none that really matter. If I was to add a body kit to the new lancer I'm buying this year and the government says "Uhhhh yeah, you can't do that because (insert meaningless reason here) and (more crap here)" then I'm going to tell'em to suck it :angel:
Spartan111 said:
There's no way in hell they're taking away those rights. I love modifying and adding meaningless crap to my phone, changing its values and maxing/undering whatever I want. It's an addiction really. It's no different than buying a car at a dealership. Are there laws and rules to what you can and can't add to your car? Sure, but none that really matter. If I was to add a body kit to the new lancer I'm buying this year and the government says "Uhhhh yeah, you can't do that because (insert meaningless reason here) and (more crap here)" then I'm going to tell'em to suck it :angel:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This has nothing to do with rooting glad to see you're uninformed.
It's about carrier unlocking which from a business perspective i can understand but i don't agree with it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
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..
I mean come on seriously Verizon in my opinion already charges too much just for their data plans and then you pay for a $600 phone on top of it that you can't even mod, no flashing AOSP for you, no experimenting with the phone that you OWN! I switched to T-Mobile a few weeks ago just for this reason I found out TWRP came out for the S6 on T-Mobile and then I thought no way am I going to miss out on CM and other AOSP ROMS I love having the ability to change my kernel and ROM sure there is SafeStrap which I don't really know when that will come out for Verizon S6 but you can't install AOSP ROMS on it there is no REAL freedom until you have an unlocked bootloader.
I made this to see how many people think like me when it comes to Verizon locking bootloaders.
Do you think Verizon owns their phones and they have every right to lock down their phones?
Or do you think you are paying these crazy amounts of money for a phone you can't even customize?
If you want to comment saying why you chose your answer that would be great! You don't have to though.
Edit: worded wrong The thing that should replace yes is "I think having a locked bootloader is fine".
I could either have an unlocked bootloader on a network with terrible service or a locked boot loader on a fantastic network. I choose the latter. Got lucky we got root but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I would have gotten the nexus 6 if I was still that into Roms. Root will keep me very happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
hopesrequiem said:
I could either have an unlocked bootloader on a network with terrible service or a locked boot loader on a fantastic network. I choose the latter. Got lucky we got root but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I would have gotten the nexus 6 if I was still that into Roms. Root will keep me very happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand Verizon has the best service but I am saying wouldn't it be nice to have both an unlocked bootloader for easy root and custom recoverys AND the nice Verizon service. Thanks for the response
ethanscooter said:
I understand Verizon has the best service but I am saying wouldn't it be nice to have both an unlocked bootloader for easy root and custom recoverys AND the nice Verizon service. Thanks for the response
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Omg yeah that would be THE best lol. If only the nexus 6 wasn't so big
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
hopesrequiem said:
Omg yeah that would be THE best lol. If only the nexus 6 wasn't so big
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then vote no lol that is what the poll is about no means having both unlocked bootloader and great service on the galaxy s6.
xD
Isn't your first option misleading thus skewing everyone to vote for the 2nd option? Wouldn't it be more fair to have the first option read
"Is it OK that Verizon makes the phone extra secure by locking the bootloader"
They do not own the phones unless you are leasing yours. I am also not seeing the point of this poll...to show how many here in a rooting hacking development site are unhappy because they can't do anything with the phone? I understand your frustration, I am just trying to see the point here.
Maybe you should ask if Verizon has the right to gain more commercial and military contracts by making the phone secure. Just playing devil's advocate here.
Isn't this poll akin to asking a group of kids "Who wants ice cream?" Just sayin'
KennyG123 said:
Isn't your first option misleading thus skewing everyone to vote for the 2nd option? Wouldn't it be more fair to have the first option read
"Is it OK that Verizon makes the phone extra secure by locking the bootloader"
They do not own the phones unless you are leasing yours. I am also not seeing the point of this poll...to show how many here in a rooting hacking development site are unhappy because they can't do anything with the phone? I understand your frustration, I am just trying to see the point here.
Maybe you should ask if Verizon has the right to gain more commercial and military contracts by making the phone secure. Just playing devil's advocate here.
Isn't this poll akin to asking a group of kids "Who wants ice cream?" Just sayin'
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good post. I agree.
I didn't take the poll because I feel Verizon can do whatever they like since I knew all of it up front, yet the first choice also includes an untruth....that Verizon owns the phone.
I own my phone, and I think Verizon made their choice clear before I purchased it.
Buyer beware.
Also....if you think they are just getting rich from us....I suggest you buy Verizon stock and share in the wealth.
The poll has 2 selections which are both invalid.
Bottom line is, if you wish to connect your device to the Verizon network, your device should follow their standards. Don't see a problem with that. If standardizing and locking devices keeps the network superior, I support them.
Unlocked Bootloader Is A Major Disincentive To Change Devices
As many are saying, I will not change devices (currently, Verizon HTC M8), unless I can properly mod my new device with root and recovery, and the unlocked bootloader is the absolute prerequisite for this ability to produce the optimal features, performance, and aesthetics in any new device.
Verizon made a marketing choice between selling supportability and network costs (no root means all phones allegedly have the some OS and basic settings, network has been discussed) or the cost of hiring people for support that can do more than read a script and follow a flow chart, which is what would be needed if they allowed for rooting. Also, think of the variety of phones. If they sold one brand of phone, and maybe only 2 or 3 of that brands models, supportability would not be as much of an issue.
Do I like being locked out from under the hood of my phone? No, of course not. Why else would I be on this site??
Do I understand their reasoning? Yes! Good technicians are not cheap. The person you call for tech help probably starts at under $12 an hour, and *might* have an A+ certification.
I'd rather have good cell service at a relatively reasonable rate and a variety of smartphones to choose from than pay how ever much extra it would cost to hire actual technicians to troubleshoot the myriad of issues opening the bootlocker would cost. Even with the "If you brek in, you don;t get support" type wanings, they would still have to pay hundreds iof not thousands of manhours for all the schmucks that would go in, unlock their phones, throw on custom ROM, or just start deleting files, and still call Verizon Support to fix it.
Source of my opinion - I have worked tech support for years. No amount of warnings, labels, etc will prevent customers for demanding you fix their stupidity, even when they admit that is the problem.
hopesrequiem said:
I could either have an unlocked bootloader on a network with terrible service or a locked boot loader on a fantastic network. I choose the latter. Got lucky we got root but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I would have gotten the nexus 6 if I was still that into Roms. Root will keep me very happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best network is very subjective to the area/region your in the most. In southwestern Ohio it is defiantly NOT the best network.
But I agree with OP on we should be allowed to unlock bootloader.
bkeaver said:
Best network is very subjective to the area/region your in the most. In southwestern Ohio it is defiantly NOT the best network.
But I agree with OP on we should be allowed to unlock bootloader.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THANK YOU!!! It's like seriously we just want to use CWM or TWRP on OUR PHONES WE PAID FOR it is just ridiculous how they expect us to pay all this money for a phone that we own that we can't even modify!
Unfortunately all the b**ching and complaining isn't going to change that anytime soon I'm afraid
While I hate restrictions and censorship and over-protectiveness, I realize big red will only change when the market demands it. Unfortunately, we're too small a percentage of said market for the other players to even speak about bootloaders and root access, much less convince Verizon that they need to change. All Verizon cares about is the bottom line $$$, and apparently locking down everything is more profitable than attracting xda members to their network. As if they need the money, lol. I live in an area where there is only one choice, so I take what I can get.
I agree, the poll question is totally like asking a bunch of dairy-tolerant children if they want ice cream. I'd rather see something like "if you could pay more and waive any software support for a mobile device that has an unlocked bootloader, would you and how much more would you be willing to pay?" I suppose that question was sort of answered with the Google Edition devices (answer: $450 was too much for most) and sort of with the Nexus devices. I would pay at least $100 personally for an open bootloader, and probably waive the warranty completely. How could this not make Verizon money. Oh and my problem with the Nexus devices was the network exclusivity and then the Nexus 6 just being too big.
The real problem is there is no good developer program with Verizon or Samsung. If you buy a dev edition phone you are stuck with the OS that comes on it and Samsung's dev program is terrible. Verizon needs to create a good dev program with unlocked and not supported phones but give access to OTA updates. It's that simple...
MOS95B said:
Verizon made a marketing choice between selling supportability and network costs (no root means all phones allegedly have the some OS and basic settings, network has been discussed) or the cost of hiring people for support that can do more than read a script and follow a flow chart, which is what would be needed if they allowed for rooting. Also, think of the variety of phones. If they sold one brand of phone, and maybe only 2 or 3 of that brands models, supportability would not be as much of an issue.
Do I like being locked out from under the hood of my phone? No, of course not. Why else would I be on this site??
Do I understand their reasoning? Yes! Good technicians are not cheap. The person you call for tech help probably starts at under $12 an hour, and *might* have an A+ certification.
I'd rather have good cell service at a relatively reasonable rate and a variety of smartphones to choose from than pay how ever much extra it would cost to hire actual technicians to troubleshoot the myriad of issues opening the bootlocker would cost. Even with the "If you brek in, you don;t get support" type wanings, they would still have to pay hundreds iof not thousands of manhours for all the schmucks that would go in, unlock their phones, throw on custom ROM, or just start deleting files, and still call Verizon Support to fix it.
Source of my opinion - I have worked tech support for years. No amount of warnings, labels, etc will prevent customers for demanding you fix their stupidity, even when they admit that is the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has nothing to do with hiring technicians to fix rooted phones...that is such a small small percentage of actual sales and technical errors. It is purely to provide maximum security for Exchange services for commercial and military contracts. AT&T and Verizon Samsung phones were rated the most secure phones on the market. And boom in came the dollars and contracts.
Any technician can drop the phone on their jig and push go for an Odin reset and restore to factory stock.
You all are taking this personal and it is not..blocking root or blocking kernel flashing (AOSP) was a side effect, not the intention of making it secure.
There are a lot of things that you choose to spend a lot of money on but cannot do what you want with. Here is the analogy, you buy Verizon because of the network...you spend $200,000 on a house in a good neighborhood. You cannot park your boat in your own driveway..why? Because the Home Owners Association for that nice neighborhood says you can't. You made your choice when you purchased this device knowing it was locked down as that has been the history of Verizon and AT&T for the past few devices.
bkeaver said:
Best network is very subjective to the area/region your in the most. In southwestern Ohio it is defiantly NOT the best network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then why did you choose Verizon?
---------- Post added at 10:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------
KennyG123 said:
It has nothing to do with hiring technicians to fix rooted phones...that is such a small small percentage of actual sales and technical errors. It is purely to provide maximum security for Exchange services for commercial and military contracts. AT&T and Verizon Samsung phones were rated the most secure phones on the market. And boom in came the dollars and contracts.
Any technician can drop the phone on their jig and push go for an Odin reset and restore to factory stock.
You all are taking this personal and it is not..blocking root or blocking kernel flashing (AOSP) was a side effect, not the intention of making it secure.
There are a lot of things that you choose to spend a lot of money on but cannot do what you want with. Here is the analogy, you buy Verizon because of the network...you spend $200,000 on a house in a good neighborhood. You cannot park your boat in your own driveway..why? Because the Home Owners Association for that nice neighborhood says you can't. You made your choice when you purchased this device knowing it was locked down as that has been the history of Verizon and AT&T for the past few devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.
Squintz said:
Then why did you choose Verizon?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be honest I was all set to go back to att from tmobile but att pissed me off and I had never been on verizon so I went with them because of all the rave reviews about better network. Now we're kind of stuck for the time being.
This poll is stupid. Of course they have the right. They don't have to sell you the phone on their network. They're also not forcing you to stay, you could easily leave. Wonders of capitalism.
Disclaimer: Not saying I agree with it, but they certainly have the right.
KennyG123 said:
It has nothing to do with hiring technicians to fix rooted phones...that is such a small small percentage of actual sales and technical errors. It is purely to provide maximum security for Exchange services for commercial and military contracts. AT&T and Verizon Samsung phones were rated the most secure phones on the market. And boom in came the dollars and contracts.
Any technician can drop the phone on their jig and push go for an Odin reset and restore to factory stock.
You all are taking this personal and it is not..blocking root or blocking kernel flashing (AOSP) was a side effect, not the intention of making it secure.
There are a lot of things that you choose to spend a lot of money on but cannot do what you want with. Here is the analogy, you buy Verizon because of the network...you spend $200,000 on a house in a good neighborhood. You cannot park your boat in your own driveway..why? Because the Home Owners Association for that nice neighborhood says you can't. You made your choice when you purchased this device knowing it was locked down as that has been the history of Verizon and AT&T for the past few devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent analogy! In that same mindset though, Cox cable didn't paste a giant tramp stamp on my garage door because there the internet provider of my home. Just sayin ?