Related
Anyone know what this about?
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/...-angry-mobile-owners-rush-castle-htc-with-bu/
link to the xda thread about it?
This is about a group of litigation-crazed people who want to file a class-action suit against a device manufacturer (HTC) because the manufacturer did not include a functionality that would be technologically possible to include in a device. Since class-action suits are overwhelmingly just scams where the lawyers literally make millions for a few hours work, and the companies sued get to give you a coupon for a future purchase thereby increasing the chance you will, in fact, make a future purchase from them, I make no prediction as to whether a suit will be filed or settled in the customary way. However, in a "real" law suit, there is no way the courts would require a company to include all technologically possible features in a product, regardless of how "easy" it might allegedly be to include them. Note that in this case, neither HTC nor the carriers (as far as I have heard) ever stated that this functionality was included in the device.
Yeah, I don't know where that is coming from... of all the issues with the phone.. video is the least. BT still sucks as well as the phone turning on and off at will. Not checking email when it is supposed to... etc etc.
yakky said:
Yeah, I don't know where that is coming from... of all the issues with the phone.. video is the least. BT still sucks as well as the phone turning on and off at will. Not checking email when it is supposed to... etc etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe you should file a class-action suit against the video driver class-action people for taking HTC's time and attention away from fixing real problems...
Actually the mogul does have video playback issues with constant stutering and pausing. From what I've heard from 6700 users video playback is much much smoother (the way it should be). I don't know if it calls for a law suit but hey at least they got htc's attention and now their releasing new drivers that will supposedly fix the video playback issues.
bakntyme said:
This is about a group of litigation-crazed people who want to file a class-action suit against a device manufacturer (HTC) because the manufacturer did not include a functionality that would be technologically possible to include in a device. Since class-action suits are overwhelmingly just scams where the lawyers literally make millions for a few hours work, and the companies sued get to give you a coupon for a future purchase thereby increasing the chance you will, in fact, make a future purchase from them, I make no prediction as to whether a suit will be filed or settled in the customary way. However, in a "real" law suit, there is no way the courts would require a company to include all technologically possible features in a product, regardless of how "easy" it might allegedly be to include them. Note that in this case, neither HTC nor the carriers (as far as I have heard) ever stated that this functionality was included in the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Keep your feces to yourself. if you have nothing better to do but flame a valid issue on HTC phones then i suggest to go jump off a hill.
SINNN said:
Keep your feces to yourself. if you have nothing better to do but flame a valid issue on HTC phones then i suggest to go jump off a hill.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why are you afraid for someone to post a valid, opposing viewpoint to yours? Can you not accept that someone who disagrees with you may still have a valid point? My post was not flaming at all, your post however seems to utilize nothing but flame to express your thoughts. Now, please post again with a well-thought-out response to my points as opposed to a simple flame, as I am interested in an intelligent response and will read it with an open mind.
While you are at it, maybe you can explain why, if all that is needed is a simple driver and all graphics problems will be solved with no detrimental side-effects, no one here on xda-developers, where I truly believe there is at least as much talent as at HTC, has done the allegedly simple task of writing or finding that driver and distributing it.
bakntyme said:
Why are you afraid for someone to post a valid, opposing viewpoint to yours? Can you not accept that someone who disagrees with you may still have a valid point? My post was not flaming at all, your post however seems to utilize nothing but flame to express your thoughts. Now, please post again with a well-thought-out response to my points as opposed to a simple flame, as I am interested in an intelligent response and will read it with an open mind.
While you are at it, maybe you can explain why, if all that is needed is a simple driver and all graphics problems will be solved with no detrimental side-effects, no one here on xda-developers, where I truly believe there is at least as much talent as at HTC, has done the allegedly simple task of writing or finding that driver and distributing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I feel the need to address this... despite not having been in the original exchange. I can accept that you have a differing viewpoint from us. I refuse to be called a "litigation-crazed" person. I also think you need to get your facts straight before you pass judgment.
The simple fact is - we want the functionality that our devices were advertised with. Many of us did our research and realized that the MSM7500 is a POWERFUL chip. The video acceleration is top-tier, and everything else seemed good too. Then HTC decided to not include a driver for video acceleration. Also, before someone mentions that HTC has claimed(but never in an official press release) that the MSM7500 might NOT include the video acceleration... When have you known a huge manufacturer(nVidia, AMD, Intel, ATi, Qualcomm, etc) to name two differing devices the same name? They don't. they generally qualify them(e.g. 8800 series nVidia cards can be 8800 GT, GTX, GTS, etc.) What HTC did is akin to Dell selling you an Inspiron notebook with an nVidia 8800GTS card inside, then telling you that they didn't include drivers. Oh, and don't forget that nVidia won't support the card, since it's up to the manufacturer(Dell) to supply the drivers. Microsoft won't do it since it's Dell's problem. Dell won't do it because it isn't cost effective. (Suspend the reality of the situation for the analogy, though, please) Now you're left with a $300 piece of video hardware that can't be used because nobody wanted to provide a driver. Go software acceleration! That's the issue we're having. The phones WERE advertised as having the MSM7500(or 7200) which according to everything I've seen both have video acceleration. HTC just dropped the ball.
Now, about us writing our own drivers... That would be difficult without getting a bunch of information from Microsoft, HTC and Qualcomm, which they won't release. If you don't know why, look up open source video drivers for Linux, and you'll understand the pain. It's not a baseless suit - however I don't think that class action is the way to go. I think we need to work WITH MS, HTC, and Qualcomm to come up with a driver. Period. Don't let up the pressure until we have that.
I am sorry, but when your advocacy group starts out with a name like "HTCClassAction", and names its website "htcclassaction.org", it shows itself as not interested in getting the claimed result, but instead, despite any protestations from the group, interested in filing a class-action lawsuit from the beginning. That is "litigation-crazed". Was "htcvideodrivers.org" not available? I am sure that, if you wanted to, given a few minutes you could come up with several non-litigation-oriented group and website names. If you were the product manager for the 6800 at HTC, and you heard of the issues raised by the group HTCClassAction, would you think, "Here is a group of users that wants to work with us to resolve what they see as a legitimate issue?"
Speaking of facts...have you actually seen an advertisement that stated that the devices came with this functionality, or did you just assume that because it was advertised as having this chipset, and the chipset has this capability, that the functionality would be included? I would bet that HTC never stated that the 6800 would include every feature technologically possible with the chipset. It has the capability of supporting an 8MP camera, but they didn't include that either. Another lawsuit? I am sure there are other things the chipset would be CAPABLE of that were not included. If you actually researched the chipset so thoroughly for this issue prior to purchasing the device, why did you not notice in the first 30 days that it was not included, and return the device?
Realize that modern class-action lawsuits are almost always settled for lots of money to the attorneys and a pittance to the class. Remember the Verizon Moto 710 Bluetooth class action? It was settled as usual...the attorneys got somewhere around $6 million; users got $25 if they wanted to keep the 710 and stay with Verizon, a waived ETF and a refund if they wanted to leave Verizon, and a credit toward another device if they wanted to stay with Verizon but not keep the 710. They did not get additional Bluetooth profiles. And if this goes to trial, the courts will never order a manufacturer to provide technology, and support for it, that the manufacturer does not want to provide. IF you could prove false advertising, and I do not think that you could, you might get a small refund or credit toward another phone. If that is what you want, just sell the device on an internet auction site and buy something else...you will probably get more that way.
sucks too that our phones dont even have the ati chip in them. my htc wizard (old school) had better video and gameplay
I don't play games much on my ppc so this problem hasn't affected me as much. However I did notice that PIE was sluggish and freaked when video playback sucked on WM and TCPMP. Most of that was avoided by using GDI on TCPMP.
The real issue here is why can't they add the driver? If it was a simple fix it probably wouldn't have been left out in the first place. Sounds to me like they ran into technical issues trying to make it work.
I just got the mogul last week. I have 30 days to evaluate it. Do you think that I should have gotten something else? I think that I've had at least 10 different Smartphones & PPC's in the past 5 or 6 years. They all have something I dislike about them. This one is the best one I've had yet, but would you recommend something else? THANKS
johnannie said:
I just got the mogul last week. I have 30 days to evaluate it. Do you think that I should have gotten something else? I think that I've had at least 10 different Smartphones & PPC's in the past 5 or 6 years. They all have something I dislike about them. This one is the best one I've had yet, but would you recommend something else? THANKS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you hit the nail on the head. EVERY PPC is going to have SOMETHING you dont like about it.
with that said. it only matters what you think. dont go taking advice from a forum where 50 percent of its members cant even tie their shoes.
For the record, i agree with what the person said way up at the beginnning of the thread. "Why are you *****ing now when you had 30 days in which to evaluate and return it if you felt the need?!""
I would imagine the courts will say the same. everyone who thinks this is a legit complaint needs to get a hobby. you all had 30 days in which to make your decision, so DEAL with it.
sound like a buncha kids to me
I guess we should sue them for not having a 'tv out' jack on the mogul too, since thats also possible. and oh yeah, where's my 8 megapixel camera on the mogul?? it supports that as well.
ah screw it, im going to cry to mommy
watson540 said:
you hit the nail on the head. EVERY PPC is going to have SOMETHING you dont like about it.
with that said. it only matters what you think. dont go taking advice from a forum where 50 percent of its members cant even tie their shoes.
For the record, i agree with what the person said way up at the beginnning of the thread. "Why are you *****ing now when you had 30 days in which to evaluate and return it if you felt the need?!""
I would imagine the courts will say the same. everyone who thinks this is a legit complaint needs to get a hobby. you all had 30 days in which to make your decision, so DEAL with it.
sound like a buncha kids to me
I guess we should sue them for not having a 'tv out' jack on the mogul too, since thats also possible. and oh yeah, where's my 8 megapixel camera on the mogul?? it supports that as well.
ah screw it, im going to cry to mommy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hahahahaha. Yes, we're children. Little babies, the lot of us. Anyway......
No, we shouldn't sue them for not including a tv-out jack or an 8 megapixel camera. What we are trying to achieve is driver support FOR THE INCLUDED HARDWARE. This is what most people who argue against our position fail to realize. We aren't asking them to do something crazy, like give us a better camera or a tv-out jack, or even more memory. We're asking them to SUPPORT THE HARDWARE THEY SOLD US. Gasp.
Now... I'll use an analogy for those among us who are a bit retarded. If you were to buy a car that was advertised with a special computer chip in it that can control a supercharger, the electronic stability control system, up to 6 airbags, and the radio (all of which are included in your car, albeit only 4 airbags) - and it came with a 30-day money-back guarantee... and you drove it for 30 days and thought to yourself, "Wow, this is clearly better than last years' model" - would you return it? Probably not... That's what happened here.
We bought our phones, tried them and went, "Wow, they kicked the crap out of the <insert old PDA phone here>" and kept them. Now, back to our example. Now imagine you go to a car-meet-up with your new fancy car, and everyone there is talking about how <insert another fast car here> is wayyyy faster than their car, in the same conditions. You and the other owners do some research and find out that the car manufacturer didn't include software to make your supercharger work. It's just inert, sitting there looking pretty. Wouldn't you be pretty pissed that the chip in your car wasn't actually using the supercharger? Wouldn't you expect that if it was advertised as having this chip and a supercharger, that the supercharger would actually work?
Anyway - that's where I'm coming from at least - I don't presume to speak for anyone else though. I will say this though, watson540, you need to calm down. You're running around these forums beating on people's opinions and posts. Frankly, yours aren't much more productive. At least try to post something relevant or meaningful... or at the very least something other than "you moron, rtft" or "you moron, stop crying".
it's not really a bug its more
like a pc with the generic vga driver installed
even if the pc have a geforce
problems is that one cant get hold of the
spc driver to replace the generic
ponicg said:
We bought our phones, tried them and went, "Wow, they kicked the crap out of the <insert old PDA phone here>" and kept them.
...
Wouldn't you expect that if it was advertised as having this chip and a supercharger, that the supercharger would actually work?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, so you admit that you were very satisfied with the performance until someone said "Hey, I think they OWE US something MORE than what we got, let's SUE THEM for it?" If the device met your needs when you tested it, then you have no complaint. If it did not, you should have returned it in the 30 day return period.
As I asked you way back in this thread, but you have not yet addressed, (nor any of the other points in my previous post), "have you actually seen an advertisement that stated that the devices came with this functionality, or did you just assume that because it was advertised as having this chipset, and the chipset has this capability, that the functionality would be included?...If you actually researched the chipset so thoroughly for this issue prior to purchasing the device, why did you not notice in the first 30 days that it was not included, and return the device?"
None of these analogies is perfect...one big flaw in yours is that you hypothesized "If you were to buy a car that was advertised with a special computer chip in it that can control a supercharger," then switched to the car actually having a supercharger advertised: "Wouldn't you expect that if it was advertised as having this chip and a supercharger". Another is that the supercharger's existence is open and apparent to someone who looks under the hood, without requiring any research or disassembly of the vehicle. Another is that in chip manufacturing, it is usually more efficient to produce a batch of chips with all the capabilities, then use the ones you want in each device, as opposed to redesigning the chip package and retooling the production run for each combination of features desired in each application. No one could reasonably say that it was more efficient to produce a factory run of cars with all possible mechanical features (such as the supercharger in your example) included, and then only connect and use the ones desired for that model. However, auto manufacturers also sometimes utilize parts and sub-assemblies in a particular model without enabling or utilizing all of that component's capabilities, when doing so is more efficient.
Since you like automotive analogies, I will use one without resorting to calling anyone "a bit retarded": suppose that Ford announced that all 2010 Mustangs would use the new computer chip from Super Tuner Corporation, "because of its wonderful and powerful new capabilities," with no details as to what particular features would be made available. Your research into the chip on Super Tuner's website revealed that it supported superchargers, turbochargers, four-wheel drive, four-wheel steering, and nitrous fuel systems. You went in to a Ford dealer and test-drove the top-of-the-line 2010 Mustang, were impressed by its performance, and bought it. Six months later, someone pointed out that you had received none of those performance items listed above. You did not know why, but it was because Ford had internally determined pre-production that the suspension and frame would not be sufficient to provide those performance items in any model Mustang, and they did not want to re-engineer the support structure. They made no announcement about these features not being available, as they had never made any announcement about including those features. Would you join the MustangClassAction.org group? Now suppose that you had done no research prior to the purchase, and six months later discovered the information on Super Tuner's website after someone pointed out the lack to you...even less valid a complaint then, isn't it?
And further suppose that at the same time, someone else says, "I took the interior of my Mustang apart, and it has mounts for 8 speakers, and they only provided it with 4 speakers. Ford has to install 4 more speakers in every Mustang, because it has the capability of holding them!"
And another owner pulls out his factory radio, notices the output jack on the back for a subwoofer..."Where is my subwoofer? It obviously was supposed to come with my car, or they would not have included a radio that could support one and put a jack on the back of the radio to plug one in!!"
Meanwhile, another owner says "I was testing the electronic trip computer included in my Mustang, the same one included in all 2010 Mustangs, and it has the ability to calculate and display up to 55 MPG, but my Mustang only gets 23 MPG. Obviously, Ford was advertising a Mustang that would get 55 MPG and must give us that!"
Enough analogies? Would you get angrier, and call Ford arrogant, when they say, "Thank you for your business, customers, but we never said the Mustang had those capabilities, and we have no intention of retrofitting them, but we will take your opinions into account in designing our next vehicle?"
Analogies by their nature will never replicate the Titan/Mogul/6800 situation. However, we can discuss the 6800 situation itself, and I am waiting for your answer about the HTC advertisement and your not discovering the lack in the first 30 days of your device ownership.
its just bull**** when the the video playback on the 6700 is alot better than the titan. makes no sense at all and yes i feel ripped off.
im no expert..but from over here it looks like bakntyme just put all of you crybabies in your place
very well said bakntyme. perfect.
p.s. yeah im an asshole. but this asshole can read and troubleshoot and operate electronics all by my big self.
read these forums enough and you will start to think everyone in the world collectively never got out of elementary school
apologies where they are due. but some people are incredible helpless (this last comment has nothing to do with this thread im responding to the guy above who "called me out" for being an (admitted) asshole)
unless you guys can come up with some previous claim by HTC that the mogul was supposed to support this specific capability of the chip, i dont see how you guys can try to force anything out of them. I'm with bakntyme on this one.
Sure its pretty crappy that they put the hardware in there and didnt support it, and im no lawyer, but it doesnt seem like they would be under any legal obligation to support the video drivers.
watson540 said:
im no expert..but from over here it looks like bakntyme just put all of you crybabies in your place
very well said bakntyme. perfect.
p.s. yeah im an asshole. but this asshole can read and troubleshoot and operate electronics all by my big self.
read these forums enough and you will start to think everyone in the world collectively never got out of elementary school
apologies where they are due. but some people are incredible helpless (this last comment has nothing to do with this thread im responding to the guy above who "called me out" for being an (admitted) asshole)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although I appreciate the support, a more professional wording of it might help to keep from increasing the level of emotions and inflammation on this issue.
Unless google implements a way to track the force closings of applications (maybe even phone specific) and has a market for flawless programs and seperates the the ones which still need work, all of your application ideas will be stolen by the competitors working for the other OS's and as android takes off and the consumers feel the devices are too bugged, android will die, your work and learnings will be for nothing.
Anyone else agree?
lol no. show me a bugless device... Anyone use a Microsoft PC? Wow, that has lasted a long time with bugs and ways to track them.
There are ways and logs to capture errors and fix bugs. it happens every day
Cloned2 said:
Unless google implements a way to track the force closings of applications (maybe even phone specific) and has a market for flawless programs and seperates the the ones which still need work, all of your application ideas will be stolen by the competitors working for the other OS's and as android takes off and the consumers feel the devices are too bugged, android will die, your work and learnings will be for nothing.
Anyone else agree?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Welcome to the REAL world!
Cloned2 said:
Unless google implements a way to track the force closings of applications (maybe even phone specific) and has a market for flawless programs and seperates the the ones which still need work, all of your application ideas will be stolen by the competitors working for the other OS's and as android takes off and the consumers feel the devices are too bugged, android will die, your work and learnings will be for nothing.
Anyone else agree?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
are you an apple post bot?
before or after Locusts consume the Earth and the Anti-Christ rises to power taking his seat on the fiery throne?
Your urgent response
There are ways to protect your intellectual property, even if it's free of charge. If you are into money making, then try selling the service, instead of the product. It pays off way more, and is THE open-source state of mind (though it applies to anything, really).
Android does not fall into this category - hence why I always take it as a fun, extracurricular activity.
It will not die, it will live a long and prosperous life, because a million brains in bug tracking is far more effective, than a few developers, cracking on the thing to make a buck.
The former is fun, the later is not. hehehe.. Trust me
@Hepæstus: After, isn't that what OP suggests? The anti christ takes over, and Android dies, right?
By the by, I have a problem, the solution of which may help many of this community. You know shell scripting/process management/gtalkservice? Check it out if you got a minute.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=697594
I haven't protected it yet, so plz don't steal it! xD
It seems to me that the KINm phones (or atleast the TWOm) are the only product in a specific niche of the cell phone / smartphone market, namely they offer WiFi browsing w/o an expensive data plan.
I would suspect that there is a pretty big group of users who would want exactly that. But, they probably don't know the option exists, especially if Verizon doesn't really advertise this phone. (They don't even have it in Verizon stores that I have been to, only online, listed under feature phones). Of course, it's not really in Verizon's best interest to promote this, considering they _want_ you to pay for a data plan.
So, this leaves me feeling very uncertain whether this "relaunch" of the KIN phones will ever catch on?
Also, is anyone else on the board interested in this phone still? I thought Kin threads were fairly active, but maybe it's just me?
Jon
jon2012 said:
It seems to me that the KINm phones (or atleast the TWOm) are the only product in a specific niche of the cell phone / smartphone market, namely they offer WiFi browsing w/o an expensive data plan.
I would suspect that there is a pretty big group of users who would want exactly that. But, they probably don't know the option exists, especially if Verizon doesn't really advertise this phone. (They don't even have it in Verizon stores that I have been to, only online, listed under feature phones). Of course, it's not really in Verizon's best interest to promote this, considering they _want_ you to pay for a data plan.
So, this leaves me feeling very uncertain whether this "relaunch" of the KIN phones will ever catch on?
Also, is anyone else on the board interested in this phone still? I thought Kin threads were fairly active, but maybe it's just me?
Jon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that if Verizon would advertise this phone it would possibly catch on. As for the Kin in Verizon stores, that's actually where I got mine and I've seen Verizon's reps trying to persuade people into getting the phone.
The phone seems to be getting pretty good reviews and response from buyers, but like you said Verizon is doing a poor job of promoting it.
And there are a handful of us both here and on Microsoft's forum site that have been trying many different approaches, but unforturnately none of us are experts in routing phones. A few us have bricked phones now, and we still haven't made to much progress, but still hoping someone can make progress.
This link rates the twom as the best messaging phone.
Kin TwoM= Win!
I am switching to the kin twom from a HTC Thunderbolt. I have a xoom as well, so I really don't need to keep paying for data on my handset. I have had several android phones, and for that matter several winmo phones in the past. I am excited about this because this really is a great phone for a "feature phone". No data, but having wifi is really sweet. I want to hack it and port android to it, which may not be possible, but either way, I think this really is a win, especially if you have a tablet.
Spectredroid said:
I am excited about this because this really is a great phone for a "feature phone". No data, but having wifi is really sweet. I want to hack it and port android to it, which may not be possible, but either way, I think this really is a win, especially if you have a tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that depends on the point of view. For me, even if i'm pretty naughty with it, it isn't a great phone, caused in most part by the software..
- Software lags a lot (should not for the "few" resources that we use).
More if you take in account that we are using a tegra device with a 0'6Ghz CPU. My crappy PDA with 203mhz can play Age of empires mobile without lagging, and this phone can't just run the menu smoothly (sometimes). I smell bad optimization...
- The browser support for rtsp is kinda lame (no flash support and just redirection to mobile sites to a streaming protocol). Browser in general is pure **add your favourite badword here**.
- The wifi detection is barely ok, but several times it can't find the ESSID even if it's near it (@ my home wifi router) and you have to turn on, turn off the wifi till it awakes.
- Suffers from random reboots (if some software freezes). Happens to me sometimes, even with the phone playing the "i'm like a brick" game alone over my desk.
- It's battery is fastly drained by the OS, cause you cant close apps, and they are surely running in the background, like other windows ce OS's. If you open your browser after rebooting, it's there forever. If i could add only 1 app to a kin in the wooorld, i would add a battery/app ultraconfigurator to reduce so.
- Sometimes it can't even load some apps and shows a "loading..." window till it's... well loaded.
.....
On the other hand, the screen is pretty well done, imo. It detected my touchs almost perfect, whenever i tried.
At least, they solved the old bug that the original kin two had, where you set a wifi and can't reenter wifi settings cause the os hanged doing so (one or several reboots needed).
It would be so cool if it was sold unlocked & without contract for 100$. Then use dataplan with the company you want, and with installable apps.
I don't care about Carrier IQ or who did remove it, Carrier IQ is suppose to help sprint and sprint already has a network to track people and they own the network, they can look at your browsing history and text messages.
Hell they might keep log on calls but they might have limited access to your phone to check on the signal strengths and CIQ is suppose to help sprint get better coverage.
So please stop giving people false hope
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm interesting very interesting
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App
.... Did you guys see who was first ?
Removing it makes the device run faster with no ill side effects, so I'm in.
bigray327 said:
Removing it makes the device run faster with no ill side effects, so I'm in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That because of the Ext4, tweaks and Overclocking
bigray327 said:
Removing it makes the device run faster with no ill side effects, so I'm in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is there a comparison somewhere, or are we just assuming?
Serious question, not being sarcastic.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
BWFBezerk said:
Is there a comparison somewhere, or are we just assuming?
Serious question, not being sarcastic.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Systems and Frameworks with no CIQ scored higher in benchmarks back when we first started removing it, but it's been so long that I can't remember by how much.
Do we even know who is responsible maybe it was samsung and they do not have access to all that data like sprint does other than by using a program like CIQ. Not sure if its in other samsung phones but maybe sprint is the only one that let them include it?
Before people start jumping on the "Keep it" or "Remove it" bandwagons, they should probably educate themselves on the product. People can simply go to their website and inform themselves before making said decision (the company is pretty open about what their products do). I personally don't care if it is there or not. I don't believe Sprint is even taking advantage of the full capability of Carrier IQ ( Some of the logging and such is off by default).
On another note, Carrier IQ has the potential to collect metrics about much more the signal strength; this isn't the only purpose of the software. And depending on what it collects, how it collects, and how often, it can certainly lead to performance and battery degradation.
Finally, I think it would be smarter if Sprint was upfront about the benefits of such metric collecting software on their devices, AND gave the customer the ability to opt in or out. I actually opted into something similar back in my Windows Mobile days (albeit the company payed me each month for opting in. It was a few bucks each month, and basically covered the cost of my data plan). Software like this CAN BE BENEFICIAL!! My 2 cents...
Ryan
Benchmarks only help show improvements in tweaks imo. Real world my phone feels the same whether im hittin 2000 or 2500 on quadrant. Not to mention I saw 2600+ well before ciq removal goin back to one of the leaked froyo builds.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA Premium App
Ciq was not being used at all really.. but the service was running. Killing extra running services that are useless is always a good thing an noone can really argue that. The paranoia behind CIQ was propaganda for the most part. It has/had potential to be infringing, but sprint doesn't need it to track us or infringe on our privacy. I am certain that battery life, smoothness, and stability have all increased since removal. It's my opinion, and that's all that matters... my latest rom is by far the smoothest and most stable I've ever used. Is it noCIQ? Not entirely, but I will continue to remove it because I feel like its part of the equation.
So yea bull**** sorta, but it makes people feel good and it makes my phone feel good..
I'm with the noobnl about this CIQ paranoia. If you have an android phone, Google and Sprint already have your entire contact list, emails, all your locations, your list of apps, visited web sites, etc, WITHOUT using any spyware. As I understand it CIQ gives them lots of data about network parameters that help Sprint tune their network. I'm all for that.
I haven't seen a direct performance and battery life comparison between an identical rom with and without CIQ. I also don't care about benchmarks, I just want a phone that doesn't lag and has a battery that lasts all day.
Seems to me that if you are concerned about CIQ spying on you, you probably shouldn't use a smartphone in the first place.....maybe you shouldn't even carry a cell phone.
CIQ = Unproven threat
Built-in FM Radio = Vapor
Built-in TV-OUT = Vapor
EXT4 OFF over EXT4 ON/RFS = sacrifice stability for e-peen scores (lack of best practices mentality).
It probably does collect information that could benefit us, sprint, service, support, products ect. BUT, since it's off by default, it's not doing much, so its better in my opinion to have it removed.
Sent from my SPH-D700
As long as I've had ****ty 3g speeds and having to resend text multiple times because they failed to go through 2 or 3 times before I'm pretty convinced Sprint don't give 2 ****s about how good my service is. I'll go without CIQ anyday.
noobnl said:
I don't care about Carrier IQ or who did remove it, Carrier IQ is suppose to help sprint and sprint already has a network to track people and they own the network, they can look at your browsing history and text messages.
Hell they might keep log on calls but they might have limited access to your phone to check on the signal strengths and CIQ is suppose to help sprint get better coverage.
So please stop giving people false hope
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol thanks noobni I like your style just read the request bout you helping with cm7 an the discussion about ciq then I saw this thread had too laugh.
I honestly don't think it's as malicious as the ACS team put it, but it does slow things down (even if by a little). And the less services running in the background for myself, the better.
I'm not sure where I stand I see no performance improvement with no ciq. How ever sprint hasn't stolen my identity either so mabye its not such a big deal
Just thought I would throw in my 2cents on this topic.
Facts we publicly know:
CarrierIQ has access to every aspect of interaction between the device and the user.
CarrierIQ has the ability to log all data it has access to.
CarrierIQ has the ability to transmit all data it has access to.
Removal of CarrierIQ, as stated by both Sprint & Samsung, will void your warranty.
What Software packages of this type are capable of:
Logging and transmission of data may be enabled without notification of the user at any time via alpha-numeric string sent via SMS or MMS, via the CDMA Network, WiFi or Bluetooth.
The ability to disable geo-tagging in the latest FROYO release. Now CarrierIQ has the ability to know where you take your pictures. It may even have the ability to transmit said pictures along with its embedded GPS information.
It has the ability to monitor call information, tower location, signal strength, did the call drop, etc., to improve the Sprint network. But CarrierIQ is so invasive that it has the ability to also know, what number you were talking to, what name if any it is associated with in your contacts, how often and how long you talk to that number, are they also your friend on social networking sites if you sync with those sites. Why does Sprint need this level of "metrics"?
Does it know whats on your calendar? How many alarms you set and what for? Why does Sprint need to know this?
Every application you use, the type, how often and for how long. Why?
Every key stroke via hardware or software based keyboards. Every every text message you send or receive, every user name, every password can now be logged.
The possibilities are almost endless.
As we all know, Sprint is not the most "secure" wireless carrier. Sprint's past is riddled with employee's "stealing" customer information and fraud. Can you actually tell me with a straight face that you trust them with this type of invasive capability? Or look at it another way, can you trust the source code, the or those who hack for malicious purposes? Think identity theft, think personal and family safety.
I'm not worried about Sprint gathering info. Anyone with a smart/cell phone, internet, cable tv, or walks outside is already having their activities monitored. But I put custom ROMs on my phones because I want a streamlined experience that I like. Take out what I don't need and give me only what I want. If CIQ were that beneficial to Sprint, they would tell us why we should keep it in our ROMs. They know it's been taken out in a lot of ROMs, they're not blind. As far as I can see it is one less running service and that means better performance and battery. I consider it bloatware. If you're gonna argue that CIQ removal is unnecessary, then so are the Sprint apps noone uses..
Also, the EVO has CIQ, so it's not just a Samsung thing. And the noCIQ ROM I have on my wife's EVO runs smooth as butter and has excellent battery life. Of course it's more than just the noCIQ, but every little bit helps.
Seems to me the only people that would argue against CIQ removal are Sprint advocates and those jealous they didn't figure out how to do it.
So hypothetically is there any way to enable only the basic 'metrics' collecting as it pertains only to signal strength, etc, and remove the more specific data mining? My disgust with all surveillance aside, I think this is an issue because this is created by a third party, therefore I am guessing they have access to anything it could access, even if they dont use it already, who are THEY selling this to? I really dont think this has a lot to do with sprint and homeland insecurity breaking your door down for whatever it is you do, but more for the typical corporate data mining for marketing, and other BS... kind of like how FB's ads are predictive based on your friends, likes, etc. This is what I would like to lose. I also really doubt they cannot collect this information using servers on their side, instead of making our phones do all the work (if they were polled), we all know all carriers, isp's , etc can track and record pretty much everything we do, google does it, but thats part of the reason for having an android. As far as law enforcement goes, they can already get anything that would be relevant in a real court on their side, now analyzing your personality and behavior and schedule is the crap that 'law enforcement' has taken too far... think 1984.
Anyways, so I guess it boils down to this, is there a way to keep only the signal strength features, IF they cause us little to nothing as far as battery or performance? I dont mind that stuff, but the more invasive aspects, I dont like making it any easier for a pig or marketing douche to figure out how to better sell to me until they decide to lock me up I have seen CIQ removed in parts (Chris41g?), but it would be nice to have a breakdown of what is kept and what is removed (Chris if you already have, sorry haven't looked at your thread lateley, but might today ).
oh, and final bit, the reason I am so skeptical about the third party aspect is that that enables corporations, and the government, to point the finger at someone else, and in Govts case, access info they would need a warrant for otherwise (even if they only had to get it after the fact)... this is how FBI and CIA share information, the 'patriot' acts and the others that went with it pretty much set this up, we dont really have privicy anymore, unless you wanna join Ice-T and the lo-Teks.
Read here.... http://www.wpcentral.com/mercenary-hackers-hackingteam-claim-full-control-over-windows-phone. Not sure how to feel about this??? If true then there's definately hope for unlocking more WP8 handsets yet at the same time with all the NSA crap going on and concerns about privacy and security...WTF??? Reading around various forums and sites I am actually surprised how many people are NOT interested in unlocking their devices naming security as their number one reason for switching to the WP8 platform. In all the time I've spent here on the forums, with the exception of a few shady posts by no one of any consequence, I have never seen any maliciousness in the the search for exploits and attempts to unlock devices. If anything it almost seems like a game between devs and MS/OEMS and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if some of the devs here were offered opportunities by those same entities; if not then our gain, MS's loss. However this article got me thinking about the possibilities and implications of any exploits or unlocks found and just wondering what others thought... As for my mindset....I paid for my device with hard earned cash therefore it should be mine to F up as I see fit and I will deal with the consequences like a big boy.
Microsoft buying Apple is much more plausible that what is in there.
Part of having a secret surveillance plan is to actually keep the plan secret.
I doubt the group "responsible" for this would post their achievements on the internet, provided they are supported by the government.
tonbonz said:
Read here.... http://www.wpcentral.com/mercenary-hackers-hackingteam-claim-full-control-over-windows-phone. ... As for my mindset....I paid for my device with hard earned cash therefore it should be mine to F up as I see fit and I will deal with the consequences like a big boy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You and folk like you are in the insignificant minority of the population
There are far to many people that will quite happily blame MS / OEMs / Networks for any and all problems regardless of who actually broke it.
The other thing is said networks / OEMs don't want you arsing about with their phone, for example, ATT take great pride in being able to charge you for a service that is free, if the phone was unlocked that would stop and ATT would be out of pocket. They pull out of WP arena and rollocks your fathers uncle, MS loses market share.
it sucks, but such is life, now that MS has locked down the market place with from what I can tell is completely impervious to abuse, I doubt very much they could give a $h!t what you do to the platform and if you can unlock it, they do however care about market share which is where the networks come in...
Oh, that's pretty plausible, actually. Even if you assume it's for every device on every version of the OS, I'd still be willing to believe it. Microsoft has done well on security with WP8, hardening the OS (NT in general) over the last decade or so to remove vulns, and using pretty good sandboxing of WP8 apps to minimize attack surface. With that said, there are still items being found, and patched (at least on the PC), regularly in Windows. Some of those vulnerabilities will be present and reachable on WP8 as well, and given how slowly phone updates roll out, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a known but un-patched issue being exploited. For that matter, it could be a true zero-day - something Microsoft is completely unaware of, at least when the exploit was first used - although I think that's less likely.
dazza9075 said:
You and folk like you are in the insignificant minority of the population
There are far to many people that will quite happily blame MS / OEMs / Networks for any and all problems regardless of who actually broke it.
The other thing is said networks / OEMs don't want you arsing about with their phone, for example, ATT take great pride in being able to charge you for a service that is free, if the phone was unlocked that would stop and ATT would be out of pocket. They pull out of WP arena and rollocks your fathers uncle, MS loses market share.
it sucks, but such is life, now that MS has locked down the market place with from what I can tell is completely impervious to abuse, I doubt very much they could give a $h!t what you do to the platform and if you can unlock it, they do however care about market share which is where the networks come in...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm used to being the minority, in a world full of sheep I'd much rather be a wolf, but insignificant? Harsh... Of course the security of the platform is probably the biggest selling point MS had to offer the networks and with perfect timing. I'm sure it's helped increase market shares when everyone's worried about keeping their data secure. As for the marketplace, I am constantly amazed at the apps being created but use very few myself. My kid spends more time on my Lumia than I do; using the Kid's Room feature to play games. Another brilliant "security" feature and one of the first features I point out to any parent asking about the platform. Anyways, knowing the work done here and intentions behind it, seeing that some group possibly gained full access to the platform simply for the purpose of "spying" for anyone that can pay their fees kinda p***ed me off and wondered what others thoughts were...
"Mercenary hackers claim full control over Windows Phone"
and my grandpa told me he had sex with Lili Marleen... but who know... maybe has maybe not
tonbonz said:
I'm used to being the minority, in a world full of sheep I'd much rather be a wolf, but insignificant? Harsh... Of course the security of the platform is probably the biggest selling point MS had to offer the networks and with perfect timing. I'm sure it's helped increase market shares when everyone's worried about keeping their data secure. As for the marketplace, I am constantly amazed at the apps being created but use very few myself. My kid spends more time on my Lumia than I do; using the Kid's Room feature to play games. Another brilliant "security" feature and one of the first features I point out to any parent asking about the platform. Anyways, knowing the work done here and intentions behind it, seeing that some group possibly gained full access to the platform simply for the purpose of "spying" for anyone that can pay their fees kinda p***ed me off and wondered what others thoughts were...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
aye, we are significant in our world but there are a lot more numpties out there then there are of us
GoodDayToDie said:
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a known but un-patched issue being exploited..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree with you but until I see something concrete these are only words...or like I can say in Italian:
fatti, non pugnette!:laugh: (facts, no word please)
Oh, to be sure. Still, it actually gives me a little hope for finding a universal "jailbreak" hack... although I'd prefer one that isn't remotely exploitable.