Security Patch OUTDATED - Verizon HTC 10 Questions & Answers

Security Patch OUTDATED - Verizon HTC 10 Questions & Answers

I am wondering if anyone knows why the security patch level on my Verizon HTC 10 is from June 1? Isn't their a more recent security update?

Because US carriers are brutally slow to push out updates....
HTC has been the best OEM (other than google itself with the nexus phones) on updating flagship phones the past couple of years...even US Carrier ones...but obviously their unlocked ones get it quicker due to less red tape.

bakemcbride21 said:
Because US carriers are brutally slow to push out updates....
HTC has been the best OEM (other than google itself with the nexus phones) on updating flagship phones the past couple of years...even US Carrier ones...but obviously their unlocked ones get it quicker due to less red tape.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats kind of what i figured...I talked to Verizon support and they tried to convince me that it had nothing to do with them and that it was all an Android issue and that the carriers had nothing to do with security updates being pushed to their devices.

Typical BS Verizon response... I recall when I had a Sony z3v which was actually a nice phone, it never even got the advanced calling update it was supposed to! I couldn't use voice and data at the time time, then magically Verizon stopped selling it, and they kept blaming Sony. I know the Verizon variant was a little different than the normal z3 but I had it a year with no update! I think they finally stopped the phone at 5.1...

Related

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

Verizon Nexus 6 March 12th

Just found this article and I thought I'd share it with y'all. Hopefully it won't get pushed back again.
http://phandroid.com/2015/02/25/exclusive-verizon-nexus-6-launch-march-12th/
This should put its release right around the release of the Galaxy S6 and maybe HTC one M9. What do y'all think of this?

I think what could they POSSIBLY be doing that requires them to release it this long after other carriers? Does it take that long to test if bloatware works on it? Are they just trolling? Or are they fighting back and forth with Google trying to get permission to lock down the bootloader like a chastity belt?

i am pissed at vzw .. i waited patiently for this day. and no release.
i may wait till march 12th. but if they don't release it then i am off to tmobile

I'm trying to decide if I want to wait. I unfortunately am stuck on the edge up program. I really want the nexus 6 though but not if VZW has ruined (like they usually do). And I fear that they are ruining it right now.

quick question guys
i have 2 lines. mine is a galaxy s3 that has been out of the 2 year contract since september. i have been waiting for verizon to release the nexus but i am sick of getting jerked around besides i live out in the sticks so i am forced to use a network extender because i have no signal at my home and i just found out t-mobile has wifi calling and texting.
my other line is my brothers lg g3 that he got in september of last year. so he is still paying it off.
question 1.. will t mobile pay my early termination fees if i decide to switch.
question 2.. will my brother be forced to pay off the remaining balance of his phone? or does t mobile pay that too if he transfers his phone to t-mobile?
thanks guys for any input

kidhudi said:
quick question guys
i have 2 lines. mine is a galaxy s3 that has been out of the 2 year contract since september. i have been waiting for verizon to release the nexus but i am sick of getting jerked around besides i live out in the sticks so i am forced to use a network extender because i have no signal at my home and i just found out t-mobile has wifi calling and texting.
my other line is my brothers lg g3 that he got in september of last year. so he is still paying it off.
question 1.. will t mobile pay my early termination fees if i decide to switch.
question 2.. will my brother be forced to pay off the remaining balance of his phone? or does t mobile pay that too if he transfers his phone to t-mobile?
thanks guys for any input
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wouldn't it be easier to ask T-Mobile directly?

Try their free test run first before you switch. I tried them and while their corporate customer service was flat out amazing, the signal was terrible anywhere but large cities and the WiFi calling was a joke, literally had the 56k dial tone pop up during conversations...

srphoenix said:
Try their free test run first before you switch. I tried them and while their corporate customer service was flat out amazing, the signal was terrible anywhere but large cities and the WiFi calling was a joke, literally had the 56k dial tone pop up during conversations...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks that is a great idea. i live in central NJ so far i am seeing good things about the coverage in my area. and towards NY.
i will try the free test drive thing and see if it is a good fit for me.
it looks like they will pay the termination fees. and according to their site they will give my bro 130 dollars for his phone as a trade in.
maybe he would have better luck on swappa or ebay.
but it will cut my bill from 700 minutes of phone (old plan i never updated) and 2 gb of data each for 180 a month from verzon to unlimited phone text and data from t-mobile for 129 a month which includes the financing for the nexus 6.
thanks guys for the info

I hear this may be due to VoLTE implementation for the N6. Does that mean that if I bought the Motorola/Google Play version that I'm out of luck with VoLTE?

http://phandroid.com/2015/02/26/exclusive-verizon-nexus-6-march-12-android-5-1-volte-support/
If this is true, it make the lateness of the release almost null.

I got mine from t-mobile I hope I get VOLTE because I really miss my web and phone at the same time.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using XDA Free mobile app

Google no longer allows carriers to preinstall their own apps on Nexus phones. Lollipop has a new feature that checks to see which carrier's sim card is in the phone. Then it downloads the so-called bloatware to the phone during initial setup just like Nokia's carrier branded Windows Phones do. I am curious though. Google previously said that Nexus 6 phones bought from the Google Play store would work on any of the big four USA carriers. Is this still true? Can I take an unlocked Sprint Nexus 6 phone (if unlocking is even required) and pop in a Verizon sim card?

One note of interest no one has mentioned. I read that it will be 5.1 out of the box. Could this possibly mean that we will see 5.1 before the March Verizon release date?

techguy378 said:
Google no longer allows carriers to preinstall their own apps on Nexus phones. Lollipop has a new feature that checks to see which carrier's sim card is in the phone. Then it downloads the so-called bloatware to the phone during initial setup just like Nokia's carrier branded Windows Phones do. I am curious though. Google previously said that Nexus 6 phones bought from the Google Play store would work on any of the big four USA carriers. Is this still true? Can I take an unlocked Sprint Nexus 6 phone (if unlocking is even required) and pop in a Verizon sim card?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats incorrect google is allowing carriers to install apps but need to be able to be removed. Check the att thread out.
If u buy a carrier branded device like the nexus 6 from att unless that is paid off the phone is sim locked. Also depends on if the devices are sim locked. As of right now i know that the att is sim locked till the device is paid out of contract or bought paid in full. then u can request a key. All nexus 6 OS firmware are the same. Its a universal software. Just added bloat per company will be added for updates.
Edit: Also google even stated that now updates wont come as fast for carrier devices pending partners.
---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------
RayEdmondson said:
One note of interest no one has mentioned. I read that it will be 5.1 out of the box. Could this possibly mean that we will see 5.1 before the March Verizon release date?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly dont think it will be released out of the box. I think the phones will come with 5.0 and then you can update to 5.1. Also there is rumors verizon may not allow these devices on edge.

the_rooter said:
I honestly dont think it will be released out of the box. I think the phones will come with 5.0 and then you can update to 5.1. Also there is rumors verizon may not allow these devices on edge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source of this rumor? I'm not aware of any device they carry that isn't available on Edge. Not sure why this would be any exception.

akellar said:
Source of this rumor? I'm not aware of any device they carry that isn't available on Edge. Not sure why this would be any exception.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its all he said she said on xda. Check in this thread or a few other verizon threads for the nexus. Some think verizon wont and some say verizon will. We actually wont know till the 12th.
Edit: I had a few verizon reps straight out tell me they look down at the rooting/flashing community because they claim it hurts their network. Thats why tmobile is so popular. If they do not allow nexus 6 on edge that would force customers to either pay full or sign a contract. I am not saying its true or not. Just from observation on here.

the_rooter said:
its all he said she said on xda. Check in this thread or a few other verizon threads for the nexus. Some think verizon wont and some say verizon will. We actually wont know till the 12th.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL randoms on XDA are hardly a reliable source of info. There's been everything from "Verizon will never get the device" to "Verizon will lock it down, put 50 logos on it, and rename it something else". It's people guessing, making things up, and hating on Verizon because that's the cool thing to do.

akellar said:
LOL randoms on XDA are hardly a reliable source of info. There's been everything from "Verizon will never get the device" to "Verizon will lock it down, put 50 logos on it, and rename it something else". It's people guessing, making things up, and hating on Verizon because that's the cool thing to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is still a big chance and possibility since verizon looks down to the community here that they could do that. Verizon doesnt like google. They like samsung and apple. They careless about everything else and what the customers want. Makes you think that how come verizon allows the use of developer devices on their network for limited phones. Mostly samsung. Verizon is always out to make more money. I again am not saying they will not allow it on edge, but it still can be a possibility coming from the fact that its unlockable and cant be altered too much by them.
Edit: Also never stated they were reliable. Just stating from how verizon is and what people think. Anything can be possible with how verizon will take this phone.

the_rooter said:
Thats incorrect google is allowing carriers to install apps but need to be able to be removed. Check the att thread out.
If u buy a carrier branded device like the nexus 6 from att unless that is paid off the phone is sim locked. Also depends on if the devices are sim locked. As of right now i know that the att is sim locked till the device is paid out of contract or bought paid in full. then u can request a key. All nexus 6 OS firmware are the same. Its a universal software. Just added bloat per company will be added for updates.
Edit: Also google even stated that now updates wont come as fast for carrier devices pending partners.
---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 PM ----------
I honestly dont think it will be released out of the box. I think the phones will come with 5.0 and then you can update to 5.1. Also there is rumors verizon may not allow these devices on edge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google has never made such a comment publicly regarding carrier bloatware and software updates. There's nothing to prevent someone from flashing a factory image designed for Google Play store devices to a Verizon Nexus 6 either, for example. They have, however, stated that Nexus 6 phones always come with no bloatware installed. The bloatware is downloaded during initial setup depending on which carrier's sim card is installed. The main question I have though is if I buy a Nexus 6 from the Google Play store can I pop in a Verizon sim card and have it work on Verizon's network?

Hurts their network? doubt that, because they allow dev editions to function on said network.
If it truly hurt, then none of them would be allowed, it's a $$$ thing.

Nougat update for GM-930U

I'm running the PL2 Universal firmware on sprint and was wondering if we will ever get the nougat update or any updates at all? I've been running it for a few months and I havent seen any security updates whatsoever. Anyone have any idea what the deal is? Thanks

spacer89 said:
I'm running the PL2 Universal firmware on sprint and was wondering if we will ever get the nougat update or any updates at all? I've been running it for a few months and I havent seen any security updates whatsoever. Anyone have any idea what the deal is? Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 930U firmware is on a quarterly update schedule so we'll probably get one by the end of the month or halfway through March.

YMNDLZ said:
The 930U firmware is on a quarterly update schedule so we'll probably get one by the end of the month or halfway through March.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had read that before about the unlocked phones being on a quarterly update schedule. That's pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It SHOULD be drastically more simple to get the updates out for unlocked devices, if for no other reason than they don't have to go through the carriers. No testing/integrating carrier crapware, etc. And in principle, it's ridiculous to screw people who paid full price for their unlocked phones in hopes of getting updates faster because of my last statement. Now us here who have just flashed this firmware on our sprint phones maybe don't have as much of a leg to stand on as people who did pay full price for an unlocked phone, but it still defies logic that Samsung wouldn't update a more expensive, unlocked phone more frequently than quarterly. Heck, I've still got 2 S5s, one my wife is using, and one spare for me, and they are still getting monthly security updates! Just got another one yesterday. So how does samsung reconcile the fact that they religiously update a 3 year old phone monthly, but can't update an unlocked current flagship phone more often than quarterly??? I've tried to play devil's advocate and defend Samsung on this, but I can't come up with much justification. The only remote reason I can find is that the user base for the unlocked phones is no doubt small compared to the user base of carrier phones. And I guess since the unlocked phones have to work on all US carriers, there's probably some more work involved in making sure updates work properly on all carriers, instead of just one. But still, people paid a premium for an unlocked phone. They should get premium support.

Cooljb said:
I had read that before about the unlocked phones being on a quarterly update schedule. That's pretty ridiculous if you ask me. It SHOULD be drastically more simple to get the updates out for unlocked devices, if for no other reason than they don't have to go through the carriers. No testing/integrating carrier crapware, etc. And in principle, it's ridiculous to screw people who paid full price for their unlocked phones in hopes of getting updates faster because of my last statement. Now us here who have just flashed this firmware on our sprint phones maybe don't have as much of a leg to stand on as people who did pay full price for an unlocked phone, but it still defies logic that Samsung wouldn't update a more expensive, unlocked phone more frequently than quarterly. Heck, I've still got 2 S5s, one my wife is using, and one spare for me, and they are still getting monthly security updates! Just got another one yesterday. So how does samsung reconcile the fact that they religiously update a 3 year old phone monthly, but can't update an unlocked current flagship phone more often than quarterly??? I've tried to play devil's advocate and defend Samsung on this, but I can't come up with much justification. The only remote reason I can find is that the user base for the unlocked phones is no doubt small compared to the user base of carrier phones. And I guess since the unlocked phones have to work on all US carriers, there's probably some more work involved in making sure updates work properly on all carriers, instead of just one. But still, people paid a premium for an unlocked phone. They should get premium support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's good ole Samsung for you. Lockin bootloaders and ignoring the customer. They keep on this path and they'll be apple in a year or two.

I have a feeling that the U will get nougat until all major carriers in the US release nougat for their devices becauses maybe US carriers have some kind of exclusivity? Its a hunch only, so don't take my word for it.

micallan_17 said:
I have a feeling that the U will get nougat until all major carriers in the US release nougat for their devices becauses maybe US carriers have some kind of exclusivity? Its a hunch only, so don't take my word for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All major U.S carriers have got it, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, AT&T. They have no excuse, they're just lazy. Honestly going to switch to an LG or Google phone next time I upgrade, Samsung has lost my money. Absolutely ridiculous that those who paid even more than I did on sprint get the update after us.

I Updated
I did it a few days ago.
Looks good.
Sprint Model S7
YMNDLZ said:
All major U.S carriers have got it, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, AT&T. They have no excuse, they're just lazy. Honestly going to switch to an LG or Google phone next time I upgrade, Samsung has lost my money. Absolutely ridiculous that those who paid even more than I did on sprint get the update after us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

tracsportva said:
I did it a few days ago.
Looks good.
Sprint Model S7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you updated to nougat? the 930U version?

The Android Attorney said:
you updated to nougat? the 930U version?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's probably running a carrier version, the Samsung U version has not been pushed yet.

J'ai effectué une mise à jour pour ce modèle il y a quelques jours sans problème et on trouve des ROM sur le net, il faut chercher un peu c'est tout

UK Users Thread

Figured it would be nice for all us Brits to have a thread discussing how the U11 is on UK networks.
EE - VoLTE and WIFI Calling work out of the box on unlocked model from Very.co.uk

got mine from Carphone Warehouse on an EE contract and although unlocked it did have WiFI calling enabled, although in theory , this should not be the case as its not EE branded. Not complaining though I do not know how VoLTE works so i don't know how to check it. Might be the case that all unlocked UK CID models can support wifi calling, regardless of carrier branding. So nordic or others might not be able to do that.
Only gripe , and I have created a separate thread for that, is that Galileo support is not enabled on my phone which is strange and kinda stupid.

mclnnm said:
got mine from Carphone Warehouse on an EE contract and although unlocked it did have WiFI calling enabled, although in theory , this should not be the case as its not EE branded. Not complaining though I do not know how VoLTE works so i don't know how to check it. Might be the case that all unlocked UK CID models can support wifi calling, regardless of carrier branding. So nordic or others might not be able to do that.
Only gripe , and I have created a separate thread for that, is that Galileo support is not enabled on my phone which is strange and kinda stupid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ring someone (or 150). If your phone stays on 4g you have VoLTE.

Hi guys,
Do you think it's worth an upgrade over the HTC 10 which is my current driver? I have joined HTC Club and the price has dropped to £584 via HTC website which is very tempting...

wilpang said:
Hi guys,
Do you think it's worth an upgrade over the HTC 10 which is my current driver? I have joined HTC Club and the price has dropped to £584 via HTC website which is very tempting...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmmm I probably would. Better everything apart from audio volume from headphones.

The only concern is the durability and smashing if I manage to drop it especially after coming from the HTC 1 0 all metal. I'll see how the Oneplus 5 does as that is also very tempting.

I have a u11 coming from O2 but unlocked. I use it with EE but I can't find a way to have 4g calling and Wi-Fi calling.
Someone could help?

Sounds like it probably has O2 firmware on it which means you're SOL for the time being until S-OFF arrives.
My device is unlocked unbranded stock firmware and 4g VoLTE calling and WiFi calling worked from day one. The phone actually asked if I wished to enable them.
Do you have the option in settings for WiFi calling (4g calling is in phone settings).

I'm on O2. You have to request it through the O2 app. Scroll down to 'Device details' and you will see Wifi and 4G calling. Click on it and it will send a request to O2, takes 24 hours.

wilpang said:
Hi guys,
Do you think it's worth an upgrade over the HTC 10 which is my current driver? I have joined HTC Club and the price has dropped to £584 via HTC website which is very tempting...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what I did as my 10 still in contract with Vodafone for a year more but I really wanted an upgraded. Loving the u11 so far it has fixed the issues I had with my 10 like bad wifi/mobile signal problems with Bluetooth to my car system (weird micro cuts every so often)
The first device I got was faulty rebooted/shut down all the time couldn't even get through the setup wizard, got a refund and ordered a new one that is now working great.
Do wish Vodafone would enable WiFi and 4G calling but heck knows when/if that will happen unless you have a business account which I believe have it.
Edit: Seems vodafone does have this option now, can be enabled from your account it seems.

The single SIM model sold directly by the HTC has the LTE Cat. 16 modem?

Roberti3 said:
The single SIM model sold directly by the HTC has the LTE Cat. 16 modem?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cat. 16 downlink, uplink limited to Cat. 15.

Has anyone in the UK single sim received the Oreo update yet?
I am with EE , CID EVE__001 and still on Nougat 7.1.1 and firmware 1.27.91.10 with security patch October.
I am a bit disappointed by their lack of updates and support regarding updates.

Dannyboy525 said:
Has anyone in the UK single sim received the Oreo update yet?
I am with EE , CID EVE__001 and still on Nougat 7.1.1 and firmware 1.27.91.10 with security patch October.
I am a bit disappointed by their lack of updates and support regarding updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Oreo update was released today. Currently having trouble updating mine, it downloads the update but then reboots into TWRP recovery then can't go any futher.

You have to return to stock before updating via OTA, with stock firmware, no root etc.
Bootloader can stay unlocked though.

grentuu said:
I'm on O2. You have to request it through the O2 app. Scroll down to 'Device details' and you will see Wifi and 4G calling. Click on it and it will send a request to O2, takes 24 hours.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did this actually work? o2 say that the only compatible devices are iPhone's, Samsung's and some Sony's.
marko68 said:
I have a u11 coming from O2 but unlocked. I use it with EE but I can't find a way to have 4g calling and Wi-Fi calling.
Someone could help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you ever get this to work?

I'm happy with the phone apart from 2 issues:
- Still on the November security patch, and considering it's nearly March I don't think this is acceptable. America has December.
- Google Assistant does not work. Voice activation does not work and all the settings are greyed out. Have looked online and cannot find a fix. Have read even a restore won't fix it!
If these issues were addressed then this would be the best phone I've had.

Just to add to this. I have an unlocked / unbranded u11 from CPW UK. O2 sim pay monthly account. I've enabled the option in the app as above but still no toggles etc in my settings menu. I called htc UK just now and they said that a bug in the oreo update has removed this option, it's a known bug and the next update will address it... Seriously? Also no idea when the update will roll out...

Had mine since January after an unplanned upgrade and I'm really glad my HTC 10 got mullered by my friend's kid. Carphone Warehouse piled on extras and I eventually started pushing back to stop the freebies getting out of hand - had to move to EE from Vodafone for some reason I can't remember - not an issue. Rooted while on the wine 2 nights later so as to increase the suspense and the chance of bricking it - I went at it half cut basically and nearly trashed it, which is so much fun.
Can't grumble in Manchester city about signal or service although EE has a website that suggests they are delaying any move into the post 90's era and I'm sure they have a reason we'll one day marvel at when they suddenly replace a web presence so **** it must be deliberate digital art or summat - like Tracey Emin and Banksy making a collaborative statement about Google ruining everything - that is to be replaced by the tech from the movie War Games to make it more modern. At least the customer service is accessible if needed and don't annoy me with 'suggestions' like an app. that tells me things I know already but in a different way which makes it exciting and utterly essential.
The u11 is a top phone and if someone gave me a Samsung I'd curse the fool who did so. There's a list of superior spec's that the recent Samsung phones possess and yet on benchmark tests they mostly squeeze into a slight lead and can't manage to avoid being made by Samsung which means that it has lots of stuff but none of it is connected right and it will eventually make you feel angry because it slowly reveals its nature as a piece of crap with buttons like a phone.
I just wish HTC would explore an alternative to the Android system because Google are getting a bit shifty and I don't like the way they are more powerful than God but get all hissy with developers - they come at you like an all-powerful bastard when they're pissed but always do a great job of being really rubbish at maintaining a standpoint and eventually they go away - still, Stalin was bit annoying and no one would have thought he'd end up killing 10 million people before the War even started but he had the tools and then the bad mood - if Google don't do evil it's only cos they haven't seen the projections from Wall Street that show the profit they can make. If any company can shake Google surely HTC can - Samsung may do so but totally unintentionally and probably due to the distraction caused by phones that set aflame like a crappy transformer that is a phone AND a firework - then neither.

Google exclusivity ending with Verizon...thoughts?

I just read/heard… source
Now that Google's exclusivity with "Big Red" (Verizon) is done, I have a couple of thoughts and was wondering what this community (or at the very least whomever other users…) thoughts on this were…intelligent (thoughts) or otherwise (meaning I still wish to know even if it might be considered [personally] foolish)…
I'm unsure whether it was at Verizon's insistence or not, but do you think the other (T-Mobile it looks like, but maybe in the future, it could be others…) company/companies would lock their device's bootloader like Verizon does? I remember (at least with the Pixel 2) that, initially, there were instances where Verizon (maybe Google themselves; knowingly or uknowingly) "claimed" to inquirers that their device would be "exactly the same" as the one's sold from Google (website) – I don't have the exact sources, but I'm sure a simple easy search here on XDA and/or on Google would result in enough of them. Of course, now (here in "the future") we know better and it has a definite key difference. Also, the fact that (at least in the first 6 months after the Pixel 2 release) warranty replacements and refurbished units that went to Verizon proved that there was really no "verizon variant" until you activated the device onto the Verizon network (usually via the [Verizon] SIM card); this is how many (including me) were able to lease a Pixel 2 with Verizon and have an unlocked bootloader as well. I could understand if, somehow, there was a different variant that was different in hardware specific to the Verizon ones as well as most likely including their horrid pre-installed "stock" apps (I've seen it happen with "Big Red's" Samsung Galaxies; i.e. varied different but specific hardware that physically included "safeguards" and random apps that came "stock" in hidden in other partitions…) and/or other difference that helped "streamline" the device to the network. But, at the very least, it leads me to believe that initially there was no difference -- even in bootloader "unlockibility" – and Verizon, rather close to launch, changed their minds and forced Google's hands to lock it down; in "fear of" (doubtful; probably bs claim) unlocking and screwing with the phone which would cause broken devices and headaches "for Verizon" – most likely just wanted to force lease and market share opportunities. Either way, do you think other company/companies (like T-Mobile) would follow the same line of thinking and also follow suit?
I doubt I'd leave Verizon, but let's say I was willing; knowing that T-Mobile's variant would not lock down the bootloader like Verizon does and it would be closer (or an exact duplicate) to a direct Google variant would help me choose in changing to their service and/or lease with T-Mobile and also enjoy added bonuses for starting a new line and leasing with them...
Or, might the exact opposite be true and, to follow suit of T-Mobile and Google, Verizon would stop being foolish and simply do the smart decision to keep it as close to Google's variant as possible…? (yea….I find this highly doubtful as well…but it is a thought, isn't it?)
In any case, I most likely will be "going for" the upcoming Pixel 4 & Pixel 4 XL; especially if it got rid of that god-awful god-forsaken notch and went with the "pinhole" design that's supposedly like the Samsung S10. For whatever it's worth, if it continues on as with the Pixel 3 and includes a similar notch (as with the 3), I will further skip this model and wait yet another year for Google to "wise up"… But, because of the planned purchase, and because I (myself consider) made a mistake in not purchasing/leasing directly from Google and wish to do right/correct this time around, these are thoughts that would inevitably come up (especially considering the breaking news) and have to be considered…
Some other thoughts…
Reading the androidpolice article (SOURCE), the writer does make a good point that this "move" by Google is a good way to expand and position itself to cater to the "mid-level crowd" where its (Google's Pixels) presence above the cheap rather awful $30-ish smartphones but below the very premium (with its definitely "premium" price; I'm looking at you Samsung and Apple); where I believe is a really great "niche" to cater to; it's why me and my wife love their device! But, then again, there are many, many, MANY others who consider even the Pixel line (most especially the XLs) to be at already a "premium" price (MSRP $800 for Pixel 3, $900 for XL or 128GB, and 4 digits for the 128GB XL) which makes having/including a sub-par [insert here] (whatever prejudice [justified or not] you or another owner you know) a big blow (too much of a big blow in some cases that some owners have refused to purchase or even returned their Pixel) and a definite travesty that a big company (Google, which is "ginormous"!) and "premium" product would dare to have such a sub-par part! But, with it moving on to another (and possibly more, maybe in the future) company/companies, do you think this is a good "move" – at least in the right direction – and/or a positive sign/signal towards good things to come? Or the exact opposite?
In whatever case, again, with the (breaking) news, it inevitably caused some thoughts to come to mind and I thought I'd ask my highly regarded and preferred community here what they might think and their further thoughts on the subject…

simplepinoi177 said:
I just read/heard… source
Now that Google's exclusivity with "Big Red" (Verizon) is done, I have a couple of thoughts and was wondering what this community (or at the very least whomever other users…) thoughts on this were…intelligent (thoughts) or otherwise (meaning I still wish to know even if it might be considered [personally] foolish)…
I'm unsure whether it was at Verizon's insistence or not, but do you think the other (T-Mobile it looks like, but maybe in the future, it could be others…) company/companies would lock their device's bootloader like Verizon does? I remember (at least with the Pixel 2) that, initially, there were instances where Verizon (maybe Google themselves; knowingly or uknowingly) "claimed" to inquirers that their device would be "exactly the same" as the one's sold from Google (website) – I don't have the exact sources, but I'm sure a simple easy search here on XDA and/or on Google would result in enough of them. Of course, now (here in "the future") we know better and it has a definite key difference. Also, the fact that (at least in the first 6 months after the Pixel 2 release) warranty replacements and refurbished units that went to Verizon proved that there was really no "verizon variant" until you activated the device onto the Verizon network (usually via the [Verizon] SIM card); this is how many (including me) were able to lease a Pixel 2 with Verizon and have an unlocked bootloader as well. I could understand if, somehow, there was a different variant that was different in hardware specific to the Verizon ones as well as most likely including their horrid pre-installed "stock" apps (I've seen it happen with "Big Red's" Samsung Galaxies; i.e. varied different but specific hardware that physically included "safeguards" and random apps that came "stock" in hidden in other partitions…) and/or other difference that helped "streamline" the device to the network. But, at the very least, it leads me to believe that initially there was no difference -- even in bootloader "unlockibility" – and Verizon, rather close to launch, changed their minds and forced Google's hands to lock it down; in "fear of" (doubtful; probably bs claim) unlocking and screwing with the phone which would cause broken devices and headaches "for Verizon" – most likely just wanted to force lease and market share opportunities. Either way, do you think other company/companies (like T-Mobile) would follow the same line of thinking and also follow suit?
I doubt I'd leave Verizon, but let's say I was willing; knowing that T-Mobile's variant would not lock down the bootloader like Verizon does and it would be closer (or an exact duplicate) to a direct Google variant would help me choose in changing to their service and/or lease with T-Mobile and also enjoy added bonuses for starting a new line and leasing with them...
Or, might the exact opposite be true and, to follow suit of T-Mobile and Google, Verizon would stop being foolish and simply do the smart decision to keep it as close to Google's variant as possible…? (yea….I find this highly doubtful as well…but it is a thought, isn't it?)
In any case, I most likely will be "going for" the upcoming Pixel 4 & Pixel 4 XL; especially if it got rid of that god-awful god-forsaken notch and went with the "pinhole" design that's supposedly like the Samsung S10. For whatever it's worth, if it continues on as with the Pixel 3 and includes a similar notch (as with the 3), I will further skip this model and wait yet another year for Google to "wise up"… But, because of the planned purchase, and because I (myself consider) made a mistake in not purchasing/leasing directly from Google and wish to do right/correct this time around, these are thoughts that would inevitably come up (especially considering the breaking news) and have to be considered…
Some other thoughts…
Reading the androidpolice article (SOURCE), the writer does make a good point that this "move" by Google is a good way to expand and position itself to cater to the "mid-level crowd" where its (Google's Pixels) presence above the cheap rather awful $30-ish smartphones but below the very premium (with its definitely "premium" price; I'm looking at you Samsung and Apple); where I believe is a really great "niche" to cater to; it's why me and my wife love their device! But, then again, there are many, many, MANY others who consider even the Pixel line (most especially the XLs) to be at already a "premium" price (MSRP $800 for Pixel 3, $900 for XL or 128GB, and 4 digits for the 128GB XL) which makes having/including a sub-par [insert here] (whatever prejudice [justified or not] you or another owner you know) a big blow (too much of a big blow in some cases that some owners have refused to purchase or even returned their Pixel) and a definite travesty that a big company (Google, which is "ginormous"!) and "premium" product would dare to have such a sub-par part! But, with it moving on to another (and possibly more, maybe in the future) company/companies, do you think this is a good "move" – at least in the right direction – and/or a positive sign/signal towards good things to come? Or the exact opposite?
In whatever case, again, with the (breaking) news, it inevitably caused some thoughts to come to mind and I thought I'd ask my highly regarded and preferred community here what they might think and their further thoughts on the subject…
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be honest I feel it is a good move and can potentially be a bad move all in the same. I personally have Verizon service and I admit I didn't do any research before getting my pixel 2 xl from Verizon as in the past I've had the Galaxy Nexus and never had an issue unlocking the bootloader until my Motorola Droid 2 turbo xt1585. To this very day I cannot unlock the bootloader on that device or my pixel 2 xl. I didn't have much of a choice as the xt1585 charge Port took a dump on me and I needed to access text messages for some extremely important codes and such related to one of my 2 full-time jobs I had at the time so I replaced the xt1585 asap. I for one didn't like that the girl upgrading my contract decided to put a Sim card in and proceed to try setup the phone for me and all though I know she was just trying to be nice and all, I'm not one of those people that need that kind of help. Later I find out that I cannot unlock the bootloader and have had to roll with all the updates and am currently on q beta 3 etc. I've noticed with the pie update before q beta was launched they would upgrade the bootloader and again with q beta 3 they update the bootloader. Both Verizon and Google send you in pointless circles when asked about this unlocking the bootloader deal. Not thrilled with either company as they are both full of bull**** and claim they don't don't know what I'm talking about and they both tell you to talk to their tech support. As soon as I'm paid off on this phone all I can say is Verizon had better allow me to unlock the bootloader. Not alot I can do if they don't but regardless when it's paid off I'm switching carriers. I like the service I get with them but that is it. I've been following Google fi and their progress and may try them out. Verizon in my opinion is a good investment stock market wise with the 5g unrolling and where Verizon plans to go with it. T Mobile is a good decision versus Sprint , at&t, or Verizon for what you are talking about. Better than cricket or boost Mobile or metro pcs. As for the Verizon variant deal, well Verizon did buy a nice chunk and I'm sure the bootloader issue is in the vendor files that Google has allowed though I've read that it is at the kernel level though. Not completely sure on it but I am not an expert programmer or developer as I am trying to learn it as a hobby but I'm not a noob either and as far as I have found, the issue with the bootloader is in files that Verizon has control over, as it is a read only file setup that is installed after Google passes it to Verizon. I've gone over everything that Google has multiple times and there is no real difference between Google's and Verizon's version. The pixel 2 and 2xl when first released had individual OTA releases of Oreo but as of June or July of 2018 Google started rolling out one OTA update for all carriers but the OTA doesn't update any of Verizon's files in which the ro.boot.flash.lock, oem_unlock_allowed etc. are located. Eff Verizon and their control issues and eff Google for playing dumb and advocating silently for Verizon, in my opinion, and giving them the control only device oems or device owners should have. I am glad their contract is or will finally be over though the damage is done. Verizon will never openly let people unlock their bootloader's because they don't want that vulnerability on their Network so they say. Sad but true.

i really wanted to write my own run on sentence/paragraph but i dont have the energy lol... instead ill just copy paste an article i found. Following a report from 9to5Google this morning, we were able to independently corroborate that T-Mobile plans to sell Google's current Pixel 3 and 3 XL smartphones, as well as add that the upcoming (and still unannounced) Pixel 3a and 3a XL will also be available in T-Mobile stores. The exact sale date is unclear, but my guess is that it will be timed against the launch of the new 3a devices, which we're expecting on May 7th. T-Mobile being added to the Pixel roster isn't just news in the sense of T-Mobile, though - it's a pretty big deal in regard to the larger strategy with the Pixel brand and what the end of Verizon exclusivity means, as well. Verizon was the launch partner for the original Pixel three and a half years ago, and it's been the exclusive carrier for the devices since. While they've been available on Google's Fi MVNO nearly as long, no one in the industry considers Fi much of a threat to Verizon, and Google probably worked out a deal Verizon was happy enough with to allow what probably just amounted to a market share rounding error. But Fi has continued to grow, and late last year graduated from "Project" status to a full-fledged service. Thanks to Sprint, Project Fi even has a 5G roadmap - and that does probably ruffle Verizon's feathers. Equally possible is that the timing is just a coincidence, and Verizon and Google's exclusivity deal had a previously agreed expiration date that's come and gone. Regardless of the reason for the exclusivity breakup, no one is going to mourn it - exclusives limit consumer choice.Verizon's Pixel exclusive has held for three generations - it seems like the fourth may be the end of the line. T-Mobile as Google's first new partner makes sense, and their mutual desire to cooperate hasn't been a secret: T-Mobile has long wanted very, very badly to sell Google's phones. It has advertised compatibility with Pixels from the beginning, and would offer yet another avenue through which T-Mobile can siphon customers from Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T. Sprint would be a pretty terrible choice, by comparison, with its stagnant growth and icky phone "leasing" schemes (which I absolutely revile). And AT&T, while massive, has among the worst device update policies of any carrier in the business, one for which I think Google would require an opt-out that to date only Apple has received. Fast and frequent updates are a huge part of the Pixel brand's appeal, and while Verizon has played gatekeeper for the Pixel OTAs on its network, they've always been pushed through Google's update framework and kept on the same update track as the unlocked phones. AT&T exerts far more control over the OTA process, and from an outside perspective, often seems slower to get updates certified. With a growing subscriber base and a strong brick and mortar retail presence, that leaves T-Mobile as not only the best fit for the Pixel, but probably the one most likely to generate success. Then there's the question of what happens on Verizon going forward - will the Pixel continue to receive special treatment like limited launch exclusives? Until the Pixel 4 is announced, we really won't know, but my guess is that Google wouldn't partner with a new carrier unless it would be on equal footing with Verizon (after all, even Fi gets the phones at launch now). And while Verizon has certainly put some marketing muscle (and dollars) behind Google's phones, there was no doubt that they'd also become the single biggest limiting factor for growth. Google Fi is fine for some people, but most aren't even aware it exists, and Verizon simply doesn't have a reputation as a value operator that T-Mobile does.

The book editor in me just died seeing this thread. Posting a single obscenely long paragraph as shown in the first response doesn't help people who might want to read your thoughts. It just encourages them to tune you out. If you expect to be taken seriously and have your thoughts actually be read, you've gotta break down your stuff into discrete chunks. It isn't just what you have to say that matters, but how you say it.

Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
The book editor in me just died seeing this thread. Posting a single obscenely long paragraph as shown in the first response doesn't help people who might want to read your thoughts. It just encourages them to tune you out. If you expect to be taken seriously and have your thoughts actually be read, you've gotta break down your stuff into discrete chunks. It isn't just what you have to say that matters, but how you say it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Word

Haha ':-\ I'll try to keep this post short and simple...
Thanks for all the thoughts (I guess...), but I'd like to still ask, do you guys think that getting the Pixel 4 (I haven't done research on the 3a's, but including them if this hasn't been established) and future models from carriers will mean that the bootloader is locked like it initially has been done from the Pixel OG to Pixel 3's? Or will the exact opposite maybe come true and Verizon will stop the practice following suit that the other 3 US wireless carriers will not/won't lock the bootloader?

simplepinoi177 said:
Haha ':-\ I'll try to keep this post short and simple...
Thanks for all the thoughts (I guess...), but I'd like to still ask, do you guys think that getting the Pixel 4 (I haven't done research on the 3a's, but including them if this hasn't been established) and future models from carriers will mean that the bootloader is locked like it initially has been done from the Pixel OG to Pixel 3's? Or will the exact opposite maybe come true and Verizon will stop the practice following suit that the other 3 US wireless carriers will not/won't lock the bootloader?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If the past is any indication of the future, then I surmise that all the US carriers will keep the bootloaders locked. However, should google NOT partner with any specific carrier, then I would think it would negate the need for different versions of upcoming devices, hence, allowing the user to unlock the bootloader if we choose to do so. Then again, that's all just spec on my part

Database Users

welcome