Related
From Codeworkx blog:
Having a look at my magical orb…
I can see that i’ll sell my Galaxy S III in the next few weeks and get a Sony Xperia T as replacement.
This means that i’ll not longer support this phone. Xplodwild will continue providing CyanogenMod support as far as i know.
I’ll continue supporting the Galaxy S II (exynos4 version) for now. There’s still a lot to do.
If samsung doesn’t provide new jellybean compatible blobs (mali, hwcomposer) and kernel sources over the next few months then i’ll stop supporting it, too.
I’ll continue support for the Galaxy S II (omap4 version) and the Galaxy Tab II (omap4 version) till my devices are dead or not capable of running a new android version.
And last but not least:
I’ll stay away from all exynos powered phones as long as there is no proper support from samsung in form of documentation and sourcecode (especially userspace) to get aosp properly working on it. (see caf and omapzoom as good example)
In short: i’ll not support new samsung devices in future.
Thread cleaned
FNM
I don't get it. Is Samsung dropping the ball more than usual on something?
Why would anyone expect Sony to be better. They have never been a leader in aftermarket dev support, afaik.
CZ Eddie said:
I don't get it. Is Samsung dropping the ball more than usual on something?
Why would anyone expect Sony to be better. They have never been a leader in aftermarket dev support, afaik.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sony was just admitted to the AOSP.
I'm not sure I understand the use, nor the meaning, for this thread
gunnyman said:
Sony was just admitted to the AOSP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. Sony has a single device that someone inside Google decided to try to make compatible with stock AOSP and Sony has been helping them. I don't see why that would be a reason to switch to Sony since they aren't doing the same for all their other devices.
this is locked. thread has no purpose.
There's an off topic thread for this kind of stuff
Before you all scream heresy, hear me out.
Today marked Verizon officially announcing 4.2.2 for the Galaxy Nexus, thus marking the end of the VZW model being 4 updates behind the GSM models. Here's the thing...every time there's been an update in testing, El Madhatter has informed us because of his testing phone. He never got a 4.1.2, 4.2, or 4.2.1 build. His device went straight from 4.1.1/JRO03O to 4.2.2/JDQ39. Because of that, one can logically deduce that Google never actually released a 4.1.2, 4.2, or 4.2.1 build to Verizon for testing on the device.
There is historical precedent for this. Let's go back to December, 2011 when Android 4.0.3/Ice Cream Sandwich was released to the Nexus S and Motorola Xoom. Only two variants ever got Android 4.0.3:
1. The 900 MHz carrier-unlocked Nexus S (I9020T/I9023 - Got build IML74K)
2. The Wi-Fi Motorola Xoom (MZ604 - Got build IML77)
Here's a list of devices that never saw an update until Android 4.0.4/IMM76(X) was released in late March, 2012:
1. The 850 MHz carrier-unlocked Nexus S (I9020A - Updated directly by Google with no carrier approvals just like I9020T)
2. The Sprint Nexus S 4G (D720)
3. The Korean Nexus S (M200)
4. The Verizon Motorola Xoom (MZ600/MZ602)
5. The carrier-unlocked Galaxy Nexus running yakju firmware (I9250)
6. The Verizon Galaxy Nexus (I515)
The I9250 Play Store (running takju) model was not available yet.
So as you can see, clearly Google picks and chooses which devices get which updates in the event of brand new Android versions sometimes. Some builds (like 4.0.3) were clearly designed to be limited rollouts to test on a more limited scale. Then once they fix bugs, they do a more massive rollout (like they did with 4.0.4). Something tells me that 4.2 was the same thing.
4.2 and 4.2.1 had exactly one difference...the fixing of the December event bug. So, I think it's clear that Google probably intended the 4.2/4.2.1 JOP40(X) builds to be the test builds that they used to gauge the major problems. Now that the major issues with those builds are fixed, 4.2.2 is their "mass rollout" build that they're releasing to absolutely everything.
I think this is actually smart on Google's part, given that Verizon requires testing and approval of all updates to phones they sell.
Also, within that parameter, 4.2.2/JDQ39 hit GSM Galaxy Nexus models on February 12. We on Verizon got the official OTA rollout beginning March 19. That's a little over a month. That's the fastest update the VZW Galaxy Nexus has ever received.
Discuss.
i think its a little of both.
verizon does slow down the update process, but google is the one that releases the update itself.
Good thoughts. I also think it is likely that Verizon started testing and rejected those builds. 4.2 and 4.2.1 had some serious issues and I'm sure big red didn't want to support them.
A buddy of mine from high school works for Verizon corporate. I've asked him why VzW always seems to lag on updates. A lot of it comes down to VzW: It's not that Google never sent the updates to VzW, it's that VzW tests everything and what they don't like doesn't get pushed out to VzW customers.
Makes since to me, but I think Vzw miss handled the public relations aspects of it. I'm mean with all those jelly bean builds being released. They could've let their customers know that they're not interested in those builds but will update our phones with a build that meets their standards
I for one was ready you shout heresy at the top of my lungs, but then I saw it was written by Oldblue and had to give it a chance. I'm halfway convinced. Another peculiarity is the build numbers of late - in the past, each AOSP device typically had a slightly different build number (IMM76K, D, Q, JRO03C, R, O) due to small changes made to the final build for each unique piece of hardware. With 4.1.2 the build was JZO54K across all AOSP platforms, which continued with JOP40C,D and JDQ39. Something has changed in the build process to make Android more universal, and in the case of JDQ39 made it through Verizon testing in record time.
Now, do I believe that Google didn't send 4.2 or 4.2.1 to Verizon? Not sure, but it's worth pondering in absence of knowing what internal conversations occurred.
Sent from my Xoom using xda premium
It just wasn't a good idea for Verizon to take on the nexus. Nexus devices shouldn't be controlled by a carrier at all. Carrier's don't want to deal with the problems that the nexus devices bring.
Google doesn't release perfect builds to the nexus because that isn't the purpose of nexus phones. In order to be on the cutting edge of android development you have to deal with some things not working perfectly. I think everyone can agree that 4.2 and 4.2.1 had some pretty significant issues and Verizon customer support may not know what to do if a customer calls in needing help with something not working.
Winesnob said:
I for one was ready you shout heresy at the top of my lungs, but then I saw it was written by Oldblue and had to give it a chance. I'm halfway convinced. Another peculiarity is the build numbers of late - in the past, each AOSP device typically had a slightly different build number (IMM76K, D, Q, JRO03C, R, O) due to small changes made to the final build for each unique piece of hardware. With 4.1.2 the build was JZO54K across all AOSP platforms, which continued with JOP40C,D and JDQ39. Something has changed in the build process to make Android more universal, and in the case of JDQ39 made it through Verizon testing in record time.
Now, do I believe that Google didn't send 4.2 or 4.2.1 to Verizon? Not sure, but it's worth pondering in absence of knowing what internal conversations occurred.
Sent from my Xoom using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well there were past examples of all platforms having the same build number. All Galaxy Nexus devices launched with 4.0.1/ITL41D and 4.0.2 was ICL53F across the board.
On the Xoom, the Wi-Fi and Verizon models shared build numbers sometimes.
For the Nexus S, all variants ran 2.3.4/GRJ22. All except Sprint ran 2.3.6/GRK39F. Also, the Nexus One's Gingerbread builds always matched the GSM Nexus S variants...GRI40, GRJ22 and GRK39F.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
oldblue910 said:
Well there were past examples of all platforms having the same build number. All Galaxy Nexus devices launched with 4.0.1/ITL41D and 4.0.2 was ICL53F across the board.
On the Xoom, the Wi-Fi and Verizon models shared build numbers sometimes.
For the Nexus S, all variants ran 2.3.4/GRJ22. All except Sprint ran 2.3.6/GRK39F. Also, the Nexus One's Gingerbread builds always matched the GSM Nexus S variants...GRI40, GRJ22 and GRK39F.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but the most striking thing to me is that JDQ39 is on the N4,N7,N10, and GNex. Crossing that many platforms with the same AOSP core seems a bit unusual.
Sent from my Xoom using xda premium
I don't necessarily think Google has anything to do with the update process of the VZ variant. Android is an open source API. Carriers adopt that API and add any features they deem worthy (TouchWiz, Motoblur, Sense). The carriers also hold proprietary drivers for their devices, which they have to update with progressing versions of the Android platform.
iLeopard said:
I don't necessarily think Google has anything to do with the update process of the VZ variant. Android is an open source API. Carriers adopt that API and add any features they deem worthy (TouchWiz, Motoblur, Sense). The carriers also hold proprietary drivers for their devices, which they have to update with progressing versions of the Android platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the case of the Verizon Galaxy Nexus variant, Verizon's only role is testing of any update. Beyond that, updates for that device come direct from Google. So Google submits the updates to Verizon, Verizon signs off, Google rolls it out. My point was, I don't think step one (Google submitting the update for testing) ever happened for 4.1.2, 4.2, or 4.2.1.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
iLeopard said:
I don't necessarily think Google has anything to do with the update process of the VZ variant. Android is an open source API. Carriers adopt that API and add any features they deem worthy (TouchWiz, Motoblur, Sense). The carriers also hold proprietary drivers for their devices, which they have to update with progressing versions of the Android platform.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are confusing carriers with manufacturers. TouchWiz is Samsung, Motoblur is Motorola, Sense is HTC. Carriers don't request these features, they come from the makers as a branding mark on top of the Android API. Carriers do on frqeuent occasion have the manufacturers presinstall bloatware from which the carrier receives advertising revenue or promotes its own services. The Nexus (despite being on Verizon) is a Google device, does not come with bloatware, and has no manufacturer skin stuck on top of Android. The vast majority of proprietary drivers for Nexus devices are posted on Googles open source pages as they have licensed them for distribution as intact binary files, aiding third party developers in building AOSP for Nexus devices. The Galaxy Nexus software update battle is between Google and Verizon - Verizon doesn't continue developing the platform, they simply test and decide if they are going to push it out. If not, they notify Google with specific issues and move forward from there.
Sent from my Xoom using xda premium
Winesnob said:
You are confusing carriers with manufacturers. TouchWiz is Samsung, Motoblur is Motorola, Sense is HTC. Carriers don't request these features, they come from the makers as a branding mark on top of the Android API. Carriers do on frqeuent occasion have the manufacturers presinstall bloatware from which the carrier receives advertising revenue or promotes its own services. The Nexus (despite being on Verizon) is a Google device, does not come with bloatware, and has no manufacturer skin stuck on top of Android. The vast majority of proprietary drivers for Nexus devices are posted on Googles open source pages as they have licensed them for distribution as intact binary files, aiding third party developers in building AOSP for Nexus devices. The Galaxy Nexus software update battle is between Google and Verizon - Verizon doesn't continue developing the platform, they simply test and decide if they are going to push it out. If not, they notify Google with specific issues and move forward from there.
Sent from my Xoom using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, I did in fact confuse those two. Thank you.
The VZ variant complies with LTE standards though which does imply driver differences between the GSM and CDMA version?
iLeopard said:
Right, I did in fact confuse those two. Thank you.
The VZ variant complies with LTE standards though which does imply driver differences between the GSM and CDMA version?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes but Google and Samsung control that. The CDMA and LTE drivers for the VZW Galaxy Nexus are available on the AOSP driver page on Google's developer site.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Didn't the Sprint Galaxy Nexus get more updates though?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Yuhfhrh said:
Didn't the Sprint Galaxy Nexus get more updates though?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Toroplus (mysidspr) is maintained by Samsung, and that device bumped from 4.1.1 to 4.2.1. So no, it didn't get more updates and is actually an update behind the Google maintained Galaxy Nexi (takju, takju, mysid)
Sent from my Xoom using xda premium
My curse is that every thing reminds me of South Park, so I immediately thought "What's important right now, is figuring out whose fault this is."
Maybe you're right, but that answer only welcomes more questions. Could be Google thinks of VZW users as helpless children that can't handle the potential bugs present in the newest firmware. Maybe the opposite: Google thinks of VZW users as elitists who only deserve stable updates?. Or maybe they think, "We are VZW/Google, you know those AT&T jokers don't have service in the more rural areas of the country, you'll pay for it and then wait longer for updates. F you." Or maybe, VZW and/or Google were actually genuinely testing the firmware on the VZW LTE device before releasing it. I imagine it takes a while for the can-you-hear-me-now guy to make his rounds.
If anyone is to blame for lagging updates it's people like you who create threads like these. There has been a whacked sense of entitlement going on these past years and it's easier to find someone to blame rather than demonstrate patience. I would wager people are already asking when the next update is coming out. People call and harass Verizon or whoever and then tell the whole internet about how no one at Verizon knows anything or they are giving you conflicting dates. You're not forced to sign a contract with a particular cell phone carrier...are you? Oh and then the update finally comes and people rush to find and post the latest bugs and then call and harass Verizon or google again and ask them when the next update is coming. Has anyone ever called Verizon after an update and thanked them? Hmmm probably not, too busy asking for more and more. Android updates have become like crack for people and it's time to step away from the white mountains and just relax. They are just phones people!! Call your grandmothers instead of checking for updates everyday!
The op shows no sense of entitlement nor is requesting another update. Simply pondering on why various versions of nexus have updated differently. Fact is, to an extent your right, a lot of people are constantly crying for updates, but this thread is not one of those situations.
I, for one, bought a nexus for the purpose of being at the forefront of updates, but I'm not crying for any. As long as googles follows through with the promise of keeping my bought from Google devices up to date with the latest release I'm happy. That's not a sense of entitlement, its called buying a nexus for a specific reason.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
hlaalu said:
If anyone is to blame for lagging updates it's people like you who create threads like these. There has been a whacked sense of entitlement going on these past years and it's easier to find someone to blame rather than demonstrate patience. I would wager people are already asking when the next update is coming out. People call and harass Verizon or whoever and then tell the whole internet about how no one at Verizon knows anything or they are giving you conflicting dates. You're not forced to sign a contract with a particular cell phone carrier...are you? Oh and then the update finally comes and people rush to find and post the latest bugs and then call and harass Verizon or google again and ask them when the next update is coming. Has anyone ever called Verizon after an update and thanked them? Hmmm probably not, too busy asking for more and more. Android updates have become like crack for people and it's time to step away from the white mountains and just relax. They are just phones people!! Call your grandmothers instead of checking for updates everyday!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seriously? Wow. I never EVER hinted at a sense of entitlement. I agree with you that there is definitely a lot of that in this community, but that was not the point of this thread. If you look at any of the work I do around here, my entire purpose on XDA is to catalog stock OTA updates for Nexus devices and help the community with reverting to stock if necessary. Thus, a thread like this would be logical for me to start as this topic is basically at the crux of what I do here.
I should tell you, sir, to go back under your rock and stay there.
Hey everyone,
Within the last month, I ended up receiving a refund from the university I attend and used majority of the funds to flat out buy a Samsung Galaxy Rugby Pro (SGH-i547). The selling points for me was the build quality (almost akin to the Nokia candy bar phones of the late 1990's and early 2000's predominantly seen with Cingular), comparable hardware capabilities to the other galaxy phones (IE the SII) and it's inclusion of the NFC chipset/antenna. Because I don't have a stable income it wasn't possible to get a voice/text/data plan. For obvious reasons I subsequently rooted the Rugby Pro to remove the tethering.provision XML reference in the framework.apk as well as carrier unlocking.
One of problems I'm facing is the ability to use the NFC chipset for anything more than novel purposes. It has been widely documented on the forums about the lack of ability to use Google Wallet on other than sprint based Samsung Galaxy phones (officially), with the apparent competing digital wallet 'ISIS' not being an effective replacement (tried installing and even with a temporary uproot it's still picking up on the root status of the Rugby Pro).
After trying to do a general web search on NFC, I can't seem to find any noteworthy information about the 'secure element'. Even sending an email to Samsung resulted in a recommendation to call their Hotline.
What I'm wondering:
For those devices that have NFC which devices have the hardware support for the secure element
(is a requirement for NFC implementation to include the hardware to support 'secure element')
Is it a limitation imposed by the telcos that prevents the inclusion of the software aspect (IE the keys) to allow access to the secure element?
For devices using the same chipset (ie the Galaxy Series Devices) , is it technically possible to import a working keyset (assumed to be a library) to try and gain access?
Apologies in advance if any of these questions have been answered beforehand. My hopes are to try and be able to use the hardware capabilities of NFC devices in a telco independent manner. Eventually once I can acquire enough information, as an college engineering capstone project, I would want to approach the local public transportation authority and try to sell them on the mass usage of contactless payments (at the moment they only implement the RFID/NFC NXP cards for senior citizens and those who are physically disabled).
Thanks
Joe M.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda app-developers app
Ripped from /r/android. Found this to be quite interesting. Apparently the OEMs don't really control if their devices get support for new android versions or not.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1j13xd/how_oems_havent_announced_43_updates_for_the/
https://plus.google.com/116988351660148062102/posts/MHhMo7X1fbF
Shen Ye said:
To all the people complaining about how OEMs haven't announced 4.3 updates for the devices:
• OEMs do not get the Android source code directly from Google.
• The SoC vendors are provided the code from Google, where they make a board support package (BSP) which contains drivers and optimisations etc.
• The BSPs are then passed on to the OEMs, which they use to develop updates for their devices.
OEMs are currently waiting for the silicon vendors to decide which SoCs they will support in making a 4.3 BSP for, because their update support is heavily dependent on this.
For example, Qualcomm recently decided to drop development for a 4.2.2 BSP on their S3 SoCs, which is why HTC had turn around and say they were dropping support for the One S. This also caused Sony to drop update development for the Xperia S, SL, Acro S and ION (all S3 SoCs).
Everyone remembers the Thunderbolt and Sensation (LTE variants) which used the Scorpion MSM8655, which Qualcomm dropped support for, so OEMs had to drop future updates for.
Samsung is an exception, they're their own devices' silicon vendors when it comes to Exynos. But they also had to drop support for their S2 LTE variants which were using the Qualcomm Scorpion SoC.
Sure, it's not the perfect system, but it's how it works in the industry right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This doesn't sound right if there's people bringing unofficial 4.2.2 updates to said devices. If some guy that that doesn't even have a job with android developing can do it, I think a multimillion dollar OEM can.
Ascertion said:
This doesn't sound right if there's people bringing unofficial 4.2.2 updates to said devices. If some guy that that doesn't even have a job with android developing can do it, I think a multimillion dollar OEM can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but none of those 4.2.2 ports have kernel source code, and therefore none of them truly work 100% with no bugs whatsoever. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe devs use prior kernel sources and modify them to work with newer android versions (for instance, I had ICS via CM9 on my droid incredible 2, but it never worked 100%).
Yay, time to send hate-mail to Qualcomm.
Sent from my buttered S3
User "iamadogforreal" had an interesting reply:
iamadogforreal said:
This is OEM apologia. In the real world, these OEMs are the customers and boss around the chip makers. Not the other way around, like this blogger is claiming. If OEMs cared about updates then they'd put that in their contracts and pressure the chip makers to do them. Instead, this becomes a convenient excuse (collusion?) for OEMs to stop making those expensive updates, especially when you're 4 months from launching another flagship phone.
Funny how the Nexus line doesn't have this problem. Gee, maybe google just is getting lucky with niceguy SoCs? No, google puts this in their contracts.
Honestly, if you think the SoC guys are telling the world's biggest companies like Sony or Samsung to **** off and to tell your customers to **** off, then you're incredibly naive. Android fans need to keep pressuring these companies to deliver timely updates and to commit to a two year update cycle, at least. Articles like these don't do us any service and only exist to validate that awful status quo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
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