Develop Bugs

Restrict Outside Download Links in Posts?

Hello,
First, I am NOT trying to keep people from downloading anything, just read what I have seen occur on a couple of sites.
Is there any way to restrict the outside download links on posts until someone logs in? The reason I ask is that I have seen on more than one other non-phone forum links to this forum to get the latest ROM downloads. For example, I was on a car forum and someone was talking about their BT and other "neat" options they had added via WM6 (also other hacks) and had gotten it here. They stated it was very simple/easy and put in a link. When I followed the link it gave me a post to here and a link to a RapidShare site. No logon required, no reading, no warnings, etc.. I went back and followed the original automotive thread and sure enough, someone tried to flash their phone and now it wasn't working. The automotive thread never once mentioned types of phones or anything else until AFTER the link to here had been posted. And then, of course, the suggestion to the person that had bricked their phone was to come back here to find a way to fix it.
If you do a Google search you will see that there are a number of hits returned of non-phone/PDA sites that talk about WM6 and other issues that have links back to here, and other phone/PDA sites.
So I was wondering if there was some way to make it necessary to at least log in before you can click on a link to an outside download site? Or, failing that, if there is a redirect from an outside site that doesn't come through the portal, could thre be a warning screen then a re-direct to the page in question? This might save a lot of heartache for people both here (repeated noob questions) and people that have no clue what they are messing with before they brick their phones.
Thanks,

If you do not know what you are doing and decide to "upgrade to the new shiny <whatever>" , then no matter what stupid warnings, restrictions and disuations are given, then you will go ahead and brick your phone.
Its true that a few minutes of thought could save you a trip down to the local store to buy a new phone, but that is too much to ask from all these hot headed "I want it 5 minutes ago" people.
They also tend to blame Microsoft, the ROM chef, other forums, some higher deity and everoyne else before coming to realise that no matter who/what they blame, they still end up with the bricked phone because they themselves went ahead and did it.
NOBODY FORCES ANYONE to "upgrade" , but for some reason many people just go ahead and do it without any thought nor knowledge about what they are about to do.
Again, restricting usage of <anything> because some people feel users are unable to stop and think is not the answer.
But then again, what do I know....

I am not suggesting that they be restricted from downloading. All I am asking is if there is a way to make them log in/join the forum instead of just linking from an outside site, grabbing a link from here to another outside site and then bricking their phone.
I agree that many, if not most, will not be stopped and will continue on, but maybe a extra step will cause a few to pause and think (or be too much of a hassle), thus cutting down on the number of complaints/repetitious posts for help un-bricking their phone.

erm, if i get what your saying... i think it is... i know what brought me to this site was a file i was looking for was here, but it needed me to register to download!

freakuency said:
erm, if i get what your saying... i think it is... i know what brought me to this site was a file i was looking for was here, but it needed me to register to download!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe (I am guessing here) those files/links are the ones that are hosted on the XDA server. But a lot of the links to the ROMS that can no longer be hosted on XDA thanks to M$ are direct and do not require a logon. Try coming to the site and not logging in and clicking on some of the ROM links and you will see what I mean.

This is of course just an opinion of a user but:
It would be wrong to restrict links to sites like rapidshare. That would take away the whole point, plus it is not too difficult to copy paste the link.
You can not protect people from their own stupidity and this site should not be held responsible for it.
If you try to mess with your phone based on what you read in an automotive forum or fix your computer based on advice from a cooking forum anything that happens is your fault and no one else's!
(At least they do not try to fix their car based on advice from XDA-dev)
People like that will not be stopped by warnings or blocks and there is no point in trying.
Some people should not be let near electronic devices, but we still live in a free world (most of us anyway) and that includes the freedom to brick a brand new 1000$ phone.

levenum said:
This is of course just an opinion of a user but:
It would be wrong to restrict links to sites like rapidshare. That would take away the whole point, plus it is not too difficult to copy paste the link.
I am not suggesting restricting the link, just linking from outside sites without logging in.
You can not protect people from their own stupidity and this site should not be held responsible for it.
Never even suggested that and don't understand where that came from.
If you try to mess with your phone based on what you read in an automotive forum or fix your computer based on advice from a cooking forum anything that happens is your fault and no one else's!
(At least they do not try to fix their car based on advice from XDA-dev)
People like that will not be stopped by warnings or blocks and there is no point in trying.
Some people should not be let near electronic devices, but we still live in a free world (most of us anyway) and that includes the freedom to brick a brand new 1000$ phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have been on this forum since January of this year and watched the Hermes section have issues with requests for information redundancy overload, frayed tempers, and other miscellaenous PBKAC's. Anything simple that doesn't restrict any user from access, but maybe would keep somebody from just clicking and getting what they want might help. I am just a user as well, (with few posts) I only asked since I thought it might be a way to help lessen some of the load. Only that, not that I actually think it would make a major difference, but any little bit can help at times.
Again, I never said to restrict the links, just make someone logon/join XDA first, versus just cruising in from another site or a Google hit. If you don't try, you never know. Maybe XDA will even get some more donations that way or gain a new chef.

But this is the whole point: You see a link but can't click it.
Never mind that joining is free and easy - there is still a barrier even if symbolic.
Look, my last post may have sounded harsh, but I did not mean to attack you.
What I meant by "protecting people from stupidity" is this:
Today even children know that simply downloading stuff from the net puts your computer at risk (forget rapidshare, we have viruses here on our own FTP all the time - scum uploading scumware - and no, it is not a matter of having a virus scanner! A home cooked exe that deletes all files on your c drive is easy to make and also will pass just about any virus scan).
But if someone is about to mess with his brand new expansive toy based on two lines in an unrelated forum and using a download from a questionable source without bothering to look up detailed instructions or check on risks of the procedure - well no point in warning such people.
The thing is - I think forcing such individuals to join will only increase the number of repeated/already answered/"I bricked my phone" messages as they will now think that we (the forum) are responsible for them and they have an account to make the post.

Try to make something idiot proof and nature will make a better idiot...

levenum said:
The thing is - I think forcing such individuals to join will only increase the number of repeated/already answered/"I bricked my phone" messages as they will now think that we (the forum) are responsible for them and they have an account to make the post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You very well may be right. I have directed, in the field, so many different rollouts of new communications gear and seen every last one of them hosed in such incredibly varied manners that almost nothing surprises me now. I have just learned that the more little checks and balances that are added in without actually affecting performance can help the end product.
And I second "The Brit's" statement.

HTC opposing modding, but sure as hell they are willing to take your money!!!

I've been enjoying the custom ROM features for a short while, but when I came across the HTC's desicion to put shipped-roms down, I had to make a statement.
I've contacted HTC about the matter, and the answer I got did not please me, at all. They just ignored the fact that the success(and their money) comes greatly because of the open Android platform, and the eager programmer communities contributing to it. Which is the reason and soul, to promise, for the platform, to get success and long life, in the future.
Their claim stands on the corporate ignorance on that fact I mentioned. As the original binaries are not to be used in any other way, than to give a rescue route, if some customization route takes the wrong turn, and ends in bricking the device. In those occations we could take the step back and restore the original image, into a device, and keep hunting the bug's in custom cooked roms.
So I hope that more people will get in touch directly to HTC, and make them understand that keeping the binaries out in the open, does not steal any money or intellectual property from them, in any way, but is solely to keep supporting the device sales, and the life of the platform as a whole.
Yours truly
sawe
P.S. Sorry for the bad language, I'm not a native english speaker.

I personally think that response is reasonable. They can't guarantee that anything won't go wrong with ROMs other than their own and therefore won't support it.
They don't however try to actively stop it which is why there is such a great community of developers.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

They don't actively stop modding. They just want to keep their own ROMs safe.

I think they are not reasonable on the matter. Reasonable would be if they give us the possibility to download released ROMs from their web servers.
By taking that possibility away, they deny us to revert back to official version, and by that put a much bigger risk in testing the new mods.
No intellectual property is at risk because official packages are .exe binary files, so no way to missuse them, only ability to flash the device back to factory defaults.

Aren't they taking issue with the fact that the HTC Roms include their copyrighted Intellectual property? THe sense UI and the other apps the HTC develop to go with their devices for example? I don't agree with the HTC tactic here, but just wondering if thats their whole issue?

badgerarc said:
Aren't they taking issue with the fact that the HTC Roms include their copyrighted Intellectual property? THe sense UI and the other apps the HTC develop to go with their devices for example? I don't agree with the HTC tactic here, but just wondering if thats their whole issue?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Those binary coded .exe files are only usable to flash the device they are ment. You cannot use the file in any other way.

this thread is aload of crap, htc have the right to take whatever steps they feel are justified to protect there work, if you dont like it dont buy htc simple, but we all know people will buy htc because whatever you think of them they are that best smartphone manufacturer

HTC have more rights than they actually use, agreed this thread is pointless.
Xda could drown under 2 meters of dung and htc wouldn't even notice, or maybe they would just be happy to do away with all the idiots bogging down customer support with questions about froyo and then moaning it's not ready a split second after the android team released it.
not sent from an iToilet

saweboy said:
Those binary coded .exe files are only usable to flash the device they are ment. You cannot use the file in any other way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but that just isn't true!
When you run an HTC Android RUU it extracts a file called ROM.ZIP into a temp directory before it starts to flash the phone and you can pull this out and do pretty much whatever you like with it.
Regards,
Dave

foxmeister said:
Sorry, but that just isn't true!
When you run an HTC Android RUU it extracts a file called ROM.ZIP into a temp directory before it starts to flash the phone and you can pull this out and do pretty much whatever you like with it.
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats true ive done that using ms process manager when i wanted the stock htc bootanimation.zip

I wonder how much information HTC have syphoned off these and other similar forums without acknowledging it? Essentially we are provided a beta testing service for them at no risk to themselves. They could just look through all the problems folks are reporting with various ROMs and RADIO files and use that info to make them stable.

SimonCraddock said:
I wonder how much information HTC have syphoned off these and other similar forums without acknowledging it? Essentially we are provided a beta testing service for them at no risk to themselves. They could just look through all the problems folks are reporting with various ROMs and RADIO files and use that info to make them stable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I sincerely hope they don't, since 90% of the supposed beta testing here is unscientific at best and plain wrong at worst
not sent from an iToilet

I think HTC would have much more sophisticated testing methods than relying on comments like....
ZOMG!!! THE CAMERA APP FORCE CLOSES, THIS ROM SUX!!!
HTC have every right to protect their intellectual property. In fact they're being very nice with the modding community. If they full exercised their rights then there roms including HTC Sense would be illegal.

best root not affecting flash counter?

Is there a good way to root 2.3.6 (Sprint, if that matters) without increasing the flash counter?
My preference would be for something manual, where I run a bunch of commands in adb, rather than where I run some mysterious executable on the PC, but I can do the latter if needed.
Temp root would be better than nothing.

Up until EK02 (2.3.6) you could root directly. See manual instructions in 2nd post of this thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1342728
After EK02 there is no direct root, so you use the pre-rooted ODIN oneclick packages, which can also be found in that thread.

Can one downgrade to the official 2.3.5 without affecting the flash counter (or violating copyright by downloading firmwares from unapproved websites), and then do something to make root survive (e.g., ro.secure=0 in local.prop?) an official upgrade?

You might be able to, but I think you are going through more effort than is necessary. Up to you what you want to try.

Just use any of the Odin stock one click Roots. Won't effect your binary count or give you the yellow triangle. Then either flash a cwm kernel or auto root with cwm

The longer you have the phone, it is inevitable that you will increase the counter at one point or another while flashing.
If you're that concerned, purchase a USB jig. They're only a few dollars and handy to have on hand for this reason and a couple of others.

1. What's a USB jig?
2. What are the ODIN one-click root packages? Are they a complete pre-rooted firmware? If so, don't they violate Samsung's/Sprint's copyright? Or are they just a kernel (which won't violate their copyright, since kernels will be under GPL2)?

arpruss said:
1. What's a USB jig?
2. What are the ODIN one-click root packages? Are they a complete pre-rooted firmware? If so, don't they violate Samsung's/Sprint's copyright? Or are they just a kernel (which won't violate their copyright, since kernels will be under GPL2)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1402286

arpruss said:
1. What's a USB jig?
2. What are the ODIN one-click root packages? Are they a complete pre-rooted firmware? If so, don't they violate Samsung's/Sprint's copyright? Or are they just a kernel (which won't violate their copyright, since kernels will be under GPL2)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can also make one yourself see youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKRrTZayRxU. Claims claim that it will erase flash count.

The one-click root packages, if I understand correctly, include a complete ROM, with all the apps added by Samsung and Sprint, right? If so, then downloading them would seem to be a copyright violation. (I am very careful about copyright.)
Maybe I'll just wait for the Sprint 14-day return period to run out and then just not worry about the flash counter (and I couldn't care less about a yellow triangle on a boot screen, as long as it doesn't show up after boot).

Stock roms with apps added don't violate copyright, only AOSP roms need to have the Google proprietary apps seperate, they are still distributable just can't be included with AOSP. Any rom with touchwiz they can be packaged in the ROM.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

-EViL-KoNCEPTz- said:
Stock roms with apps added don't violate copyright, only AOSP roms need to have the Google proprietary apps seperate, they are still distributable just can't be included with AOSP. Any rom with touchwiz they can be packaged in the ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Has Samsung/Sprint given permission to redistribute stock ROMs with added components? That would be great--I am new to the Samsung scene, so before I download and risk violating copyright, I'd like to see the evidence.

Its essentially the same package they use to restore your phone at the store or when you send in a broken device and the refurbish it. You don't purchase ROMs, they are freely downloadable from samsungs support site and every time you get an OTA you are downloading the ROM for free.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

-EViL-KoNCEPTz- said:
Its essentially the same package they use to restore your phone at the store or when you send in a broken device and the refurbish it. You don't purchase ROMs, they are freely downloadable from samsungs support site and every time you get an OTA you are downloading the ROM for free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IANAL, but I don't think it is decisive that you get something for free. You're still not allowed to re-distribute a capture of it without the copyright owner's permission. Likewise, you can get a TV show for free over the air, and you can record it for personal time-shifting purposes, but you can't re-distribute the recording without permission, and likewise I bet you can't legally download the show from an unauthorized torrent. Don't get me wrong--I'd love it if it turned out to be legal, and in general I am really unhappy with the state of copyright law, but the fact that I am unhappy with a law doesn't mean I don't have to follow it (legitimate civil disobedience is a case apart).
Where can I find the ROMs on Samsung's support site? Do they have a restrictive EULA? If not, maybe I can just modify the ROM myself.

I can't find anything about custom roms violating copyright or being illegal in anyway other than voiding your warranty. Furthermore they (manufacturers) release the source of the ROMs and kernels which includes all the apps in the source, this is how developers make the rom even better than the MFGs do. The android base that all MFGs use to build their ROMs is opensource which Google requires that the MFGs release the source therefore making it legal to download, I don't know samsungs site but HTCdev.com you can download all rom and kernel sources and tools to unlock the bootloader allowing you to bypass security and flash custom firmware, the supreme court ruled that once you purchase the device it becomes your property and the MFG and/it carriers cannot make it illegal for you to root/hack/or customize your own device, the worst they can do is void your warranty, but there was another supreme court ruling stating they can only void your warranty if they can directly prove that the modification caused the damage. So say you flash a custom rom and then have a hardware malfunction such as a powerbutton, USB port, screen, or volume rocker nolonger working, as long as you return the software to stock and the hardware is still broken they cannot deny your warranty as long as you are in your warranty period. It would be similar to an automotive dealer or manufacturer denying your drive train warranty because you tinted your windows or used aftermarket rims,tires or windshield wipers, etc. Personally I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill on the copyright issues, but it's your device and your choice. all the apps you would be recieving you already purchased the licensing to when you purchased your device, therefore meaning you already own said software and aren't violating any copyrights by redownloading it from anywhere no matter the source. If you purchased windows and have your product key but lose your disc you can legally download a matching copy of windows from anywhere you'd like, torrent, p2p, Microsoft or 3rd party software vendors, you could even borrow a disc from anyone who has a copy and install it and use the product key you already purchased without breaking any laws. So since you already purchased the device and the licensing to all the apps/software included with said device you wouldn't be violating any laws copyright or otherwise to download those same apps or software from another source, because you already purchased them.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

-EViL-KoNCEPTz- said:
I can't find anything about custom roms violating copyright or being illegal in anyway other than voiding your warranty. Furthermore they (manufacturers) release the source of the ROMs and kernels which includes all the apps in the source, this is how developers make the rom even better than the MFGs do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are required to distribute kernel source code by the GPL2 on the Linux kernel, and if they want to, they can distribute the Apache2-licensed Android code, but don't have to. But the ROM source code certainly does not include the source for the Google Apps, and I would be very surprised if it included the source for Samsung-specific apps, frameworks, etc. Of course, I could be wrong--I am new to Samsung stuff. (It certainly isn't true for my Archos 43. The source code for that includes enough to build the kernel, and a bunch of other stuff, but certainly does not include the proprietary Archos apps.)
all the apps you would be recieving you already purchased the licensing to when you purchased your device, therefore meaning you already own said software and aren't violating any copyrights by redownloading it from anywhere no matter the source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From a license, I can receive rights specified in the license, plus whatever additional rights copyright law gives me. I am not aware of a license given by Samsung and/or Sprint that gives me the right to download the software from an unofficial site. And standard copyright law, as far as I know, does not give me the right to do that, either.
If you purchased windows and have your product key but lose your disc you can legally download a matching copy of windows from anywhere you'd like, torrent, p2p, Microsoft or 3rd party software vendors, you could even borrow a disc from anyone who has a copy and install it and use the product key you already purchased without breaking any laws.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've heard that before, I don't see anything like this in the Windows XP Pro or 7 PRO EULAs. And it's not one of the standard exemptions in copyright law as far as I know.
So since you already purchased the device and the licensing to all the apps/software included with said device you wouldn't be violating any laws copyright or otherwise to download those same apps or software from another source, because you already purchased them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One might as well say that if I own a CD or hardcopy book, I can download mp3s or an ebook from an unauthorized site. There is no such permission in the law as far as I know. I can convert my own CD myself into an mp3 file for my own use, and maybe I can legally scan my own hardcopy book into an electronic file for my own use, but I can't make a copy from an illegal copy on the Internet.

You're reading way too much into copyright laws books and CDs are not the same as software, they don't come with eulas for usage. By your logic if you have more than one computer or android phone you better purchase the same software for each one. If it concerns you that much you probably shouldn't root your phone, or if you do, don't use any custom roms. I never said the source for the apps was included, but the apps and source for things like touchwiz and sense(HTC) most certainly are that's how the devs modify the launchers to have more options than stock. Xda doesn't allow cracks or warez so if it was that big of a deal they wouldn't allow the devs to distribute their roms here. They do require AOSP roms to have GApps distributed as a separate zip from the rom but any manufacturer based roms are openly distributed in their entirety.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

-EViL-KoNCEPTz- said:
You're reading way too much into copyright laws books and CDs are not the same as software, they don't come with eulas for usage. By your logic if you have more than one computer or android phone you better purchase the same software for each one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That depends on the particular EULA. Some EULAs allow installation on multiple devices and some limit it to a particular set of devices. I have seen one EULA that says I need to choose between two possibilities: (a) one user and many devices or (b) one device and many users. I have seen another EULA that says that if I install the program on a desktop, I am also entitled to install another copy on a laptop. Some EULAs, on the other hand, allow installation on exactly one device. Certainly, you can't legally use one copy of Microsoft Office on two computers without a special license.
I think it is a great thing that both Android Market and the Amazon Appstore have embraced a licensing model on which you can use the same app on multiple devices while paying only once. That wasn't the standard model for PalmOS apps, back when I developed those (another difference was that a number of PalmOS developers charged for major version updates), though a number of developers would as a courtesy generate a new registration code when you got a new device.
If it concerns you that much you probably shouldn't root your phone, or if you do, don't use any custom roms. I never said the source for the apps was included, but the apps and source for things like touchwiz and sense(HTC) most certainly are that's how the devs modify the launchers to have more options than stock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wikipedia says "TouchWiz is used internally by Samsung for sophisticated feature phones and tablet computers, and is not available for licensing by external parties". I doubt that they would release source code if they are so restrictive about licensing.
I've been hacking software for over two decades. Source code is nice for modifying things, but one can do a lot of modifications without source code. But then one better not redistribute the modified copyrighted stuff without an appropriate license.
Xda doesn't allow cracks or warez so if it was that big of a deal they wouldn't allow the devs to distribute their roms here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess (based on something I read) is that they allow the ROMs to be distributed as long as the copyright owner doesn't complain. So we can presume that Samsung and Sprint haven't complained.
I guess the fact that they haven't complained doesn't make it legal, but it does mean it can't be a Very Big Deal. (But even if it's not a Very Big Deal, I still want to stay on the right side of the law.)
Like I said, I'd really like it if there was an official source for downloading a stock ROM so I could modify it myself, assuming the EULA allows it.

You are one of the few who reads those things. The way I look at it I bought one phone and I have the right to download, flash, or install anything from samsug or sprint designed for this phone as many times as I want on my phone. These are not hacked apps or warez and they are not being installed on other brands of phones or other carriers devices. Seriously if large companies or carriers had problems with this then sites like xda would not be allowed to exist. The reality is that communities like this provide a free service to manufacturers and carriers. We do things with their software and hardware configurations that never come up in lab testng and we talk about it in detail. Look at all of the leaked ics versions lately. These forums are basically beta testing this software before release.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

someguyatx said:
You are one of the few who reads those things. The way I look at it I bought one phone and I have the right to download, flash, or install anything from samsug or sprint designed for this phone as many times as I want on my phone. These are not hacked apps or warez and they are not being installed on other brands of phones or other carriers devices. Seriously if large companies or carriers had problems with this then sites like xda would not be allowed to exist. The reality is that communities like this provide a free service to manufacturers and carriers. We do things with their software and hardware configurations that never come up in lab testng and we talk about it in detail. Look at all of the leaked ics versions lately. These forums are basically beta testing this software before release.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely agree with you. Samsung has always seemed to be more open to those ideas because they don't try to lock down their phones like some other manufacturers have...

Canadian GNex owners: How to Complain

Hello to Canadian Galaxy Nexus owners. If, like me, you are angry at the lack of response from Google or Samsung as to when our yakjuux firmware phones are going to be updated, here's where to complain:
Competition Bureau of Canada (I'm too new to post a link, apparently, but you can google it.)
They have a toll free number in "Contact Us". You'll talk to a real person.
This agency is responsible for investigating claims of false advertising in Canada. I have lodged a complaint against both Google and Samsung over the false claims that the phone I bought was a "Pure Google Experience" phone which would receive operating system updates in a timely fashion due to lack of carrier or manufacturer customization. I suggest you do the same, as the more complaints on an issue they receive, the higher profile the problem becomes for them. I don't know if it will help, but if you would like to reference my file number (R608849), feel free.
Individually, Google has been ignoring us for months. Perhaps the Canadian Government will have better luck.
Enjoy,
Fox

considering google doesnt publish the update directly to yakjuux, you cant really be angry at google.
point the finger at samsung.

Just change your phone to yakju and you won't have to complain. I did that months ago and have always been happy. The process was easy and very well documented on this site.
My co-worker stayed on yakjuux until this week. I was always getting updates that he wasn't.

It is okay to complain if you know you will get positive results. But in this case, it will just be a waste of time because there is no legal definition of "timely".
Just flash the phone to yakju.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda app-developers app

I don't really recall any concrete specific promises that would hold up as "false advertising", but it's been a while since I saw the ads so I don't really remember. The definitions of "timely updates" and "pure Google experience" are probably not set in stone and could be argued by either side for whatever strengthens their argument.
It sucks that yakjuux isn't getting updated, but I have a feeling most people on a developer-oriented site such as XDA would probably just spend a few minutes converting their phone to yakju/takju and be done with it rather than go on a crusade trying to get the government involved. Just saying...

I am fully aware that I can flash my phone to yakju, but I've had several friends buy this phone on my recommendation who won't do such a thing. They'll be stuck with the random reboots, low volume, etc, and I want to help them out too. Again, in this thread, people have repeated the line that Google doesn't publish the update for yakjuux phone, but I have yet to see a source from Google for that claim. The only official statement I've seen is Samsung claiming that it DOES come straight from Google. (Yes, I know that Samsung could be wrong/lying about this, but until I see an official word from Google that contradicts it, it's the only thing close to an official story I have.)
Anyway, it's the principle of the thing, now. I want them to give us what we were all led to believe we would get from this phone.

Not even 'could be' lying. ARE lying.

I think the problem here is with samsung, Google was not even aware of the regional variants when the phones started to roll out. Secondly, I don't think going to the BBB or any other method of escalation is going to do anything. The phones in Canada are not marketed as being updated by Google, nor is there any statement regarding the guaranteed updating of the phone.
Regardless of the marketing, the Nexus line of phones is not for novice phone users who want a seamless experience, for those people, i tend to recommend the Galaxy 2/3 line of phones and/or the iPhone as it suites their needs better.
End recommendation: if you can't be bothered to flash a rom, you should not have gotten a Nexus in the first place. If they still insist on getting the Nexus, it takes 1 minute to flash stock yakju to a phone, do it for them - or have them order it through the play store.
Edit: Just for you FoxHoleAtheist - I posted this a while back.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=25535165&postcount=461

Matridom said:
I think the problem here is with samsung, Google was not even aware of the regional variants when the phones started to roll out. Secondly, I don't think going to the BBB or any other method of escalation is going to do anything. The phones in Canada are not marketed as being updated by Google, nor is there any statement regarding the guaranteed updating of the phone.
Regardless of the marketing, the Nexus line of phones is not for novice phone users who want a seamless experience, for those people, i tend to recommend the Galaxy 2/3 line of phones and/or the iPhone as it suites their needs better.
End recommendation: if you can't be bothered to flash a rom, you should not have gotten a Nexus in the first place. If they still insist on getting the Nexus, it takes 1 minute to flash stock yakju to a phone, do it for them - or have them order it through the play store.
Edit: Just for you FoxHoleAtheist - I posted this a while back.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=25535165&postcount=461
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely disagree. The Nexus isn't intended as a developer's-only phone.. it's marketed to anyone and everyone who wants a pure google phone. Those regular users who buy them shouldn't be forced to A) search out relatively obscure tutorials on message boards and B) void their warranty to get the updates their phones need to work properly.

FoxholeAtheist said:
Again, in this thread, people have repeated the line that Google doesn't publish the update for yakjuux phone, but I have yet to see a source from Google for that claim.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From JBQ himself:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/android-building/kMhE-Orl5Kk
Can you quote the Samsung source saying the other variants do get updates from Google? (I'm not questioning you here at all, I just haven't seen that and would like to be fully informed on the topic). The Samsung updates are served from Google servers, but as far as I know Samsung prepares the update for Google to host.
FoxholeAtheist said:
A) search out relatively obscure tutorials on message boards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Though I can certainly understand less technical people not wanting to do it, or even knowing where to look for instructions, efrant has a great guide: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1626895 ... just in case you ever want to point someone to a proper howto.
and B) void their warranty to get the updates their phones need to work properly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know if it actually voids the warranty. Even if it does, you can 100% restore the phone to the stock state so they can never tell. And to my knowledge back to the Nexus One days, no Nexus phone has ever been refused warranty if it was an actual hardware problem that wasn't caused by software.
Sorry, this is getting off the original topic... just wanted to provide some info.

If you are not willing to fix it yourself then file a complaint against Samsung.
Most people complain through the wrong channels or just don't complain because they don't know who will listen and can actually do anything about it.
Thanks for posting the info.

FoxholeAtheist said:
I completely disagree. The Nexus isn't intended as a developer's-only phone.. it's marketed to anyone and everyone who wants a pure google phone. Those regular users who buy them shouldn't be forced to A) search out relatively obscure tutorials on message boards and B) void their warranty to get the updates their phones need to work properly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never said it was a developers phone. I stated it was not for novices. this phone is on the bleeding edge of android, it's expected to have issues.

Ya I didn't wait or bother, I just unlocked and rooted and be done with being a slave to anyone when my phone gets updated. Never looked back.

FoxholeAtheist said:
Hello to Canadian Galaxy Nexus owners. If, like me, you are angry at the lack of response from Google or Samsung as to when our yakjuux firmware phones are going to be updated, here's where to complain:
Competition Bureau of Canada (I'm too new to post a link, apparently, but you can google it.)
They have a toll free number in "Contact Us". You'll talk to a real person.
This agency is responsible for investigating claims of false advertising in Canada. I have lodged a complaint against both Google and Samsung over the false claims that the phone I bought was a "Pure Google Experience" phone which would receive operating system updates in a timely fashion due to lack of carrier or manufacturer customization. I suggest you do the same, as the more complaints on an issue they receive, the higher profile the problem becomes for them. I don't know if it will help, but if you would like to reference my file number (R608849), feel free.
Individually, Google has been ignoring us for months. Perhaps the Canadian Government will have better luck.
Enjoy,
Fox
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know how you feel I have the Nexus S was suppose to get the 4.0 first after Gnex and that didn't happend. Just asking like that in a friendly way. But could Google or Samsung be mad at you cause you modified their device and their rom ?
I'm not pretty sure but I'm pretty sure somewhere there's a word or 2 about not modifying anything of Samsung or Google. Just saying don't want any problem or start a fight
Goes both ways I guess. No offense

Canadian here, but dont care. I'd rather flash my own firmwares.

Although I agree with you FoxholeAtheist, I don't think a forum like xda-developers is the right place to champion your cause, as most of the folks here will have the same response that speedyink just posted above. Maybe go to the Rogers/Bell/Telus forums and post it there. Just sayin'.

I could have swore that Google marketed the nexus line as a developer phone since its conception. I don't see you getting much support for your cause on a forum for developers. Most here have flashed their ROM and moved on.

They marketed the Nexus One as such, and never again. People just ASSumed. It is a consumer device with development abilities.

FoxholeAtheist;28719966If said:
You have no grounds to complain. Nobody is obligated to give time lines for updates. Doing so, and missing the date, means a huge backlash for the company... it's not the risk for them to do that.
As others have suggested. Just flash updates yourself. I'm Canadian and have been running Jellybean since it was first available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

You have no right to complain, nor will the Competition Bureau do anything about it.
The Nexus is marketed as a Pure Google phone. This much you are correct about... However 4.0.2 ICS is still a "pure google experience". They never made any guarantees as to when you'd be receiving updates, if you receive them at all. This is all based on what you believe they should do, not what they told you they would do.
Beyond this, flashing to Yakju/Takju is as easy as pie if you follow efrants thread... you don't even have to flash the regional radio... you can keep it completely 100% stock "Pure Google/Updated by Google" experience like I did and be happy.
Your efforts in complaining will be fruitless. The competition bureau will not investigate this claim based on what you believe, they will look at what you were told, which was basically nothing.

Legal action -Samsung Knox- need 400 users lawyers will take case

Spoke with my lawyer. Says I have a case against samsung.
1.) Samsung faild to password protect update option
As my almost 2 year old managed to update me to 4.4 from JB 4.1.2. When I did not want 4.3 or 4.4 due to knox.
2.) The knox feature was not advertised when selling the note 2 and other phones sold prior to introducing knox to our phones.
I don't have the money to fork over legal expenses. So lawyer said if I can find more then 400 samsung users who are stuck with knox they would take the case.
If you wish to join reply to post. Once we reach 400 will contact you all with an for proper information.
Pls only use this to count yourself in. Add a comment if you wish when adding yourself but pls no chating. Will make it easy to count who's in this way.

I'm in

rogersb11 said:
I'm in
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They should have given the option when introducing 4.3 and 4.4 of having knox secure boot or not having knox at all.
I'm sure they could have introduced jb 4.3 and kk 4.4 and any other updates without knox and knox secure boot.

droideastcoast said:
They should have given the option when introducing 4.3 and 4.4 of having knox secure boot or not having knox at all.
I'm sure they could have introduced jb 4.3 and kk 4.4 and any other updates without knox and knox secure boot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo. Option is what it should be

Count on me

Throw me in the mix, can I go in twice? I have 2 notes dueces.

I'm in too.
Sent from my SGH-I317 using Tapatalk

So am I.
Tap, tap says the wicked Note +₩● ?

Kind of sad that ppl are complaining about knox secure boot and trip but no one is willing to step up and take samsung to court?
Come on guys.
This could also be the answer to removing the secure boot.
If noone steps up then samsung will continue to do this kind of crap.

In bit my Knox is tripped

I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.
And you know what else?
There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.
Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.

[email protected] said:
I like Knox... I don't see what the big deal is. Lose the ability to root like Apple so devs have to pull a jailbreak every new version that comes out by vulnerability hunting? I've come to the conclusion that there is no need for me to root anymore. I have become the normal smartphone user who doesn't need more than what comes stock after all these years rooting and bug hunting. It is now a waste of time for me.
And you know what else?
There are millions of people who are just like me who could give a rat's ass about how Knox stops me from rooting my phone.
Before you go flaming, understand that I am talking about myself and the other millions who have no clue that XDA even exists. You can do what you need to feel better about yourself by gathering a class action lawsuit against a multi-billion corporation. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,
However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for

Cryingmoose said:
This post convinced me to join the lawsuit. That's you opinion and it'a fair,
However I like having choice, freedom, and ownership as a consumer. I don't like having updates remove and change features that I orginally paid for
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm In

I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.
And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.
Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/

KennyG123 said:
I am sorry but after reading this thread everyday I have to finally say something. You guys are trying to sue Samsung for adding security to your phone to prevent it from being easily hacked, your personal and banking information being stolen, unauthorized use, and not being able to root it and put unauthorized software on it? Got a little bit of news for you, you better start looking for some old phones on swappa and ebay because there are talks that Google is incorporating some of Knox into L OS version. Also Sprint and T-mobile have no issues rooting with the same version of Knox...so maybe you should be looking at what your carrier is doing.
And as for a 2 year old accepting the update, you had options to lock your phone with many different methods. This 2 year old accepted the option to first download it, wait while the file downloaded, then also accepted the option to install now? I do not think this lawyer has all the information. Especially when Google and Samsung on the devil's advocate side would face a much larger lawsuit if doing nothing to try and prevent the millions of non-XDA users from getting their phone hacked. Knox and locked bootloaders have nothing to do with trying to prevent the 100,000 XDA AT&T or Verizon Samsung users from rooting. It is to make the phones as secure as possible for military and business applications.
Here is sammobile's report on "L" and Knox: http://www.sammobile.com/2014/06/25...egrate-knox-into-androids-next-major-release/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.
The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.
I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.

TerryMathews said:
There's a gulf of difference between a device being advertised with a feature and shipping with it and a mandatory update installing said feature.
The carriers didn't even disclose the ramifications of installing OTAs containing Knox.
I don't have an issue with updates changing features over time but something that alters your relationship with your property in such a fashion should be opt-in and after disclosing the ramifications.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.
Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.
But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.

If I'm not mistaken, the Federal government (USA) guaranteed end users the right to root access of our phones, and recently upheld that law. But does Knox really stop you from rooting it? Luckily I have avoided it because I haven't had a stock ROM for more than a few minutes on my phone since I bought it

KennyG123 said:
At no point did Samsung or AT&T guarantee the rootability of a device. And remember, the other millions of owners don't know about these "ramifications" as I am sure they are happy to know that their phone is more secure. Windows updates your system constantly for security updates. If that suddenly stops a Pr0n site from showing up on your PC because it is now considered malicious should they have notified you? The updates do nothing to prevent the out of the box use intended by the device. I am merely stating that this suit has no legal grounds. If you know about rooting and know about hacking, you know not to accept updates until you find out what they are. You should know ways of preventing those updates, and you should know how to secure your phone from anyone using it to accept those updates without your permission. The other millions of users out there can keep moving along blissfully happy that their phone is constantly being updated and not left in the dust.
Why should the carriers disclose that your device be more difficult to root? Rooting is not an authorized procedure supported by the carriers at all! I missed the disclosure by Sony on my PS3 that accepting the update which will allow me to access the Playstation Network is also to prevent jailbreaking it on the current revision. Add to that, read the OP...it states nothing about the carrier. It is a suit directed at Samsung. Knox does not prevent any use of the device which is authorized and supported by the carrier. Also Knox does not prevent rooting as seen on T-Mobile and Sprint forums as well as the international forums.
But I wish you guys luck with the suit and hope the lawyer is accepting this Pro Bono and no one has to dish out any non-refundable legal fees. I just wanted you all to be better informed of what you are asking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.
For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?
Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.
Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).
I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...

Honestly... there's no point in arguing. Whomever goes and does this lawsuit, have fun, good luck, and I hope no money comes out of your own pocket. Your XDA soap box will get you nowhere so go out and do what you have to do to get your rocks off. Even if you even do succeed, enjoy the years of counter-suits and appeals.

TerryMathews said:
There is a difference between guaranteeing a product's suitability for given task and actively working to reduce that capability.
For instance, let's look at car recalls. Some of them impact how your car behaves, its gas mileage, or its service schedule. Ever notice how the dealer needs your consent before modifying your vehicle?
Your example of Windows Update is equally flawed. Windows Update is an opt-in service which in fact reinforces my earlier point that Knox or system updates in general should be opt-in or at least have a provision for opt-out that doesn't involve rooting your device.
Court cases aren't decided on popularity. If they were, Roe v. Wade would have gone a very different direction (as an example).
I hope you're not a lawyer Kenny...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no further point in arguing with you as clearly you are not a lawyer either. No one mentioned popularity. Your arguments are misconstrued and have nothing to do with the focus of the lawsuit. You should reread the "opening statement" a 2 year old "accepted" the update meaning optional, not mandatory, and there are ways for anyone who can search to not accept the OTA or update.
Have a nice day and good luck. As I stated earlier, Knox is now moving to Google and the next version of Android and it also does not prevent rooting if you would just check out the other carriers. This is the main flaw in this law suit. Lawyered