Database Users

open source Ha

why are they blocking **** on the G1 if its supposed to be opensource
and in opensource anything goes
and i heard they wont let you put skins on the market
oh well i still love my G1 hopefully they dont **** **** up
btw we should start a petition against rc30 because its negating the open source part of the phoen

http://source.android.com/download
and in opensource anything goes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. That includes taking the source code and building a closed or partially closed product.

roguestatuskat said:
why are they blocking **** on the G1 if its supposed to be opensource
and in opensource anything goes
and i heard they wont let you put skins on the market
oh well i still love my G1 hopefully they dont **** **** up
btw we should start a petition against rc30 because its negating the open source part of the phoen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you quite understand the concept of open source. Open source doesn't mean "anything goes." Open source means you get access to the source code. Depending on the license, you can take the source code and make a closed source program (BSD, for example), or it must stay open source (GPL). That is it.
RC30 had nothing to do with negating the open source concept. RC30 was in response to a bug in the project that allowed whatever you typed on the keyboard to be echoed to a console.
If you want a rooted, unlocked phone, get an Android Dev Phone 1.

A truly wide open, mass marketed cell phone in this package would be a BAD thing for us. It needs to still have standards to insure the "typical" user can easily use the device and not have to worry about ****ing it up.
Get a Dev phone if you want to modify it.

vr24 said:
A truly wide open, mass marketed cell phone in this package would be a BAD thing for us. It needs to still have standards to insure the "typical" user can easily use the device and not have to worry about ****ing it up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really don't see what is wrong with selling a software unlocked device through T-Mobile. The default ROM that comes loaded does not have root enabled... you actually have to go through the SPL to flash a new image which has ro.secure disabled. Its not like someone can just accidentally go into SPL mode and brick their phone, they actually have to press a key sequence to access it.
Also, look at just about every other device on these forums. They run WINDOWS, the most closed source platform out there and even on those phones we can flash images via SPL. Why not on a phone running linux?

Datruesurfer said:
Also, look at just about every other device on these forums. They run WINDOWS, the most closed source platform out there and even on those phones we can flash images via SPL. Why not on a phone running linux?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is really quite a lot easier to seriously damage a Linux system in the command line than it is with Windows. With root access, Linux assumes you know exactly what you are doing. Root also bypasses quite a lot of Linux's security mechanisms. This behavior is not appropriate or ideal for a consumer-oriented device. The G1 is not marketed toward software developers and experienced Linux hackers. If such a device is required, the Dev Phone 1 is the appropriate option.
Also, if WinMo were ever to want to make serious attempts at breaking into the consumer smartphone space (where iPhone and Symbian live), I imagine it too would become seriously locked down.

jashsu said:
It is really quite a lot easier to seriously damage a Linux system in the command line than it is with Windows.With root access, Linux assumes you know exactly what you are doing. Root also bypasses quite a lot of Linux's security mechanisms. This behavior is not appropriate or ideal for a consumer-oriented device. The G1 is not marketed toward software developers and experienced Linux hackers. If such a device is required, the Dev Phone 1 is the appropriate option.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know what has the same power that root has to brick your phone? the bootloader. Say you try to flash to the latest ROM and it fails half way through... Your phone is basically bricked. Regardless, HTC still has this enabled on all of their Windows Mobile devices. Not exactly consumer oriented functionality, but it is there so people who know what they are doing have the power to do what they want.

I really think everyone needs to calm down here. We aren't sure what is in store for the future. Maybe we should withhold complaints and other comments until after Google has finished their first release.
But feel free to complain about how t-mobile doesn't tell you about the beta-ness of the device.

neoobs said:
I really think everyone needs to calm down here. We aren't sure what is in store for the future. Maybe we should withhold complaints and other comments until after Google has finished their first release.
But feel free to complain about how t-mobile doesn't tell you about the beta-ness of the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google already made their stance very clear. Buy a Dev Phone for $399 + $25 market subscription fee + shipping or you can't have root. I'm sure its going to be the same for every other android device coming out.

Datruesurfer said:
Google already made their stance very clear. Buy a Dev Phone for $399 + $25 market subscription fee + shipping or you can't have root.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not Google's decision to make:
Brian Swetland @ G1-Hackers mailing listhttp://www.telesphoreo.org/pipermail/g1-hackers/2008-December/000188.html
The t-mobile g1 devices are "working as intended" as of RC30. It is
possible that other OEMs or carriers may choose to ship their devices with
the platform in a less (or, hey, even more) locked down configuration, but
that is the choice of the OEMs and carriers.
I'm sure its going to be the same for every other android device coming out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which OEM or carrier do you work for/speak for?

This "its working as intended" is technically true but it means the HYPE behind the phone was and is a load of crap.
If T-Mobile wants to become Verizon, so be it. They're entitled. Customers are entitled to tell them to pound sand and stick it where the sun does not shine.
What's unreasonable (and indeed outrageous) is to sell a beta device to the public without making VERY CLEAR what you are doing. OTA "push" updates are even worse as they can (and in this case DID) REMOVE functionality that used to be there.
As for building "totally secure" environments, heh, have at it. But doing so destroys the attraction of "open source" and then you're on the hook to deliver the full experience that the user expects, because he or she can't get it from anyone but you.
Just so long as everyone involved understands that this is the tradeoff and is ok with it (that is, the customer is INFORMED before they hand over their money AND the company understands that they will get the criticism that will come when the experience doesn't meet expectations!) that's fine.
Would I buy a WinMo unit that I could NOT hack on and load my own firmware? Today, hell no, because what's delivered "stock" does not meet my expectations for user experience.
Neither does the G1, and the reason I'm not sitting here with one is because T-Mobile has made an executive decision to lock those devices down to the point that I can't do for myself what they either refuse to do (or are incapable of doing) for me, nor can I find other people who can and do those things and load THEIR stuff on the platform.
If I wanted a Samsung "prepack" phone I'd have bought one. Oh wait - I can even reflash and feature-edit those, along with Motorolas!

Datruesurfer said:
Google already made their stance very clear. Buy a Dev Phone for $399 + $25 market subscription fee + shipping or you can't have root. I'm sure its going to be the same for every other android device coming out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would like to know where you got your information about Google's stance. So far all they have said is that the device is still partly closed source till the get things the way they want it. This would also imply that later down the line they may give the option to open root again.

Genesis3 said:
This "its working as intended" is technically true but it means the HYPE behind the phone was and is a load of crap.
If T-Mobile wants to become Verizon, so be it. They're entitled. Customers are entitled to tell them to pound sand and stick it where the sun does not shine.
What's unreasonable (and indeed outrageous) is to sell a beta device to the public without making VERY CLEAR what you are doing. OTA "push" updates are even worse as they can (and in this case DID) REMOVE functionality that used to be there.
As for building "totally secure" environments, heh, have at it. But doing so destroys the attraction of "open source" and then you're on the hook to deliver the full experience that the user expects, because he or she can't get it from anyone but you.
Just so long as everyone involved understands that this is the tradeoff and is ok with it (that is, the customer is INFORMED before they hand over their money AND the company understands that they will get the criticism that will come when the experience doesn't meet expectations!) that's fine.
Would I buy a WinMo unit that I could NOT hack on and load my own firmware? Today, hell no, because what's delivered "stock" does not meet my expectations for user experience.
Neither does the G1, and the reason I'm not sitting here with one is because T-Mobile has made an executive decision to lock those devices down to the point that I can't do for myself what they either refuse to do (or are incapable of doing) for me, nor can I find other people who can and do those things and load THEIR stuff on the platform.
If I wanted a Samsung "prepack" phone I'd have bought one. Oh wait - I can even reflash and feature-edit those, along with Motorolas!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then don't buy a consumer oriented device like the G1 - don't like how it operates, there are thousands of apps to add new functionality. Want root? Too bad, it's not designed or released for that reason, or, gasp, buy a DEV PHONE.
You think T-Mobile is even remotely taking into considering the .00001% of the user base that is like you? Who wants to buy a phone to HACK it!? Be serious here. What features are you really missing out here? Can't teather the phone (which t-mobile doesn't want you doing anyways) - and can't set auto-rotate?
Yes, caching to the SD card is something that needs fixing, but hardly a major "I need root" problem at this point, the phone is practically still BETA, and again, BUY A DEV PHONE.

Genesis3 said:
OTA "push" updates are even worse as they can (and in this case DID) REMOVE functionality that used to be there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The update was to fix a gaping security hole not to remove functionality. The fact was that before it was fixed all it would have taken would be for a site contain certain malicious code and then a person would have root access to your phone and all your personal information with it. Just think of how far someone who had your google credentials could go.
RC29 was a test of the OTA system. If it hadn't been for the security hole RC30 probably would not have happened. If it wasn't fixed it would have opened Google & T-Mobile to a massive amount of liability.
As for building "totally secure" environments, heh, have at it. But doing so destroys the attraction of "open source" and then you're on the hook to deliver the full experience that the user expects, because he or she can't get it from anyone but you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is another misunderstanding of what open source really is. It means that the source code is open to be viewed and/or modified. It does not mean that the hardware needs to be (think of Tivo).
Aside from that one of the new "cupcake release" that is currently being worked on includes support third party updates of system applications. This ability alone means a lot.
the reason I'm not sitting here with one is because T-Mobile has made an executive decision to lock those devices down to the point that I can't do for myself what they either refuse to do (or are incapable of doing) for me, nor can I find other people who can and do those things and load THEIR stuff on the platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please do some research before you try to say what T-mobile's intent is. If they're not going to move to block tethering, which would impact them via the bandwidth, then why would they move to otherwise lock the phone from modification in ways that wouldn't?
The G1 is not missing any features advertised before launch. The fact that you want more from it and the fact that people are working towards making that a reality kind of shows the power of open source. I don't think that WM had this level of development and as much progress a month an a half after launch.

Genesis3 said:
But doing so destroys the attraction of "open source"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Open source and Linux have different benefits to different groups of people with sometimes divergent agendas. These groups could include oems/manufaturers, carriers, power users, casual users. What is an "attraction" to you may be unimportant or a liability to someone else.
Just so long as everyone involved understands that this is the tradeoff and is ok with it (that is, the customer is INFORMED before they hand over their money AND the company understands that they will get the criticism that will come when the experience doesn't meet expectations!) that's fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seems to me that at the core of a lot of dissatisfied G1 users is either: 1) their own expectation that the G1 would have X and Y features that were never advertised to be supported "out-of-the-box" or 2) their dissatisfaction at not having root access (which was never advertised). Some folks new to the world of open source seem to think that any product built on os components must be by nature completely open access. This is a completely flawed assumption. I see no need for T-Mo or Google to apologize for a potential G1 owner's own assumptions going into the purchase.
Would I buy a WinMo unit that I could NOT hack on and load my own firmware? Today, hell no, because what's delivered "stock" does not meet my expectations for user experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Another solution would simply be not to voluntarily buy any WinMo products at all. Tech is still a business, and the best way to get businesses to act is to put your money where your mouth is.
@vr24 & benmyers: Agreed completely.

There are a whole host of things that the G1 does not do by intent.
Tethering is just one of them.
I actually use my phone to do work on, and the functionality that would have been LOST going from either a Wizard or a Kaiser to the G1 was insane.
I toyed with one for a half-hour or so in the store and said "thanks, but no thanks" when a half-dozen things I attempted - simple stuff that WM6 (and even WM5!) support native like, oh, connecting to my ORB server at my house and watching CNBC on the phone - failed.
Tethering has been possible on virtually every phone that can run data T-Mobile has produced and can talk to a PC since the Nokia 6610 (a phone I still happen to have, having purchased it FROM T-Mobile in something like 2001!); removing that functionality is absolutely asinine given that it was intentionally removed - Linux by its nature knows how to do both NAT and DHCP, the two essential elements required.
Yes, I'm aware they've removed it from a couple of other recent models' firmware (Samsungs in particular) as well. You want to cite some speech by a T-Mobile executive that PREDATES the firmware changes they made intentionally to the Samsung models? Guess what - executives lie all the time. Wake up and smell the coffee, or have it poured down your back.
Like I said, if they intend to become Verizon they're entitled, and customers are entitled to leave - and will.
"Dream"? Ha.
T-Mobile is IMHO making a critical error given that the "bling crowd" doesn't need a $100/month cellphone bill and into the maw of the worst economic conditions since the 1930s do you think people will cut luxuries like data on their cell phones or their car payment first?
You fanboys are welcome to your "Dream"-cum-nightmare; as for the suggestion that I shouldn't buy a WinMo device because "its not all there as intended" I buy with the full knowledge and intent that I can unlock and flash it, intending to do so at the point of purchase. That's part of the bargain and why I purchased it - if that wasn't possible I'd probably be on a Symbian device instead.
As for "doing research" the fact of the matter is that without system-level access nobody's going to be building a native tethering application. Modifying routing tables (including setting up NAT) requires system privilege; 20+ years experience writing Unix device drivers here kids.
Have a good evening.

Genesis3 said:
Linux by its nature knows how to do both NAT and DHCP, the two essential elements required.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android ≠ Linux
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

Genesis3 said:
removing that functionality is absolutely asinine given that it was intentionally removed - Linux by its nature knows how to do both NAT and DHCP, the two essential elements required.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This comment is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. I'm assuming you mean dhcpd. In any case, the average user only cares whether tethering is possible or not and yes it is very possible. I'm beta testing June Fabric's PdaNET for Android.
T-Mobile is IMHO making a critical error given that the "bling crowd" doesn't need a $100/month cellphone bill and into the maw of the worst economic conditions since the 1930s do you think people will cut luxuries like data on their cell phones or their car payment first?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last I checked, htc's numbers for G1s shipped thru end of Q4 2008 is 1 million units. Considering that T-Mo is Dream's only carrier and all Dreams are sold with a dataplan, I think they're doing alright. Certainly feel free to correct me if you have more accurate numbers.

benmyers2941 said:
Android ≠ Linux
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The drivers are in the kernel. Have you looked?
I have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beggars eh?
Hmmm... me thinks you got that backwards.

Genesis3 said:
The drivers are in the kernel. Have you looked?
I have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup...sure have... and as jashsu pointed out
tethering is possible or not and yes it is very possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Beggars eh?
Hmmm... me thinks you got that backwards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How so? I'm not the one asking for stuff and then choosing not to believe what I'm told.

[Q] So, what happens when MS finds out we lied?

OK, I think that there is a general grasp on how to get WP7 running on our HD2's.
I am OK with the risk of bricking the hardware but I do have a concern that seems to be getting glossed over here.
What I want to know is what do you guys think is the chance of, and nature of any backlash from MS from essentially lying to get an activation code?
I have had my live ID, with all its related stuff - zune, etc. for a long time and fear the risk of loosing that more than the possibility of breaking a phone.
The simple answer is to just go buy an HD7, but that is expensive, and I have a perfectly good HD2 right here.
anyway... what do you guys see as the actual risks involved with obtaining and using the activation codes?

we all go to hell (is in the fairy tale book aka the bible)
There's a big debate about this you can read along here

The least they would do if the found a way to detect non-HD7 phones would be to close your live account for breach of T&C's.
I very much doubt that they would bring any legal action against the people who got the codes as there would be far too many people plus it would be very bad for PR and customers if they was to start suing people who wanted to use WP7.
All I would expect to happen is..
a) Lose live account.
b) Lose activation on phone.
Plus this relies on whether..
a) Microsoft find a way to detect the non-HD7's
b) If they decide to revoke activation at all.

TheBeak said:
OK, I think that there is a general grasp on how to get WP7 running on our HD2's.
I am OK with the risk of bricking the hardware but I do have a concern that seems to be getting glossed over here.
What I want to know is what do you guys think is the chance of, and nature of any backlash from MS from essentially lying to get an activation code?
I have had my live ID, with all its related stuff - zune, etc. for a long time and fear the risk of loosing that more than the possibility of breaking a phone.
The simple answer is to just go buy an HD7, but that is expensive, and I have a perfectly good HD2 right here.
anyway... what do you guys see as the actual risks involved with obtaining and using the activation codes?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well you have just told them..Have you. They read these posts. They are not hidden from the world..
But we have not Lied. I have wp7 I told them that and they gave me the code. It does not matter about what the outside of my mobile look like. Its the engine that's running it..So what if the shell of my mobile looks like a HD2? Who cares, MS dont. they are making money from the marketplace every day, and there profits is going back up.
Thats Business.
So think before you print in XDA forms, or read them all first.

I didn't lie and didn't feel that I should have had to. I said I have a htc windows phone and when I enter my windows live id and password it says to get an activation code which it did. I think people are acting as if they stole something when they didn't. Microsoft didn't upgrade the HD2 because it was going to "COST" them and because they wanted to have this "NEW PHONE" to promote. I don't really think they care now that it is on the HD2. It is good for business to have more users and I will even go on record saying that they will offer HD2 users WP7 with some form of disclaimer in the very near future now that it has been proven that it can be done.
If you go to the market and get free apps or buy apps that's good for their business. We all bought "Windows Mobile phones, and we are "NOT" stealing the software we are buying it. It is not like we are using a none Windows mobile phone. I really don't think they are going to track down people who bought Windows Mobile phones and sue them. That would be really, really bad for business to do that.
"Do you actually think they would prefer that we go back to Android, their competition, Seriously?" I don't.

Uh oh, I just got some information from a friend that works at Harte-Hanks here in town (MS uses them for customer service calls), that the codes generated won't be completely redacted but based on the phone number given on the support call, it will be cross-checked with the service provider based on the device reported by the cell service provider and information linked by your Windows Live ID. Those with an invalid device not corresponding with what's being reported by the provider (if they co-operate by releasing your info) should expect to receive a letter from Microsoft's legal counsel for committing fraud to obtain an activation code for Windows Phone 7.
It sounds like what DirecTV tried to with people who bought programmers/unloopers for the satellite H/HU cards back in the day and threaten everyone with legal action, but they could not prove what your intention with the programmer was. Except in this case, if you called in for a key you purposefully tried to deceive Microsoft if you were trying to activate live services. If you have your actual address and contact information in your Windows Live ID, I'd change it right away. My friend says all calls are recorded, they just selectively choose which to listen to if they need to go back. Just a warning for you all trying to get a key and take this information with a grain of salt, but I don't have any reason to doubt what my friend is saying.

DanielNTX said:
Uh oh, I just got some information from a friend that works at Harte-Hanks here in town (MS uses them for customer service calls), that the codes generated won't be completely redacted but based on the phone number given on the support call, it will be cross-checked with the service provider based on the device reported by the cell service provider and information linked by your Windows Live ID. Those with an invalid device not corresponding with what's being reported by the provider (if they co-operate by releasing your info) should expect to receive a letter from Microsoft's legal counsel for committing fraud to obtain an activation code for Windows Phone 7.
It sounds like what DirecTV tried to with people who bought programmers/unloopers for the satellite H/HU cards back in the day and threaten everyone with legal action, but they could not prove what your intention with the programmer was. Except in this case, if you called in for a key you purposefully tried to deceive Microsoft if you were trying to activate live services. If you have your actual address and contact information in your Windows Live ID, I'd change it right away. My friend says all calls are recorded, they just selectively choose which to listen to if they need to go back. Just a warning for you all trying to get a key and take this information with a grain of salt, but I don't have any reason to doubt what my friend is saying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Except in the case of the DirecTV they were STEALING the channels/premium boxing payperview events etc (I know this for a fact since a cousin of mine was messing around with the HU cards for a while). IF we were using the activation code to some how download pay apps as well as music for free off the Zune Marketplace then I can understand why they would go after people. But all you're doing is activating a service that lets you used their marketplace for apps/games and other services etc.
Same story with custom firmware on some xbox 360's. Why haven't they sue a single soul for doing it besides banning people off xbox live? that's as far as Microsoft have gone with that issue.
Thanks for the warning but your friend is over exaggerating.

In the DirecTV case, people were being sued for buying security card programmers without proof of them actually using them to STEAL satellite services.

DanielNTX said:
Those with an invalid device not corresponding with what's being reported by the provider (if they co-operate by releasing your info) should expect to receive a letter from Microsoft's legal counsel for committing fraud to obtain an activation code for Windows Phone 7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They could be compelled to cooperate, but don't think for a moment your carrier is going to willingly start turning over records in an effort to nuke their own (sometimes highly valued) customers. Not gonna happen.
Cool scary story tho bro.

I'm just saying be careful here because MS will have information tied to you and what you are trying to do if you decide to do it.
From the http://www.directvdefense.org/ website:
What to do if you've been threatened by DirecTV
A number of folks have been writing or calling EFF asking what to do if they receive a letter from DirecTV when they have never pirated its signal. EFF does not give out legal advice in these circumstances and cannot represent any DirecTV defendants at this time, but there are a few things one might consider doing in this situation:
1) Take the threat seriously. DirecTV is likely to continue to go after you if you just ignore their letters or lawsuits.
2) Consider contacting a lawyer, preferably one with some experience in these cases and admitted in the federal court district where you live. We've compiled a list of attorneys currently taking DirecTV cases.
3) Collect all evidence you can think of to support your innocence. If there are emails, source code, schematics, bills, receipts, or other written documents that show you did not order, receive, or use the device in the letter, you will need those to substantiate your case. Also, if you did order the device but for a different purpose, consider talking to anyone who might have witnessed such uses and could testify on your behalf.
4) Document your use of cable or satellite systems. If you did not have a DirecTV satellite dish or set-top box during the time when you supposedly had the accused device, that will help your case.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm just saying be careful. Even Pocketnow says the same thing essentially:
Now, a couple of things are going on here that should convince you to never, ever try this (if Microsoft doesn't catch on like ten minutes ago and shut this thing down): first of all, you're possibly committing multiple crimes by procuring and using these PVK's, and if that doesn't bother you, then perhaps you'll be dissuaded by the fact that Microsoft can tie these keys to individual handsets (not to mention the personal info you gave up to get the rare 25-character code). In other words, not only do we not condone this sort of activity, we're actively suggesting that you stay far away from such serious fraud.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

mr_brew said:
I didn't lie and didn't feel that I should have had to. I said I have a htc windows phone and when I enter my windows live id and password it says to get an activation code which it did. I think people are acting as if they stole something when they didn't. Microsoft didn't upgrade the HD2 because it was going to "COST" them and because they wanted to have this "NEW PHONE" to promote. I don't really think they care now that it is on the HD2. It is good for business to have more users and I will even go on record saying that they will offer HD2 users WP7 with some form of disclaimer in the very near future now that it has been proven that it can be done.
If you go to the market and get free apps or buy apps that's good for their business. We all bought "Windows Mobile phones, and we are "NOT" stealing the software we are buying it. It is not like we are using a none Windows mobile phone. I really don't think they are going to track down people who bought Windows Mobile phones and sue them. That would be really, really bad for business to do that.
"Do you actually think they would prefer that we go back to Android, their competition, Seriously?" I don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The way I see it, the OS WP7 is an intelectual property rights. It is protected by law and it is not an open source.
You have to buy the software (WP7) to use that. It doesnt matter in which handset you use it, htc, samsung, etc.
Just like XP, Win7, etc, you buy the software to use legally. You can buy the branded PC (Acer, HP, Asus, etc), and you can also assemble a PC, but you still have to buy the software/os (XP, Win 7, etc)
So, it is not about using your HD2 for any other OS (WP7), but it is about using the software (WP7) which is legally protected as an intelectual property rights.
It doesnt mean I support microsoft. The fact is that I use WP7 on my HD2
Peace....

mr_brew said:
We all bought "Windows Mobile phones, and we are "NOT" stealing the software we are buying it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well we all actually bought Windows Mobile 6.5 software phones, but not Windows Phone 7 software.
It's like saying because you bought Windows for Workgroups 3.11 back in the 90's entitles you to all workstation versions of Windows. This could be true if you are paying for a yearly maintenance fee through Software Assurance. But last I heard there's no SA programs for Windows Mobile / Pocket PC / Windows Phone.

silverwind said:
The way I see it, the OS WP7 is an intelectual property rights. It is protected by law and it is not an open source.
You have to buy the software (WP7) to use that. It doesnt matter in which handset you use it, htc, samsung, etc.
Just like XP, Win7, etc, you buy the software to use legally. You can buy the branded PC (Acer, HP, Asus, etc), and you can also assemble a PC, but you still have to buy the software/os (XP, Win 7, etc)
So, it is not about using your HD2 for any other OS (WP7), but it is about using the software (WP7) which is legally protected as an intelectual property rights.
It doesnt mean I support microsoft. The fact is that I use WP7 on my HD2
Peace....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good point except they looked the other way when people where modifying the crap out of WM6.5 hell practicly every single member on this forum have broken the HTC's EULA in one way of another.
Anyways not here to start a piss war if MS decides to suspend my live account it was my choice knowing well the repercussion of my actions at hand. (Then again I can finally cancel my 2 year old Zune Pass as well as my xbox live account )

ROFL ... sorry this was a horrible post

DJTJ said:
ROFL ... sorry this was a horrible post
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah you are right
sorry to scare you

as some of you already said, i belive ms would not be pissed if we buy apps from marketplace
but if they can find a way of tagging our phones as not being wp7 native and together with the info we provided when we asked for activation code, they just have the info about who are the people that are using "pirate" wp7
now this could be a serious motiv for ms to raise legal action against us, forcing us, at least, to drop the wp7 or/and to pay a penalty fee for using wp7
now, they will put in balance how much money could they get from such users buying legal apps fom marketplace and eventualy getting them to buy a native wp7 phone or how much money could they get by forcing those people to pay such penalty
my 2c!

noris08 said:
as some of you already said, i belive ms would not be pissed if we buy apps from marketplace
but if they can find a way of tagging our phones as not being wp7 native and together with the info we provided when we asked for activation code, they just have the info about who are the people that are using "pirate" wp7
now this could be a serious motiv for ms to raise legal action against us, forcing us, at least, to drop the wp7 or/and to pay a penalty fee for using wp7
now, they will put in balance how much money could they get from such users buying legal apps fom marketplace and eventualy getting them to buy a native wp7 phone or how much money could they get by forcing those people to pay such penalty
my 2c!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get your points. Yes, there is possibility as you said.
But I dont think MS will enforce any action against us.
Why? This kind of activities (hacking window os) has already happened since long time ago.I remembered I flashed my Touch HD with WM 6.5 (energy rom actually ) This is the same case as flashing WP7 to your HD2, right?, but MS just keeps silent though they know it (by browsing here at XDA )
that 's just my 2 cents

silverwind said:
I get your points. Yes, there is possibility as you said.
But I dont think MS will enforce any action against us.
Why? This kind of activities (hacking window os) has already happened since long time ago.I remembered I flashed my Touch HD with WM 6.5 (energy rom actually ) This is the same case as flashing WP7 to your HD2, right?, but MS just keeps silent though they know it (by browsing here at XDA )
that 's just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no, it's not exactly the case
when you bought the hd you also bought an wm6.1 license. wm6.5 is just an update of the 6.1, more like a service pack. so, you basicaly have the os you bought with some "enhancements"
but for wp7 you didn't pay anything, on your hd2 you just bought a wm os, not a wp7 os
for me looks like legaly windows xp with some service pack against windows 7
i just hope i am wrong

Phoned this morning, said I was having trouble accessing the market on my 'windows phone 7', person at other end said I needed an activation code and asked for my name, email and number, I gave the real ones and asked for code to be mailed. Code has arrived in mail.
Now to see what happens when the new update of WP7 comes out.

zkid2010 said:
They could be compelled to cooperate, but don't think for a moment your carrier is going to willingly start turning over records in an effort to nuke their own (sometimes highly valued) customers. Not gonna happen.
Cool scary story tho bro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly, its compelte BS. The only way that the carrier could turn over information is IF they themselves may be liable in some way which they are not. If they turn over any sort of personal information without our consent its a breach of the data protect act (at least here in the UK it is) and that is a much higher crime then what we have done (if its a crime at all).
Plus the carrier has no way of knowing what phone we actually have unless they use the IMEI of the phone as a reference which again goes back to personal information and they wouldn't be able to disclose anything without court order and there is no court in the land who would force a UK company to turn over personal information in this case.
The most M$ can do in this situation is to find a way to detect a non-HD7 and to revoke the product key and thus disable activation of live services.
But I really dont think M$ are going to kick all this up, think about it what motivation would they have to piss about? Yeah they didn't want to officially support the HD2 and a port of WP7 etc but that doesn't mean they are also going to actively stop anybody who manages use it in the end it just not worth their while.
Its upto M$ now, they can either screw their supporters or let them be.

article: Microsoft responds to HTC HD2 Windows Phone 7 ROMs

A Microsoft spokesperson issued the following statement:
“We encourage people to use their Windows Phone as supplied by the manufacturer to ensure the best possible user experience. The scenario described is not supported at this time.”
http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-responds-to-htc-hd2-windows-phone-7-roms/
I read that as open season for the moment....

People lets make some noise on there....

Mouhahahahahahahaha
EDIT: BTW, When I called for the Activation. They gave it to me (but I had already used the one provided here). Then they called me again today just to make sure everything is operating smoothly. I love their Customer service

and this is how the communtiy responded when MS said no!!! the HD2 has too many buttons.

Microsoft would be crazy not to support WP7 on HD2. Of course they encourage it now..!!

Microsoft has always been rather "friendly" with people experimenting with their products. Look at Kinect, HD2, 360, 7, etc. They are not encouraging it but they are not shutting off all doors either...
After all, it's free advertising and more people using their products...

They learn from it as well!!

“We encourage people to use their Windows Phone as supplied by the manufacturer to ensure the best possible user experience. The scenario described is not supported at this time.”
I think the phrase 'at this time' is a bit of a giveaway. In the future maybe???
Whatever people think of Microsoft, they do try to listen to the feedback given by their customers. 'Cracked' software comes with the territory for any OS developer. They could block any unlocks, but that would lead to other methods to bypass this.
No software is crack-proof.
Windows 7 activation was bypassed ages ago, and Microsoft haven't actively tried to stop this.
I'm not a huge MS fan, but hats off to them for trying to improve their software and OS year on year.....

geddeeee said:
“We encourage people to use their Windows Phone as supplied by the manufacturer to ensure the best possible user experience. The scenario described is not supported at this time.”
I think the phrase 'at this time' is a bit of a giveaway. In the future maybe???
Whatever people think of Microsoft, they do try to listen to the feedback given by their customers. 'Cracked' software comes with the territory for any OS developer. They could block any unlocks, but that would lead to other methods to bypass this.
No software is crack-proof.
Windows 7 activation was bypassed ages ago, and Microsoft haven't actively tried to stop this.
I'm not a huge MS fan, but hats off to them for trying to improve their software and OS year on year.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The reason is there is no need to actively fight the activation cracking. It became a battle between the people who want to crack will crack no matter what. So what they did was make it as inconvenient as possible. Even when Windows 7 was cracked, unforseen checks caused the OS to relock itself and etc. More cracks had to be made to bypass the checks that werent seen.
With Windows phone, It's very likely they they don't care as long as people are using it since you can't exactly go out and buy windows phone 7 and install it like you can with the desktop OS. Plus, who knows how much they charge the phone manufacturers if anything.
The chances are, they either don't charge anything or charge very little and expect to make up for it when people buy content from the marketplace.
The phone itself was specifically designed with the pre-release specs for WP7 and with the HD7 was released and was basically the same, it was known then that eventually someone would get WP7 working on the HD2. Microsoft probably realized it and at this point they are going to just not support anyone using the HD2 as a WP7 device which is perfectly reasonable. The HD2 has some bugs to iron out for WP7 and why should Microsoft have to be responsible for supporting it.
This however isn't going to stop idiots who run WP7 on the HD2 from possibly calling Microsoft because of WP7 issues.

Hmmmm, the link at the top has had many HD2 WP7 users reply and left their view. Be careful because to leave your own comment they ask for an email. Make sure it isnt the email you used to activate WP7.
Putting that aside it is nice to see that Microsoft are not trying to slam the doors shut. Lets see what the updates bring and then see if they mean what they say.

Hilarity ensues!
ChrisTran206 said:
This however isn't going to stop idiots who run WP7 on the HD2 from possibly calling Microsoft because of WP7 issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, the clueless will call regardless...
Honestly though, I didn't know what to think regarding MS's response. I guess I assumed they would shut it down asap. Stunning revelation for me actually and I have new found respect for them in embracing insteading of shunning the enevitable.

maybe MS did add the HD2 to the compatability list a long time ago, but forgot that it was still there, so the customer service just did the right thing.

DannyBiker said:
Microsoft has always been rather "friendly" with people experimenting with their products. Look at Kinect, HD2, 360, 7, etc. They are not encouraging it but they are not shutting off all doors either...
After all, it's free advertising and more people using their products...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not quiet sure how "friendly" they are with people flashing their 360 with a custom firmware unless u call "friendly" getting your ass ban from xbox live and ur account cancel

DannyBiker said:
Microsoft has always been rather "friendly" with people experimenting with their products. Look at Kinect, HD2, 360, 7, etc. They are not encouraging it but they are not shutting off all doors either
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
DennisCSUF said:
Not quiet sure how "friendly" they are with people flashing their 360 with a custom firmware unless u call "friendly" getting your ass ban from xbox live and ur account cancel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, no #%$
I thought his comparison with the 360 was a little off. And M$'s response on the Kinect hack was don't mess with it, until they backtracked and said they made it that way all along.
I guess we will see what happens after the next WP 7 release...

they ONLY reason they are not supplying wp7 for HD 2 is becuz of too many button on our HD 2.. they are stupid.. omg =.=

sooner or later they will put an end to this, and sooner or later hackers will find a way to get pass it.

It comes down to this. its all business. MS wanted a new phone to release its new OS so they got the HD7. who in their right mind in the business world would want to spend millions on a new OS and make it work on past devices before any new devices would come out? and if they make it compatible with hd2, then why not some other windows 6.5 phones? see the chain they'd have to deal with here?
Now as far as their kindness towards the crackers of wp7, that's the only way they could react. if they sound like arse's, ppl would rebel and look down at ms like they do at apple. They aren't going to release some form of fix for the crack right away, so no point in getting mad about it. in my eyes they are behind the scenes saying, have your fun..we'll block it again eventually so you have to crack it again. Meanwhile, they are saving their face, time and money to try to develop a quick fix, and letting people all get drawn into the new OS. Its brilliant. just like our developers here at XDA!

cx1 said:
A Microsoft spokesperson issued the following statement:
“We encourage people to use their Windows Phone as supplied by the manufacturer to ensure the best possible user experience. The scenario described is not supported at this time.”
http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-responds-to-htc-hd2-windows-phone-7-roms/
I read that as open season for the moment....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think Tom Warren(winrumors) has got his story wrong!
"Some users have contacted Microsoft’s official support lines requesting codes after falsely claiming their device is a HTC HD7. Microsoft has been issuing codes to allow the devices to access Windows Live services."
I never claimed to microsoft that I had a HD7, I was asked why I needed a code. I told them it was for Windows Phone 7, not a HD7. They gave me the code for my WP7 what I told them, so i have not given them false info.
So Tony get your facts right.
Russ

Whither the Upgrade
nzxtneo said:
I guess we will see what happens after the next WP 7 release...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. We shall all see what our efforts and desires bring us when the next release of WP7 comes out.
We'll all get the upgrade cleanly, OTA and we'll be smiling.
The upgrade will lock (or maybe even brick) our phones at which point all the small-minded people will scream at M$ for ruining their phones, which they had already ruined by running WP7 on a non-supported phone.
Or the upgrade won't work on our phones; we'll all be on the current version. Still functional but now it's an old OS (like 6.5). And we'll be asking for new ROMs.
And hey, if it's the first item we'll get copy/paste.

LOL. If it's all about copy/paste then we should "upgrade" back to WM 6.5...It has this functionality, as well as multitasking
I'm personally staying for a while with WP7...I like "The Harvest" too much

[Q] Microsoft Confirms Lockdown of ARM Devices Running Windows 8

If M$ windows thinks its ok to lock there Boot Loaders, I think we need to petition or start voicing our opinions now. . . regardless the fact is, once we buy any product we have our right too do whatever we want too do, root, modify, upgrade or downgrade, I think the problem with M$ is that they aren't embracing the Future, they are fighting it, an thats why they keep getting lapped by company's like apple an google. Believe me M$, still doesn't get the bigger picture, an i dont know if they ever will if we dont start speaking up now. They are basing there beliefs on an outdated O.S of business. . .
I Think they can learn a thing or two from company's like google and apple
Simply stated DONT BE EVIL . .
Tell me what you think, how u feel and what we should do as a community.
This is my response too reading this portal post article, Good info JERDOG
Microsoft Confirms Lockdown of ARM Devices Running Windows 8
JERDOG'S post http://goo.gl/rq4yw

Ah the bootloader, people have actually been talking about this for sometime. Although Microsoft are demanding ufei or what ever it is which will make it difficult for you to change operating systems, they have stated that it will not be used to force out other manufacturers. Im not sure I believe them in general, however as its a hardware related issue its actually in the hands of the hardware manufacturers. Microsoft don't make laptops/tablets. As far as I understand it although ufei will be required for windows 8 to run, a signed key is all that's required for other operating systems to run. Also its said that ufei contravenes EU law and so I would wait and see what happens.
The simple advice would be not to buy a device that is incapable of the functions you require. Dont buy a car to fly to the moon in. If you want to run Linux don't buy a laptop incapable of doing it.
I can understand peoples frustration with Microsoft but I fail to see when they became your *****. I thought Ipods were stupid at first as you couldn't play mp3's, so guess what, I didn't buy one.
You the consumer don't have to buy what they offer you. The other thing your forgetting is that the Hackers will sort it anyway, or have you never heared of "rooting" or mod chips etc. Any security where a key has to be passed from user to security centre can and will be hacked.

agreed, i can see people getting around this in the future, because when someone says NO there's always another one saying YES!, expect hackers to do their part.

TeaMsTaZ said:
I Think they can learn a thing or two from company's like google and apple
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last I checked the iPad is very locked down and everyone says they are new and hip. But if Microsoft locks a similar device down its looked at as an outdated business practice. I'd like stuff to be as open as possible, but Microsoft is essentially doing the same thing Apple has done with iOS devices since the beginning.

spunker88 said:
Last I checked the iPad is very locked down and everyone says they are new and hip. But if Microsoft locks a similar device down its looked at as an outdated business practice. I'd like stuff to be as open as possible, but Microsoft is essentially doing the same thing Apple has done with iOS devices since the beginning.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just cause people say or think they are hip doesn't mean they are, last time I checked. . .
An Samsung mocked them best in there commercials ツ Just cause apple locks there ios means that they are right or m$ should fellow suit. . . And I believe modifiers will unlock, whatever google, m$ or apple, throws at them , an them trying too lock there O.S, makes modifiers want too do it more, don't forget apple now has to acknowledged unlocked pawned iPhones, Congress got involved an I think they should maybe do the same with m$, we live in times when we remix, an personalize everything just because we can. . . an just because they say we cant. . .
Here's my home screen from my Touchpad
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Sent from CM9 ICS HP Touchpad

As it was said many years ago and still exists now stronger than ever
"If Man Made it, Man Can Unmake It"
It was only because of the mobile devices that Apple took market share, their desktops and laptops were good but just not up to par with what we were able to build with amd and intel chipsets for MS Windows operating systems. Now Apple has pulled a considerable amount of the computer market with mobile devices and stronger desktops and laptops.
Microsoft wants to gain the marketshare back with One O/S for all platforms. Hoping to up their mobile device marketshare to even it up with Apple. Its a far stretch but they want to keep themselves covered when it comes time that Apple tried to really put on over on them to keep the market.
ARM is proprietary now but will slowly become universal and open, just give it time and keep up the good fight!

hmmm.. well if ARM does stay locked down, do you think Intel's newer low-power x86 chips will be efficient enough to be comparable to ARM chips in tablets battery-life wise?

TeaMsTaZ said:
Just cause people say or think they are hip doesn't mean they are, last time I checked. . .
An Samsung mocked them best in there commercials ツ Just cause apple locks there ios means that they are right or m$ should fellow suit. . . And I believe modifiers will unlock, whatever google, m$ or apple, throws at them , an them trying too lock there O.S, makes modifiers want too do it more, don't forget apple now has to acknowledged unlocked pawned iPhones, Congress got involved an I think they should maybe do the same with m$, we live in times when we remix, an personalize everything just because we can. . . an just because they say we cant. . .
Sent from CM9 ICS HP Touchpad
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely agree, just pointing out a double standard that seems to be out there. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows ARM gets hacked to allow dual booting to an ARM Linux distro (Android, Ubuntu, etc). On Windows Mobile there was the HaRET software hack, but it required booting into WM first.
On Windows 8 I wonder if something like Wubi could be compiled for ARM and then modified to get past secure boot. I wouldn't be surprised, its amazing what the community can do with open source stuff.

spunker88 said:
I completely agree, just pointing out a double standard that seems to be out there. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows ARM gets hacked to allow dual booting to an ARM Linux distro (Android, Ubuntu, etc). On Windows Mobile there was the HaRET software hack, but it required booting into WM first.
On Windows 8 I wonder if something like Wubi could be compiled for ARM and then modified to get past secure boot. I wouldn't be surprised, its amazing what the community can do with open source stuff.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah there is double standard, my girl has an iPhone 4s, but lets keep that between us lol
But I really think its what you prefer, some like camaros some mustangs....
The developers on this site are great . . . Without them, I would be stuck using webos on my touchpad an windows 6.5 on my HD2 ( using SD American Android build )
You prolly right, tablets might come with win8. But maybe hackers can modify it so u can load android like a program hopefully. . .
Sent from CM9 ICS HP Touchpad Using Xda HD

I'm on the fence with this one. I think their logic behind it has more to do with security than anything. Locking the bootloader doesn't stop device manufacturers from just making the same device that runs another operating system (Android) nor does having an unlocked phone that someone could put android on keep Microsoft from getting their license fee since the device ships with their OS.
Obviously it's not going to help make the jobs of everyone here easier, but it's not going to prevent them from getting other OSes on the device. What I could see happening in the modding community would be the opposite effect. Find an Android tablet that has an unlocked bootloader, and bring over the Rom from a Windows 8 tablet that has the same hardware.

My rough draft letter to FCC, BBB, and FTC, or anyone else who will listen

I would appreciate any help, guidance or criticism from the community regarding my letter. Please feel free to modify it to you own needs, if it's something you would like to use.
Admittedly, I am redundant. I often beat the dead horse. I am repetitive. I tried hard to be concise and to the point.
Thank you
To whom it may concern,
Verizon insists that a encrypted *boot loader is for the good of the user, and other users on Verizon's network. All Motorola's, sold on Verizon's network have encrypted boot loaders. HTC's do not and up until the latest Samsung Galaxy s3, Samsung did not either. Why did Verizon choose to encrypt the boot loaders? I'd like to offer my opinion- phone sales. Let me explain...
Verizon and cell phone manufacturers are putting out great hardware. For the past couple years, hardware development had hit sort of a stand still. Screens are getting better, but only really to the most critical of users. Most users can't tell the difference between the phones of today versus the phones of last year- with the exception of the operating system. Certainly, technology has progressed but to the average user, the differences are negligible.
A little over a year ago, I purchased a Motorola Droid X, locked encrypted boot loader and all. The hardware is excellent. 1ghz processor, 512 mb of ram, etc etc. The phone, as third party developers have figured out, is perfectly capable of running the newest operating system from Google- Ice Cream Sandwich. The phone launched with Android OS Eclair. The device was upgraded to Gingerbread and there it sat. Admittedly, the phone may run a bit slow and lack some features that the newest Ice Cream Sandwich operating system is capable of, however, the hardware can support the OS. That said, one has to ask why, if the hardware is capable, won't Motorola and Verizon upgrade it to ice cream sandwich? Why is the device encrypted so these OS modifications can not be loaded onto the device by third party developers? The answer is simple- phone sales.
Today's smart phones aren't marketed with hardware specs being the priority as, again, it doesn't mean much to the average user. Instead, they are marketed with what OS comes on the device. My newest phone, the Samsung Galaxy s3 launched with "Ice Cream Sandwich!" We were getting the latest and the greatest from Google and Samsung. The best hardware available, the newest OS available from Google on the best network, Verizon. However, what we also got was a locked and encrypted boot loader which prevents third party development, adding or removing features from the phone at the whim of the developer.
This third party support poses a problem for Verizon, who, ultimately sells phones to the end user. The problem being, if the hardware isn't making leaps and bounds advances anymore, and the phone is open to third party development, why would anyone purchase a new phone when they can simply upgrade their current device? Ah, but a encrypted boot loader prevents this third party development and allows Verizon and the phones manufacturer to simply stop supporting the device. Thus, my Motorola Droid X, which is perfectly capable of running the newest OS, cannot because it's encrypted and locked. As a result, my ONLY solution to step up to an upgraded OS is, to upgrade my hardware as well. Which is unfortunate considering there's nothing wrong with my hardware, at this time.
Apple, did it correctly. They continue to upgrade and support the old devices- sans some features as it deems necessary for hardware specifications. Even the iPhone of yesteryear runs the newest operating system from Apple. They realize that not all consumers can upgrade, or see the need to, however, their hardware specs differ greatly from androids. Apple produces their own phone. There's one manufacturer. There's no competition for the iPhone as its only competition is last years model. Those who enjoy the iPhone quickly flock to the newest hardware, even though they know their old hardware will be supported. Android, is not this way.
New hardware for android comes out all the time, with differing features, differing specs and from many different manufactures. It's similar to the current PC market except that when you buy a PC, you can be reasonably certain that you can upgrade your operating system to the newest Microsoft version without issues, provided the hardware supports it. Certainly everyone knows there's no restrictions at this point that prevent you from even changing the operating system on your PC from say, Windows XP to Windows 7, Linux, or, even, Apples OS even though it's hardware isn't supported officially by the OS. The option to do so is still there, provided the hardware will support the OS. As well, doing this does not void any hardware warranty. You do lose the option for technical software support, provided you've changed the operating system but this is to be expected. This isn't the Android handheld device market created by Verizon.
Verizon has created a situation where, if you want the newest operating system from Google, you've got to purchase a new phone, even though your hardware is perfectly capable of running the newest OS. This is done by encrypting the boot loader, preventing those savvy enough from upgrading the OS, thus, forcing phone sales. Those who are interested in upgrading hardware can do so, but those who are only interested in acquiring the newest OS are prevented. Can you imagine being forced to upgrade any government agencies hardware simply because of a software upgrade even if the hardware itself was capable of running this software upgrade but it's manufacturer encrypted the device, thus preventing said agency from doing so? The behavior is unacceptable in the PC world, as well as the smartphone world.
I hereby request, that Verizon be forced to comply with the terms and conditions it agreed to at the time Verizon purchased block C,
* * *§27.16 Network access requirements for Block C in the 746–757 and 776– 787 MHz bands.
Specifically, paragraph 2(e):
* * *(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee’s standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other provider's networks.
The encrypted boot loader does in fact prohibit the potential for me to use my device on any network I choose, as well as the encrypted boot loader does in fact disable my ability to chose the operating system of my choice, clearly violating The terms and conditions set forth by*§27.16
I hereby request the FCC take immediate action with Verizon. I hereby demand that Verizon fully release all keys, codes and programs to disable the boot loader encryption for all devices sold across its network which violate the terms set forth in*§27.16. I hereby demand all devices sold by Verizon Wireless unconditionally follow this standard set forth by*§27.16.
I respectfully request the FCC use its full power in taking action against Verizon. It is a fact that Verizon has knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly broken the terms of*§27.16 and I ask the FCC ask Verizon to comply, or, return the spectrum for re-auction to another party who will comply with these open standards.
I am aware of Verizon's official statement:
* * *"Verizon Wireless has established a standard of excellence in customer experience with our branded devices and customer service. There is an expectation that if a customer has a question, they can call Verizon Wireless for answers that help them maximize their enjoyment and use of their wireless phone. Depending on the device, an open (read "unencrypted") boot loader could prevent Verizon Wireless from providing the same level of customer experience and support because it would allow users to change the phone or otherwise modify the software and, potentially, negatively impact how the phone connects with the network. The addition of unapproved software could also negatively impact the wireless experience for other customers. It is always a delicate balance for any company to manage the technology choices we make for our branded devices and the requests of a few who may want a different device experience. We always review our technology choices to ensure that we provide the best solution for as many customers as possible."
However, I must ask that if this is the case, why is Verizon offering the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which has an easily unlock able unencrypted boot loader, and rumored to be offering the same Samsung Galaxy s3 for use on its network but as a "developers edition?" If Verizon's official statement is to be believed and the encryption/closing of the boot loader was critical to both customer satisfaction and network reliability, why have so many HTC and Samsung devices been released without an encrypted/closed boot loader? Why does Verizon continue to harm their customer satisfaction and potentially harm users of its network by allowing such phones to be activated on their network?*
In conclusion, it is obvious the business model of Verizon Wireless and the true reason, regardless of their official statement, of the encrypted boot loader is, in fact, to render a phones software obsolete long before the hardware of the device is obsolete, thus, increasing phone sales via marketing of the latest and greatest operating system.
Looking forward to your correspondence
AC
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

ancashion said:
I would appreciate any help, guidance or criticism from the community regarding my letter. Please feel free to modify it to you own needs, if it's something you would like to use.
Admittedly, I am redundant. I often beat the dead horse. I am repetitive. I tried hard to be concise and to the point.
Thank you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................
Why dont you just leave Verizon ?

Bagbug said:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................
Why dont you just leave Verizon ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Contract, #1
Only provider in my area, #2
Why is it okay Verizon can willingly break the law, and the only recourse those have who are affected by it, or feel wronged by it, is to "leave?"
Lame, man...

Bagbug said:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................
Why dont you just leave Verizon ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool response bro.
If people don't complain, how can you expect anything to change? Is it to much to ask for something we pay for (350 - 700) to be like the same phone on other cell companies? At&t, Sprint,Tmobile didn't seem to have a problem with it being unlocked and neither should verizon.
I'm with op. anything is better than nothing even if they just throw it in the trash bin.

ancashion said:
Contract, #1
Only provider in my area, #2
Why is it okay Verizon can willingly break the law, and the only recourse those have who are affected by it, or feel wronged by it, is to "leave?"
Lame, man...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1- why sign with them in the first place ?
2- yeah right

Instead of writing a letter that does not particularly offer any pathway to action you should attempt to get Verizon to unlock the bootloader. If they can not you should be filing an FCC complaint.
Bonus points if you organize other people to do the same since Verizon is allocated a certain number of complaints per X hundred thousand users. This would be a good starting point:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
As for the letter itself you can delete everything up to your demands and FCC regs. You are talking about collateral issues for the most part that don't bear on this situation. You are going to lose the interest of your reader before you ever get even close to the regs or your demands. Open with A PARAGRAPH OR TWO stating:
that The GS3 has shipped with a locked and encrypted bootloader.
the FCC has taken previous action when Verizon locked hardware features of the phone to boosts its bottme line (see: VZ Navigator issue).
You believe that this action is in violation of following FCC regulations as more fully discussed below
The actions you request including, but not limited to, the unlocking of the bootloader.
Close with a paragraph restating your demand and tying things together.

Bagbug said:
1- why sign with them in the first place ?
2- yeah right
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1: I was looking for superior customer service and superior phones coming from us cellular. My area is rural to say the least- providers are few and far between. I'll go you one further to say that truthfully, 3G Internet speeds are faster than any other Internet locally with the possible exception of satellite Internet which is a: too expensive and b: way too expensive! Us cellular, locally, sucks as well and is our only other provider.
2: my zip is 96091- check for yourself- don't forget I may be live in one of the roaming zones on any carrier as well . Feel free to report back with your findings!
Furthermore, Verizon accepted the terms of block c. They tried to fight it, and lost. Now, they are refusing to be bound by those terms. What exactly is wrong with wanting a company to be bound by the terms that THEY willingly accepted?
As well, why come in here with such hate to my position? How about, instead, you offer your insight as to WHY it would be in our best interest to drop it? Why do you side with Verizon, exactly?

We should find a way to organize all of the users here to all submit letters like this so they see that Verizon has really caused a problem
also what categories should be picked on that FCC page?

bobloblaw1 said:
Instead of writing a letter that does not particularly offer any pathway to action you should attempt to get Verizon to unlock the bootloader. If they can not you should be filing an FCC complaint.
Bonus points if you organize other people to do the same since Verizon is allocated a certain number of complaints per X hundred thousand users. This would be a good starting point:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints
As for the letter itself you can delete everything up to your demands and FCC regs. You are talking about collateral issues for the most part that don't bear on this situation. You are going to lose the interest of your reader before you ever get even close to the regs or your demands. Open with A PARAGRAPH OR TWO stating:
that The GS3 has shipped with a locked and encrypted bootloader.
the FCC has taken previous action when Verizon locked hardware features of the phone to boosts its bottme line (see: VZ Navigator issue).
You believe that this action is in violation of following FCC regulations as more fully discussed below
The actions you request including, but not limited to, the unlocking of the bootloader.
Close with a paragraph restating your demand and tying things together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incredible! Thank you for your insight!
Is the "law" portion of your name at all relavent?

ancashion said:
Incredible! Thank you for your insight!
Is the "law" portion of your name at all relavent?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol its a character from Arrested Development (TV Show)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwWAsNZTnug

IAmPears said:
lol its a character from Arrested Development (TV Show)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwWAsNZTnug
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Arrested Development aka locked boot loader. lol.
Good luck with the loader, gotta try something.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app

IAmPears said:
We should find a way to organize all of the users here to all submit letters like this so they see that Verizon has really caused a problem
also what categories should be picked on that FCC page?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wireless telephone
Billing, Service, privacy, Number portability and other issues
I presume
This 5 minute wait between posts and captcha are killing me...

ancashion said:
Wireless telephone
Billing, Service, privacy, Number portability and other issues
I presume
This 5 minute wait between posts and captcha are killing me...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you've got 11 posts so that restriction should be removed now, 2 minutes between posts tho
i wonder if we could say it was deceptive or unlawful advertising

ancashion said:
Incredible! Thank you for your insight!
Is the "law" portion of your name at all relavent?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps.....let's just say I can't honestly recite the line from Jay-Z's 99 problems, "I ain't passed the bar but I know a little bit....". That said, I'm only a baby lawyer and this is not something I have any expertise in.
Hopefully that is a good starting point for you. Feel free to PM me if you would like further input.
And yes, lawyers can like comedy shows and double/triple entendres as well =)

IAmPears said:
you've got 11 posts so that restriction should be removed now, 2 minutes between posts tho
i wonder if we could say it was deceptive or unlawful advertising
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're correct, captcha is gone. Thanks.
If they had advertised that the bootloader was unencrypted we'd have something.
How about the misuse of the web browsers cache? Those who are on tiered or shared data plans are getting hosed on data usage because the browser fully or partially reloads the previous web page rather than call it from cache or memory. I talked to Samsung advanced support about it and they confirmed it. Beings how some are charged for every kb used, it would seem you should have full control over what uses data and when and how much.
Similar to why cars have to state their mpg- can you imagine the restrictions there would be if ford only allowed use of their fuel, or, if Chevy only allowed the use of their fuel? Insane!

Take two:
To whom it may concern,
My recently purchased Samsung Galaxy s3 from Verizon Wireless is encrypted / locked, thus, my ability to choose the software used on my device and take my device to another network are both hindered by this encryption / lock in direct violation of the terms set forth by*§27.16 Network access requirements for Block C in the 746–757 and 776– 787 MHz bands.
Specifically, paragraph 2(e): Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee’s standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other provider's networks.
I hereby request the FCC take immediate action with Verizon. I hereby demand that Verizon fully release all keys, codes and programs to disable the boot loader encryption for all devices sold across its network which violate the terms set forth in §27.16. I hereby demand all devices sold by Verizon Wireless unconditionally follow this standard set forth by §27.16.
I respectfully request the FCC use its full power in taking action against Verizon. It is a fact that Verizon has knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly broken the terms of §27.16 and I ask the FCC ask Verizon to comply, or, return the spectrum for re-auction to another party who will comply with the standards set forth by the FCC.
In conclusion, it is my opinion, regardless of Verizon wireless official statement, that the true reason to lock /encrypt the device is to prevent future software upgrades to the device once Verizon Wireless has deemed the device "out of date." By preventing the end user the ability to modify the base operating system of the device, Verizon has the ability make obsolete, at it's discretion, any device shipped with an encrypted boot loader.
Respectfully Yours

ancashion said:
Take two:
To whom it may concern,
My recently purchased Samsung Galaxy s3 from Verizon Wireless is encrypted / locked, thus, my ability to choose the software used on my device and take my device to another network are both hindered by this encryption / lock in direct violation of the terms set forth by*§27.16 Network access requirements for Block C in the 746–757 and 776– 787 MHz bands.
Specifically, paragraph 2(e):
* * *(e) Handset locking prohibited. No licensee may disable features on handsets it provides to customers, to the extent such features are compliant with the licensee’s standards pursuant to paragraph (b)of this section, nor configure handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other provider's networks.
I hereby request the FCC take immediate action with Verizon. I hereby demand that Verizon fully release all keys, codes and programs to disable the boot loader encryption for all devices sold across its network which violate the terms set forth in §27.16. I hereby demand all devices sold by Verizon Wireless unconditionally follow this standard set forth by §27.16.
I respectfully request the FCC use its full power in taking action against Verizon. It is a fact that Verizon has knowingly, willingly, and repeatedly broken the terms of §27.16 and I ask the FCC ask Verizon to comply, or, return the spectrum for re-auction to another party who will comply with the standards set forth by the FCC.
In conclusion, it is my opinion, regardless of Verizon wireless official statement, that the true reason to lock /encrypt the device is to prevent future software upgrades to the device once Verizon Wireless has deemed the device "out of date." By preventing the end user the ability to modify the base operating system of the device, Verizon has the ability make obsolete, at it's discretion, any device shipped with an encrypted boot loader.
Respectfully Yours
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IMO I liked the first version a lot, but I could see the FCC getting it and basically saying:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

Think you nailed it on the second one. :thumbup:
Sent from my SPH-L710 using xda app-developers app

IAmPears said:
IMO I liked the first version a lot, but I could see the FCC getting it and basically saying:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol
It's a delicate balance. You want to tell some back story, you want the person reading to come away having learned something, but you want to keep their attention at the same time and truthfully, boblolaw1 is correct that getting more users on board, the better. My droid x story doesn't apply to all so a version that was straight and to the point, that does apply to all is probably more useful for the simple fact it can be copied and pasted.

I may have thought of a lateral way to achieve the desired result..
"handsets it provides to prohibit use of such handsets on other provider's networks"
One could simply buy out their contract, and request the key due to the law above. When they fail to comply, the FCC would have more grounds to take action.
Just another variable.