Google exclusivity ending with Verizon...thoughts? - Google Pixel 2 XL Guides, News, & Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

AT&T doesn't want you using grandfathered unlimited data plans! MUST READ!

Ok, so here’s my story:
Not too long ago, I bought myself a Samsung Galaxy Tab 7”. Ever since the device was announced by Samsung, I thought this was one of the coolest ideas since sliced bread. I could have a device roughly the size of a small book that pretty much did everything the iPad could do, and then some (like take pictures and run flash). On top of that, it was capable of making and receiving phone calls and text messages. Finally, a device that literally would do EVERYTHING I needed; no more need to lug around a netbook, a phone, a GPS in my car, or an iPod.
Not all was as peachy as I would have hoped however. Initially, it didn’t look as though this wonderful piece of technology would make it to American soil at all. Then, when it did, it was deliberately crippled for the North American market so that its native ability to make or receive regular phone calls and text messages was disabled at the software level. What a terrible thing to do! I was so disappointed by this news that I nearly abandoned any desire to head down to my local AT&T store to buy it. To add insult to injury, the only way AT&T offered the Tab was on a no-contract pay-as-you-go data plan, which is ludicrously expensive, particularly when compared with the fact that I’m one of the lucky customers who is grandfathered in to an unlimited data plan.
Eventually, however, my desire to own this device got the better of me, so I finally dished out the cash (and it was not cheap either!) for an unlocked and unbranded Tab which had the phone calling and texting abilities right out of the box. I popped the SIM card from my AT&T smartphone into my new Tab, fired it up, and started enjoying what was, up until recently, the best mobile user experience I have ever known.
I started referring to my Tab as my “Do-Everything-Device,” because it literally DID do everything I needed right from one device! It replaced my netbook, my phone, my GPS, my iPod, my Kindle, and the CD player/Radio in my car! It was so liberating not to have a phone attached to my hip and a bag on my shoulder for everything else I used to have to lug around with me. Sure there were occasions where carrying around a phone the size of a small book would have been ridiculous, but that’s what swapping SIM cards is for right? I’d simply switch back to my smartphone when the situation called for it.
Then things took a turn for the worse when AT&T started getting involved… Apparently this kind of quality user experience was not meant to be. I had received an automated text message one day telling me that I needed to be on the “proper data plan,” and that if I weren’t my service could be changed or suspended. Being a loyal paying customer to AT&T in its various previous incarnations for about 11 years now, and having an unlimited data plan on my line (which I should note I was NOT abusing; I generally used about 4 – 5GB or so per billing cycle), I was perplexed as to why I would have been receiving that message. So I called into customer service to inquire.
Upon some minor investigation on the customer service rep’s part, I was informed that the issue was that I was swapping back and forth between my Galaxy Tab and my smartphone (which it may be noted is a Samsung Captivate), and that I should stop doing that. Stop swapping out my SIM card between two of my most used devices? Really? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of having a SIM card in the first place? Still perplexed as to why this was an issue, I brought the matter to the attention of AT&T’s Office of the President to hopefully find some resolution to the problem. The gentleman I spoke with said he would investigate further and get back to me with his findings. A week later, get back to me he did! At first I thought, “Great! The highest level of customer service has come to bring me good news of a fair and reasonable compromise or resolution!” Little did I know he came to bear me bad news indeed…
The representative informed me that the issue wasn’t that I was swapping my SIM card per se, but rather the issue was with my Galaxy Tab specifically. Basically, I was told that AT&T’s intended use for the Galaxy Tab, regardless of where it was purchased, and regardless of whether it was carrier locked or unlocked or any of that, was that it was to be used as a data-only device, and furthermore as a pay-as-you-go data only device! I was basically given the option to get a pay-as-you-go SIM and use my Tab as AT&T intended it to be used (not as Samsung intended), or not use it at all, sorry. I was directed to the service agreement for “Specified Device Session-Based Plans.”
Excuse me? Sorry, but I don’t want to pay-as-I-go for data! I’m already paying for unlimited data, and there is nothing in those terms of service that say I can’t put my SIM card in whatever device I want, provided I’m not violating those terms! The representative proceeded to tell me that a user such as myself only accounted for a minority of the people subscribed, and that the current data plans AT&T offers caters to the majority. Ok, fine, cater to the majority. I get that. However, even as a lucky customer who has an unlimited data package, and even as a minority who chooses to stay informed about the latest technology, I should still be catered to as well. I mean, that’s what customer service is right? Making sure your customers’ needs are catered to? He said that the reason AT&T doesn’t still offer unlimited data is that “The average user only consumes about 2 or less GB a month.” Sure, that may be true for the average user currently, and it may be true furthermore for the average user who cares more about phones calls, text messages and Facebook updates more than frequently browsing rich web content and going to Youtube on their phone etc. However, with the much faster networks that are being deployed, and with more data intensive and media rich web content available today and tomorrow, that 2GB is going to be a bite-sized portion to the “average user” very shortly…
In my frustration, I argued that I am paying for the service to the SIM, not service to the device itself (otherwise what’s the point of the SIM in the first place?). As such, there shouldn’t be any issue with my circumventing AT&T’s artificial limitations on their branded Galaxy Tab’s hardware by buying directly from the manufacturer at a premium. I should be able to use my SIM in any device of my choosing, so long as I’m not violating the terms of service to that line, which I’m not (as I mentioned earlier, there was nothing in the Terms of Service that explicitly said I couldn’t use my SIM card in a tablet device.) Furthermore, I argued that the only real differences between the hardware in my Tab and the hardware in my Captivate were screen size, battery size, and the presence or absence of a front camera. For all the times I was told “Yes sir, I understand,” it really didn’t seem like he really understood…
It seems AT&T (and indeed any other US carrier which supplies a crippled Tab, or any other device) doesn’t want you to have a “Do Everything Device.” It’s bad for business! Why would they support a device that does everything your tablet or netbook does and everything your smartphone does, all on your single line subscription? Of course they’re going to cripple the Tab, because they want you to buy separate devices with separate line subscriptions and more money in their pockets! Not to mention, AT&T probably doesn’t want something that would have, up until recently, directly competed with the iPad, and frankly outdone it in some ways (when’s the last time you could make carrier phone calls, not SIP or VoIP, and text message on your iPad right out of the box?). I suppose that’s corporate America for you… What ever happened to providing superior service at the best value though?
So, if you are on AT&T, and you own a Galaxy Tab or are interested in getting one (or any other tablet on AT&T for that matter), here are some things to watch out for and speak out to:
AT&T is sweeping their network for devices by their IMEI, and if your device does not match up to whatever plan they want you to be on based on that device, your service could be changed or suspended.
If you have a grandfathered unlimited data plan, AT&T is doing the best they can to get you OFF of that plan by being very specific about what devices can be used with those plans.
I am only one person, and as one person, my voice has fallen upon the deaf ears of a very large company. As such, I urge you to speak out as a collective to AT&T, tell them about this situation, and others which likewise are upsetting to you as a customer. AT&T can ignore one person, but not a crowd…
Don’t contact customer service. Go straight to the source! Call AT&T’s office of the president at 866-751-5784 (option 1). Also, speak out on their Facebook page. Talk to your friends and family, spread the word!
EDIT: Here's a petition to sign.
honestly what is the point? i feel sorry for you americans - if the tmobile at&t merge goes through then there will only be 1 GSM carrier (i may be wrong) in the US and the rest will be CDMA - and that means that all the foreign visitors will be on 1 bad network.
The problem with any network "merger" is that you always get the lowest common denominator.
Up to the end of last year, I was on T-Mobile UK, but when my contract came up I left and went to Three. Retentions called and asked why I was leaving, and I explained that Three had a truly unlimited data plan and TMo UK had a 3GB FUP (which was pretty good to be fair).
The CS Rep swore blind that TMo UK would never do anything to uphold the FUP, but I stood my ground and left anyway because I *knew* that the merger with Orange could only ever end up with their plans becoming roughly analogous.
True to form, less than 1 month later, TMo UK reduced their "download" allowance to 500MB bringing them roughly in line with their sister brand, Orange.
Regards,
Dave
There are others, see this thread (if you haven't already).
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1000921 (I have a post in there.)
FTR, I'm using AT&T SGT as a phone and data device, just not using 3G (or mythical 4G for that matter) data. You can't swing a dead cat w/out hitting a wireless AP so why hassle with AT&T over their expensive, slow 3G (if you're lucky) connections/data.
I hated AT&T so bad I dumped them years back and went Cingular. Well, I guess they wanted me back so bad...they went and bought Cingular
Thanks for the contact info. I'll rattle the cage.
Thanks for sharing, you have taken this a great leap farther then I have.
I love your justifications, definately will call tomorrow, more people that call, better chance of a change ( I can dream).
Again, I say what about some kind of class action for this, Maybe we should get a bounty going. I would give $100.00 towards the suit. And if more is needed, I would contribute.
Timtown said:
There are others, see this thread (if you haven't already).
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1000921 (I have a post in there.)
FTR, I'm using AT&T SGT as a phone and data device, just not using 3G (or mythical 4G for that matter) data. You can't swing a dead cat w/out hitting a wireless AP so why hassle with AT&T over their expensive, slow 3G (if you're lucky) connections/data.
I hated AT&T so bad I dumped them years back and went Cingular. Well, I guess they wanted me back so bad...they went and bought Cingular
Thanks for the contact info. I'll rattle the cage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Att 3g data is slow? LOLWUT. Have a look at Verizon's 3g speeds.
-Sent from my Galaxy Tab
And to the OP, I just ordered a new phone today from att. They did not once attempt to get me off of my unlimited data plan.
-Sent from my Galaxy Tab
lockheedload said:
And to the OP, I just ordered a new phone today from att. They did not once attempt to get me off of my unlimited data plan.
-Sent from my Galaxy Tab
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The issue (at least for the moment) isn't so much that AT&T will take away your unlimited data plan or not (although that WOULD be an annoyance), the issue is that AT&T doesn't want us using our Galaxy Tab's as phone devices, because that's not how THEY intended it to be used. AT&T would rather we have two SIM cards. One for a tablet device, and one for a phone device; not one SIM card for one device that just "does it all."
If they're artificially crippling the native capabilities of a device in order to force consumers into buying multiple devices to make up for those limitations, then they're price gouging, plain and simple.
Jade Eyed Wolf said:
Ok, so here’s my story:
Not too long ago, I bought myself a Samsung Galaxy Tab 7”. Ever since the device was announced by Samsung, I thought this was one of the coolest ideas since sliced bread. I could have a device roughly the size of a small book that pretty much did everything the iPad could do, and then some (like take pictures and run flash). On top of that, it was capable of making and receiving phone calls and text messages. Finally, a device that literally would do EVERYTHING I needed; no more need to lug around a netbook, a phone, a GPS in my car, or an iPod.
Not all was as peachy as I would have hoped however. Initially, it didn’t look as though this wonderful piece of technology would make it to American soil at all. Then, when it did, it was deliberately crippled for the North American market so that its native ability to make or receive regular phone calls and text messages was disabled at the software level. What a terrible thing to do! I was so disappointed by this news that I nearly abandoned any desire to head down to my local AT&T store to buy it. To add insult to injury, the only way AT&T offered the Tab was on a no-contract pay-as-you-go data plan, which is ludicrously expensive, particularly when compared with the fact that I’m one of the lucky customers who is grandfathered in to an unlimited data plan.
Eventually, however, my desire to own this device got the better of me, so I finally dished out the cash (and it was not cheap either!) for an unlocked and unbranded Tab which had the phone calling and texting abilities right out of the box. I popped the SIM card from my AT&T smartphone into my new Tab, fired it up, and started enjoying what was, up until recently, the best mobile user experience I have ever known.
I started referring to my Tab as my “Do-Everything-Device,” because it literally DID do everything I needed right from one device! It replaced my netbook, my phone, my GPS, my iPod, my Kindle, and the CD player/Radio in my car! It was so liberating not to have a phone attached to my hip and a bag on my shoulder for everything else I used to have to lug around with me. Sure there were occasions where carrying around a phone the size of a small book would have been ridiculous, but that’s what swapping SIM cards is for right? I’d simply switch back to my smartphone when the situation called for it.
Then things took a turn for the worse when AT&T started getting involved… Apparently this kind of quality user experience was not meant to be. I had received an automated text message one day telling me that I needed to be on the “proper data plan,” and that if I weren’t my service could be changed or suspended. Being a loyal paying customer to AT&T in its various previous incarnations for about 11 years now, and having an unlimited data plan on my line (which I should note I was NOT abusing; I generally used about 4 – 5GB or so per billing cycle), I was perplexed as to why I would have been receiving that message. So I called into customer service to inquire.
Upon some minor investigation on the customer service rep’s part, I was informed that the issue was that I was swapping back and forth between my Galaxy Tab and my smartphone (which it may be noted is a Samsung Captivate), and that I should stop doing that. Stop swapping out my SIM card between two of my most used devices? Really? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of having a SIM card in the first place? Still perplexed as to why this was an issue, I brought the matter to the attention of AT&T’s Office of the President to hopefully find some resolution to the problem. The gentleman I spoke with said he would investigate further and get back to me with his findings. A week later, get back to me he did! At first I thought, “Great! The highest level of customer service has come to bring me good news of a fair and reasonable compromise or resolution!” Little did I know he came to bear me bad news indeed…
The representative informed me that the issue wasn’t that I was swapping my SIM card per se, but rather the issue was with my Galaxy Tab specifically. Basically, I was told that AT&T’s intended use for the Galaxy Tab, regardless of where it was purchased, and regardless of whether it was carrier locked or unlocked or any of that, was that it was to be used as a data-only device, and furthermore as a pay-as-you-go data only device! I was basically given the option to get a pay-as-you-go SIM and use my Tab as AT&T intended it to be used (not as Samsung intended), or not use it at all, sorry. I was directed to the service agreement for “Specified Device Session-Based Plans.”
Excuse me? Sorry, but I don’t want to pay-as-I-go for data! I’m already paying for unlimited data, and there is nothing in those terms of service that say I can’t put my SIM card in whatever device I want, provided I’m not violating those terms! The representative proceeded to tell me that a user such as myself only accounted for a minority of the people subscribed, and that the current data plans AT&T offers caters to the majority. Ok, fine, cater to the majority. I get that. However, even as a lucky customer who has an unlimited data package, and even as a minority who chooses to stay informed about the latest technology, I should still be catered to as well. I mean, that’s what customer service is right? Making sure your customers’ needs are catered to? He said that the reason AT&T doesn’t still offer unlimited data is that “The average user only consumes about 2 or less GB a month.” Sure, that may be true for the average user currently, and it may be true furthermore for the average user who cares more about phones calls, text messages and Facebook updates more than frequently browsing rich web content and going to Youtube on their phone etc. However, with the much faster networks that are being deployed, and with more data intensive and media rich web content available today and tomorrow, that 2GB is going to be a bite-sized portion to the “average user” very shortly…
In my frustration, I argued that I am paying for the service to the SIM, not service to the device itself (otherwise what’s the point of the SIM in the first place?). As such, there shouldn’t be any issue with my circumventing AT&T’s artificial limitations on their branded Galaxy Tab’s hardware by buying directly from the manufacturer at a premium. I should be able to use my SIM in any device of my choosing, so long as I’m not violating the terms of service to that line, which I’m not (as I mentioned earlier, there was nothing in the Terms of Service that explicitly said I couldn’t use my SIM card in a tablet device.) Furthermore, I argued that the only real differences between the hardware in my Tab and the hardware in my Captivate were screen size, battery size, and the presence or absence of a front camera. For all the times I was told “Yes sir, I understand,” it really didn’t seem like he really understood…
It seems AT&T (and indeed any other US carrier which supplies a crippled Tab, or any other device) doesn’t want you to have a “Do Everything Device.” It’s bad for business! Why would they support a device that does everything your tablet or netbook does and everything your smartphone does, all on your single line subscription? Of course they’re going to cripple the Tab, because they want you to buy separate devices with separate line subscriptions and more money in their pockets! Not to mention, AT&T probably doesn’t want something that would have, up until recently, directly competed with the iPad, and frankly outdone it in some ways (when’s the last time you could make carrier phone calls, not SIP or VoIP, and text message on your iPad right out of the box?). I suppose that’s corporate America for you… What ever happened to providing superior service at the best value though?
So, if you are on AT&T, and you own a Galaxy Tab or are interested in getting one (or any other tablet on AT&T for that matter), here are some things to watch out for and speak out to:
AT&T is sweeping their network for devices by their IMEI, and if your device does not match up to whatever plan they want you to be on based on that device, your service could be changed or suspended.
If you have a grandfathered unlimited data plan, AT&T is doing the best they can to get you OFF of that plan by being very specific about what devices can be used with those plans.
I am only one person, and as one person, my voice has fallen upon the deaf ears of a very large company. As such, I urge you to speak out as a collective to AT&T, tell them about this situation, and others which likewise are upsetting to you as a customer. AT&T can ignore one person, but not a crowd…
Don’t contact customer service. Go straight to the source! Call AT&T’s office of the president at 866-751-5784 (option 1). Also, speak out on their Facebook page. Talk to your friends and family, spread the word!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not on AT&T network any more I moved to sprint a few months before the Iphone came out its been that long, However AT&T is well with in there right to limit what device is allowed to do what on there network. Its sad that they would do that but in there contract agreement it is listed there.
Since this has completely ticked you off I would suggest you move carriers if you truly want to show them how unhappy you are with there service. Calling and complaining really isnt going to do you any good since you are in the minority of users that do what you described.
just my 2 cents
In europe the wireless operators are selling services - like phone calls and data. In US they are selling devices capable of calling or having data.
This diffrenece means that in eu if I don't like something I can move to difirenet operator and keep devices. In us you can't. that is why are people complaing that at&t is messing with them. Cause if they go to other provider they need to pay again for every device. In my home country hspa+ is still caled 3g, dataplan 12Gig for 19eur/month included all taxes
icreepin said:
Since this has completely ticked you off I would suggest you move carriers if you truly want to show them how unhappy you are with there service. Calling and complaining really isnt going to do you any good since you are in the minority of users that do what you described.
just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would gladly switch carriers if it weren't for the fact that I do a lot of international traveling, and Sprint/Verizon both being CDMA carriers is a deal-breaker for me. I'm with AT&T because of the GSM bands it supports, and that's it. If it weren't for that, if Sprint and Verizon were GSM carriers too, just like most of the rest of the world, I'd have switched a long time ago without a doubt.
The other thing is, for the most part I'm not entirely unhappy with the service AT&T provides, when it's providing service to the equipment I use as that equipment was designed. I only have an issue when it's clear that they are imposing artificial schemes which force customers into a price gouging situation.
Crippling the native features of one device (i.e. phone calling on the Tab) in order to force the consumer into buying ANOTHER device and ANOTHER line subscription in order to fulfill that function, which was artificially crippled on the other device, THAT to me is price gouging.
AT&T absolutely has the right to lay out their own criteria for HOW their network is used. Likewise, the customers have the right to make enough of a fuss to AT&T about WHAT they can use on their network, particularly when they're not violating the HOW part of the ToS.
If we all as consumers are complacent and passive enough to just lay down and go with the attitude of "Oh well, it's their network, and they can treat us however they want with it..." then AT&T (and any company for that matter) will take advantage of that and gouge us for as much money as they can get.
I'm arguing that we've reached an "Enough is enough" point from the customer's perspective, and I am urging as many people as I can to speak out in a common voice to say "This is what we want. Please deliver."
If you don't like something, don't just say "Oh well..." and keep it to yourself. Express yourself, and make your issues known, and band together with people who share the same concerns, otherwise nothing will ever change for the betterment of the user.
Ok I think you need a better example what is fundamentally wrong with your wireless providers. Lets say the you would buy and electric drill and you use it as screwdriver as well. The power company would you charge $ more for that. And if you say no I go to someone else they say you need new drill cause it does not work on our grid. And cause of that some has made a standard power gird. Or am I wrong? If you solve this problem you get better service.
monoko said:
In europe the wireless operators are selling services - like phone calls and data. In US they are selling devices capable of calling or having data.
This diffrenece means that in eu if I don't like something I can move to difirenet operator and keep devices. In us you can't. that is why are people complaing that at&t is messing with them. Cause if they go to other provider they need to pay again for every device. In my home country hspa+ is still caled 3g, dataplan 12Gig for 19eur/month included all taxes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly! And that's the thing, in America, we're in a largely CDMA network environment, where you can't just so easily keep on piece of hardware and jump from one carrier to another like you can with GSM using a SIM card. I mean you can still jump from one CDMA carrier to another using the same hardware, but it's a big hassle... Nowhere near as simple as popping in a different SIM card.
monoko said:
Ok I think you need a better example what is fundamentally wrong with your wireless providers. Lets say the you would buy and electric drill and you use it as screwdriver as well. The power company would you charge $ more for that. And if you say no I go to someone else they say you need new drill cause it does not work on our grid. And cause of that some has made a standard power gird. Or am I wrong? If you solve this problem you get better service.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the issue it this:
The Galaxy Tab, directly from Samsung and in virtually every other market throughout the world, makes and receives phone calls and text messages just the same as any other smartphone can.
AT&T (and pretty much all other US carriers) have artificially (that is, on the software level, not hardware) disabled those native capabilities. In essence, they've crippled the functionality of the device.
The consumer is therefore forced to buy and carry two devices with them (a phone AND a tablet) in order to fulfill the complete functionality and user experience desired, in addition to paying for TWO separate lines.
My point is that if there is an option to use ONE device, which when unhindered can fulfill the duties of BOTH phone AND tablet, and AT&T FORCES you out of that option, and therefore FORCES you into paying more money, when you really don't have to, then THAT is price gouging.
icreepin said:
Since this has completely ticked you off I would suggest you move carriers if you truly want to show them how unhappy you are with there service. Calling and complaining really isnt going to do you any good since you are in the minority of users that do what you described.
just my 2 cents
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or we could get a http://www.groubal.com/ petition going and see just how many people are considered minority. I be it is not a minority,
Whos to say the SGT users are a minority.
Jade Eyed Wolf said:
Exactly! And that's the thing, in America, we're in a largely CDMA network environment, where you can't just so easily keep on piece of hardware and jump from one carrier to another like you can with GSM using a SIM card. I mean you can still jump from one CDMA carrier to another using the same hardware, but it's a big hassle... Nowhere near as simple as popping in a different SIM card.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
check ur PM
Jade Eyed Wolf said:
No, the issue it this:
...
AT&T (and pretty much all other US carriers) have artificially (that is, on the software level, not hardware) disabled those native capabilities. In essence, they've crippled the functionality of the device.
....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't understand the point. They can do it cause you have no other easy choise. (anti competitivie)
You should have standard, I am not saying GSM or SIM etc.
But to understand look at europe. (I am european, but that is not the point)
SIM - is external (that is the point of it)!!!... it's easy to change (dead phone... just borrow frends old and you fixed till you get new),
Protocol (GSM etc) is defined for allowed spectrum.
Defined Spectrum and no other. (they still need to buy the spectrum)
This gives you posibility of selling GSM phones without carriers cripple them.
So your US problem is free market. Sorry to say it that way I know you mostly proud of that. (Lest leave this alone... ).
Just I can see competition in this market as a bit virtual. (at least to me)
(check your history about power gird you will find that standards are sometimes needed for better consumer protection.)
Please no flame war.
mine just got blocked.
i got the email yesterday telling me to change it back to my phone or call in to discuss options for the tab. so i did at my first opportunity...
i just got blocked and then an email sent to me saying to call in and that it may be blocked on both devices...
awesome, just awesome...
This is a perfect example as to why i am dreading the att/tmo merger. I am a current tmo customer and i am currently using my tab as a phone like many tmo/att customers. I have called a few times to tmo customer service regarding different minor issues and they know that i am using the tab as my phone, because i have told them, and they have not said anything they just mention how good of a devise it is and all that stuff, no issues.
Basically i am on an unlimited android plan $24.99 and of course the voice is extra. Now since this is supposed to last a year before it goes through (i really hope not) i will probably be at the end of my contract if the merger goes through and i am sure i will be forced to make changes to my plan: first i would need to chose one of their plans (god know what they will be then and how much) and second, forget about even using my tab as i am currently using it. If they do this to their own customers they i dread to think what they will do to the tmo customers that decide to stay with them once their contracts are up.
So my question is what would be the chances of me keeping my original plan on a month to month basis and not sign a new contract? (don't want to sign a new contract as i am planning to move to the UK around 2013 if everything goes as planned), who knows the answer to this but all i can say that it is not looking good for us tmo customers that are used to good customer service.
A sad, sad day for us all!!!!!
honggee said:
mine just got blocked.
i got the email yesterday telling me to change it back to my phone or call in to discuss options for the tab. so i did at my first opportunity...
i just got blocked and then an email sent to me saying to call in and that it may be blocked on both devices...
awesome, just awesome...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and i am sure there is nothing anyone can do about this, either comply or move to sprint/verizon. i feel your pain even though i am not an att customer.

I thought we were boycotting Motorola.

Did no one watch XDA developer TV last week. We are suppose to send Motorola a message by not buying or developing for their products so they start playing by the community way. Releasing source code, updating devices that they promised to update, etc. Just saying if we are going to work as a community we should all follow the advice of others that are recommending a complete boycott of said devices. What do you think?
INTEL INSIDE. X86. Will buy this device when devs start to release roms. And motorola is changed i think, they relased sources. INTEL, you can unlock bootloader,INTEL, and they use intel processors INSIDE! lol
Trolling mode off: Tell me, why i have to boycot motorola? Best materials, best signal strenght, best radio, best SoC. They relased sources, the opened a site wich in you can unlock the bootloader. Please explain.
(sorry for my terrible english)
vvveith said:
Did no one watch XDA developer TV last week. We are suppose to send Motorola a message by not buying or developing for their products so they start playing by the community way. Releasing source code, updating devices that they promised to update, etc. Just saying if we are going to work as a community we should all follow the advice of others that are recommending a complete boycott of said devices. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Motorola gave 5 free RAZR M Developer editions to US power-users (including myself and P3Droid).
Motorola has always released their source code for kernels... more timely than some but still could use some upload checkers hehe.
I got jellybean leaks for the RAZR M and RAZR HD.. and hopefully soon for RAZR i.
My bootloader is unlocked...
Boycotting this doesn't make sense. The old Motorola yes. Verizon yes. The new Motorola? Not so much. Every device released since they announced their unlock program has an option to be unlocked, and for Verizon they had to make a separate Developer Edition since they are the bad guys here. If anyone should be boycotted its Verizon for requiring locked bootloaders for retail devices and killing unlimited data.
Cheers
You can boycott them if you want, but I'll continue to buy Motorola devices. They rival HTC in build quality, and the radios can't be matched. Plus, they actually make form factors that I want. Motorola was the only one to make a portrait QWERTY with decent specs (and they were the first at all, as far as I can remember). That gave me 2 more years before I had to make the switch to a stupid slab. Now, they're the only ones making a small device with high end specs. Samsung's attempt at that, announced on Thursday, is a joke.
If all on xda boycotted Motorola I doubt they would notice? Anyway, no use cutting your nose off to spite your face. I certainly agree that their radios are by far better than their competitors. Now under the wing of Google I'm hoping they have changed. Time will tell!
Sent from my XT890 using xda premium
I watched this video.
paul89rulez said:
INTEL INSIDE. X86. Will buy this device when devs start to release roms. And motorola is changed i think, they relased sources. INTEL, you can unlock bootloader,INTEL, and they use intel processors INSIDE! lol
Trolling mode off: Tell me, why i have to boycot motorola? Best materials, best signal strenght, best radio, best SoC. They relased sources, the opened a site wich in you can unlock the bootloader. Please explain.
(sorry for my terrible english)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I watched this video and always figured that the host was more informed of behind the scene information then I was. So now am I to believe that what he says is not based on fact? Does anyone censor these video hosts to make sure what they say is actually based in reality? I always turn to the community here to decide if I should invest in a certain product or app. I read countless user reviews and listen to XDA developer TV to make a final buying decision. I think that people that are more in the public eye as representatives of the community should be accountable for the information the are allowed to share. I guess this host just has a lot of hot air based in fantasy? That's all I was commenting about, He must be very misinformed. Sad really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7HrYgO6uP4&feature=relmfu
vvveith said:
I watched this video and always figured that the host was more informed of behind the scene information then I was. So now am I to believe that what he says is not based on fact? Does anyone censor these video hosts to make sure what they say is actually based in reality? I always turn to the community here to decide if I should invest in a certain product or app. I read countless user reviews and listen to XDA developer TV to make a final buying decision. I think that people that are more in the public eye as representatives of the community should be accountable for the information the are allowed to share. I guess this host just has a lot of hot air based in fantasy? That's all I was commenting about, He must be very misinformed. Sad really. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7HrYgO6uP4&feature=relmfu
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All the information he gave is public, so he's not any more informed than any of the rest of us. He's only more informed than those who don't follow tech news, and those people don't care and weren't going to boycott anyway. Also, all his information is not completely accurate. The $100 rebate is not only for Verizon customers. The list includes several phones that are not Verizon phones. You can verify that for yourself here.
Ultimately, though, he's not misinformed. Motorola did lock bootloaders, they did push updates to an even later date, and they did cancel the updates for a few phones. He just has a different reaction to the information than I, and many others, do. He believes we should boycott Motorola to get them to change. As somebody who has an avenue to get their opinion out there, of course he's going to put his opinion out there. Personally, I think boycotting Verizon would be a better solution, because it's pretty clear that they are 90% of the problem. The new RAZR M/i and RAZR HD are only locked down on Verizon. In every other country they've been released in, they are unlockable. Motorola really doesn't care if you unlock your bootloader or not, because if you do, they don't have to warranty your phone. Verizon, though, for whatever reason, does seem to care.
The truth is, there will never be a widespread boycott of either Motorola or Verizon for this issue. For a boycott to be effective, you have to have a very large number of people upset about something. The number of people upset about locked bootloaders and a lack of updates is pretty low in the grand scheme of things. Most customers have no idea what a bootloader even is, and couldn't care less if they got an update or not. Then there's the fact that Verizon sells far more than just Motorola devices, so even if every Verizon customer that was pissed about the Motorola devices decided to boycott Verizon, it still wouldn't be a majority of those 100+ million customers.
Thank you, Very WELL said!!
freak4dell said:
All the information he gave is public, so he's not any more informed than any of the rest of us. He's only more informed than those who don't follow tech news, and those people don't care and weren't going to boycott anyway. Also, all his information is not completely accurate. The $100 rebate is not only for Verizon customers. The list includes several phones that are not Verizon phones. You can verify that for yourself here.
Ultimately, though, he's not misinformed. Motorola did lock bootloaders, they did push updates to an even later date, and they did cancel the updates for a few phones. He just has a different reaction to the information than I, and many others, do. He believes we should boycott Motorola to get them to change. As somebody who has an avenue to get their opinion out there, of course he's going to put his opinion out there. Personally, I think boycotting Verizon would be a better solution, because it's pretty clear that they are 90% of the problem. The new RAZR M/i and RAZR HD are only locked down on Verizon. In every other country they've been released in, they are unlockable. Motorola really doesn't care if you unlock your bootloader or not, because if you do, they don't have to warranty your phone. Verizon, though, for whatever reason, does seem to care.
The truth is, there will never be a widespread boycott of either Motorola or Verizon for this issue. For a boycott to be effective, you have to have a very large number of people upset about something. The number of people upset about locked bootloaders and a lack of updates is pretty low in the grand scheme of things. Most customers have no idea what a bootloader even is, and couldn't care less if they got an update or not. Then there's the fact that Verizon sells far more than just Motorola devices, so even if every Verizon customer that was pissed about the Motorola devices decided to boycott Verizon, it still wouldn't be a majority of those 100+ million customers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that's some information I can rap my head around. However, let me add one thing that Verizon does seem to care about besides money: They are one of the only service providers I have found that blocks text scam premium service providers. I recently received a text from some supposed event notifications service that I did not solicit. I of course paid no attention to it and deleted the text off my phone. When I was about to pay my bill I noticed an irregularity in the amount. $9.99 charged for a monthly membership fee. After notifying T Mobile of the fraud, they credited my account and told me if I wanted to block such services that I had to pay them $9.99 a month to have that feature. Or I could accept a block on all messages that come through their premium text services for free. I opted for the second and all of my important financial institutions were than blocked as well. After doing research on the web I found millions of cases of this same thing and the only provider not to have any complaints about it was Verizon! I was thinking of switching over to them when my term with T Mobile ends. But now that you have informed me of something else, I guess I'll stay away from them as well. Any other information that you can share would be very much appreciated. I know that we actually vote with our cash so even though it seems like one person is a small amount of revenue that won't be missed, when millions of us make the same decision I believe it does have an impact. Who knows? I guess I'll renew with T Mobile because it seems like no matter which service provider you choose, there always will be some shady business practices going on. Guess you have to choice the least of two evils, kind of like voting for a president. To bad XDA does not have a mobile provider of it's own with it's own devices as well. LOL
vvveith said:
Now that's some information I can rap my head around. However, let me add one thing that Verizon does seem to care about besides money: They are one of the only service providers I have found that blocks text scam premium service providers. I recently received a text from some supposed event notifications service that I did not solicit. I of course paid no attention to it and deleted the text off my phone. When I was about to pay my bill I noticed an irregularity in the amount. $9.99 charged for a monthly membership fee. After notifying T Mobile of the fraud, they credited my account and told me if I wanted to block such services that I had to pay them $9.99 a month to have that feature. Or I could accept a block on all messages that come through their premium text services for free. I opted for the second and all of my important financial institutions were than blocked as well. After doing research on the web I found millions of cases of this same thing and the only provider not to have any complaints about it was Verizon! I was thinking of switching over to them when my term with T Mobile ends. But now that you have informed me of something else, I guess I'll stay away from them as well. Any other information that you can share would be very much appreciated. I know that we actually vote with our cash so even though it seems like one person is a small amount of revenue that won't be missed, when millions of us make the same decision I believe it does have an impact. Who knows? I guess I'll renew with T Mobile because it seems like no matter which service provider you choose, there always will be some shady business practices going on. Guess you have to choice the least of two evils, kind of like voting for a president. To bad XDA does not have a mobile provider of it's own with it's own devices as well. LOL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm...I didn't know that about T-Mobile's service. I have that block on my account, too, since I got a fraudulent $9.99 charge a couple months ago. I don't really subscribe to texts from many places, but it sucks if I don't have the ability to.
I had them unblock me again!
freak4dell said:
Hmm...I didn't know that about T-Mobile's service. I have that block on my account, too, since I got a fraudulent $9.99 charge a couple months ago. I don't really subscribe to texts from many places, but it sucks if I don't have the ability to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I now receive text from my financial institutions and was given these procedures to follow if I receive anymore unwanted texts. Forward a copy of the offending text to 7726 immediately followed by a blank text to 4647. That will permanently block the text sender and also get them investigated for legitimacy. So I guess it's a slight pain in the ass but I need to receive important information from my bank or credit institutions anytime there is activity so I can verify that it is me making the activity happen and is approved.

Unlocking now Illegal

I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but I found it pretty cool that they used a picture of our trusty OG incredible...
http://www.longisland.com/news/01-27-13/unlocking-smarthphones-now-illegal.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
RepeatUntilTheEnd said:
I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but I found it pretty cool that they used a picture of our trusty OG incredible...
http://www.longisland.com/news/01-27-13/unlocking-smarthphones-now-illegal.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Damn government, always screwing the little guy. Oh well its not like its going to stop people from doing it anyways. I have been seriously thinking of switching my service to straight talk, and this news changes nothing. Tell them to come get me.
RepeatUntilTheEnd said:
I'm not sure if anyone has seen this but I found it pretty cool that they used a picture of our trusty OG incredible...
http://www.longisland.com/news/01-27-13/unlocking-smarthphones-now-illegal.html
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know why they picked a CDMA phone for the picture when usually only GSM phones are even unlockable for carriers. Technically flashing an inc on straight talk is not unlocking it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
tiny4579 said:
I don't know why they picked a CDMA phone for the picture when usually only GSM phones are even unlockable for carriers. Technically flashing an inc on straight talk is not unlocking it.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None of the articles I've read mention the N4, or how comparable the price is to phones on contract. I guess I can't really talk, since I'm still with big red.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
The Nexus 4 comes unlocked. I guess it's above the law then.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
Ah yes, leave it to the government to try to forbid people from messing with the device that they paid for. Well, it's not as if it'll stop anything whatsoever.
This is kind of disturbing if you ask me...
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda app-developers app
One good thing is that the law only applies to phones purchased after the law goes into affect - so anything before that is fine to unlock.
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda app-developers app
scals37 said:
This is kind of disturbing if you ask me...
Sent from my ADR6300 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the gift that keeps on giving to lawyers and corporati.
Incidentally, a few clarifications. I see people making the same wrong assumptions about this ruling again and again.
1.) Unlocking your phone is not illegal. What IS illegal is for you, the end-consumer, to unlock or otherwise edit the firmware/OS installed on the phone from the factory. This means that we, the citizenry of XDA and similar forums, are guilty of violations of the DMCA, because the carriers (Sprint, ATT, VZW, etc) actually hold the copyrights to the firmware's installed on the phone.
1a.) The carriers, however, CAN unlock the phone for you, legally. Most of the carriers have come forward and said that they will still unlock devices so long as you have met your original contract obligations. Now, this is great if you've bought a new device. Unfortunately, it means any Non-pay or otherwise blacklisted phone on Craigslist or ebay is still screwed.
1b.) New, Unlocked devices such as Nexus, Galaxy, and Incredible International are still, and will always remain, legally unlocked. The firmware found on these devices is owned by Google or by the device's original manufacture, and they are unlikely to proactively start locking such devices just to lock out the reseller community.
2.) Any device purchased or unlocked prior to January 26, 2013 can still be legally unlocked and used on any compatible network.
2a.) Carriers won't retroactively kick your device off of their network if it is illegally unlocked. Nor can they impose any special usage fines or taxes of utilizing an unlocked device. A "locked" cellphone is one which has been firmware coded to its own carrier's network.
2b.) The only person or group who can take action against you for illegally unlocking your phone is the Librarian of Congress (who made this ruling and is the conservator of DMCA exception law) or the carrier who originally sold the device to you, as they are the ones holding the copyrights to the firmware. They cannot, generally, tell some other network to not host your device. Obviously they can ASK a competitor not to host your unlocked device, but they can't actually stop them doing so.
2c.) The original vendor of the phone (Sprint, ATT, VZW, etc) can, however, sue you under the DMCA for violating their copyrights. This is identical to lawsuits used to penalize movie and music downloaders. However, since phone unlocks are generally not "shared" in the same way that music, movie, and game downloads are, an aggressive lawsuit by a patent troll or copyright bully holds little potential profit because they'd only be able to claim a single violation, not the sort of perpetual resharing that goes on with torrent users.
3.) While jailbreaking/unlocking/rooting a phone is illegal now, re-romming a phone is still a grey area. IE, completely replacing the firmware on your phone with a homebrew is not illegal in the same way that a simple unlock or jailbreak code is. Since you're not technically changing someone else's copyright protected software so much as simply deleting and replacing it.
3a.) Unfortunately, because most custom roms are still based in one form or another on the factory rom, you MIGHT still be sued unless, as in the case of older devices like the DINC, all original drivers and firmware's have been open-sourced to the community. It's unlikely that HTC would go after someone unlocking an Incredible series phone since you can legally root most HTC devices from their website; but other carriers and manufacturer's may not take the same view in the future.
There is also a division between hardware manufacturer's and carriers. Carriers lobbied long and hard FOR this ruling, because it is in their best interest to keep you chained to them for as long as possible, and a person who just spent several hundred dollars on a device is unlikely to be willing to simply ****can that device at the end of two years in order to move to another carrier and repeat the expensive process with a new device (unless you own an apple product, in which you're already indoctrinated to all of this ). Sell such a device, yes; dispose of it, no. So having a locked device makes you stickier since you'll use it for longer before parting with it, and if you can only use it legally on their network, then you are stuck with them since you can't resell/unlock it to recoup even part of your investment as you can currently by simply unlocking it or having a reseller do it for you.
Device manufacturers, on the other hand, have a vested interest in keeping their units in use as long as possible, regardless of what carrier it is operating on. Having a unit of hardware able to be reused on multiple carriers breeds customer loyalty to the hardware manufacturer in the same way a reliable car or home appliance does, and increasingly people are seeking out devices based not on the name of the carrier but the name of the phone. Already it's a lot less common to ask who a carrier is than what a phone is; particularly when the same device is available on multiple competing networks.
The best we can hope for is that this will all come to a head in 2 years as the first generation of legally locked phones start coming up for resale and people find themselves face with either throwing them away, sticking with their current carrier, or breaking the law.
What I find curious...
In every article and argument I have read; the carriers framed the argument around "Unlocking / Rooting so we can change service providers." If I were a phone carrier, I wouldn't want my customers to be able to leave either. Sounds reasonable on the surface.
However....I think most of us would agree, that the vast majority do NOT unlock and root for the sake of changing carriers. In fact that argument is already very weak and flawed,
With two standards (GSM vs CDMA), some technical differences in phone models that prevent differing networks from connecting with the devices, and only a handful of carriers....you don't have a lot of options...so not much point.
The phone carriers can refuse service to devices they didn't sell and were in no way required to do so, however it would be in their long-term interest.
The steep financial penalty for leaving a carrier before the contract expires easily covers the "subsidy" at the time of purchase.
Basically....rooting just to switch carriers doesn't make sense
What do we unlock/root for?
Control of our devices.
Control of our privacy and data.
"Fixing" the bugs ( ask me about the ASUS Transformer ICS updates...HA!!!)
Excessive bloatware, like three book reading apps on my tablet...(seriously)
Customizing the device to our needs
...the list is long and the consumers don't have a voice in these issues.. Worse yet to my opinion, this legal ruling actually cripples the end user. Without root access the task of managing and monitor apps, permissions, data, etc has more challenges and limitations , especially without any Android "stock" apps for the purpose. I mean, they didn't even make a file manager. I'll spare you all my usual Google rant. Just imagine what the teaming millions of non-tech, non-xda have to live with....when was the last time you had to work with a device without Titanium Backup, Root Explorer and such? (scares me)
Sorry, my point is...they used a bogus argument to get what they wanted, with them in control of our property and data.
Final thought..how long do you think it will take before we see the first "Price gouging/manipulation" lawsuits against the carriers? They price an unlocked phone so high that no one purchases them. I get it, why pay $650 for a phone with no contract, but you pay the same monthly charges.....when you can get one for $50 and two years of contract? Also, for the record, I do believe that the legality of unlocking/rooting only applies to carrier subsidized devices made and purchased after the above date, and not ones sold at full retail, purposefully unlocked. I'm no expert, but just based on the price differences between 3g/4g and WiFi only tablets, you frakkin know the carriers are messing around with pricing.
WOW...sorry for being long-winded and thanks!
Seems the White House agrees that we should be able to unlock our phones.
http://gizmodo.com/5988388/white-house-you-should-be-able-to-unlock-your-phone-if-you-own-it

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.

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
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.
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.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is 5.0 or 5.0.2 going to get Pie or cfroot on xt1028 Verizon when it comes out?
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.
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.
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.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They all come with 4.4.4 out of the box. Sucks that people charge for this even worse people actually spent money... Left this phone cuz of its horrible Dev capabilities. Got an lg g3 now. Would have loved to had a non Verizon moto g
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.
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

Categories

Resources