Telstra appear to be telling people that the version of the Tab they are selling for $299 online is "unlocked" as far as the choice of telco goes, but that it has a locked bootloader and cannot be reflashed with better firmware.
Like most things that issue from Telstra's mouth, this is bull****, as the attached screen capture shows.
What's your point? And does this need its own thread in the DEVELOPMENT section?
It's common knowledge that the BL on Telstra devices is NOT locked.
I'm sure there's thousands of 'slag off telstra' threads you can contribute to
What does being Unlocked have to do with any Bootloader?
Oh yeah, Nothing except they both have the word 'lock' in them.
Two completely different things.
ipit said:
What's your point? And does this need its own thread in the DEVELOPMENT section?
It's common knowledge that the BL on Telstra devices is NOT locked.
I'm sure there's thousands of 'slag off telstra' threads you can contribute to
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it wasn't my intention to "slag off telstra" (even though I did !!), just that with the devices on sale here at this price they have been telling people that the BL *IS* locked, although the SIM from any provider will work.
kable said:
What does being Unlocked have to do with any Bootloader?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Absolutely nothing - that's my point. This company has been telling purchasers that the BL is locked to their firmware, when it quite plainly isn't. Just wanted to show people the proof.
moldor said:
No, it wasn't my intention to "slag off telstra" (even though I did !!), just that with the devices on sale here at this price they have been telling people that the BL *IS* locked, although the SIM from any provider will work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude wtf are you talking about?
a) This is the DEVELOPMENT section, which is for devs to post dev projects/guides/info etc. If you want to post something like this it goes in the general section.
b) BL been locked has NOTHING to do with sim lock!
Telstra quite plainly will tell you that nothing can be done to their devices, I have on several occasions seen them tell people that their iPhone 4's can't be jailbroken as they are a different model to the rest of teh world that telstras special team worked with apple to produce so that people cant jailbreak them.
Technically they are correct as any modification will void the warranty. They're just looking after their own business.
imo asking the question is somewhat pointless.
it's the same with optus/virgin etc. I've had them telling me that one sim wouldn't work with the others network even though it's common knowledge that it's the same network.
Moral of the story - Don't ask the providers. Just ask the user community (whirlpool/xda) for a better response.
lol to make this a meaningful post, can someone tell me how to Backup the P1000T ROM? I keep getting "update.zip" not found using ROM manager - help!
Try searching
Theres a "RotoBackup" that ive used.....
It was very difficult to find a concrete 'yes' or 'no' answer on the various threads here (a lot of discussion of bands and such which may be insanely intimidating to a new user / member). So, from what I've discovered from use and forums, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that if you are use the 4G LTE network in America you will not be able to connect and use the enhanced speeds on the G900F model. Instead, you'll be stuck with 3G (if you're lucky) and 2G speeds.
Like I said, if anyone knows otherwise and if so can correct me in a very direct (and respectful) way so as to not intimidate new users (like my self) please do so. Especially since I'll be selling my G900F shortly. I truly do thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that I kept my G900A version just in-case I found any problems with the international version.
onyxkhan said:
It was very difficult to find a concrete 'yes' or 'no' answer on the various threads here (a lot of discussion of bands and such which may be insanely intimidating to a new user / member). So, from what I've discovered from use and forums, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that if you are use the 4G LTE network in America you will not be able to connect and use the enhanced speeds on the G900F model. Instead, you'll be stuck with 3G (if you're lucky) and 2G speeds.
Like I said, if anyone knows otherwise and if so can correct me in a very direct (and respectful) way so as to not intimidate new users (like my self) please do so. Especially since I'll be selling my G900F shortly. I truly do thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that I kept my G900A version just in-case I found any problems with the international version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could have Googled this info within 10 minutes like here http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2709458, instead you layed back to wait for others to answer your question This is not the XDA way mate!
gee2012 said:
You could have Googled this info within 10 minutes like here http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2709458, instead you layed back to wait for others to answer your question This is not the XDA way mate!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you gee2012 for feeling the need to be insulting instead of adding anything productive. Because I am a new user to the Android OS, mentioned that I scanned through the forums here and did not find a clear and concise answer to my very direct question, and found conflicting information through google searches as well as threads here I thought I could possibly help out other new users who may have the same question and feel a bit daunted by the sheer wealth of technical information here. I thought helping each other out, especially those brand new to the OS, was the XDA way. Not responding with a purely negative message to someone trying to be helpful.
onyxkhan said:
Thank you gee2012 for feeling the need to be insulting instead of adding anything productive. Because I am a new user to the Android OS, mentioned that I scanned through the forums here and did not find a clear and concise answer to my very direct question, and found conflicting information through google searches as well as threads here I thought I could possibly help out other new users who may have the same question and feel a bit daunted by the sheer wealth of technical information here. I thought helping each other out, especially those brand new to the OS, was the XDA way. Not responding with a purely negative message to someone trying to be helpful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I`am not insulting or dissing anyone mate but you only had to compare for instance the G900F supported LTE bands with the used ATT bands on Google and you`re question would have been answered.
gee2012 said:
You could have Googled this info within 10 minutes like here http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2709458, instead you layed back to wait for others to answer your question This is not the XDA way mate!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
gee2012 said:
I`am not insulting or dissing anyone mate but you only had to compare for instance the G900F supported LTE bands with the ATT bands and thats it on Google and you`re question would have been answered.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No disrespect meant and I apologize for not being specific in my response to you. When I say conflicting information it was based on a google search for what I felt was a basic question, "Does the S5 G900F support the ATT 4G LTE network?" That query led to websites with conflicting information (a few said it did, a few said it didn't, and a few more said 'maybe'). When I came across more information via these forums and more google searching there was no clear and distinct answer that was readily found. What was found, like you referred to, was information on base bands. Because I was new not only to the Android OS but the complexities of phones outside of the walled garden that is iOS I investigated what a base band was. From here I continued my search into the ATT bands and compared them to the S5 G900F model to see if they were compatible. Once figuring out that they were not I had answered my own question. After realizing that there are others out there who either don't have the knowledge, access to, or time I thought I'd share my 'discovery' (and yes, I realize it was not really one) with others.
So yes, you were insulting when you said I "'layed [laid] back to wait for others to answer your question" as I didn't. You assumed from my simple and brief post that I had not taken the time to do any actual searching and was lazily waiting for someone to answer my question. It was an incorrect inference which led to a seemingly sarcastic response (and associated ) which while it won't dissuade me from posting or asking questions does not, IMO, represent the helpful community aspect of XDA.
With that said I see you are a Recognized Contributor, so thank you for the information you've contributed to others throughout XDA.
I am noting more than you are. Just trying to help others by reading and trying to figure out how things work.
Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk
Guys, lets ask for moto maxx forum proper way is here http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1660354
Every member should do. Will be better for turbo and maxx.
Done. I made first tracks back before the phone came out. Subsequently I've gotten a few post quotes seconding it. If nothing else I think they should rename this one Moto Maxx XT1225 and then the problem will go away. See us Maxx owners being the generous, kind, handsome, and amazingly good lovers we are we would be willing to allow the Turbo owners to remain without complaint. Its just the kind of people we are.
krabman said:
Done. I made first tracks back before the phone came out. Subsequently I've gotten a few post quotes seconding it. If nothing else I think they should rename this one Moto Maxx XT1225 and then the problem will go away. See us Maxx owners being the generous, kind, handsome, and amazingly good lovers we are we would be willing to allow the Turbo owners to remain without complaint. Its just the kind of people we are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know you meant it to be funny but that was one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while.
The development is wildly different for these devices and it makes total sense to at the very least make separate development subgroups.
krabman said:
Done. I made first tracks back before the phone came out. Subsequently I've gotten a few post quotes seconding it. If nothing else I think they should rename this one Moto Maxx XT1225 and then the problem will go away. See us Maxx owners being the generous, kind, handsome, and amazingly good lovers we are we would be willing to allow the Turbo owners to remain without complaint. Its just the kind of people we are.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hope more people ask, for adms looking for us.
adrynalyne said:
I know you meant it to be funny but that was one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a while.
The development is wildly different for these devices and it makes total sense to at the very least make separate development subgroups.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would have known I said exactly that on the thread that came before the one where we last crossed paths (about the same subject which is why I mentioned you might want to peruse what had already been previously discussed before you continued) but I'm guessing you did not. In fact even then it wasn't the first time I said it. lol And yes, it was humor. See I have already been on a multi device forum section with devices which varied more in their development than they do here and there was far less cries for a split. I mean hugely less. For an old man like me these sort of things are both interesting and humorous. I apologize for trying to inject some humor into it, I know it was weak but I had hoped to keep the mood propped up to a more upbeat place.
krabman said:
You would have known I said exactly that on the thread that came before the one where we last crossed paths (about the same subject which is why I mentioned you might want to peruse what had already been previously discussed before you continued) but I'm guessing you did not. In fact even then it wasn't the first time I said it. lol And yes, it was humor. See I have already been on a multi device forum section with devices which varied more in their development than they do here and there was far less cries for a split. I mean hugely less. For an old man like me these sort of things are both interesting and humorous. I apologize for trying to inject some humor into it, I know it was weak but I had hoped to keep the mood propped up to a more upbeat place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Show me one forum that has flashing/modding methods this dissimilar please that has combined forums.
You go on about cries for a split, I've never been on a forum that has had this many cries against a split, especially one that makes total sense.
Thats just it, most are not crying against a split, they are just tired of crying about it period. The moderators have seen this and reported it to admin several times, I know that the thing has been requested in the proper place because I and others have already done so and posted that they did so here. There is no question that admin has seen this and evidently deems for whatever reason that they do not want to split these off into separate forums. I and many other people have also asked for a split of development if they are not willing to make separate sections already and this has also been seen by admin. As I already suggested several times people should go to the proper thread and make their voices heard about this and maybe we get some action, maybe not.
As to showing you I'm not going to spoon feed you something which I already told you, it becomes irksome to repeat something over and over to someone who is not listening. Outside of this everyone under the sun knows that once the bootloader gets unlocked on the Turbo the development can be nearly completely shared with the Maxx. Yes, developers for the Moto X and other devices have already confirmed this for the stupid people like me which are lucky to get something to recompile. The thing here is you are not like me, you know more about working with this stuff than I ever will so it begs the question... Why am I telling you something you must already know?
krabman said:
Thats just it, most are not crying against a split, they are just tired of crying about it period. The moderators have seen this and reported it to admin several times, I know that the thing has been requested in the proper place because I and others have already done so and posted that they did so here. There is no question that admin has seen this and evidently deems for whatever reason that they do not want to split these off into separate forums. I and many other people have also asked for a split of development if they are not willing to make separate sections already and this has also been seen by admin. As I already suggested several times people should go to the proper thread and make their voices heard about this and maybe we get some action, maybe not.
As to showing you I'm not going to spoon feed you something which I already told you, it becomes irksome to repeat something over and over to someone who is not listening. Outside of this everyone under the sun knows that once the bootloader gets unlocked on the Turbo the development can be nearly completely shared with the Maxx. Yes, developers for the Moto X and other devices have already confirmed this for the stupid people like me which are lucky to get something to recompile. The thing here is you are not like me, you know more about working with this stuff than I ever will so it begs the question... Why am I telling you something you must already know?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you can't show me one. It is true, I knew you couldn't.
Nope, asked and answered, you have already been told by me exactly which forum. You are going to have to actually pay attention and read what people are saying or continue being ignorant, your choice.
krabman said:
Nope, asked and answered, you have already been told by me exactly which forum. You are going to have to actually pay attention and read what people are saying or continue being ignorant, your choice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Edit:
I don't want to argue anymore, and withdraw my statements. The point is, until such a time (might) appear, the development is far too dissimilar for it to make sense as a combined forum. I am sorry you disagree, but its true.
Keep the same main forums, divide the development forums.
Exactly, you want to talk but you don't listen. All you hear is blah blah blah because the only thing important enough for you to listen to is your own voice. You were already told by me exactly which forum here on XDA the last time we traded posts. I'll give you a hint the devices have different SOCs, ram, screen, that help? I was just there five minutes ago because I still have that phone which nowadays is not normal since one of my kids or grand kids usually takes them off my hands when I upgrade.
You want to know which phone all you have to do is actually read what someone said and a quick search will give you your answer which you were already told in plain English. The forum section exists, the development is in fact far more different. Sorry man, the truth is out there and you cant BS your way out of it. Good night.
krabman said:
Exactly, you want to talk but you don't listen. All you hear is blah blah blah because the only thing important enough for you to listen to is your own voice. You were already told by me exactly which forum here on XDA the last time we traded posts. I'll give you a hint the devices have different SOCs, ram, screen, that help? I was just there five minutes ago because I still have that phone which nowadays is not normal since one of my kids or grand kids usually takes them off my hands when I upgrade.
You want to know which phone all you have to do is actually read what someone said and a quick search will give you your answer which you were already told in plain English. The forum section exists, the development is in fact far more different. Sorry man, the truth is out there and you cant BS your way out of it. Good night.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It took you 30 minutes to reply? How did you not notice I retracted my previous comment for the sake of stopping an argument?
adrynalyne said:
It took you 30 minutes to reply? How did you not notice I retracted my previous comment for the sake of stopping an argument?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was easy, I started to respond but I got a phone call and finished up after. I should have quoted you so your whole blah blah comment could not disappear, my bad. At any rate, it appears we are done now. Good evening.
Hope more people help, droid turbo users should do too
The complication is there is a U.S Moto Maxx, the XT1250 which has the same FCC ID as the Droid Turbo XT1254. Sold by U.S. regional CDMA/LTE carriers The two phones are identical in every way, except for Verizon bloatware. Oh, and the XT1250 has bootloader that can be unlocked, phone can be rooted, and XT1250 will run on Verizon network with a Verizon SIM card. But Verizon Droid Turbo customers don't want to hear about that. Put fingers in their ears "La, la, la. I can't hear you."
ChazzMatt said:
The complication is there is a U.S Moto Maxx, the XT1250 which has the same FCC ID as the Droid Turbo XT1254. Sold by U.S. regional CDMA/LTE carriers The two phones are identical in every way, except for Verizon bloatware. Oh, and the XT1250 has bootloader that can be unlocked, phone can be rooted, and XT1250 will run on Verizon network with a Verizon SIM card. But Verizon Droid Turbo customers don't want to hear about that. Put fingers in their ears "La, la, la. I can't hear you."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good grief, it has nothing to do with that.
It has to do with the fact that we have entirely dissimilar development and flashing methods now. Entirely.Different. Therefore it should be separated. Does the 1225 need to flash images for mods? How about the 1250? How about WP? No? Ok then, it doesn't matter how similar or the same the internals are here.
This is not some ego trip and it doesn't matter one iota what the FCC ID says. The methods are different and there is no denying it. Not a little different, very, very different. You are so big on pointing out FCC IDs that you have missed the point entirely. This would cut down on confusion.
adrynalyne said:
Good grief, it has nothing to do with that.
It has to do with the fact that we have entirely dissimilar development and flashing methods now. Entirely.Different. Therefore it should be separated. Does the 1225 need to flash images for mods? How about the 1250? How about WP? No? Ok then, it doesn't matter how similar or the same the internals are here.
This is not some ego trip and it doesn't matter one iota what the FCC ID says. The methods are different and there is no denying it. Not a little different, very, very different. You are so big on pointing out FCC IDs that you have missed the point entirely. This would cut down on confusion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree the flashing methods are different. But before you (or others) were trying to say Moto Maxx and Droid Turbo were totally different phones, which was a LIE. The FCC ID of the XT1250/XT1254 proves that Moto Maxx model and Droid Turbo are identical in hardware, and anyone who says differently knows nothing about phones. Or at least ignorant about a an important technical area of phones. Seriously. There is so many legal ramifications to that FCC ID -- including the ADA law. So, it does matter what the FCC ID says. The XT1250 will even run on Verizon LTE.
Yes, developmentally they are different and we can continue the discussion from there. Because in a way the XT1250 is the "developer's" version of the XT1254. Already has bootloader that can be unlocked.
ChazzMatt said:
I agree the flashing methods are different. But before you (or others) were trying to say Moto Maxx and Droid Turbo were totally different phones, which was a LIE. The FCC ID of the XT1250/XT1254proves they are identical in hardware, and anyone who says differently knows nothing about phones. Seriously. There is so many legal ramifications to that FCC ID. So, it does matter what the FCC ID says. The XT1250 will even run on Verizon LTE.
Yes, developmentally they are different and we can continue the discussion from there. Because in a way the XT1250 is the "developer's" version of the XT1254. Already has bootloader that can be unlocked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lets fast forward to the present and stop living in the past. It doesn't matter what anyone said about them being totally different phones (and I never said that. Feel free to point it out if you can). This thread is not about any perceived differences in the phones internally. It shouldn't even have been brought up.
I upgraded to BOG5 but found unable to downgrade and root.
Can anyone help me solve this peoblem
I would be very grateful
a133232 said:
I upgraded to BOG5 but found unable to downgrade and root.
Can anyone help me solve this peoblem
I would be very grateful
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No one can help you solve this problem. BOG5 cannot be downgraded and it cannot be rooted. Period. End of story.
landshark68 said:
No one can help you solve this problem. BOG5 cannot be downgraded and it cannot be rooted. Period. End of story.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's always JTAG...right?
dreamwave said:
There's always JTAG...right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please stop misinforming new people. I told you why JTAG wouldn't work before you even made your lengthy JTAG "brick" thread (which you referred back to your other nonsensical "petition" thread - the exact thread where I answered you WHY JTAG wouldn't work - in the end because you have absolutely no idea what you're doing).
Just remove this thread already. Or sticky it so there's a chance people will read it and never ask this stupid question again...
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Spartan117H3 said:
Please stop misinforming new people. I told you why JTAG wouldn't work before you even made your lengthy JTAG "brick" thread (which you referred back to your other nonsensical "petition" thread - the exact thread where I answered you WHY JTAG wouldn't work - in the end because you have absolutely no idea what you're doing).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you reply in those words? I didn't get any of that out of what you said, unfortunately. Also, on the topic of the "petition" it was mainly to try and inform at least a couple more people and possibly gain a couple more arguments that could be used against Verizon through the FCC. I have a valid legal argument, one that you were being pessimistic about with really no backing, and on the JTAG issue...you didn't offer any reason why that was so, and so I didn't back down at the first sight of doubt. I don't mean to be defensive or aggressive in any way, but I respectfully took your opinion into account (and it was indeed an opinion on many of those matters), factored in the overall theme of posts you had made in the past, and decided that there was (and still is) possibility for solutions in each of these issues. Unless JTAG is specifically disabled at the hardware level (which was actually proven false by what I found and documented in my thread) it is still feasible to use it to modify the Qfuse flags.
dreamwave said:
Where did you reply in those words? I didn't get any of that out of what you said, unfortunately. Also, on the topic of the "petition" it was mainly to try and inform at least a couple more people and possibly gain a couple more arguments that could be used against Verizon through the FCC. I have a valid legal argument, one that you were being pessimistic about with really no backing, and on the JTAG issue...you didn't offer any reason why that was so, and so I didn't back down at the first sight of doubt. I don't mean to be defensive or aggressive in any way, but I respectfully took your opinion into account (and it was indeed an opinion on many of those matters), factored in the overall theme of posts you had made in the past, and decided that there was (and still is) possibility for solutions in each of these issues. Unless JTAG is specifically disabled at the hardware level (which was actually proven false by what I found and documented in my thread) it is still feasible to use it to modify the Qfuse flags.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For your petition, you keep saying, you have "valid" arguments. If you do, why do you need to keep continuing the thread? Go take it to court then. Start a class action lawsuit. You are correct, what I stated there is my opinion. Pessimistic about? You wrote so many pages for no reason. What does information do if you don't use it? All you were doing was talking about it. I was telling you why it doesn't work, and why Verizon doesn't have to respond to you, a single person, unless you were to take legal action against them, and even then, you are highly unlikely to win. By all means, take it to court. But know that talking doesn't change anything. If you want to argue that publicity is your motive, the 18k bounty got a thousand times more publicity, and the bootloader is STILL unlocked. There were also actual petition threads that people signed at change.com/etc, that have more "weight" than your thread, yet it is, again, locked still. I bet you the devs care more about a bootloader unlock than you do, because that's what most of their work/fun comes from. What did most of them do? Most (not all) of them jumped ship to Tmobile/international versions.
I took your opinion into account, but your legal backing to my eyes is simply, "Verizon must tell ME why/respond to MY claims as a sole person, not, Verizon has no basis for their argument (as I'm sure they have it somewhere, companies always try to hide their asses)." So like I said, go take it to court, by all means. I'm not being rude, I'm just saying, do something about it if you really believe what you think is right. It's also not pessimistic although you view it that way probably because it opposes your opinion, it's realistic and I've given you logical reasons why, whereas you just keep stating, Verizon has some obligation to respond to you.
As for the JTAG, I stated in one of the reasons why a bootloader unlock is not possible:
Spartan117H3 said:
...If you took the time to look at other threads ranging from the S3, Note 4, etc, you'll learn that the S5 isn't the only one. Also, the reason the Devs don't work on it is because a failed bootloader exploit bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will revive it....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The devs already tried this. All you did was write a multi page post talking back and forth with yourself and new people who have no knowledgeable backing. Look back through your thread. The only support you had was from new people, you probably double posted more than their posts. I think only one senior member responded.
Spartan117H3 said:
For your petition...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do apologize for trying a method that I saw absolutely no documentation on any attempts of, it was a fool of me to try and see if it might just work. You said that JTAG would not work, you gave no links and no reasons why. I understand that there might be a kill flag in there, but if the phone believes itself to be running genuine software I don't see much in the way of proof that it wouldn't accept any firmware rewrite then, especially as at that point Samsung and Verizon would stand to benefit from being able to directly write such firmware. The petition was simply to get even just a couple more eyes on the issue, and with the FCC...IT ACTUALLY IS A LEGAL CASE. I have tried to say that, that they are given ,by forfeit of direct control of the issues by Congress and the courts, a requirement that they use internal systems that are run as courts and have the power of a court, while being only possible to challenge if they act "unconstitutionally" outside their given bounds. The petition was a thing I started basically to try and let people outside of the developer community, who are demographically very likely to be vocal on issues of corporate monopoly (based on the crowd change(dot)org attracts.
I tried doing my research for each, and in basic principle found none that matched either. No, I'm not a longstanding member of the XDA community, and no I'm not an ex-oem firmware dev, but if I have an idea and no one gives me a specific reason why it won't work in a manner that would both completely address all facets of it and in a way that would help others to try and build off of the information contained within, then I will try and implement that idea or publicize it so someone who knows how can do it. Notice, on my thread about the SD Card unlock: I completely summarized the content of my findings in the first post, dead ends I ran into, and what I personally think might work in the future. If someone adds to the thread with info that either adds or nullifies an idea then I will update it and tag the post as I care about knowledge on a whole and getting info to everyone who can use it. My rationale behind this is to allow for anyone who might have an idea, or the capability to form a successful one, to research and take into account the findings of others.
TL;DR: It helps everyone, individually and as a community, to explain why an idea won't work than just to declare that it won't and the person's efforts (all of them) are in vain.
I do not mean to insult you or attack you in any way, and I have no "but" or "however" for this statement. Just for the future, instead of saying "no" and then flaming me when I say "why not," maybe say "why not" because if you know that the answer is "no," not that many issues are so black and white that a small bit of explanation or detail physically can't be given.
BTW, in response to one of your replies in a recent thread where you mentioned how a brick would not be possible to undo even by JTAG then talked about that being universal, what I was discussing was not bricking by means of triggering any lock such as that that you mention. I was attempting to reproduce conditions that would lead to a "failed flash of newer software" wherein no flag is tripped, but the phone could not load any usable kernel, modem, or bootloader image as that would allow for using the method here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/verizon-galaxy-s5/help/g900v-hard-brick-t2914847 that I have really worked on for the s3 to try and boot custom software to flash software to the phone. I am actually still optimistic for one method here because no one has said that it would not boot a very carefully crafted debrick image that would act as an external bootstrap and directly load a completely custom system image quite readily with no qualifiers or signature checks.
And sorry to everyone for the long post, I know it's annoying. Please forgive me :fingers-crossed:
@dreamwave, I mentioned that they were found by researching other phones that have bootloaders locked. There is one phone (I forget which one) where they (I believe two developers) DID get a successful bootloader unlock, but because they bricked so many phones that a JTAG would not fix, they sold bootloader unlocks for $25 a pop to recoup costs for the loss. But it was the phone itself, not a carrier specific version of a bootloader unlock. Meaning that phone worked on all carriers. I know you said you wanted links or whatnot, but it's on 100% XDA, and I'm on my phone right now/don't remember where I read it.
I gave you sound logic of why your solutions do not work, and if you take the time to think about what I say, instead of referring back to your own original statement, you would understand why. That's the thing. I state the reason why, whether or not you follow along with it is entirely up to you. I did not flame you in any way, I always responded with reasons why. It's just like you said, you were promoting awareness for people who are legally sound. But nothing was done, yet you keep continuing/promoting the thread, to what end? You're not going to do anything yourself. So why beat the dead horse?
You're right. I don't have hard documentation of answers. But you act like this is the first phone that has been attempted to be bootloader unlocked. There are threads in other forums for other phones that have been tested. There's also a plethora of sound reasoning against what you're trying to do. Do you need scientific proof and factual documentation that wind exists, or can you tell it exists because you can feel it on your skin?
If I have time later/if you want, I can find the links to what I'm talking about or you can look yourself, but for what it's worth, the developers work together in private to deter people from asking nonsensical questions such as, is it done yet/etc. As I'm not a developer (I just looked up this stuff in my free time), I don't have access to your hard evidence. But it has been stated that what you tried has been done on multiple phones in the past. If me saying that, or me finding the quote of someone saying that isn't enough for you, then by all means, go try it yourself. Developers will not come forward to tell you their progress for the reason I mentioned, so if you're looking for that, you won't find it.
@Spartan117H3
That is certainly reasonably sound logic for the most part, and I understand that many of them do it in private, but if you knew about it, especially other than just "no it doesn't work" for a specific experiment, it would be great if you wrote where any roadblock would lay and maybe a reference to where I could learn more about it. I learned that a major roadblock to parts of that method are the self verification of the bootloader and the external signature check from the SoC itself. What I am hoping to do is see whether or not the signature check and the load file commands are separate or integrated. If they are integrated, then that's probably the end of trying to use the SD Card, but if they are separate then it should be possible to dynamically alter the contents of the card after the initial signature check. Of course it's possible that it doesn't do the same signature check for an external SD card, in which case just modifying it to act as a permanent bootstrap would be entirely feasible.
I know that a lot of people have tried and failed, but if no one has tried this one specifically to its full extent I'd like to go for it. Just someone telling me no doesn't show me that they know what they're talking about. Someone telling me no, and then offering a little bit of a clue why (even just saying they found somewhere where someone tried the method then ran into (blank) as an issue) definitely helps me to try and either find a different method or a way around that issue or roadblock.
Also, I remember you telling me JTAG wouldn't work, but never addressing the SD card method... I can't seem to find any of your posts on my thread, though (a few on the petition one, but mostly didn't recognize the FCC as the deciding body, instead stating justification on the part of Verizon.) The FCC decides what their regulations say and mean, just as the courts do, and require adherence to those interpretations. No standing precedent exists that stands on Verizon's side on this issue from the arguments presented so I'm going for it, and just letting everyone know how it's going and leaving it open to discussion and reply if they have an idea that I might pursue to help my case
@dreamwave, what you are asking is the same as what this guy was "trying" to ask:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/verizon-galaxy-s5/help/vz-replacement-s5-oe1-t3190365
And the third post by the moderator clarified. As we have already discussed, you don't have enough knowledge (nor do I for that matter) to successfully start and finish a solution. It's like, if we were to build a building with just a hammer and some dirt. Why don't we leave the building process to the engineers? If you actually do have enough knowledge, contact a developer to get into their private work. Otherwise, you'll leave a building unfinished, cluttering up the streets, so to speak.
Basically, you're asking for either A, someone to go along with you in whatever process you try to do (in which case, it would be easier and quicker for a dev to do it his/herself), or B, just to see where progress is, in which case, it is not useful to you nor I, because it's another "are we there yet" question, and we wouldn't be able to continue with it anyway.
You don't know if it has or hasn't been tried, but I'm sure it's been thought of. You are doing it for free of your own accord. You don't think devs would want that 18k bounty way back when? Like I said above, if you have the knowledge, by all means, contact a developer, prove your worth, and I'm sure he/she will let you into their work, with all their notes or whatnot of what they tried that worked/didn't work.
If the bootloader is locked, that means unsigned code is not allowed at the lowest level. Why would an SD card work, when it goes through the OS which goes through the bootloader? Your idea of a JTAG makes a tiny bit more sense than the SD card one, because JTAG is at low hardware level. I didn't bother posting in your thread, because I figured you'd do what you want to regardless of what people say.
I recognized the FCC argument. I don't have an answer against that, but I'm sure/assuming Verizon does. But my justification was, why does Verizon have to answer to you specifically. You don't have a case because you're not going to court with it.
Edit: I can't remember for the life of me where I read about this stuff, all I remember was searching for some very specific bootloader question (a month ago?) that I wanted to know the answer to. The person was describing why root is so easy to achieve compared to a bootloader unlock and said something along the lines of: for root, all you have to do is inject stuff into a rom and see if it sticks. For a bootloader exploit, a failed attempt bricks the phone so that not even a JTAG will salvage it.
The search also led me to a phone which I also don't remember, I believe it was something older, but two devs "charged" $25 per unlock to recover the costs of the phones they bricked.
It is similar to the HTC M9 where people buy expensive Java cards to unlock phones, and unlock them based on donations, but not the same. I'll keep looking to see if I can pull it up.
@dreamwave, Found it, it was actually the HTC M8, so I was close in my edit above. Note, this post also talks about failed bootloaders killing the phone. And note again the reason that counters your petition, but it has no "hard evidence" other than "some person" says it. But it makes logical sense, so it should be left as is (in my opinion, unless you have profound knowledge that says otherwise, because I know I don't). Verizon doesn't need to prove anything to anyone who isn't suing them, or who isn't causing red tape for them. It's a post by a recognized contributor quoting a moderator, the closest you'll get to what you want.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=54644576&postcount=10
The Java card that people are using do currently work for both the HTC M8 and M9, but are limited and expensive in comparison to the Sunshine exploit that they charge $25 for (look at the bottom of this post)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=54126788&postcount=359
This is all I can provide for you in terms of hard facts. It is the conclusion made on older phones, and applies even more so on newer/current ones. Hope this helps.
Spartan117H3 said:
@dreamwave, Found it, it was actually the HTC M8, so I was close in my edit above. Note, this post also talks about failed bootloaders killing the phone. And note again the reason that counters your petition, but it has no "hard evidence" other than "some person" says it. But it makes logical sense, so it should be left as is (in my opinion, unless you have profound knowledge that says otherwise, because I know I don't). Verizon doesn't need to prove anything to anyone who isn't suing them, or who isn't causing red tape for them. It's a post by a recognized contributor quoting a moderator, the closest you'll get to what you want.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=54644576&postcount=10
The Java card that people are using do currently work for both the HTC M8 and M9, but are limited and expensive in comparison to the Sunshine exploit that they charge $25 for (look at the bottom of this post)
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=54126788&postcount=359
This is all I can provide for you in terms of hard facts. It is the conclusion made on older phones, and applies even more so on newer/current ones. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, that helps a lot with the SD card thing and my idea there. As to the legal issue though, I disagree a bit with the person there, as though it is in Verizon's interest to keep locking them, well the letter of the law is the letter of the law...and I spoke to someone who isn't a lawyer by practice but did take the BAR exam, what they said was basically that "A lawsuit would be possible if I suffered damages, but wouldn't do much to their practices necessarily. Going through the FCC would involve two steps: a trial in which they will determine if a violation has occurred (my opinion is that one has occurred, and I posted as my last post on the JTAG unlock discussion thread my current arguments), and then a second trial in which remediatory actions/consequences will be decided. This would cover retroactive steps, which would likely include a system whereby a signed patch would be created, and customized (upon request to download) to respond to a specific IMEI/model number. This would allow for a corporation or licensing group to exclude a set of devices while allowing consumer versions to be unlocked. It really doesn't cost me anything to pursue this, and if it annoys Big Red and that's it, then so be it...I'm happy if it does Of course on the same note, Verizon hasn't specifically countered any of my statements/observations, and have really tried to exploit little technicalities such as footnotes 500 and 502 in the FCC auction release, but in each I was able to create responses that very directly opposed those in a way supported by a large amount of text in the release. I'm hoping it will work, even if I wouldn't bet a million bucks on it doing so.
dreamwave said:
Thanks, that helps a lot with the SD card thing and my idea there. As to the legal issue though, I disagree a bit with the person there, as though it is in Verizon's interest to keep locking them, well the letter of the law is the letter of the law...and I spoke to someone who isn't a lawyer by practice but did take the BAR exam, what they said was basically that "A lawsuit would be possible if I suffered damages, but wouldn't do much to their practices necessarily. Going through the FCC would involve two steps: a trial in which they will determine if a violation has occurred (my opinion is that one has occurred, and I posted as my last post on the JTAG unlock discussion thread my current arguments), and then a second trial in which remediatory actions/consequences will be decided. This would cover retroactive steps, which would likely include a system whereby a signed patch would be created, and customized (upon request to download) to respond to a specific IMEI/model number. This would allow for a corporation or licensing group to exclude a set of devices while allowing consumer versions to be unlocked. It really doesn't cost me anything to pursue this, and if it annoys Big Red and that's it, then so be it...I'm happy if it does Of course on the same note, Verizon hasn't specifically countered any of my statements/observations, and have really tried to exploit little technicalities such as footnotes 500 and 502 in the FCC auction release, but in each I was able to create responses that very directly opposed those in a way supported by a large amount of text in the release. I'm hoping it will work, even if I wouldn't bet a million bucks on it doing so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok. Except exchange/military is most likely a greater majority of customers than us who want it unlocked. Time is money. Verizon hasn't countered because you're not talking to them, you're talking in a thread. Good luck with your lawsuit.
Spartan117H3 said:
Ok. Except exchange/military is most likely a greater majority of customers than us who want it unlocked. Time is money. Verizon hasn't countered because you're not talking to them, you're talking in a thread. Good luck with your lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks (P.S.: I have an ongoing case through the FCC that's independent from XDA, a formal complaint directly to the FCC by methods they've provided)
dreamwave said:
Thanks (P.S.: I have an ongoing case through the FCC that's independent from XDA, a formal complaint directly to the FCC by methods they've provided)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is this really what you choose to "Live Free or Die" about? Or do you have too many irons in the fire, and this is just the most annoying? People in New Hampshire have nothing better to do than to sue Verizon for something they have no chance of winning...
ldeveraux said:
Is this really what you choose to "Live Free or Die" about? Or do you have too many irons in the fire, and this is just the most annoying? People in New Hampshire have nothing better to do than to sue Verizon for something they have no chance of winning...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except I'm not suing them, I'm using the methods our gov't has already put in place specifically for occasions such as this. I'm not arguing damages, it's not a lawsuit, it's an FCC complaint...something really different that I think I've explained a couple times
P.S.: I have a lot more that I do, this doesn't take much of my time and as a high school student I basically consider stuff like this a hobby, and have you ever been to New Hampshire? I'm from the southern half of middle NH...not that many "gun wielding hicks" around these parts
I got the phone from a friend who dunked it in a lake and thought it was dead, I figured I'd try and get some use out of it and discovered the larger issue on the part of Verizon. Considering the number of people at my school who ask me to root their phone, being able to tell them "sure" and not ask if they use Verizon (most of them do) first would be really nice.
...this thread got really off topic didn't it
dreamwave said:
Except I'm not suing them, I'm using the methods our gov't has already put in place specifically for occasions such as this. I'm not arguing damages, it's not a lawsuit, it's an FCC complaint...something really different that I think I've explained a couple times
P.S.: I have a lot more that I do, this doesn't take much of my time and as a high school student I basically consider stuff like this a hobby, and have you ever been to New Hampshire? I'm from the southern half of middle NH...not that many "gun wielding hicks" around these parts
I got the phone from a friend who dunked it in a lake and thought it was dead, I figured I'd try and get some use out of it and discovered the larger issue on the part of Verizon. Considering the number of people at my school who ask me to root their phone, being able to tell them "sure" and not ask if they use Verizon (most of them do) first would be really nice.
...this thread got really off topic didn't it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
High school student... nevermind, kablock...
What do you mean?