[PETITION] Unlock Bootloader SM-N950U ! - Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Guides, News, & Disc

[PETITION] Unlock Bootloader SM-N950U ! - Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note 8 Guides, News, & Disc

All of us Snapdragon Note 8 users know it's a long shot, but it's worth the try... Let your voice be heard and Samsung to surrender! Please take a minute to vote, all is appreciated!
https://www.change.org/p/samsung-un...m_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

**UPDATE**
We're now over 100 signatures in! Thanks to all who have signed already! If you haven't already, a minute of your time would greatly be appreciated to sign the petition. Thanks to all Note 8 users!

I'm not a note 8 user but I know the frustration of not being able to unlock the fullness of a thousand dollar device. It's complete bull crap that Samsung will not allow it's users to modify there devices the way the consumers want. I think if we own a device then we should be allowed to void the damn warranty if we choose!!
That's why one of the best Sammy devs gave up Adam Outler was the man when it came to unlocking Sammie's bootloader's. I would love to see him try to crack this behemoth. Just imagine if Samsung would allow us to unlock the bootloader's just imagine how many more people would start buying Samsung smart phones again..Not to say Samsung needs more money but Samsung devices would take over the world. Just my opinion of course. Whats the reason for Samsung not allowing it's users to unlock?
Signed

Super_SU01 said:
Just imagine if Samsung would allow us to unlock the bootloader's just imagine how many more people would start buying Samsung smart phones again..Not to say Samsung needs more money but Samsung devices would take over the world. Just my opinion of course. Whats the reason for Samsung not allowing it's users to unlock?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I signed the petition, but there's no way it will happen. We represent a fraction of a fraction of their customers. The difference in sales wouldn't even be noticed.
Locked down devices are demanded by many corporate clients and absolutely by government ones. My company alone equips approximately 5000 employees in the US alone with mobile devices and they wouldn't even look at devices that weren't completely locked down. And we're only one of many. I can't blame Sammie for doing what they do, but for the rest of us there are the geniuses that believe we should have access and that's why we're here.
A bounty would have a better chance of success. If I recall the VZW Note 4 bounty was close to $20k by the time it was finally unlocked. When it came out everyone thought for sure that its bootloader would never be unlocked too.

Dan Miller said:
I signed the petition, but there's no way it will happen. We represent a fraction of a fraction of their customers. The difference in sales wouldn't even be noticed.
Locked down devices are demanded by many corporate clients and absolutely by government ones. My company alone equips approximately 5000 employees in the US alone with mobile devices and they wouldn't even look at devices that weren't completely locked down. And we're only one of many. I can't b, America Sammie for doing what they do, but for the rest of us there are the geniuses that believe we should have access and that's why we're here.
A bounty would have a better chance of success. If I recall the VZW Note 4 bounty was close to $20k by the time it was finally unlocked. When it came out everyone thought for sure that its bootloader would never be unlocked too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes sir, I agree with everything you said. Look how long it took for the note 4 bootloader to get cracked. I got some really good news today about the snapdragon s8+. Apparently it's been out for about 3 days or so, but I have now on my device none other than Safestrap recovery, but it is limited to Nougant for now and I'm stoked. SS is a workaround just like on the note 3 and I'm happy with that. Now we can chill out a little and wait and be patient and maybe in the next year or 2 the BL can be unlocked. Did anyone end up getting the 20k bounty for unlocking the N4 BL?

Isn't it Verizon that's locked Bootloaders? Or Samsung also? But yeah, the Supreme court, a few years ago ruled an end user should be allowed to modify a device they own, with the knowledge that they're breaking the Warranty. I guess they left a loophole that allows companies to save us from ourselves

HipKat said:
Isn't it Verizon that's locked Bootloaders? Or Samsung also? But yeah, the Supreme court, a few years ago ruled an end user should be allowed to modify a device they own, with the knowledge that they're breaking the Warranty. I guess they left a loophole that allows companies to save us from ourselves
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't blanket void the warranty by modifying the device. You void the warranty as far as the modifications you made, but it's against the law for a manufacturer to say, "Your screen is dead, but you unlocked your phone 6 months ago, so we won't honor the warranty on the screen which has nothing to do with an unlocked bootloader."

Lol

LMFAO. Another one of these threads.

Related

The Ultimate reason to Why N3 Bootloader is locked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

now i'm clearly understand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big red is really missing out!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carrier policies, any insiders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verizon Moto G bootloader unlock exploit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hallaleuja brotha
Sent from my XT1028 using XDA Free mobile app

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

Gsm rules
Sent from my XT1028 using XDA Free mobile app

Cdma will be extinct soon anyways soon

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

new open-source motorola bootloader unlock via trustzone exploit

This can probably be ported to the Turbo since it works on a 2014 X
http://bits-please.blogspot.com/2016/02/unlocking-motorola-bootloader.html
https://github.com/laginimaineb/Alohamora

Beaups exploit could be redone as well. He released how. It's mostly no one is doing it.

_ck_ said:
This can probably be ported to the Turbo since it works on a 2014 X
http://bits-please.blogspot.com/2016/02/unlocking-motorola-bootloader.html
https://github.com/laginimaineb/Alohamora
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The vulnerability he is using is old (he first disclosed it ~6 months ago) and does not apply to the turbo.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

mrkhigh said:
Beaups exploit could be redone as well. He released how. It's mostly no one is doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right. Droid Turbo owners don't need a "new" exploit. The one being used still works!
If someone doesn't like paying for the packaged solution (Sunshine) that contains that exploit, then repackage it. It's been publicly released.
Oh, but re-coding would require work!
However, the payment in this case is fair to reward the time and money the devs invested. Without them, there would be no solution.

ChazzMatt said:
Right. Droid Turbo owners don't need a "new" exploit. The one being used still works!
If someone doesn't like paying for the packaged solution (Sunshine) that contains that exploit, then repackage it. It's been publicly released.
Oh, but re-coding would require work!
However, the payment in this case is fair to reward the time and money the devs invested. Without them, there would be no solution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amen
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I don't really understand the complaints coming from people about the charge for sunshine unlock. I was happy to find out that I could unlock/root with a few clicks and not worry about doing all the leg work, especially considering I don't have the skill set required to be confident of not brick in my device with a more extensive unlock/root process.
Time is money and some individual(s) put time into developing something that some people are happy to have access to and pay for. Simple fact is, if you have an issue with paying for such a thing, then don't... But don't hate on the guys that are profiting from a skill set that not everyone is capable of, especially if said hater isn't capable or willing to provide an equally usable product.
Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk

rg449 said:
I don't really understand the complaints coming from people about the charge for sunshine unlock. I was happy to find out that I could unlock/root with a few clicks and not worry about doing all the leg work, especially considering I don't have the skill set required to be confident of not brick in my device with a more extensive unlock/root process.
Time is money and some individual(s) put time into developing something that some people are happy to have access to and pay for. Simple fact is, if you have an issue with paying for such a thing, then don't... But don't hate on the guys that are profiting from a skill set that not everyone is capable of, especially if said hater isn't capable or willing to provide an equally usable product.
Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem people have had with Sunshine is that root/bootloader unlock methods have traditionally been given for free—because they've been easier to crack.
Recently hacking has become more and more difficult—which makes developers have to spend more, and want more to make up for their losses on modding.

tecsironman said:
Amen
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
rg449 said:
I don't really understand the complaints coming from people about the charge for sunshine unlock. I was happy to find out that I could unlock/root with a few clicks and not worry about doing all the leg work, especially considering I don't have the skill set required to be confident of not brick in my device with a more extensive unlock/root process.
Time is money and some individual(s) put time into developing something that some people are happy to have access to and pay for. Simple fact is, if you have an issue with paying for such a thing, then don't... But don't hate on the guys that are profiting from a skill set that not everyone is capable of, especially if said hater isn't capable or willing to provide an equally usable product.
Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed!
Latiken said:
The problem people have had with Sunshine is that root/bootloader unlock methods have traditionally been given for free—because they've been easier to crack.
Recently hacking has become more and more difficult—which makes developers have to spend more, and want more to make up for their losses on modding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See Above! You get way more value for $20 then was ever given for free... and just because something used to be given away does not imply that it will continue to be in the future. Smart phones are still a relatively new product in the market and with Dev's who have now been through years of the exploiting, modifying, retiring cycle, there has to be incentive for them to stay engaged.
Additionally, I'll remind you that it hasn't been long since bounties were the norm. Everybody would post their promise to pay before and during development, then an exploit would be found and the bounty threads would clear out. Can't blame them for getting wise about collecting.

mng777777 said:
Agreed!
See Above! You get way more value for $20 then was ever given for free... and just because something used to be given away does not imply that it will continue to be in the future. Smart phones are still a relatively new product in the market and with Dev's who have now been through years of the exploiting, modifying, retiring cycle, there has to be incentive for them to stay engaged.
Additionally, I'll remind you that it hasn't been long since bounties were the norm. Everybody would post their promise to pay before and during development, then an exploit would be found and the bounty threads would clear out. Can't blame them for getting wise about collecting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no you don't get more for paid methods. It's a one time unlock, and is device specific.
Let me reiterate that I am in no way complaining about Sunshine. I love the devs' work on our devices.
What I'm saying is that people's disappointment is understandable.
However, the devs already published the exploits and documents; all that's left is for someone to use them.
People have nothing to complain about now.

I get your point and I am in agreement with you. I didn't mean to imply that I'm not.
I'd like to clarify though, what I meant when I said you get more is that downloading an apk, pressing a few buttons, and spending all of 3 minutes to be unlocked is far simpler than it ever was in the past. I'm just pointing out that they went the extra mile to build an apk that's simple and elegant and does the heavy lifting for you whereas in the past we had to boot to recovery, flash, boot to boot loader, run adb, etc. The threads were full of people stuck and confused. Sunshine adds great value to the less savvy user and at least simplicity for the more savvy users.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

mng777777 said:
I get your point and I am in agreement with you. I didn't mean to imply that I'm not.
I'd like to clarify though, what I meant when I said you get more is that downloading an apk, pressing a few buttons, and spending all of 3 minutes to be unlocked is far simpler than it ever was in the past. I'm just pointing out that they went the extra mile to build an apk that's simple and elegant and does the heavy lifting for you whereas in the past we had to boot to recovery, flash, boot to boot loader, run adb, etc. The threads were full of people stuck and confused. Sunshine adds great value to the less savvy user and at least simplicity for the more savvy users.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is great to see as well; however, that makes development that much harder, and o know for a fact the people that whine about Sunshine's cost would deal with the difficulty of using fastboot and adb in order to save $25.
It is great, however, for less experienced people, and it's overall function. $25 is a steal for a fully moddifable device that was locked down so well.

Latiken said:
That is great to see as well; however, that makes development that much harder, and o know for a fact the people that whine about Sunshine's cost would deal with the difficulty of using fastboot and adb in order to save $25.
It is great, however, for less experienced people, and it's overall function. $25 is a steal for a fully modifiable device that was locked down so well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This response below is not necessarily directed towards you, but really for the entire discussion in this thread. I'm just quoting your post as it's a good point to continue the discussion.
1) I can't believe people who are buying $600 phones are complaining about $25 bootloader unlock. And I don't care if you got the phone for $200 on contract or even as a "free upgrade". You are STILL paying $600 for the phone over the course of the contract.
2) No one is forcing anyone to pay for bootloader unlock. Your phone will still work like when you bought it, and you bought locked down.
If you bought this phone, you knew it was locked down and bought it anyway (or should have known). Everyone knows Verizon locks down their phones. Don't buy a Verizon phone if you don't like Verizon's policies. (The XT1250 has free bootloader unlock and is the Droid Turbo under another name, same bands, etc and runs on Verizon. So, I don't want to hear that you NEED Verizon. You may need Verizon but you don't need Verizon phones. Look at the non-Verizon Nexus 6 as another example.) This phone went for an entire YEAR locked down, and people are complaining when there's finally a solution?
3) Someone mentioned the bounty threads.
Droid Turbo Bootloader unlock bounty reached over $5,000 before the op stopped counting.
Running Total: $5,140 for bootloader unlock / $3,370 for root access
http://forum.xda-developers.com/droid-turbo/general/bounty-unlock-bootloader-root-turbo-t2927958
It was actually MORE, but the op gave up counting. Go look at the first post and read some of the amounts... user names are listed.
I want to know if everyone who who pledged $25, $50, $100, even $200 actually bought Sunshine? If they didn't, then they had no intention of ever paying anyway. Sunshine is a way to put your money where your mouth is.
and last...
4) I think people should rant more towards Verizon than devs who overcome Verizon's shortsightedness.
There's no valid reason to lock down the bootloader. None of the other Motorola Quarks have that condition -- same hardware, in at least one case the EXACT SAME FCC ID. Ever since the FCC made Verizon open up their LTE network to other phones not certified by Verizon (the XT1250 U.S. Moto Maxx -- the XT1254 Droid Turbo clone -- runs just fine on Verizon with a Verizon sim card, as does a non-Verizon Moto Nexus 6) and made Verizon also open up their phones to work on OTHER LTE networks (many people are running the XT1254 Droid Turbo on AT&T and T-mobile), what are Verizon's justifications?
Unlocking the bootloader through Motorola -- as I have done with two of my three Quarks -- acknowledges you are voiding any warranty claims. So, that's actually LESS liability and cost for Verizon in support if they allowed users to unlock bootloader. It's a nonsensical leftover from a bygone era when Verizon tried to lock their devices to only their network.
Until Verizon realizes they need change their intransigence, we need devs to help. And for devs to invest tremendous time and money, they need to be reimbursed for bricked phones and time invested they could be doing other things.

ChazzMatt said:
This response below is not necessarily directed towards you, but really for the entire discussion in this thread. I'm just quoting your post as it's a good point to continue the discussion.
1) I can't believe people who are buying $600 phones are complaining about $25. And I don't care if you got it for $200 on contract or even as a "free upgrade". You are STILL paying $600 for the phone over the course of the contract.
2) No one is forcing them to pay it. Everyone knows Verizon locks down their phones. Don't buy a Verizon phone if you don't like Verizon's policies. (The XT1250 has free bootloader unlock and is the Droid Turbo under another name, same bands, etc and runs on Verizon. So, I don't want to hear that you NEED Verizon. You may need Verizon but you don't need Verizon phones. Look at the non-Verizon Nexus 6 as another example.) This phone went for an entire YEAR locked down, and people are complaining when there's finally a solution?
3) Someone mentioned the bounty threads.
Droid Turbo Bootloader unlock bounty reached over $5,000 before the op stopped counting.
Running Total: $5,140 for bootloader unlock / $3,370 for root access
http://forum.xda-developers.com/droid-turbo/general/bounty-unlock-bootloader-root-turbo-t2927958
It was actually MORE, but the op gave up counting. Go look at the first post and read some of the amounts... user names are listed.
I want to know if everyone who who pledged $25, $50, $100, even $200 actually bought Sunshine? If they didn't, then they had no intention of ever paying anyway. Sunshine is a way to put your money where your mouth is.
and last...
4) I think people should rant more towards Verizon than devs who overcome Verizon's shortsightedness.
There's no valid reason to lock down the bootloader. None of the other Motorola Quarks have that condition -- same hardware, in at least one case the EXACT SAME FCC ID. Ever since the FCC made Verizon open up their LTE network to other phones not certified by Verizon (the XT1250 U.S. Moto Maxx -- the XT1254 Droid Turbo clone -- runs just fine on Verizon with a Verizon sim card, as does a non-Verizon Moto Nexus 6) and made Verizon also open up their phones to work on OTHER LTE networks (many people are running the XT1254 Droid Turbo on AT&T and T-mobile), what are Verizon's justifications?
Unlocking the bootloader through Motorola -- as I have done with two of my three Quarks -- acknowledges you are voiding any warranty claims. So, that's actually LESS liability and cost for Verizon in support. It's a nonsensical leftover from a bygone era when Verizon tried to lock their devices to only their network.
Until Verizon realizes they need change their intransigence, we need devs to help. And for devs to invest tremendous time and money, they need to be reimbursed for bricked phones and time invested they could be doing other things.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One reason I love Motorola is because of their near-stock Android with actually useful enhancements, and the fact that you can unlock their devices straight from them.
Had I researched and known that the Verizon XT1254 was locked down before purchasing it, I might've gone for another one.
But hey, I got a wicked deal on a $270 blue Turbo, AND we got Sunshine like a month after. I got some serious luck.

ChazzMatt said:
Droid Turbo Bootloader unlock bounty reached over $5,000 before the op stopped counting.
Running Total: $5,140 for bootloader unlock / $3,370 for root access
http://forum.xda-developers.com/droid-turbo/general/bounty-unlock-bootloader-root-turbo-t2927958
It was actually MORE, but the op gave up counting. Go look at the first post and read some of the amounts... user names are listed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the most part bounties don't pay, more often than not it costs me more to buy the phones than I got from the bounties. Exception being the first motorola bounty I collected

jcase said:
For the most part bounties don't pay, more often than not it costs me more to buy the phones than I got from the bounties. Exception being the first motorola bounty I collected
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Out of curiosity. Did sunshine's $25 a pop pay off well? Mind you I'm not asking for dollars and cents. Merely is it a hobby that funds itself. Or a hobby that doesn't? Or is it actually a source of income?
I'm often curious the stats of bootloader unlocks/roots performed but in this instance that would be an invasion of privacy...

mrkhigh said:
Out of curiosity. Did sunshine's $25 a pop pay off well? Mind you I'm not asking for dollars and cents. Merely is it a hobby that funds itself. Or a hobby that doesn't? Or is it actually a source of income?
I'm often curious the stats of bootloader unlocks/roots performed but in this instance that would be an invasion of privacy...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SunShine funds further research, its not my job, much of the research goes no where, much of it results in dead phones, sometimes it works out. Would be right for me to discuss numbers, I'm not the only one involved.

Database Users

welcome