Could the region lock be a good thing??? - Galaxy Note 3 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting

Could the region lock be a good thing??? - Galaxy Note 3 Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting

Maybe the thinking behind the region lock for EU phones is that when a phone is stolen, the IMEI gets put on a blacklist. As I understand it, a lot of the more distant countries dont share a blacklist with the EU, meaning there is a market for stolen phones abroad. If the phones can only be used (usefully) in Europe, then surely that market disappear??
This is all assuming the lock is effective, which it seems it isnt
g

i think it will not hassle developers too much to unlock region lock but if we assume region lock will stay then what you say is true. never looked like this to region lock :good:

ripnetuk said:
there is a market for stolen phones abroad. If the phones can only be used (usefully) in Europe, then surely that market disappear??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Even if the region lock was impervious:
The people who steal mobile phones would continue to steal mobile phones. They take whatever they can get. Their knowledge of particular devices is nowhere near what you seem to give them credit for. Their brains operate much like that of a magpie... i.e. Q) Is it big and shiny? A) Yes = valuable!
When the lowly thief takes their big, shiny phone to a dodgy dealer and they're told it's worth less than what they get for other big, shiny phones it's not going to put them off. They'll just be a bit peeved that it fell short of expectations. Besides, the top selling handsets are generally sold for under £100 to people who resell them abroad. The same people are almost always in the business of repairs too, so the parts will always have some value.
But EVEN IF the parts had NO VALUE! Even then, you'd still have thieves stealing them! They just aren't that smart and they're highly opportunistic.

dehaani said:
But EVEN IF the parts had NO VALUE! Even then, you'd still have thieves stealing them! They just aren't that smart and they're highly opportunistic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very true!
This is why it is never a waste of time to install tracking software on your device. The naysayers will say that it's pointless because the thieves will likely reset the device and flash a new rom, but it's going to be a pretty rare thief who has the knowledge and desire to do this. As you say, most thieves are opportunistic, and thus won't actually think about the possibility of tracking a stolen device. If it gets into the hand of someone more sophisticated, the tracking software may well be rendered useless but there's often a decent sized window where you might be able to track down your device.
Regards,
Dave

Related

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

SIM unlock: iPhone vs. SG4 - and the winner is...

...iPhone by the 1000 miles.
Well, before the fan boys start throwing feces at me, here is the story.
I know that it is different hardware and OS and all that, but the problem is not in this.
The problem is the way Apple and Samsung approach the demands from the carriers to lock down their devices and how is the unlocking process handled.
So to SIM unlock the iPhone you call Sprint Customer Service (SCC) and after usual crap about 90 days they say, ok we submitted the request to unlock to Apple you should receive an e-mail shortly. In about 30 minutes the e-mail comes where it instructs you to backup-factory-reset-restore your iPhone. You do that, and that's it. It is unlocked for _ALL_ GSM carriers, foreign and domestic alike.
It is that simple.
Now to SIM unlock the SG4 you call SCC and after usual crap about 90 days you are told that your phone is unlocked, and it will magically work when you abroad but there is absolutely no way for you to see if it works with a foreign SIM while you are in the US. Moreover there is absolutely no way you can use it with any of the US GSM carriers. Most likely when you finally get abroad it will still not work.
Pain and disappointment.
So what happened here?
The answer is simple, Apple gives a middle finger to all carriers who ask it to give them control over the device. Have you seen any bloatware from Sprint, Verizon, ATT or TMO on the iPhone? No!
The Samsung, on the other hand, bands over backwards for carriers and it turns everything in to the theater of the absurd.
One would think: "...well if Sprint made Samsung to lock down the device in a certain way they must be able to ask Samsung to do the SIM unlock"; nop, no such luck, the SCC will tell you that Samsung has nothing to do with this and at Samsung they will tell you to go to your carrier.
Ok, fine, then apparently if this is the OS modification made by Sprint, one would try to reason: "...the SCC must have some internal tool to unlock the device and check that it is unlocked"; well this is also not the case.
What Sprint is obviously happy about is that they bravely disallowed you to use local GSM carriers.
So it is an interesting situation, actually Samsung and Sprint are equally to be blamed for our pain with SIM unlock and non will take a blame.
I'm pretty sure the ATT and TMO customers just laughing at us right about now the SG4 on their networks can be unlocked with a simple app from the market or even with some service menu.
There was a guy from SCC here, or so he claimed, it would be nice if he could comment on this, and given something more of an answer than just: "...well those are different devices and different OS". Who's really doing the unlocking? Is it Sprint is it Samsung? Why are there no tools to check this on the phone? Why the phone says "Invalid SIM" when it was "unlocked" while it should just refuse to connect to ATT and TMO while here in the US?
Well, I'm pretty sure those are the questions that we never get answers to...

Yea, I agree that it sucks the way things are right now and I wish it wasn't so. Hopefully, Samsung will continuebto be so successful that in the next round (S5), they too can give the middle finger to the carriers and end the unlocking lunacy.

Please explain to me how you got your iphone unlocked for domestic use. I got my old one unlocked by sprint did everything and still had to buy a rsim to use it in the states.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using xda premium

optimummind said:
Yea, I agree that it sucks the way things are right now and I wish it wasn't so. Hopefully, Samsung will continuebto be so successful that in the next round (S5), they too can give the middle finger to the carriers and end the unlocking lunacy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I hope so too. For my Samsung Galaxy Discover (s730m) that I got because my Samsung Galaxy Q ( T589r ) has a cracked screen , I tried phoning Telus & Fido to get it unlocked..neither of them would do anything..if Samsung were to do this so that I could just ask Samsung, that'd be very great, and I'd be able to use my new phone. :/

I'll be nice so I won't call troll. TL;DR. If your intention was to run a phone on gsm, why would you buy a CDMA phone? As for bringing up the subject of why a iPhone is better in an android forum, what the hell are you doing here?! We don't care if you think iPhone is better! Go elsewhere and post to people that actually agree with your point of view. Sorry for being so blunt, I've had a few... Still, the few months I had an iPhone, before I had sprint buy it back because I hated the apple experience, I didn't go on apple forums and spout how android was so much better. I may have honestly shared my experience but I didn't do it in a way that rubbed smugness in other people's face. I'm sorry that I'm coming across like I'm flaming you but, in all reasonableness, this isn't the place to do it.

oscarthegrouch said:
I'll be nice so I won't call troll. TL;DR. If your intention was to run a phone on gsm, why would you buy a CDMA phone? As for bringing up the subject of why a iPhone is better in an android forum, what the hell are you doing here?! We don't care if you think iPhone is better! Go elsewhere and post to people that actually agree with your point of view. Sorry for being so blunt, I've had a few... Still, the few months I had an iPhone, before I had sprint buy it back because I hated the apple experience, I didn't go on apple forums and spout how android was so much better. I may have honestly shared my experience but I didn't do it in a way that rubbed smugness in other people's face. I'm sorry that I'm coming across like I'm flaming you but, in all reasonableness, this isn't the place to do it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Prob because he has nothing better to do other than play angry birds on that lil 4 inch screen, isn't that all its capable of?
Sent from my SPH-L720 using xda premium

The title was intentionally provocative, because I'm really pissed with the way things going with sg4 sprint sim unlocking process. I'm not an iPhone user though, I have and use sg4, but I need to be able to use it on my trips overseas, this is why I bought it in the first place, because it is a world phone, or at least it is advertised as such. This was my attempt to analyze why this whole sim unlocking for sg4 is a outright failure.

obender said:
The title was intentionally provocative, because I'm really pissed with the way things going with sg4 sprint sim unlocking process. I'm not an iPhone user though, I have and use sg4, but I need to be able to use it on my trips overseas, this is why I bought it in the first place, because it is a world phone, or at least it is advertised as such. This was my attempt to analyze why this whole sim unlocking for sg4 is a outright failure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Two things then...
If you need it for overseas trips then what's all the hoopla about? Just get it unlocked by Sprint. Yes, at the beginning they had issues with the unlock because it is a brand new process they've never used before (and yes, unfortunately very unprepared for). But now supposedly it's fixed so chill.
It is not true that Sprint's iPhone unlocking process makes it usable on US GSM carriers.
Anyway, I am not sure why you claim that "the iPhone beats the S4 by a 1000 miles". Sprint gives you a method to unlock both phones for international use so that you don't have pay their exorbitant intl roaming rates. That seems fair to me and I don't see what obligation they (or even Samsung) have towards you as a Sprint subscriber beyond that. If you want a device that will work on one of Sprint's domestic competitors, go buy an unlock phone, or one from one of those carriers.

myphone12345 said:
It is not true that Sprint's iPhone unlocking process makes it usable on US GSM carriers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You obviously don't know the subject that well, it is true, I've unlocked my wife's iPhone and it works roams to ATT and TMO now with a _foreign_ SIM inserted, but you right, what I care is the outside US use and this is still an issue unfortunately.

obender said:
You obviously don't know the subject that well, it is true, I've unlocked my wife's iPhone and it works roams to ATT and TMO now with a _foreign_ SIM inserted, but you right, what I care is the outside US use and this is still an issue unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm in the same boat.
When I get back to the states I will be perma-roaming 24/7 in order to get the service termination letter.

ehaalandtluk said:
I'm in the same boat.
When I get back to the states I will be perma-roaming 24/7 in order to get the service termination letter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you saying that u unlocked with sprint and traveled overseas to only find your are screwed and can't use your sg4?
That's why I upgraded to be able to use when go to home country. Might look into htc.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

galexandr said:
Are you saying that u unlocked with sprint and traveled overseas to only find your are screwed and can't use your sg4?
That's why I upgraded to be able to use when go to home country. Might look into htc.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, precisely.
Nah, I don't want to buy another HTC phone after what they did with the EVO 3D. Samsung has a great phone, I just don't like sprint at all.

Big red is really missing out!

I wonder if Verizon really realizes the opportunity they are passing up? There is such a demand for unlocking the bootloader, they could make a fortune charging a small fee to unlock it, AND have all those phones off of their warranties and out of their hair. I wonder whether this is not the first time they've given up a win-win situation?
fat-fingered and Maxx-ed out.

Everyone wins here, Verizon gets money for unlocking bootloader, gets rid of unwanted warranties, the dev community grow and thus the phone s lifetime, Motorola looks like a hero, and stops building unwanted dev editions that has to carry on with normal production, charging 20 or 40 for unlocking bootloader fills the gap and its a potential business even after selling the device itself with no effort needed, they are losing potential millons here, and giving the opportunity to some hacker to get rich selling this keys...
Sent from my XT1080 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app

Einsteindks said:
I wonder if Verizon really realizes the opportunity they are passing up? There is such a demand for unlocking the bootloader, they could make a fortune charging a small fee to unlock it, AND have all those phones off of their warranties and out of their hair. I wonder whether this is not the first time they've given up a win-win situation?
fat-fingered and Maxx-ed out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Jaocagomez said:
Everyone wins here, Verizon gets money for unlocking bootloader, gets rid of unwanted warranties, the dev community grow and thus the phone s lifetime, Motorola looks like a hero, and stops building unwanted dev editions that has to carry on with normal production, charging 20 or 40 for unlocking bootloader fills the gap and its a potential business even after selling the device itself with no effort needed, they are losing potential millons here, and giving the opportunity to some hacker to get rich selling this keys...
There are 2 holes in both of your reasonings. Verizon has no interest what so ever in extending a devices life span. They want you to upgrade or use Edge so they can keep collecting the subsidy from you which is a lot more then a 1 time fee for unlocking. The other is the warranty part. Yes we all know unlocking/rooting voids your warranty but we also know there are plenty of people who will call in when they are having issues with a rom they just flashed looking for support from Verizon. Even more so when a noob flashes the wrong software or plays around with something they shouldn't and bricks the device. In the end it will lead to more warranty exchanges for big red and probably cause more price increases.
This is why Dev Editions are not offered or supported by the carriers. I'm not saying I agree with their policies but I understand why they are in place. Like many devs have been saying for a while if you want an unlocked device buy a dev model or go to a carrier that offers nexus devices.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

is this not related to the court case about unlocking a phone from a carrier? could it be argued along the same lines?

teerout said:
is this not related to the court case about unlocking a phone from a carrier? could it be argued along the same lines?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No carrier and boot loader unlocking are totally separate things. There is some legal language from a spectrum sale that says they can't lock boot loaders but there is a tiny loop hole about network security they are exploiting to get away with it
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

lafont28 said:
No carrier and boot loader unlocking are totally separate things. There is some legal language from a spectrum sale that says they can't lock boot loaders but there is a tiny loop hole about network security they are exploiting to get away with it
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
network security loophole...hmm..that argument doesn't hold water.

teerout said:
network security loophole...hmm..that argument doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It most likely wouldn't if someone had the resources to fight them but that is next to impossible. I also think that by having at least 1 dev edition available for use on their network it gives them something to fall back on it it came to that
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I would think Verizon would want as many phones off warranty as possible. It's long been a huge financial drain on them sending phones overnight. As for the new phone update, there's not a huge aftermarket for batteries of phones with non replaceable batteries. When the battery dies, eventually, either the phone must be opened up to replace the battery (if you can find one), or just get a whole new phone. No, I believe Verizon would still profit by unlocking the bootloaders for a fee.
fat-fingered and Maxx-ed out.

A Dev edition is available to you.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

@work said:
A Dev edition is available to you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really - at least for the Maxx. They have been out of stock for weeks, and they're not even listed on the motorola.com menus anymore.
That said, honestly, I don't think Verizon cares one way or the other. The number of people who want to unlock bootloaders is probably a very, very, very small number compared with the total number of phones that they sell. And, of course, my guess is that most people who want to unlock are looking to get tethering on grandfathered unlimited data plans. That's not exactly a goldmine for Verizon right now. I'd think that they want to get people off unlimited, rather than let people on unlimited plans use even more data.

Carrier policies, any insiders

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

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