Carrier policies, any insiders - Verizon Galaxy Note 4 General

Carrier policies, any insiders - Verizon Galaxy Note 4 General

Gonna try and make this short and try and not get attacked or flamed.
I've done retail and sales, managed many big retail stores and even been a district manager.
In my business, you buy something, you own it, it's yours to do whatever you want. Also, there is a return policy and depending on the issue policy can be bent in a put out the fire situation.
The phone business is not like this and I don't understand. If I buy a phone, it is mine, I own therefore why couldn't I do what I wanted. I should be able to wipe my butt with it if I wanted to.
So why do carriers treat it differently. They have the policy about rooting, so why not let the buyer do it, take the risk, and just enforce the policy.
Especially considering we buy it, it's ours and we should be able to do what we want with things we own. Just my opinion because it is retail sales which I know like the back of my hand, but the mobile side of it baffles me.
Anybody an employee or former employee who can explain why mobile phones is one of the only things you can buy but never feel like you completely own it.
Just seems not right coming from years in retail with many many companies.

The problem lies in the warranty and being able to take advantages of services without paying.
Instance 1: A noob roots their phone, bricks it, and doesn't know how to get it back to normal. They call Verizon and say their phone just died. Verizon has to spend time and money sending a replacement.
Instance 2: We have unlimited. We root and unlock free tethering. They lose on "potential" revenues. (Although we do have foxfi on the play store, but its still slow as it goes through a vpn.
I do agree that we should have full control of our devices though. Unfortunately, we can only make changes with out dollars.

Yeah I can see that but as far as warranty they will check for root so that shouldn't be a factor. I'm sure at this point that is the first thing they check.
They have to know that tethering can be exploited either way.
And my understanding is they don't care and don't make money on the phones but their service charges.
I would encourage people to root if I were them because if they did it right they would make more profit because they wouldn't have to spend money to fix it forcing buyers to have no choice but buy another.
I know it will not change but as a person familiar with making money in retail they could increase revenu .
Not counting with them having for the most part the best service and networks thousands of people would flock there to get an unlocked verizon phone.
Busines wise, if done properly they would make a killing changing their stance

sprintuser1977 said:
Yeah I can see that but as far as warranty they will check for root so that shouldn't be a factor. I'm sure at this point that is the first thing they check.
They have to know that tethering can be exploited either way.
And my understanding is they don't care and don't make money on the phones but their service charges.
I would encourage people to root if I were them because if they did it right they would make more profit because they wouldn't have to spend money to fix it forcing buyers to have no choice but buy another.
I know it will not change but as a person familiar with making money in retail they could increase revenu .
Not counting with them having for the most part the best service and networks thousands of people would flock there to get an unlocked verizon phone.
Busines wise, if done properly they would make a killing changing their stance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although i agree with everything that was said by you, the people calling the shots are probably way too old to understand that there's always a way through everything (for example root in order to get free hot spot working). The other problem is i would assume is that they can't always prove a phone was rooted. Let's say someone was trying to flash a custom rom and accidentally flashed the system leaving only the boot recovery present with no OS and they didn't know how to Odin back to stock, Verizon can't prove that the phone was rooted. For all they know maybe the user was performing an update and something happened.
Whatever the case... I wish we had full access over our devices :crying:

sprintuser1977 said:
Gonna try and make this short and try and not get attacked or flamed.
I've done retail and sales, managed many big retail stores and even been a district manager.
In my business, you buy something, you own it, it's yours to do whatever you want. Also, there is a return policy and depending on the issue policy can be bent in a put out the fire situation.
The phone business is not like this and I don't understand. If I buy a phone, it is mine, I own therefore why couldn't I do what I wanted. I should be able to wipe my butt with it if I wanted to.
So why do carriers treat it differently. They have the policy about rooting, so why not let the buyer do it, take the risk, and just enforce the policy.
Especially considering we buy it, it's ours and we should be able to do what we want with things we own. Just my opinion because it is retail sales which I know like the back of my hand, but the mobile side of it baffles me.
Anybody an employee or former employee who can explain why mobile phones is one of the only things you can buy but never feel like you completely own it.
Just seems not right coming from years in retail with many many companies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can do what you want with it...but you bought a device that is locked down to increase sales to the Enterprise and Military community. You have the option of buying a developer's edition. You can certainly wipe your butt with it as you mentioned. As for your inability to root it...that is not the carrier telling you what you can't do with it...that comes in voiding the warranty...but look at it as buying a television and not being able to make a transmitter out of it. Of course you could...but it would require a lot of work and knowledge and also void the warranty. Bootloaders have been broken before and root obtained...again...with a lot of work and knowledge. The device works as advertised when sold. If you choose to purchase a device from a carrier with a history of locking them down (S4, Note 3, S5 and now the S3 with it's updates) then you are choosing to support what they are selling. Now as it is a communications device and you are in the US, there are things you cannot do with it per Federal law as stated by the FCC. But that is a whole other can of worms.

dapimpinj said:
The problem lies in the warranty and being able to take advantages of services without paying.
Instance 1: A noob roots their phone, bricks it, and doesn't know how to get it back to normal. They call Verizon and say their phone just died. Verizon has to spend time and money sending a replacement.
Instance 2: We have unlimited. We root and unlock free tethering. They lose on "potential" revenues. (Although we do have foxfi on the play store, but its still slow as it goes through a vpn.
I do agree that we should have full control of our devices though. Unfortunately, we can only make changes with out dollars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Foxfi works pretty good for me. Going thru a vpn doesn't slow it down for me

my_handle said:
Foxfi works pretty good for me. Going thru a vpn doesn't slow it down for me
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good to hear! It must have been my location. I get 5 bars of LTE at home. I'll try it there.

KennyG123 said:
You can do what you want with it...but you bought a device that is locked down to increase sales to the Enterprise and Military community. You have the option of buying a developer's edition. You can certainly wipe your butt with it as you mentioned. As for your inability to root it...that is not the carrier telling you what you can't do with it...that comes in voiding the warranty...but look at it as buying a television and not being able to make a transmitter out of it. Of course you could...but it would require a lot of work and knowledge and also void the warranty. Bootloaders have been broken before and root obtained...again...with a lot of work and knowledge. The device works as advertised when sold. If you choose to purchase a device from a carrier with a history of locking them down (S4, Note 3, S5 and now the S3 with it's updates) then you are choosing to support what they are selling. Now as it is a communications device and you are in the US, there are things you cannot do with it per Federal law as stated by the FCC. But that is a whole other can of worms.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please look up the Verizon Note 4 on Verizon, and show me where in describing the product it states the phone is locked and you can not edit certain things.
I may have missed it but I saw no where on the specifications or feature list where it says that? Only a person who is familiar with rooting or bootloaders and such would know.
As far as warranty, as I said, it's a policy and if I choose to break it that is my choice.

sprintuser1977 said:
Please look up the Verizon Note 4 on Verizon, and show me where in describing the product it states the phone is locked and you can not edit certain things.
I may have missed it but I saw no where on the specifications or feature list where it says that? Only a person who is familiar with rooting or bootloaders and such would know.
As far as warranty, as I said, it's a policy and if I choose to break it that is my choice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not to sound obnoxious but please look up ANY phone and show me where it says that you can root it and it has an unlocked bootloader and you are welcome to change anything you want? You are not brand new...you know what Verizon has been doing for years. There is nothing stopping you from using the phone exactly as advertised in the manual and specifications. Rooting is not an approved use of the phone and offers an extreme security breach of the software..so why would any carrier endorse it or even need to mention if you could or couldn't. Anyone that has been around for more than a year, knows that is what the developer edition is for and should be grateful that Verizon even offers that option. Also knowing you are not brand new, you would know that less than 1% of Verizon customers even know what rooting is. You see the trend, you have choices yet you still chose to support Verizon.

The original point is being ignored.
Simply put if we buy something we should be able to do whatever we want with it.
All retail is like this except phones.
All the details and other miscellaneous stuff is besides the point.
I'm just saying if we own it, we should own it

sprintuser1977 said:
The original point is being ignored.
Simply put if we buy something we should be able to do whatever we want with it.
All retail is like this except phones.
All the details and other miscellaneous stuff is besides the point.
I'm just saying if we own it, we should own it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but I guess I am missing the point. What is it that you wish to do with this phone that you can do with say...a television, that is listed in the specifications and features of the product you purchased?

To think that executives of Verizon are oblivious to Rooting or custom roms, you are mistaken. Just because they are older does not mean they are dumb. Phones are locked down for one reason: reduce liability on Verizon.
---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------
KennyG123 said:
Sorry, but I guess I am missing the point. What is it that you wish to do with this phone that you can do with say...a television, that is listed in the specifications and features of the product you purchased?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I like this. Phones are locked down to reduce liability and cost of fixing it. This is why companies like HTC will unlock your bootloader while voiding your warranty.

I can't explain it anymore simply, sorry. Here is how it could simply be done:
-I buy the phone
-I want to root the phone
-I call Verizon, tell them I want to root
-They inform me If I do, it voids the warranty and I'm out $700 if I break it
-Ok, i will take that risk
- Verizon notes the account of this, therefore no tricks on cheating the warranty policy and they unlock it
Obviously over simplified, but general idea is they should have a way For us to request it, Note it, and allow us to do it.
Anyway, regardless of how they do it I don't care, it's the fact you buy a 800 dollar phone, if I want to risk breaking it and losing $800, that should be OK as its my property.
Anyway, not going to try and get into a back and forth. I got people's take on it and that's good enough for me.
Thanks everyone for your input.

chriskader said:
To think that executives of Verizon are oblivious to Rooting or custom roms, you are mistaken. Just because they are older does not mean they are dumb. Phones are locked down for one reason: reduce liability on Verizon.
---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------
I like this. Phones are locked down to reduce liability and cost of fixing it. This is why companies like HTC will unlock your bootloader while voiding your warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, Verizon chose to lock down the phones to get huge corporate and military contracts by showing their version of the phone is the most secure. Of course AT&T is also doing the same fighting for those contracts.
sprintuser1977 said:
I can't explain it anymore simply, sorry. Here is how it could simply be done:
-I buy the phone
-I want to root the phone
-I call Verizon, tell them I want to root
-They inform me If I do, it voids the warranty and I'm out $700 if I break it
-Ok, i will take that risk
- Verizon notes the account of this, therefore no tricks on cheating the warranty policy and they unlock it
Obviously over simplified, but general idea is they should have a way For us to request it, Note it, and allow us to do it.
Anyway, regardless of how they do it I don't care, it's the fact you buy a 800 dollar phone, if I want to risk breaking it and losing $800, that should be OK as its my property.
Anyway, not going to try and get into a back and forth. I got people's take on it and that's good enough for me.
Thanks everyone for your input.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand and there is a thread in one of the Verizon Sammy phones...Note 3 I think...where a member actually discussed with Verizon executive services the possibility of the same thing HTC did (on other carriers since Verizon locked that door too). I believe the thread is "How much would you pay for unlocking the bootloader" or something like that. He was going to get an idea of how much people would pay for this code direct from Verizon. I think the majority was $25 atm. At least he was pitching the idea to Verizon and they were hearing him out. Perhaps more can do the same?
I was just trying to say that I did not understand how the inability to root would make you feel like the phone was not yours. The PS3 systems if you play online are locked down exactly the same...you jailbreak it and you cannot get on the Playstation network to play online. So it is not just cell phones that do not allow you to do more than the manufacturer promised. I also was stating that you can certainly root and unlock it...if you had the knowledge to do so. I think we just misunderstood each other.

No biggie. I can understand all points of view and in no way was I trying to disregard or disrespect yours.
If it came across that way I apologize.
This is my first verizon phone (it was my only option due to several reasons) and I am amazed at how adamantly opposed to unlocking phones they are.
I've rooted over a dozen phones and this is the first one that I would like to root but it's good enough that if I can't I still love it

sprintuser1977 said:
I can't explain it anymore simply, sorry. Here is how it could simply be done:
-I buy the phone
-I want to root the phone
-I call Verizon, tell them I want to root
-They inform me If I do, it voids the warranty and I'm out $700 if I break it
-Ok, i will take that risk
- Verizon notes the account of this, therefore no tricks on cheating the warranty policy and they unlock it
Obviously over simplified, but general idea is they should have a way For us to request it, Note it, and allow us to do it.
Anyway, regardless of how they do it I don't care, it's the fact you buy a 800 dollar phone, if I want to risk breaking it and losing $800, that should be OK as its my property.
Anyway, not going to try and get into a back and forth. I got people's take on it and that's good enough for me.
Thanks everyone for your input.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I could understand if you pay 800 but seriously of your gonna do that get dev edition as well most ppl get the phone subsidised for less then half of what the phone is woth off of contract so technically you don't own the phone as well you are right there is no where in the vzw policy that says rooting voids your warranty if you read all the rules but it is one of thoes unwritten policy's all companys go buy

jolly_roger_hook said:
I could understand if you pay 800 but seriously of your gonna do that get dev edition as well most ppl get the phone subsidised for less then half of what the phone is woth off of contract so technically you don't own the phone as well you are right there is no where in the vzw policy that says rooting voids your warranty if you read all the rules but it is one of thoes unwritten policy's all companys go buy
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is one of the reasons also, the fact that many phones are subsidized through a carrier, and you really don't own them 100% unless you see the contract out to the end, or pay the ETF. I still agree that the customer should be able to buy out the contract, or void their warranty and accept liability themselves for the express purpose of obtaining an unlock code to root/ROM, etc... I think that Verizon may actually go this route some day, just not any time soon.
If I had the ability to not support Verizon and their tight locking policies, I would. But, like many other people, I'm in a region where the only reliable 4G LTE connection is Verizon and Verizon Alone. I had the unlocked Tmobile Note 3 on both Tmobile AND AT&T and my signal was horrible so I was basically forced into getting a Verizon phone for the stability.
I'd like to see the government step in and loosen the grip that carriers have on consumers, though that would mean the end of subsidized phone sales, and maybe the new edge, next programs as well. Tmobile has the right idea, but once they are the size of Verizon, I bet they tighten their rules too...

KennyG123 said:
No, Verizon chose to lock down the phones to get huge corporate and military contracts by showing their version of the phone is the most secure. Of course AT&T is also doing the same fighting for those contracts.
I understand and there is a thread in one of the Verizon Sammy phones...Note 3 I think...where a member actually discussed with Verizon executive services the possibility of the same thing HTC did (on other carriers since Verizon locked that door too). I believe the thread is "How much would you pay for unlocking the bootloader" or something like that. He was going to get an idea of how much people would pay for this code direct from Verizon. I think the majority was $25 atm. At least he was pitching the idea to Verizon and they were hearing him out. Perhaps more can do the same?
I was just trying to say that I did not understand how the inability to root would make you feel like the phone was not yours. The PS3 systems if you play online are locked down exactly the same...you jailbreak it and you cannot get on the Playstation network to play online. So it is not just cell phones that do not allow you to do more than the manufacturer promised. I also was stating that you can certainly root and unlock it...if you had the knowledge to do so. I think we just misunderstood each other.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not agree about contracts. Phones can be sold to the government that are locked down, KNOX EMM helps with this substantially.
The ability to unlock my bootloader, however, can be sold or marketed along side that. Phones can be wiped when the BL is unlocked officially (fastbootx, etc). Instead, the dev community is forced to find exploits, thus weakening the phones "secure market value". Official unlock that wipes phone or an unofficial exploit that puts all phones at risk? I would rather have the option to officially unlock and void my warranty. However, I understand the stance of some carriers and manufactures for locking it down. Reduce liability for busted phones.
Government agencies also encrypt phones and discipline unauthorized usage.

chriskader said:
I do not agree about contracts. Phones can be sold to the government that are locked down, KNOX EMM helps with this substantially.
The ability to unlock my bootloader, however, can be sold or marketed along side that. Phones can be wiped when the BL is unlocked officially (fastbootx, etc). Instead, the dev community is forced to find exploits, thus weakening the phones "secure market value". Official unlock that wipes phone or an unofficial exploit that puts all phones at risk? I would rather have the option to officially unlock and void my warranty. However, I understand the stance of some carriers and manufactures for locking it down. Reduce liability for busted phones.
Government agencies also encrypt phones and discipline unauthorized usage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since the community that roots their phones and actually breaks them and returns for warranty is probably in the neighborhood of 0.1% I doubt that has much impact on the decision of Verizon and AT&T to lock down the bootloader....if that was successfully the idea Sprint and T-Mobile would have done the same. I agree that for you Verizon users an alternative of paying to unlock your bootloader and listing the warranty as void would be a great offering...petition Verizon to consider that.

KennyG123 said:
Since the community that roots their phones and actually breaks them and returns for warranty is probably in the neighborhood of 0.1% I doubt that has much impact on the decision of Verizon and AT&T to lock down the bootloader....if that was successfully the idea Sprint and T-Mobile would have done the same. I agree that for you Verizon users an alternative of paying to unlock your bootloader and listing the warranty as void would be a great offering...petition Verizon to consider that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The petition thing is a great idea , and as I also said they could easily implement a way to offer it and track it.
The biggest problem with this whole issue is education as you are right, most people are not aware of exactly the reasons of rooting, what it even means, what they are giving up with bloated and locked down phones, or anything related to just how much privacy they do not have. I have thrown out information to people on my Facebook page and they had no clue.
As far as starting a petition, that is something I have never done before.
Does anyone have a suggestion for starting one, where to start it, or any info at all?
I would definitely do it if someone will head me in the right direction

Related

I thought we were boycotting Motorola.

Did no one watch XDA developer TV last week. We are suppose to send Motorola a message by not buying or developing for their products so they start playing by the community way. Releasing source code, updating devices that they promised to update, etc. Just saying if we are going to work as a community we should all follow the advice of others that are recommending a complete boycott of said devices. What do you think?

INTEL INSIDE. X86. Will buy this device when devs start to release roms. And motorola is changed i think, they relased sources. INTEL, you can unlock bootloader,INTEL, and they use intel processors INSIDE! lol
Trolling mode off: Tell me, why i have to boycot motorola? Best materials, best signal strenght, best radio, best SoC. They relased sources, the opened a site wich in you can unlock the bootloader. Please explain.
(sorry for my terrible english)

vvveith said:
Did no one watch XDA developer TV last week. We are suppose to send Motorola a message by not buying or developing for their products so they start playing by the community way. Releasing source code, updating devices that they promised to update, etc. Just saying if we are going to work as a community we should all follow the advice of others that are recommending a complete boycott of said devices. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Motorola gave 5 free RAZR M Developer editions to US power-users (including myself and P3Droid).
Motorola has always released their source code for kernels... more timely than some but still could use some upload checkers hehe.
I got jellybean leaks for the RAZR M and RAZR HD.. and hopefully soon for RAZR i.
My bootloader is unlocked...
Boycotting this doesn't make sense. The old Motorola yes. Verizon yes. The new Motorola? Not so much. Every device released since they announced their unlock program has an option to be unlocked, and for Verizon they had to make a separate Developer Edition since they are the bad guys here. If anyone should be boycotted its Verizon for requiring locked bootloaders for retail devices and killing unlimited data.
Cheers

You can boycott them if you want, but I'll continue to buy Motorola devices. They rival HTC in build quality, and the radios can't be matched. Plus, they actually make form factors that I want. Motorola was the only one to make a portrait QWERTY with decent specs (and they were the first at all, as far as I can remember). That gave me 2 more years before I had to make the switch to a stupid slab. Now, they're the only ones making a small device with high end specs. Samsung's attempt at that, announced on Thursday, is a joke.

If all on xda boycotted Motorola I doubt they would notice? Anyway, no use cutting your nose off to spite your face. I certainly agree that their radios are by far better than their competitors. Now under the wing of Google I'm hoping they have changed. Time will tell!
Sent from my XT890 using xda premium

I watched this video.
paul89rulez said:
INTEL INSIDE. X86. Will buy this device when devs start to release roms. And motorola is changed i think, they relased sources. INTEL, you can unlock bootloader,INTEL, and they use intel processors INSIDE! lol
Trolling mode off: Tell me, why i have to boycot motorola? Best materials, best signal strenght, best radio, best SoC. They relased sources, the opened a site wich in you can unlock the bootloader. Please explain.
(sorry for my terrible english)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I watched this video and always figured that the host was more informed of behind the scene information then I was. So now am I to believe that what he says is not based on fact? Does anyone censor these video hosts to make sure what they say is actually based in reality? I always turn to the community here to decide if I should invest in a certain product or app. I read countless user reviews and listen to XDA developer TV to make a final buying decision. I think that people that are more in the public eye as representatives of the community should be accountable for the information the are allowed to share. I guess this host just has a lot of hot air based in fantasy? That's all I was commenting about, He must be very misinformed. Sad really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7HrYgO6uP4&feature=relmfu

vvveith said:
I watched this video and always figured that the host was more informed of behind the scene information then I was. So now am I to believe that what he says is not based on fact? Does anyone censor these video hosts to make sure what they say is actually based in reality? I always turn to the community here to decide if I should invest in a certain product or app. I read countless user reviews and listen to XDA developer TV to make a final buying decision. I think that people that are more in the public eye as representatives of the community should be accountable for the information the are allowed to share. I guess this host just has a lot of hot air based in fantasy? That's all I was commenting about, He must be very misinformed. Sad really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7HrYgO6uP4&feature=relmfu
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the information he gave is public, so he's not any more informed than any of the rest of us. He's only more informed than those who don't follow tech news, and those people don't care and weren't going to boycott anyway. Also, all his information is not completely accurate. The $100 rebate is not only for Verizon customers. The list includes several phones that are not Verizon phones. You can verify that for yourself here.
Ultimately, though, he's not misinformed. Motorola did lock bootloaders, they did push updates to an even later date, and they did cancel the updates for a few phones. He just has a different reaction to the information than I, and many others, do. He believes we should boycott Motorola to get them to change. As somebody who has an avenue to get their opinion out there, of course he's going to put his opinion out there. Personally, I think boycotting Verizon would be a better solution, because it's pretty clear that they are 90% of the problem. The new RAZR M/i and RAZR HD are only locked down on Verizon. In every other country they've been released in, they are unlockable. Motorola really doesn't care if you unlock your bootloader or not, because if you do, they don't have to warranty your phone. Verizon, though, for whatever reason, does seem to care.
The truth is, there will never be a widespread boycott of either Motorola or Verizon for this issue. For a boycott to be effective, you have to have a very large number of people upset about something. The number of people upset about locked bootloaders and a lack of updates is pretty low in the grand scheme of things. Most customers have no idea what a bootloader even is, and couldn't care less if they got an update or not. Then there's the fact that Verizon sells far more than just Motorola devices, so even if every Verizon customer that was pissed about the Motorola devices decided to boycott Verizon, it still wouldn't be a majority of those 100+ million customers.

Thank you, Very WELL said!!
freak4dell said:
All the information he gave is public, so he's not any more informed than any of the rest of us. He's only more informed than those who don't follow tech news, and those people don't care and weren't going to boycott anyway. Also, all his information is not completely accurate. The $100 rebate is not only for Verizon customers. The list includes several phones that are not Verizon phones. You can verify that for yourself here.
Ultimately, though, he's not misinformed. Motorola did lock bootloaders, they did push updates to an even later date, and they did cancel the updates for a few phones. He just has a different reaction to the information than I, and many others, do. He believes we should boycott Motorola to get them to change. As somebody who has an avenue to get their opinion out there, of course he's going to put his opinion out there. Personally, I think boycotting Verizon would be a better solution, because it's pretty clear that they are 90% of the problem. The new RAZR M/i and RAZR HD are only locked down on Verizon. In every other country they've been released in, they are unlockable. Motorola really doesn't care if you unlock your bootloader or not, because if you do, they don't have to warranty your phone. Verizon, though, for whatever reason, does seem to care.
The truth is, there will never be a widespread boycott of either Motorola or Verizon for this issue. For a boycott to be effective, you have to have a very large number of people upset about something. The number of people upset about locked bootloaders and a lack of updates is pretty low in the grand scheme of things. Most customers have no idea what a bootloader even is, and couldn't care less if they got an update or not. Then there's the fact that Verizon sells far more than just Motorola devices, so even if every Verizon customer that was pissed about the Motorola devices decided to boycott Verizon, it still wouldn't be a majority of those 100+ million customers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that's some information I can rap my head around. However, let me add one thing that Verizon does seem to care about besides money: They are one of the only service providers I have found that blocks text scam premium service providers. I recently received a text from some supposed event notifications service that I did not solicit. I of course paid no attention to it and deleted the text off my phone. When I was about to pay my bill I noticed an irregularity in the amount. $9.99 charged for a monthly membership fee. After notifying T Mobile of the fraud, they credited my account and told me if I wanted to block such services that I had to pay them $9.99 a month to have that feature. Or I could accept a block on all messages that come through their premium text services for free. I opted for the second and all of my important financial institutions were than blocked as well. After doing research on the web I found millions of cases of this same thing and the only provider not to have any complaints about it was Verizon! I was thinking of switching over to them when my term with T Mobile ends. But now that you have informed me of something else, I guess I'll stay away from them as well. Any other information that you can share would be very much appreciated. I know that we actually vote with our cash so even though it seems like one person is a small amount of revenue that won't be missed, when millions of us make the same decision I believe it does have an impact. Who knows? I guess I'll renew with T Mobile because it seems like no matter which service provider you choose, there always will be some shady business practices going on. Guess you have to choice the least of two evils, kind of like voting for a president. To bad XDA does not have a mobile provider of it's own with it's own devices as well. LOL

vvveith said:
Now that's some information I can rap my head around. However, let me add one thing that Verizon does seem to care about besides money: They are one of the only service providers I have found that blocks text scam premium service providers. I recently received a text from some supposed event notifications service that I did not solicit. I of course paid no attention to it and deleted the text off my phone. When I was about to pay my bill I noticed an irregularity in the amount. $9.99 charged for a monthly membership fee. After notifying T Mobile of the fraud, they credited my account and told me if I wanted to block such services that I had to pay them $9.99 a month to have that feature. Or I could accept a block on all messages that come through their premium text services for free. I opted for the second and all of my important financial institutions were than blocked as well. After doing research on the web I found millions of cases of this same thing and the only provider not to have any complaints about it was Verizon! I was thinking of switching over to them when my term with T Mobile ends. But now that you have informed me of something else, I guess I'll stay away from them as well. Any other information that you can share would be very much appreciated. I know that we actually vote with our cash so even though it seems like one person is a small amount of revenue that won't be missed, when millions of us make the same decision I believe it does have an impact. Who knows? I guess I'll renew with T Mobile because it seems like no matter which service provider you choose, there always will be some shady business practices going on. Guess you have to choice the least of two evils, kind of like voting for a president. To bad XDA does not have a mobile provider of it's own with it's own devices as well. LOL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm...I didn't know that about T-Mobile's service. I have that block on my account, too, since I got a fraudulent $9.99 charge a couple months ago. I don't really subscribe to texts from many places, but it sucks if I don't have the ability to.

I had them unblock me again!
freak4dell said:
Hmm...I didn't know that about T-Mobile's service. I have that block on my account, too, since I got a fraudulent $9.99 charge a couple months ago. I don't really subscribe to texts from many places, but it sucks if I don't have the ability to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I now receive text from my financial institutions and was given these procedures to follow if I receive anymore unwanted texts. Forward a copy of the offending text to 7726 immediately followed by a blank text to 4647. That will permanently block the text sender and also get them investigated for legitimacy. So I guess it's a slight pain in the ass but I need to receive important information from my bank or credit institutions anytime there is activity so I can verify that it is me making the activity happen and is approved.

Unlocking now Illegal

I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but I found it pretty cool that they used a picture of our trusty OG incredible...
http://www.longisland.com/news/01-27-13/unlocking-smarthphones-now-illegal.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium

RepeatUntilTheEnd said:
I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but I found it pretty cool that they used a picture of our trusty OG incredible...
http://www.longisland.com/news/01-27-13/unlocking-smarthphones-now-illegal.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn government, always screwing the little guy. Oh well its not like its going to stop people from doing it anyways. I have been seriously thinking of switching my service to straight talk, and this news changes nothing. Tell them to come get me.

RepeatUntilTheEnd said:
I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but I found it pretty cool that they used a picture of our trusty OG incredible...
http://www.longisland.com/news/01-27-13/unlocking-smarthphones-now-illegal.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know why they picked a CDMA phone for the picture when usually only GSM phones are even unlockable for carriers. Technically flashing an inc on straight talk is not unlocking it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

tiny4579 said:
I don't know why they picked a CDMA phone for the picture when usually only GSM phones are even unlockable for carriers. Technically flashing an inc on straight talk is not unlocking it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None of the articles I've read mention the N4, or how comparable the price is to phones on contract. I guess I can't really talk, since I'm still with big red.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium

The Nexus 4 comes unlocked. I guess it's above the law then.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app

Ah yes, leave it to the government to try to forbid people from messing with the device that they paid for. Well, it's not as if it'll stop anything whatsoever.

This is kind of disturbing if you ask me...
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda app-developers app

One good thing is that the law only applies to phones purchased after the law goes into affect - so anything before that is fine to unlock.
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda app-developers app

scals37 said:
This is kind of disturbing if you ask me...
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the gift that keeps on giving to lawyers and corporati.
Incidentally, a few clarifications. I see people making the same wrong assumptions about this ruling again and again.
1.) Unlocking your phone is not illegal. What IS illegal is for you, the end-consumer, to unlock or otherwise edit the firmware/OS installed on the phone from the factory. This means that we, the citizenry of XDA and similar forums, are guilty of violations of the DMCA, because the carriers (Sprint, ATT, VZW, etc) actually hold the copyrights to the firmware's installed on the phone.
1a.) The carriers, however, CAN unlock the phone for you, legally. Most of the carriers have come forward and said that they will still unlock devices so long as you have met your original contract obligations. Now, this is great if you've bought a new device. Unfortunately, it means any Non-pay or otherwise blacklisted phone on Craigslist or ebay is still screwed.
1b.) New, Unlocked devices such as Nexus, Galaxy, and Incredible International are still, and will always remain, legally unlocked. The firmware found on these devices is owned by Google or by the device's original manufacture, and they are unlikely to proactively start locking such devices just to lock out the reseller community.
2.) Any device purchased or unlocked prior to January 26, 2013 can still be legally unlocked and used on any compatible network.
2a.) Carriers won't retroactively kick your device off of their network if it is illegally unlocked. Nor can they impose any special usage fines or taxes of utilizing an unlocked device. A "locked" cellphone is one which has been firmware coded to its own carrier's network.
2b.) The only person or group who can take action against you for illegally unlocking your phone is the Librarian of Congress (who made this ruling and is the conservator of DMCA exception law) or the carrier who originally sold the device to you, as they are the ones holding the copyrights to the firmware. They cannot, generally, tell some other network to not host your device. Obviously they can ASK a competitor not to host your unlocked device, but they can't actually stop them doing so.
2c.) The original vendor of the phone (Sprint, ATT, VZW, etc) can, however, sue you under the DMCA for violating their copyrights. This is identical to lawsuits used to penalize movie and music downloaders. However, since phone unlocks are generally not "shared" in the same way that music, movie, and game downloads are, an aggressive lawsuit by a patent troll or copyright bully holds little potential profit because they'd only be able to claim a single violation, not the sort of perpetual resharing that goes on with torrent users.
3.) While jailbreaking/unlocking/rooting a phone is illegal now, re-romming a phone is still a grey area. IE, completely replacing the firmware on your phone with a homebrew is not illegal in the same way that a simple unlock or jailbreak code is. Since you're not technically changing someone else's copyright protected software so much as simply deleting and replacing it.
3a.) Unfortunately, because most custom roms are still based in one form or another on the factory rom, you MIGHT still be sued unless, as in the case of older devices like the DINC, all original drivers and firmware's have been open-sourced to the community. It's unlikely that HTC would go after someone unlocking an Incredible series phone since you can legally root most HTC devices from their website; but other carriers and manufacturer's may not take the same view in the future.
There is also a division between hardware manufacturer's and carriers. Carriers lobbied long and hard FOR this ruling, because it is in their best interest to keep you chained to them for as long as possible, and a person who just spent several hundred dollars on a device is unlikely to be willing to simply ****can that device at the end of two years in order to move to another carrier and repeat the expensive process with a new device (unless you own an apple product, in which you're already indoctrinated to all of this ). Sell such a device, yes; dispose of it, no. So having a locked device makes you stickier since you'll use it for longer before parting with it, and if you can only use it legally on their network, then you are stuck with them since you can't resell/unlock it to recoup even part of your investment as you can currently by simply unlocking it or having a reseller do it for you.
Device manufacturers, on the other hand, have a vested interest in keeping their units in use as long as possible, regardless of what carrier it is operating on. Having a unit of hardware able to be reused on multiple carriers breeds customer loyalty to the hardware manufacturer in the same way a reliable car or home appliance does, and increasingly people are seeking out devices based not on the name of the carrier but the name of the phone. Already it's a lot less common to ask who a carrier is than what a phone is; particularly when the same device is available on multiple competing networks.
The best we can hope for is that this will all come to a head in 2 years as the first generation of legally locked phones start coming up for resale and people find themselves face with either throwing them away, sticking with their current carrier, or breaking the law.

What I find curious...
In every article and argument I have read; the carriers framed the argument around "Unlocking / Rooting so we can change service providers." If I were a phone carrier, I wouldn't want my customers to be able to leave either. Sounds reasonable on the surface.
However....I think most of us would agree, that the vast majority do NOT unlock and root for the sake of changing carriers. In fact that argument is already very weak and flawed,
With two standards (GSM vs CDMA), some technical differences in phone models that prevent differing networks from connecting with the devices, and only a handful of carriers....you don't have a lot of options...so not much point.
The phone carriers can refuse service to devices they didn't sell and were in no way required to do so, however it would be in their long-term interest.
The steep financial penalty for leaving a carrier before the contract expires easily covers the "subsidy" at the time of purchase.
Basically....rooting just to switch carriers doesn't make sense
What do we unlock/root for?
Control of our devices.
Control of our privacy and data.
"Fixing" the bugs ( ask me about the ASUS Transformer ICS updates...HA!!!)
Excessive bloatware, like three book reading apps on my tablet...(seriously)
Customizing the device to our needs
...the list is long and the consumers don't have a voice in these issues.. Worse yet to my opinion, this legal ruling actually cripples the end user. Without root access the task of managing and monitor apps, permissions, data, etc has more challenges and limitations , especially without any Android "stock" apps for the purpose. I mean, they didn't even make a file manager. I'll spare you all my usual Google rant. Just imagine what the teaming millions of non-tech, non-xda have to live with....when was the last time you had to work with a device without Titanium Backup, Root Explorer and such? (scares me)
Sorry, my point is...they used a bogus argument to get what they wanted, with them in control of our property and data.
Final thought..how long do you think it will take before we see the first "Price gouging/manipulation" lawsuits against the carriers? They price an unlocked phone so high that no one purchases them. I get it, why pay $650 for a phone with no contract, but you pay the same monthly charges.....when you can get one for $50 and two years of contract? Also, for the record, I do believe that the legality of unlocking/rooting only applies to carrier subsidized devices made and purchased after the above date, and not ones sold at full retail, purposefully unlocked. I'm no expert, but just based on the price differences between 3g/4g and WiFi only tablets, you frakkin know the carriers are messing around with pricing.
WOW...sorry for being long-winded and thanks!

Seems the White House agrees that we should be able to unlock our phones.
http://gizmodo.com/5988388/white-house-you-should-be-able-to-unlock-your-phone-if-you-own-it

The Ultimate reason to Why N3 Bootloader is locked

Read the article below.
Some might argue why T-Mobile and Sprint version N3 is unlocked that's because of their network coverage. If you do little research you will find that most of the giant firms use either Verizon or At&t for their employees. This now confirms how Saamy is forgetting about us and mostly putting their focus on giant firms. Give me your point and lets see where this goes.
TechnoBuffalo said:
Samsung already has a firm grip on the consumer smartphone market, but the enterprise sector is a completely different ballgame. So in an effort to put businesses at ease and gain a larger corporate following, the Korean company this year officially unveiled a new mobile security system called Knox. With so many Samsung devices available, the company certainly has the potential to make inroads at some big firms around the world—only, a new report from The Wall Street Journal suggests Knox has been full of bugs and delays, annoying some big clients.
One of Samsung’s clients, the U.S. Defense Department, has allegedly become frustrated by Samsung’s Knox system, leading to some internal strife among the Samsung brass; the company is supposedly hard at work bringing Knox back into 100 percent shape. With BlackBerry ailing—enterprise market share has reportedly fallen from 68 percent in 2010 to 5.4 percent today—Samsung certainly has an opportunity to fill that void. There’s still the stigma of Android to contend with, however, making Apple’s iOS a more appealing option.
According to WSJ, “many corporate tech administrators widely perceive its smartphones, which run on Google Inc.’s open-source Android operating system, as being more prone to viruses and easier to hack than Apple Inc.’s iOS and BlackBerry proprietary software.” Fixing that perception has become one of Samsung’s top priorities, WSJ added.
Knox essentially gives corporate tech admins complete control over their employees’ Samsung device or devices. Handsets can remotely be shut down, company data cordoned off, and alerts can be set if a device’s code has been tampered with—all excellent features for sensitive corporate data. But if those promised features aren’t working as advertised, especially for a customer such as the U.S. Defense Department, Samsung could lose its small portion of the enterprise market pretty quick.
One source admitted that Samsung isn’t a service business, which is why it’s experiencing so many issues. “Creating this new organization that specializes in selling software and services, that took us longer than expected,” the source said. Over the course of 2013, Samsung repeatedly assured potential clients Knox would be ready, and even come preloaded on the Galaxy S4. It didn’t wind up coming preloaded on a Samsung devices until the Note 3 hit a few months back.
Deployment thus far has been slow while Samsung works through the issues. But if those issues don’t get patched up, the company’s big enterprise push could fall flat. One BlackBerry exec said of Knox, “[It] can potentially pose threats to enterprises.” With the consumer market locked up, definitely not the start to enterprise life that Samsung would have wanted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/1...rogram-running-into-major-issues-says-report/

I would agree. Sounds right and does make sense!
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Does make sense until you wonder why other carriers have the bootloader unlocked. Unless those people saying the bootloader is unlocked they mean it has been unlocked by a hack.

Delakit said:
Does make sense until you wonder why other carriers have the bootloader unlocked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
85% of the Fortune 1K in the U.S. are on VZW and AT&T.

Im nkt sure this really explains why AT&T's bootloader is locked. This article discusses the issues with Knox, something that is present in the VZW Note 3 but missing from the ATT version. If the bootloader is locked due to trying to attract enterprise business then why would Knox (the container application) be missing from our version of the phone? Even if Knox is being wonky it still should have been included if they were going after the enterprise market.
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6

This…..
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------
BarryH_GEG said:
85% of the Fortune 1K in the U.S. are on VZW and AT&T.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HappyPessimist said:
Im nkt sure this really explains why AT&T's bootloader is locked. This article discusses the issues with Knox, something that is present in the VZW Note 3 but missing from the ATT version. If the bootloader is locked due to trying to attract enterprise business then why would Knox (the container application) be missing from our version of the phone? Even if Knox is being wonky it still should have been included if they were going after the enterprise market.
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This and this....
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

HappyPessimist said:
Im nkt sure this really explains why AT&T's bootloader is locked. This article discusses the issues with Knox, something that is present in the VZW Note 3 but missing from the ATT version. If the bootloader is locked due to trying to attract enterprise business then why would Knox (the container application) be missing from our version of the phone? Even if Knox is being wonky it still should have been included if they were going after the enterprise market.
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure where you got your ATT N3 from, but mine has KNOX and it is a 900A like the others here. You can even look at running apps and see KNOX listed. you can also go into the upload menu and see the KNOX status.

It depends on Sammy's customer base spread. If the majority are suits, Sammy loses very little by losing the nerd market. But if the majority are teen-agers texting their BFF, Sammy is going to see that a little bad press in the Blogosphere goes a LONG way. The under-21 set will believe a blog stating that the Martians have landed faster than they'll believe the WSJ that the big yellow ball in the sky is the sun.
We'll just have to wait and see, but if Sammy keeps welding these things shut, a lot of ROM builders are going to be building non-Sammy ROMs. And a lot of people will put up with the Sprint dead spots rather than be treated like numbers by Big Red.
Since my crystal ball battery is dead, all I can do is make wild guesses.

Solarenemy68 said:
Not sure where you got your ATT N3 from, but mine has KNOX and it is a 900A like the others here. You can even look at running apps and see KNOX listed. you can also go into the upload menu and see the KNOX status.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm talking abiut the Knox container. The other variants of the Note 3 had a Knox app of sorts that acts as a container for more sensitive information. See this thread-
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2470278&page=8
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6

Can't quote the guy above for some reason but I don't see KNOX running anywhere on my phone.

HappyPessimist said:
I'm talking abiut the Knox container. The other variants of the Note 3 had a Knox app of sorts that acts as a container for more sensitive information. See this thread-
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2470278&page=8
AT&T Samsung Galaxy Note 3 stock rooted with changes by Wanam
Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 GT-N8013 rooted w/Hyperdrive RLS6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
KNOX container most certainly works on 900A.

Quick question for everyone here...
Do you think that filing complaints with government agencies over the locked bootloader issue might be an effective route for seeking change? Consider that when complaints were filed against them for blocking FaceTime on their network, the groups that filed those complaints did achieve a limited measure of success.
I would envision that the complaint could look as follows:
1. Denying users root access to their own phones and locking the phone's bootloader prevents access to all features of some software packages. (e.g. Titanium Backup)
2. Some of the packages that AT&T effectively blocks through these policies (i.e. Titanium Backup) compete with software they offer. (e.g. AT&T Locker)
3. Ergo, AT&T seeks to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over other applications through its behavior.
I also wonder if it would be possible to argue that AT&T is knowingly selling defective phones through its policy of locking the bootloader. I'm sure we can all point out many bugs in the stock firmware which have been addressed by custom ROMs. An argument could be made that AT&T's action of preventing custom ROMs from being installed is forcing its customers to use materially defective equipment - it's just a question of whether or not an agency could be convinced of this amidst AT&T's "greasing of the palms" to quiet complaints against them.

now i'm clearly understand

Unless the private key slips, or if people don't care about warranty (in about 10 months ) the bootloader won't be unlocked.
Personally, I think this allows for more inventive solutions to processes which have become so routine we expect them to work on every phone. RDLV for example. The Kn0x0ut script. My MJ5 Recovery methods -- all include unique techniques to catch up to the level of security ATT/Samsung has surprised us with.
This process, of course, is cyclical. Both sides have an opportunity to gain here and I welcome it!

evilpotatoman said:
Unless the private key slips
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I only worked for Samsung in a capacity to help...
evilpotatoman said:
or if people don't care about warranty (in about 10 months )
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hopefully we don't have to wait that long for it... I'm almost ready to purchase a Note 3 from TMO just to have an unlocked bootloader. If I could get a new one locally for around $500 this weekend I probably would. (Just got the Note 3 this week so I'm still within my 14 day return period with ATT.)
evilpotatoman said:
Personally, I think this allows for more inventive solutions to processes which have become so routine we expect them to work on every phone. RDLV for example. The Kn0x0ut script. My MJ5 Recovery methods -- all include unique techniques to catch up to the level of security ATT/Samsung has surprised us with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm glad you and others enjoy the challenge presented by AT&T's greed, and am thankful for each of you and the hours you spend trying to figure out how to remove or bypass the artificially created limitations and restrictions on our devices.
In my opinion, limitations like locked bootloaders are material defects, and should be treated as such by government. Once one enters into a contract with the wireless provider, the phone is yours as long as you continue to abide by the terms of the contract (on time payments, staying within acceptable use policies). As such, one should be free and clear to modify the phone in any way - as long as expectations of service and support are diminished appropriately for "non standard configurations". No carrier should be allowed to lock bootloaders or otherwise take measures to prevent users from rooting their devices.

rooted_1 said:
Quick question for everyone here...
Do you think that filing complaints with government agencies over the locked bootloader issue might be an effective route for seeking change? Consider that when complaints were filed against them for blocking FaceTime on their network, the groups that filed those complaints did achieve a limited measure of success.
I would envision that the complaint could look as follows:
1. Denying users root access to their own phones and locking the phone's bootloader prevents access to all features of some software packages. (e.g. Titanium Backup)
2. Some of the packages that AT&T effectively blocks through these policies (i.e. Titanium Backup) compete with software they offer. (e.g. AT&T Locker)
3. Ergo, AT&T seeks to obtain an unfair competitive advantage over other applications through its behavior.
I also wonder if it would be possible to argue that AT&T is knowingly selling defective phones through its policy of locking the bootloader. I'm sure we can all point out many bugs in the stock firmware which have been addressed by custom ROMs. An argument could be made that AT&T's action of preventing custom ROMs from being installed is forcing its customers to use materially defective equipment - it's just a question of whether or not an agency could be convinced of this amidst AT&T's "greasing of the palms" to quiet complaints against them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm...
That actualy sounds like legit reasons!
Does AT&T sell the developer edition like Verizon?
I so want to come back to AT&T but had to jump ship to VZE because they had SafeStrap. How much I hate Verizon! They used to have best signal in town. Now its no better than Sprint.
Anyways back on topic. That seems like reasonable pitch. Where do we / you file that complaint? FCC? FTC?

Why not offer a corporate version? If you want to use it at work, you never have the corporate locked bootloader.
They could even make it a ROM update accessible by corporate accounts.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using xda app-developers app

designgears said:
KNOX container most certainly works on 900A.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure it works on the 900A, but I think he meant it's not on there by default for the 900A AT&T variant. Do you have an apk for it?

scrosler said:
Hmmm...
That actualy sounds like legit reasons!
Anyways back on topic. That seems like reasonable pitch. Where do we / you file that complaint? FCC? FTC?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I filed a complaint with the FCC the other week using the precise argument I suggested above. Of course, I've yet to hear anything from them. If it's anything like the net neutrality complaints I filed against AT&T years ago, the FCC will forward the comment along to AT&T and the company will provide a written response back to both me and the agency in a couple months.
I'm also wondering if there would be any sort of way to get the FTC involved in this as well, by making an argument that AT&T is knowingly selling defective devices, refusing to fix the defects in a timely manner (by releasing new versions of Android, quicker), and preventing users from fixing the defects on their own (by locking the bootloader). I'm sure that there's a plethora of issues with 4.3 and TouchWiz and Knox that could be pointed out... the least of which would be the constantly-nagging security error notification that shows up every time one uses WiFi on a stock phone.
I'm generally not a big fan of big government, but this is one exception. The more government agencies we can legitimately engage with valid points, the more effort that AT&T has to put into defending its decision to only market phones with locked bootloaders. If enough agencies get involved from enough angles with reasonable and logical arguments, there *may* come a time at which AT&T decides that it's not worth the effort. They obviously feel that some economic benefit come from their decision. The trick is to create the perception that the economic benefit they gain from locked bootloaders is outweighed by the ill will and cost of participation in government inquiries they bear. There's only a slim chance that this will work, but I'm willing to take a few minutes to file complaints and let the wheels of our government agencies churn. After all, isn't that what they're there for?

rooted_1 said:
I filed a complaint with the FCC the other week using the precise argument I suggested above. Of course, I've yet to hear anything from them. If it's anything like the net neutrality complaints I filed against AT&T years ago, the FCC will forward the comment along to AT&T and the company will provide a written response back to both me and the agency in a couple months.
I'm also wondering if there would be any sort of way to get the FTC involved in this as well, by making an argument that AT&T is knowingly selling defective devices, refusing to fix the defects in a timely manner (by releasing new versions of Android, quicker), and preventing users from fixing the defects on their own (by locking the bootloader). I'm sure that there's a plethora of issues with 4.3 and TouchWiz and Knox that could be pointed out... the least of which would be the constantly-nagging security error notification that shows up every time one uses WiFi on a stock phone.
I'm generally not a big fan of big government, but this is one exception. The more government agencies we can legitimately engage with valid points, the more effort that AT&T has to put into defending its decision to only market phones with locked bootloaders. If enough agencies get involved from enough angles with reasonable and logical arguments, there *may* come a time at which AT&T decides that it's not worth the effort. They obviously feel that some economic benefit come from their decision. The trick is to create the perception that the economic benefit they gain from locked bootloaders is outweighed by the ill will and cost of participation in government inquiries they bear. There's only a slim chance that this will work, but I'm willing to take a few minutes to file complaints and let the wheels of our government agencies churn. After all, isn't that what they're there for?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for doing this..
I feel the only way we will ever be heard is to start a Samsung boycott petition. Even if those who sign the petition has no plans to truly boycott Samsung, the negative publicity and the potential for consumers to boycott them would be a huge risk in Samsung eyes. Imagine if we had 10k users signed the boycott petition because of the bloatware & locked bootloader. Samsung could care less about the 10k consumers but the word of mouth from those consumer could equal millions. Samsung might not officially release an unlock bootloader but might allow leaks to occur to keep us quiet. If one website picked up the story about Samsung boycott petition, Samsung would do everything in their power to correct or fix the problem. Due to carrier restrictions and request they would have to come up with clever ways or do what htc does and allow you to unlock your phone on their site with a code.

Petition: Allow GSM Unlocked Variant - BL Unlock w/o Voiding Warranty

Hey all,
I created this petition to urge Moto and Google to incorporate the Unlocked GSM Variant (TMO) into the Developer Edition policy and allow the warranty to remain intact when unlocking bootloader.
Reasons:
1. Device is sold Unbranded
2. Device is sold with Unlocked Radio
3. Device is sold at Full Cost (no subsidy from Carrier / No Contract)
4. Cost is the same as Developer Edition ($549 for 32gb)
5. Developer Edition comes in one color - including Unlocked GSM Variant will allow Devs to use MotoMaker to customize their device and enjoy benefits of Developer Edition.
I figured that XDA is the best place to get some momentum to this petition and get it in front of the eyes of Moto and Google.
Please sign and share:
http://www.change.org/petitions/mot...-do-not-void-warranty-upon-bootloader-unlock?

Signed
Sent from my XT1056 using xda app-developers app

byt3b0mb said:
Hey all,
I created this petition to urge Moto and Google to incorporate the Unlocked GSM Variant (TMO) into the Developer Edition policy and allow the warranty to remain intact when unlocking bootloader.
Reasons:
1. Device is sold Unbranded
2. Device is sold with Unlocked Radio
3. Device is sold at Full Cost (no subsidy from Carrier / No Contract)
4. Cost is the same as Developer Edition ($549 for 32gb)
5. Developer Edition comes in one color - including Unlocked GSM Variant will allow Devs to use MotoMaker to customize their device and enjoy benefits of Developer Edition.
I figured that XDA is the best place to get some momentum to this petition and get it in front of the eyes of Moto and Google.
Please sign and share:
http://www.change.org/petitions/mot...-do-not-void-warranty-upon-bootloader-unlock?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you would have a much better chance if you created a petition to include the Dev Edition in the Moto Maker process. BL unlock voids warranty if it comes tied to a carrier. Simple as that. I dont think Motorola has the sole say in the matter. People would be rushing to the T-Mobile store for warranty replacements if they mess up their unlocked BL phones. Not something a carrier would want to deal with.

anirudh412 said:
I think you would have a much better chance if you created a petition to include the Dev Edition in the Moto Maker process. BL unlock voids warranty if it comes tied to a carrier. Simple as that. I dont think Motorola has the sole say in the matter. People would be rushing to the T-Mobile store for warranty replacements if they mess up their unlocked BL phones. Not something a carrier would want to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This device is not sold by t-mobile in stores, and is not supported for exchange or warranty purposes by t-mobile. t-mobile directs owners to motorola. That is why the petition is for Motorola.

charlie-n said:
Signed
Sent from my XT1056 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you!!!

signed.

buschris said:
signed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks!!

anirudh412 said:
I think you would have a much better chance if you created a petition to include the Dev Edition in the Moto Maker process. BL unlock voids warranty if it comes tied to a carrier. Simple as that. I dont think Motorola has the sole say in the matter. People would be rushing to the T-Mobile store for warranty replacements if they mess up their unlocked BL phones. Not something a carrier would want to deal with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're right. Possibly the engraving (or whatever the process is) would be an unchangeable "Developer Edition", Luke what comes on the DE models now.
I think the same should apply any full price device purchased directly from Motorola. If the carrier didn't sell or subsidize it, they should be under no obligation to provide warranty support, and should have no say in whether unlocking the boot loader voids the warranty.
I'm signing the petition - I'd much rather have my DE in black, though I have no intention of buying another one just to change color.
Sent from my Moto X using TapaTalk

The lack of warranty acts as a paygate to prevent inexperienced users from claiming. If you were of the experienced type, you would have gotten a DE phone. The best compromise here is a customizable DE phone such that people like us doesn't have to make the choice between Motomaker with 16GB option or the DE phone. I would support the latter initiative.

alpha-niner64 said:
The lack of warranty acts as a paygate to prevent inexperienced users from claiming. If you were of the experienced type, you would have gotten a DE phone. The best compromise here is a customizable DE phone such that people like us doesn't have to make the choice between Motomaker with 16GB option or the DE phone. I would support the latter initiative.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you can get a 32gb (which is what i got) through motomaker unlike the carrier branded ones. Also, since the unlocked GSM edition is already part of motomaker, it would be easier for motorola to update the policy, rather than recode motomaker to include de devices. not that i am going to trade what i purchased, but I would buy a de version if i could change the colors. If i were to buy a de and change the colors right now, i would be voiding the warranty because i would have to disassemble my device and swap out parts.
just makes sense to me, hence why i started the petition

I agree tho.... A petition here isn't going to be seen. Don't they have any forums?
Also... Phone makers are probably tired of rooting/flashing related warranty claims.... So their putting their feet down.
Plus... They aren't going to care about us "tinkerers".... We're an extremely small percentage of their customers.
Sent from my Moto X cell phone telephone.....

I signed it although I doubt we can get them to change anything mostly because of the custom nature of the motomaker.
It unfortunately makes sense that they can't support warranties for phones that are as custom as the motomaker allows.
I don't think they're against us unlocking our BLs, they just can't afford to replace our custom colored phones.
I doubt its a tmobile thing because as was mentioned, tmobile doesn't support the phone anyway, they just send you to moto.
They provided us with the DE and made it as colorful as possible without loosing appeal (a pink and green DE would have probably not sold...)
I wanted a custom moto x because I believe in the phone and the work moto + G has done to provide users with real features that actually meet our day to day needs (as opposed to some manufacturers who smoother users with "useful" features). Non-tinkerers recognize the colorful phone and ask me about it because its customizability is so heavily marketed. This sparks conversations that I enjoy having about technology actually being useful and not a barrier or a feature-laden learning curve.
What I would really like to see are stats on how many people return phones from messing up their BLs? How many galaxy nexus' and nexus 4s were returned bricked? While I see where they're coming from, it seems like they missed hitting the nail on the head, and are unfairly punishing those who do the majority of their mouth2mouth marketing. I don't want to speak for everyone here but I know when my friends are looking to buy a new phone they ask me what I think and recommend. My guess is that if the sales earned from the tinkerers word of mouth was accounted for in their business model they would perhaps consider this petition.

I signed. I would have bought the DE version, if the Today Show $150 worked on it.
Doesn't matter to me either way, but would be nice to fully back their hardware regardless.

cliffr39 said:
I signed. I would have bought the DE version, if the Today Show $150 worked on it.
Doesn't matter to me either way, but would be nice to fully back their hardware regardless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Signed as well. Would've bought a dev edition if the cyber Monday discount would've applied to it. I feel that if I buy a phone that is not subsidized by the carrier I should do whatever I want with it because I paid for it in full and that means that's mine. If I mess up my phone it's on me and not them.

Signed!

Guys, I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but this will never happen. They barely made it possible for Dev Editions warranties to remain intact after unlocking the bootloader. That wasn't a start of a movement, that was the whole not-making-sense deal of calling a phone a developer edition, but not being able to do any development on it if you want a warranty. And I know the board of execs at Motorola probably spent weeks weighing the pros and cons of doing that. They must have figured that being able to advertise that decision is a bigger PR advantage than the money lost by replacing the bricked devices that were a cause of that decision. Heck, even the Nexus line has their warranties voided by unlocking the bootloader.
The whole reason unlocking bootloaders voids warranties, is because after unlocking, you can flash files not signed by the manufacturer. As in, any file anyone, experienced or not, with good intentions or not, of any general technology experience, has put together. You can run commands from the prompt that will literally brick your phone in 1 second. Can you see why the Moto X Dev Edition is the only phone (that I've heard of) to make it OK to unlock the bootloader? You could purposely flash a malicious image, brick your phone, then request an RMA, just because you feel like it. I'm not saying that anyone here would do that, but look at this from their point of view. If you open the doors, people will walk through.
Look at this at a wider angle. What personal electronics device other than the Dev Edition Moto X is it A-OK to unlock the bootloader? Virtually nothing. It just doesn't make business sense to allow everyday, John Doe users to execute mission-critical commands and have your business responsible when John Doe flashes a kernel for another device because he apparently can't read. Or run a command that someone on the Internet said was OK to run, because hey, who would go on the Internet and just lie? I'm sorry guys, but we need to thank our lucky stars that even the Dev Edition got that capability. That Motorola decided the PR gained was worth the money lost replacing units.

doesn't the DE already have the bootloader unlocked? And there are many phones that already have unlocked bootloaders, I wonder seriously how many have been bricked so bad that they needed to be replaced? There has to be a way to recover these phones regardless.

buschris said:
doesn't the DE already have the bootloader unlocked? And there are many phones that already have unlocked bootloaders, I wonder seriously how many have been bricked so bad that they needed to be replaced? There has to be a way to recover these phones regardless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably not allot of returns from bricking... Considering "rooters" are a tiny fraction of overall consumers.... But, they know us small percentage root... And they don't want to replace a single phone because we messed it up.... that's my guess. I saw plenty of posts in the t989 S2 forum from guys planning to send in rooted phones. They figure if it won't boot... How will Samsung know the difference. The phone makers know this too. So making us unlock on their website is smart, cause they know for sure who unlocked.... Weather they can boot our RMA'd phone or not.
I'm OK with this... Yes, I voided my warranty on day one. It's not just phone companies that don't want to replace tampered with products.... Almost anything you buy now has a warning about warranty being void if you do or don't do this or that. Electronics of any kind usually have a sticker, or whatever, that if you disrupt by trying to open the device up.... Boom. No warranty anymore. Even the tags on clothing.... They're itchy, but if you remove them... Warranty void.
Almost anything really... If they know you tampered with it in any way... Warranty void. Why would phones be any different?
Even if very few people tamper.... They still don't want to give up a single dollar if they don't have to. Lol
Sent from my Moto X cell phone telephone.....

really just changing the software should not be a warranty breaker - the OEMs have tools to low level flash any device back to the stock software and even hard bricks can be repaired. The OEMs should honor the hardware. That is the point of this petition - honor the hardware. unlocking the bootloader and rooting a device has no impact on the hardware. I am not asking that they accept all devices that are broken by the user by doing something stupid, but rather allowing folks to flash a custom recovery and take charge of their device.
are there any computers that have their warranty voided when you remove windows and install linux or vice versa? NO because that is a software change. If the hardware fails then that is something the OEM should cover.

byt3b0mb said:
really just changing the software should not be a warranty breaker - the OEMs have tools to low level flash any device back to the stock software and even hard bricks can be repaired. The OEMs should honor the hardware. That is the point of this petition - honor the hardware. unlocking the bootloader and rooting a device has no impact on the hardware. I am not asking that they accept all devices that are broken by the user by doing something stupid, but rather allowing folks to flash a custom recovery and take charge of their device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First, I'm not 100% sure that OEMs have the ability to save hard-bricks. Hard-bricks are the bootloader being corrupt. The bootloader, being the first thing to even load into memory, from which everything else gets loaded into memory, is vital to the bootstrapping process. Think of it like your BIOS on your computer. If you BIOS goes corrupt, you basically either replace the BIOS chip, Mobo, or in super-rare cases, find someone somewhere with the tools, expertise, and ability to flash that specific BIOS to that specific chip even though it's corrupt. I suppose it's possible that the OEMs have those tools to do it. I'm not saying that do, but I'll give you that it's possible. Even if they do, it probably wouldn't be worth the time and effort though.
Second, unlocking the bootloader isn't just giving the ability to flash to the recovery partition, or even to the /system/ partition. It's removing the entire signature check which checks if the package you are trying to flash has a unique signature that comes from the OEM. Unlocking the bootloader basically opens every single command up for anyone besides the OEM to use. It really is as serious as they warn about in the screen asking if you're sure. Now, since communities like XDA exist where you can basically get walked through how to do most anything, and where 1-click toolkits to do very very dangerous stuff exist, it's fairly safe to have your bootloader unlocked. But as an electronics manufacturer, you need to assume the user won't take advantage of tools like XDA. I'm a software engineer and one of the fundamental rules of thumb is "if the user can break it, they will".
Third, you said:
byt3b0mb said:
are there any computers that have their warranty voided when you remove windows and install linux or vice versa? NO because that is a software change.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you'd be surprised. Have you ever tried to get anything replaced under warranty, then telling the customer support you installed Linux on your box? I mean, you may or may not actually get your warranty honored, and if you do, it will be after a few hours on the phone, getting bounced around, escalated, redirected, on hold, checking with this other guy, etc. before they finally figure it's eligible. We're of course talking about pre-built PCs, to make this analogy fit.
Look, I mean no disrespect or negativity toward you. I'm simply saying that it's pretty much industry standard to void warranties when unlocking the bootloader in any electronics, and as bad as this next part sounds, it's for good reason. If you start preserving warranties through bootloader unlocking on more widely-used or mainstream electronics, then more and more people who shouldn't be tinkering will. Your brick rate, and thus number of replacement units sent out, will go up, and the prices of your electronics will go up to make up for loss. It's good to have warranties preserved through the bootloader unlocking process on niche "developer edition" units because it covers that small percentage of users who want that option, but still bars people who wouldn't mind having that perk, but aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to have it. This ultimately makes it so the people who got the "developer edition" of your phone most likely enthusiasts or developers, who know what they're doing, and their brick-rate is probably pretty low.

Verizon Moto G bootloader unlock exploit

I haven't posted on XDA for a while, but recently my friend purchased a Verizon Motorola G for himself and couldn't find a way to unlock the bootloader.
Being *that* kind of friend and all, I did a bit of research and discovered this:
http://blog.azimuthsecurity.com/2013/04/unlocking-motorola-bootloader.html
I was curious if this exploit was still viable, so I quickly captured the latest OTA update of the Verizon Moto G firmware and started IDA...
Amazingly, although the exploitation method would have to be a little different due to changes in the TrustZone kernel,
the original arbitrary memory writing vulnerability still existed and could be exploited.
Code:
int __fastcall smc_vector(int code, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3, int alwaysZero)
{
.........
do
{
*(_DWORD *)(_R6 + 4 * v40) = dword_FC492C8[v40];
++v40;
}
while ( v40 < 4 );
.........
}
The only downside is that to perform said exploit, the smc call would have to execute in kernel context (i.e. kernel space).
Has anyone capitalized on said vulnerability yet and built a bootloader unlocker using this method, or do I have to get to work
and release my own ""exploit"" for this bug?
Or is there some other technical problem hindering the feasibility of all of this?

joshumax said:
I haven't posted on XDA for a while, but recently my friend purchased a Verizon Motorola G for himself and couldn't find a way to unlock the bootloader.
Being *that* kind of friend and all, I did a bit of research and discovered this:
http://blog.azimuthsecurity.com/2013/04/unlocking-motorola-bootloader.html
I was curious if this exploit was still viable, so I quickly captured the latest OTA update of the Verizon Moto G firmware and started IDA...
Amazingly, although the exploitation method would have to be a little different due to changes in the TrustZone kernel,
the original arbitrary memory writing vulnerability still existed and could be exploited.
Code:
int __fastcall smc_vector(int code, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3, int alwaysZero)
{
.........
do
{
*(_DWORD *)(_R6 + 4 * v40) = dword_FC492C8[v40];
++v40;
}
while ( v40 < 4 );
.........
}
The only downside is that to perform said exploit, the smc call would have to execute in kernel context (i.e. kernel space).
Has anyone capitalized on said vulnerability yet and built a bootloader unlocker using this method, or do I have to get to work
and release my own ""exploit"" for this bug?
Or is there some other technical problem hindering the feasibility of all of this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SunShine will unlock the XT1028.
http://theroot.ninja
I was under the assumption that old exploits like this won't wouldn't work on the Moto G...you haven't tried this yet, correct?

d4rk3 said:
SunShine will unlock the XT1028.
http://theroot.ninja
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't trust or like SunShine that much; nor does my friend have the money to purchase the app.
d4rk3 said:
I was under the assumption that old exploits like this won't wouldn't work on the Moto G...you haven't tried this yet, correct?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Old exploits probably won't work out-of-the-box with the Moto G, things have changed...however the code above was in the latest firmware revision of the Verizon Motorola G,
which to me means that theoretically a few smc calls could unlock the Motorola G for good.
And no, sadly I haven't tried this yet, but it still *should* be possible.

XT1028 not unlockable with Sunshine
Sunshine will only unlock Android 4.4.3 and earlier on the Moto G. Verizon pushed the 4.4.4 update out via OTA long before November when Sunshine released support for the Moto G. You would have had to have bought your Moto G earlier in the year and would have had to continually refuse OTA updates to use it. And I also have read some people saying the OTA update went ahead and automatically installed itself anyway despite the phone's owner saying no.
---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------
joshumax said:
I don't trust or like SunShine that much; nor does my friend have the money to purchase the app.
Old exploits probably won't work out-of-the-box with the Moto G, things have changed...however the code above was in the latest firmware revision of the Verizon Motorola G,
which to me means that theoretically a few smc calls could unlock the Motorola G for good.
And no, sadly I haven't tried this yet, but it still *should* be possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suspect this exploit is what the Sunshine developer used in Weaksauce 2.0. But that temproot program has only been written for the HTC. It does not work on the Moto G.
Statements by jcase several months ago claim there is no known exploit for 4.4.4 on the Moto G and that Sunshine 3.0 when it is released in January will not work for the Moto G.
I cannot believe jcase is unaware of this exploit, however. So this indicates to me that jcase deliberately lied a few months ago. My guess is that he has figured out that Verizon has been watching and reading his public statements on this forum, and he knows that Verizon is extremely slow at releasing updates, and he does not want them to rush out an OTA update before he gets Sunshine 3 shipped.
Hopefully that is the case, and hopefully Verizon does not consider YOU worth following, and does not rush an update for Lollipop out for the Moto G. before Sunshine 3 releases.
Otherwise you may have just scotched it for the rest of us.

joshumax said:
I don't trust or like SunShine that much; nor does my friend have the money to purchase the app.
Old exploits probably won't work out-of-the-box with the Moto G, things have changed...however the code above was in the latest firmware revision of the Verizon Motorola G,
which to me means that theoretically a few smc calls could unlock the Motorola G for good.
And no, sadly I haven't tried this yet, but it still *should* be possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We don't trust or like you, either. Also, that vuln in your OP is long patched and non-useful.

joshumax said:
I don't trust or like SunShine that much; nor does my friend have the money to purchase the app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yawn, it is safe, it works, and we are upfront about what we do.
joshumax said:
Old exploits probably won't work out-of-the-box with the Moto G, things have changed...however the code above was in the latest firmware revision of the Verizon Motorola G,
which to me means that theoretically a few smc calls could unlock the Motorola G for good.
And no, sadly I haven't tried this yet, but it still *should* be possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That vulnerability is confirmed patched in the MotoG, and has no chance of working. The "unlock function" in trustzone is disabled once fully booted.
tmittelstaedt said:
Sunshine will only unlock Android 4.4.3 and earlier on the Moto G. Verizon pushed the 4.4.4 update out via OTA long before November when Sunshine released support for the Moto G. You would have had to have bought your Moto G earlier in the year and would have had to continually refuse OTA updates to use it. And I also have read some people saying the OTA update went ahead and automatically installed itself anyway despite the phone's owner saying no.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is true, and it sucks, but it still works on most out of box.
tmittelstaedt said:
---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
tmittelstaedt said:
I suspect this exploit is what the Sunshine developer used in Weaksauce 2.0. But that temproot program has only been written for the HTC. It does not work on the Moto G.
Statements by jcase several months ago claim there is no known exploit for 4.4.4 on the Moto G and that Sunshine 3.0 when it is released in January will not work for the Moto G.
I cannot believe jcase is unaware of this exploit, however. So this indicates to me that jcase deliberately lied a few months ago. My guess is that he has figured out that Verizon has been watching and reading his public statements on this forum, and he knows that Verizon is extremely slow at releasing updates, and he does not want them to rush out an OTA update before he gets Sunshine 3 shipped.
Hopefully that is the case, and hopefully Verizon does not consider YOU worth following, and does not rush an update for Lollipop out for the Moto G. before Sunshine 3 releases.
Otherwise you may have just scotched it for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no, WeakSauce2 targets dmagent, like WeakSauce1, its almost identical in fact, is very specific to HTC and the vulnerability is original to research done by myself and @beaups.
I haven't lied about jack, and dont appreciate eluding that i was, even "to hide" from Verizon.
Common sense says this vulnerability is patched, as it is fairly old. Actual effort to look at the trustone proves this.

jcase said:
I haven't lied about jack, and dont appreciate eluding that i was, even "to hide" from Verizon.
Common sense says this vulnerability is patched, as it is fairly old. Actual effort to look at the trustone proves this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offense intended jcase but I have worked for software companies since 1990 (not as a developer - in accounting and later IT) and I have to believe that you don't quite really understand what you did with Sunshine.
As long as breaking root on phones was a hackers contest, and the exploit scripts were free, the phone companies and software companies didn't really give a damn about you or what you did or anything else that the security people came up with. They were fat, dumb, and happy and lazy and were contented to let Google and the manufacturer deal with security with minimal effort on their part.
The minute you started charging money, you became public enemy #1 to Verizon and any other carrier who wants to control their users. Because they know this - as long as the cracks are free the developers aren't going to have any incentive to wrap them in a slick wrapper that Ma and Pa Kettle can download, stick in a credit card number and click.
Once you start charging - why then you know (or will discover if you don't know already) that the revenue you get is directly proportional to how easy you make the package to run for Ma and Pa Kettle. And it really doesn't take a lot of extra work. For every 10% easier you make Sunshine to use, your going to see 1000% increase in revenue. Verizon knows this. Google knows this. Motorola knows this. And that is what scares them. Their goal right now is to shut you down. And they are gonna do it by doing whatever they can to break your stuff as quickly as possible.
Do you know how hard it is to find a cheap used Verizon Moto G nowadays off Ebay or someplace with 4.4.3 or earlier on it? Ever since November when you released support, Ebay has had a run on those phones. And Ebay is flooded now with Verizon Moto G's that have 4.4.4 on them and a bunch of panicked sellers who are doing whatever possible to make it hard for the buyers to determine what the Android version is.
A couple days after you released weaksauce2 the m8 sold out in every Verizon store in my city. Sold out - or recalled - or withheld, I don't know what.
Verizon and friends don't care about people like me who spend the hours of time on these forums to research to figure out what's what. They care about Pa Kettle who gets on Play Store, downloads an app and runs it and the app pops up a screen saying "you must root your phone to run this app" complete with an auto-installer that downloads and installs Sunshine and executes it for them. Pa Kettle is just going to fork over the $25 and think nothing of it and ca-ching there slips another phone out of the carriers control - a phone that can get ad-blocker loaded on it, a phone that can get that idiotic NFL garbage unloaded from it - a phone the carrier figures they have lost.
From their point of view you are stealing their customers. They don't care as much about the revenue from the wireless plan as they care about their ability to track their customers intimate buying habits and sell them to the highest bidder. They paid damn good money for the cost of the phone hardware so they could snare another mark to sell advertising to and you came along and flushed that money down the crapper with your software.
I guarantee to you there's been much discussion about Sunshine in the Verizon boardrooms. If your not lying now on these forums or at least being very evasive about what your working on, you should be. Their gunning for you.

That's a neat theory, but I can assure you the mfr's patch tactics have been no different with sunshine than they have been with our other (free) releases. Further, based on our sales #'s, I can assure you that sunshine has not caused any phones to sell out...its not like we have 1000's upon 1000's of sunshine sales. Lastly, your theory that "they don't care as much about the wireless plan revenue" is pure tin foil hat stuff.

I dont think you understand what I do, I work with carriers, OEMs and the like. I've trained some them, I go out to dinner with them, I've invited them to my home, I exchange christmas gifts with them, I have met their families. Their cell phone numbers are in my contacts list. I'm drinking my coffee from a cup one of them gave me, right now. When I am stuck, I've gone to them for help more than I can count. This is my industry, and these people are my friends. These people are not fat dumb or lazy. They care deeply about security, and work their butts off with the limited resources they have. The good ones engage the "hackers", and actually enjoy it. Many of them are on a skill level above and beyond myself.
I'm actually a firm believer they would rather see something packaged and sold, than out in the open, as it results in many times less people using it, as well as the time packaging it will stop or greatly slow down anyone trying to use the material for bad purposes (malware etc). Honestly, they probably don't care how something is distributed at all.
Verizon MotoG with 4.4.2 is is $65 at bestbuy and something like $75 at walmart, how do I know this, we bought many.
I've not lied nor been evasive, I've actually been more open on what I am doing with my time. We are working on 3.0 to add more support to HTC. These people know me enough to know they can ask what I am working on, and I give them a straight answer. More often than not, I will email the company who is responsible for what I find, and let them know before, or at release time when I release something. Often I will give them details and source code not public.
tmittelstaedt said:
No offense intended jcase but I have worked for software companies since 1990 (not as a developer - in accounting and later IT) and I have to believe that you don't quite really understand what you did with Sunshine.
As long as breaking root on phones was a hackers contest, and the exploit scripts were free, the phone companies and software companies didn't really give a damn about you or what you did or anything else that the security people came up with. They were fat, dumb, and happy and lazy and were contented to let Google and the manufacturer deal with security with minimal effort on their part.
The minute you started charging money, you became public enemy #1 to Verizon and any other carrier who wants to control their users. Because they know this - as long as the cracks are free the developers aren't going to have any incentive to wrap them in a slick wrapper that Ma and Pa Kettle can download, stick in a credit card number and click.
Once you start charging - why then you know (or will discover if you don't know already) that the revenue you get is directly proportional to how easy you make the package to run for Ma and Pa Kettle. And it really doesn't take a lot of extra work. For every 10% easier you make Sunshine to use, your going to see 1000% increase in revenue. Verizon knows this. Google knows this. Motorola knows this. And that is what scares them. Their goal right now is to shut you down. And they are gonna do it by doing whatever they can to break your stuff as quickly as possible.
Do you know how hard it is to find a cheap used Verizon Moto G nowadays off Ebay or someplace with 4.4.3 or earlier on it? Ever since November when you released support, Ebay has had a run on those phones. And Ebay is flooded now with Verizon Moto G's that have 4.4.4 on them and a bunch of panicked sellers who are doing whatever possible to make it hard for the buyers to determine what the Android version is.
A couple days after you released weaksauce2 the m8 sold out in every Verizon store in my city. Sold out - or recalled - or withheld, I don't know what.
Verizon and friends don't care about people like me who spend the hours of time on these forums to research to figure out what's what. They care about Pa Kettle who gets on Play Store, downloads an app and runs it and the app pops up a screen saying "you must root your phone to run this app" complete with an auto-installer that downloads and installs Sunshine and executes it for them. Pa Kettle is just going to fork over the $25 and think nothing of it and ca-ching there slips another phone out of the carriers control - a phone that can get ad-blocker loaded on it, a phone that can get that idiotic NFL garbage unloaded from it - a phone the carrier figures they have lost.
From their point of view you are stealing their customers. They don't care as much about the revenue from the wireless plan as they care about their ability to track their customers intimate buying habits and sell them to the highest bidder. They paid damn good money for the cost of the phone hardware so they could snare another mark to sell advertising to and you came along and flushed that money down the crapper with your software.
I guarantee to you there's been much discussion about Sunshine in the Verizon boardrooms. If your not lying now on these forums or at least being very evasive about what your working on, you should be. Their gunning for you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

cell2011 said:
Is 5.0 or 5.0.2 going to get Pie or cfroot on xt1028 Verizon when it comes out?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Neither

Won't it be rootable or boot loader unlocked ever? If not I'll sell it and get 1031 boost. Do you this 1031 will ever get lollipop?

jcase said:
I dont think you understand what I do, I work with carriers, OEMs and the like. I've trained some them, I go out to dinner with them, I've invited them to my home, I exchange christmas gifts with them, I have met their families. Their cell phone numbers are in my contacts list. I'm drinking my coffee from a cup one of them gave me, right now. When I am stuck, I've gone to them for help more than I can count. This is my industry, and these people are my friends. These people are not fat dumb or lazy. They care deeply about security, and work their butts off with the limited resources they have. The good ones engage the "hackers", and actually enjoy it. Many of them are on a skill level above and beyond myself.
I'm actually a firm believer they would rather see something packaged and sold, than out in the open, as it results in many times less people using it, as well as the time packaging it will stop or greatly slow down anyone trying to use the material for bad purposes (malware etc). Honestly, they probably don't care how something is distributed at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your not working with the upper level execs. Your working with the lower level people who have no control over what their company does. Their upper execs tell them "make the phone so that we own it completely even if the customer forks over their money or your fired" and they work their butts off to do that. I'm not talking about the lower level people and I think you know that.
The upper level execs set the company culture. And the company culture at Verizon is the customer is nothing more than fodder. If Verizon's company culture gave a damn about the customer they would have both bootloader locked and bootloader unlocked phones for sale in the retail outlets. If bootloader locking is such a security advantage the customers would buy them over bootloader unlocked phones. But no, instead, the bootloader locking is hidden away and the only way to buy one that can be unlocked is to pay ten times more for one. Your friends may be friends with you but they are supporting their families off of that company. They cannot go against that culture even though they probably would agree with me that Verizon should give customers a choice about buying a locked or unlocked phone.
Verizon does not need to force Motorola to refuse to hand out bootloader unlock codes for the Moto G. Nor do they need to make it insanely difficult to do a network unlock. Verizon posts a statement on their website saying that after you have owned your carrier-subsidized phone for a year you can network-unlock it. But they say NOTHING about bootloader-unlocking it. And if you try calling Verizon's support and asking for a network unlock code you will waste hours of time. I finally got a support tech in Verizon who was willing to look at their own website - after they told me Verizon didn't unlock phones - and do what she needed to do to answer my question - which is, when I am ready to network-unlock my phone, I have to call in and get the request escalated to 3rd tier before I'll be talking to a tech that even knows what network unlocking _is_. And the FCC - who forced them to allow for network unlocking - didn't force them to bootloader unlock. And of course they won't do it.
Verizon could go to Motorola and say "every phone that is 2 years old or older you are free to hand out bootloader unlocks on" But they won't.
No, you are very naive if you think that your friends who work at the carriers represent the carrier's approach and view of it's customers. They don't. I have no doubt that they are nice people. But the organization they work for is rotten to the core. I judge carriers by how they treat their customers. I judge them about how they treat me. And when I bought my phone and called into Verizon asking about what date I would get my phone network unlocked - just as a test to see if Verizon is really upholding the terms of it's agreement with the FCC where the FCC required them to network unlock phones - I was repeatedly lied to by their support people. So I am not basing my statements about that carrier on reading some crank who is spewing on the Internet against the carrier because he doesn't want to pay his phone bill. I'm basing them on how I've been treated. Where I live Verizon is a requirement due to coverage issues. But I have no qualms about what kind of a company I'm dealing with. I'm dealing with a company that buys phones by the hundreds of thousands from Motorola at $50 per device, marks them up 100%, and has a contract with Motorola that says Motorola must advertise a MSRP of $200, so that the sheeple who walk into the Verizon store think they are "gettin a deal" I don't trust them any further than I could spit a rat.
The PC community - Dell, HP, and all the rest of them - worked with Microsoft to develop a standard for encrypted bootloaders too. But ya know what? Microsoft put into the standard for encrypted bootloaders a requirement that the customer and go into BIOS and turn them off. PC makers that don't adhere to this aren't allowed to advertise compliance with the security standard. Verizon has that behavior as a model. But instead of requiring Motorola to make turning off encryption an option for the customer, they did exactly the opposite.
You can go and buy a brand new low-end PC today in the $250 range. That's a cheap PC equivalent to a cheap phone. But it's bootloader encryption is customer-selectable. The same should be the case for cell phones. When you released Sunshine you firmly put yourself behind that ideal. But don't for a second believe that your friends are working for a carrier that has any other position that your software is completely opposite what they believe.

tmittelstaedt said:
Your not working with the upper level execs. Your working with the lower level people who have no control over what their company does. Their upper execs tell them "make the phone so that we own it completely even if the customer forks over their money or your fired" and they work their butts off to do that. I'm not talking about the lower level people and I think you know that.
The upper level execs set the company culture. And the company culture at Verizon is the customer is nothing more than fodder. If Verizon's company culture gave a damn about the customer they would have both bootloader locked and bootloader unlocked phones for sale in the retail outlets. If bootloader locking is such a security advantage the customers would buy them over bootloader unlocked phones. But no, instead, the bootloader locking is hidden away and the only way to buy one that can be unlocked is to pay ten times more for one. Your friends may be friends with you but they are supporting their families off of that company. They cannot go against that culture even though they probably would agree with me that Verizon should give customers a choice about buying a locked or unlocked phone.
Verizon does not need to force Motorola to refuse to hand out bootloader unlock codes for the Moto G. Nor do they need to make it insanely difficult to do a network unlock. Verizon posts a statement on their website saying that after you have owned your carrier-subsidized phone for a year you can network-unlock it. But they say NOTHING about bootloader-unlocking it. And if you try calling Verizon's support and asking for a network unlock code you will waste hours of time. I finally got a support tech in Verizon who was willing to look at their own website - after they told me Verizon didn't unlock phones - and do what she needed to do to answer my question - which is, when I am ready to network-unlock my phone, I have to call in and get the request escalated to 3rd tier before I'll be talking to a tech that even knows what network unlocking _is_. And the FCC - who forced them to allow for network unlocking - didn't force them to bootloader unlock. And of course they won't do it.
Verizon could go to Motorola and say "every phone that is 2 years old or older you are free to hand out bootloader unlocks on" But they won't.
No, you are very naive if you think that your friends who work at the carriers represent the carrier's approach and view of it's customers. They don't. I have no doubt that they are nice people. But the organization they work for is rotten to the core. I judge carriers by how they treat their customers. I judge them about how they treat me. And when I bought my phone and called into Verizon asking about what date I would get my phone network unlocked - just as a test to see if Verizon is really upholding the terms of it's agreement with the FCC where the FCC required them to network unlock phones - I was repeatedly lied to by their support people. So I am not basing my statements about that carrier on reading some crank who is spewing on the Internet against the carrier because he doesn't want to pay his phone bill. I'm basing them on how I've been treated. Where I live Verizon is a requirement due to coverage issues. But I have no qualms about what kind of a company I'm dealing with. I'm dealing with a company that buys phones by the hundreds of thousands from Motorola at $50 per device, marks them up 100%, and has a contract with Motorola that says Motorola must advertise a MSRP of $200, so that the sheeple who walk into the Verizon store think they are "gettin a deal" I don't trust them any further than I could spit a rat.
The PC community - Dell, HP, and all the rest of them - worked with Microsoft to develop a standard for encrypted bootloaders too. But ya know what? Microsoft put into the standard for encrypted bootloaders a requirement that the customer and go into BIOS and turn them off. PC makers that don't adhere to this aren't allowed to advertise compliance with the security standard. Verizon has that behavior as a model. But instead of requiring Motorola to make turning off encryption an option for the customer, they did exactly the opposite.
You can go and buy a brand new low-end PC today in the $250 range. That's a cheap PC equivalent to a cheap phone. But it's bootloader encryption is customer-selectable. The same should be the case for cell phones. When you released Sunshine you firmly put yourself behind that ideal. But don't for a second believe that your friends are working for a carrier that has any other position that your software is completely opposite what they believe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tldr, you have no idea what your are talking about or who you are even talking to. If you think a single "high level exec" cares or even knows what an unlocked bootloader is, you are sadly mistaken.
Spend another 20 years in corporate america, like I have, and then maybe you'll have some wisdom to share in your lectures.

Hallaleuja brotha
Sent from my XT1028 using XDA Free mobile app

tmittelstaedt said:
Your not working with the upper level execs. Your working with the lower level people who have no control over what their company does. Their upper execs tell them "make the phone so that we own it completely even if the customer forks over their money or your fired" and they work their butts off to do that. I'm not talking about the lower level people and I think you know that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have, and I do.
tmittelstaedt said:
The upper level execs set the company culture. And the company culture at Verizon is the customer is nothing more than fodder. If Verizon's company culture gave a damn about the customer they would have both bootloader locked and bootloader unlocked phones for sale in the retail outlets. If bootloader locking is such a security advantage the customers would buy them over bootloader unlocked phones. But no, instead, the bootloader locking is hidden away and the only way to buy one that can be unlocked is to pay ten times more for one. Your friends may be friends with you but they are supporting their families off of that company. They cannot go against that culture even though they probably would agree with me that Verizon should give customers a choice about buying a locked or unlocked phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not going to go over the reasons why bootloaders are locked again. Feel free to search for one of the dozen times I've replied, I think I did it recently on google plus. You don't have an understanding why these bootloaders are locked.
I do not agree that the average user should have a device with an unlocked bootloader, the shear number of people emailing me daily on this that have absolutely nothing to do with me is enough to prove that point.
tmittelstaedt said:
Verizon does not need to force Motorola to refuse to hand out bootloader unlock codes for the Moto G. Nor do they need to make it insanely difficult to do a network unlock. Verizon posts a statement on their website saying that after you have owned your carrier-subsidized phone for a year you can network-unlock it. But they say NOTHING about bootloader-unlocking it. And if you try calling Verizon's support and asking for a network unlock code you will waste hours of time. I finally got a support tech in Verizon who was willing to look at their own website - after they told me Verizon didn't unlock phones - and do what she needed to do to answer my question - which is, when I am ready to network-unlock my phone, I have to call in and get the request escalated to 3rd tier before I'll be talking to a tech that even knows what network unlocking _is_. And the FCC - who forced them to allow for network unlocking - didn't force them to bootloader unlock. And of course they won't do it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CMDA is a whitelist technology, it is not "unlocked" like GSM. Their devices are not "LOCKED" to their network, they network itself does the rejection. Their few devices that do support GSM, tend not to be network locked (some were locked against certain carriers).
CDMA != GSM
tmittelstaedt said:
Verizon could go to Motorola and say "every phone that is 2 years old or older you are free to hand out bootloader unlocks on" But they won't.
No, you are very naive if you think that your friends who work at the carriers represent the carrier's approach and view of it's customers. They don't. I have no doubt that they are nice people. But the organization they work for is rotten to the core. I judge carriers by how they treat their customers. I judge them about how they treat me. And when I bought my phone and called into Verizon asking about what date I would get my phone network unlocked - just as a test to see if Verizon is really upholding the terms of it's agreement with the FCC where the FCC required them to network unlock phones - I was repeatedly lied to by their support people. So I am not basing my statements about that carrier on reading some crank who is spewing on the Internet against the carrier because he doesn't want to pay his phone bill. I'm basing them on how I've been treated. Where I live Verizon is a requirement due to coverage issues. But I have no qualms about what kind of a company I'm dealing with. I'm dealing with a company that buys phones by the hundreds of thousands from Motorola at $50 per device, marks them up 100%, and has a contract with Motorola that says Motorola must advertise a MSRP of $200, so that the sheeple who walk into the Verizon store think they are "gettin a deal" I don't trust them any further than I could spit a rat.
The PC community - Dell, HP, and all the rest of them - worked with Microsoft to develop a standard for encrypted bootloaders too. But ya know what? Microsoft put into the standard for encrypted bootloaders a requirement that the customer and go into BIOS and turn them off. PC makers that don't adhere to this aren't allowed to advertise compliance with the security standard. Verizon has that behavior as a model. But instead of requiring Motorola to make turning off encryption an option for the customer, they did exactly the opposite.
You can go and buy a brand new low-end PC today in the $250 range. That's a cheap PC equivalent to a cheap phone. But it's bootloader encryption is customer-selectable. The same should be the case for cell phones. When you released Sunshine you firmly put yourself behind that ideal. But don't for a second believe that your friends are working for a carrier that has any other position that your software is completely opposite what they believe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bootloaders are not encrypted.
I'm not insulting you here but I'm being to the point. You lack a fundamental understanding of each aspect of this conversation, which makes much of it not even worth replying to.
You don't have an understanding of the industry, of me, or how the devices work themselves.

Gsm rules
Sent from my XT1028 using XDA Free mobile app

Cdma will be extinct soon anyways soon

beaups said:
We don't trust or like you, either. Also, that vuln in your OP is long patched and non-useful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to ignore any insults directed directly to me, because I understand people forget there's an actual person behind the text.
It seemed too good to be true, I just wanted some confirmation on whether the vuln was truly patched or not.
Have fun insulting others in teh interwebs

Database Users

welcome