So I have a couple general questions I wanted to get your guys take on.
Why does Verizon choose to have there phones locked down? The HTC One in particular but generally as well. Is it a method of preserving/increasing profit? Perceived threat to their network? Something else?
A follow up question which depends on how you feel about the first question. Are Verizon's reasons for locking down phones justified? Do you feel they have a right to do this? If you were a strictly moral person, do you have any dilemmas about this?
PS As a side note, I love having my phones unlocked with custom roms, and I am looking forward to getting my sonic S-Off back.
beardedYoga said:
So I have a couple general questions I wanted to get your guys take on.
Why does Verizon choose to have there phones locked down? The HTC One in particular but generally as well. Is it a method of preserving/increasing profit? Perceived threat to their network? Something else?
A follow up question which depends on how you feel about the first question. Are Verizon's reasons for locking down phones justified? Do you feel they have a right to do this? If you were a strictly moral person, do you have any dilemmas about this?
PS As a side note, I love having my phones unlocked with custom roms, and I am looking forward to getting my sonic S-Off back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
People screwing up their phones by crack flashing, and returning them to verizon for warranty when bricked.
Control of tethering.
Yeah, they say it's for the reasons above.
But given that, to begin with, the rooting community is a tiny slice of all mobile phone users, and then Verizon users are an even smaller portion of that. So I don't see why they even care. I highly doubt that even if ever single Verizon customer who does rooting messed up their expensive device it would cost Verizon more than .01% of their revenue, if even that.
It's all about quality control. Even if it is the fact that the vast minority root their phones, it's the minority of users who generate the majority of complaints (and that rule extends FAR beyond cell phone rooting, or cell phones in general). It takes 10 good comments to make up for one bad comment these days, and there just aren't enough good comments to go around.
How likely is it, if your unrooted phone has no physical damage that you'll suddenly find that it isn't booting up? How likely is it that, even if you don't want to do it, factory resetting your unrooted phone will fix whatever problem you're having?
Big Red's reputation, their entire brand, is built on reliability. NOT freedom.
beardedYoga said:
So I have a couple general questions I wanted to get your guys take on.
Why does Verizon choose to have there phones locked down? The HTC One in particular but generally as well. Is it a method of preserving/increasing profit? Perceived threat to their network? Something else?
A follow up question which depends on how you feel about the first question. Are Verizon's reasons for locking down phones justified? Do you feel they have a right to do this? If you were a strictly moral person, do you have any dilemmas about this?
PS As a side note, I love having my phones unlocked with custom roms, and I am looking forward to getting my sonic S-Off back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey guys feel free to elaborate as much as possible. I'm writing a term paper on unlocking bootloaders/s-off, legalities on our part and Verizon, security risk for us/Carrier, risks taken by us/Verizon, etc.. It's for a Information Security Course. I'll be creating a thread at some point but this is a good start for some sources!
Another point would be that Verizon tries to cater to business/enterprise customers so allowing bootloader unlocking could pose a giant security flaw on devices that have classified data and are meant to be secure
Sent from my One using xda app-developers app
I think it's far less about tethering for free. They fixed that with getting rid of unlimited data. They saw they can make more money on teired data plans with coverages. Plus I am amazed at how many people on here has given up on their unlimited data plans just to get a subsidized phone.
Locked down phones is for more like people who roots and doesn't know what they are doing so they brick their phones and Verizon takes a hit having to replace it under warranty. Plus the security reasons companies are looking for. They don't want a phone that could be hacked in to giving away possible secret info. Last but not least is to keep people from taking their phones and flashing it to another carrier as we seen a few people has done on here and other forums. It's money they are not receiving and they want to put a stop to it.
Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk 4
I think they do it for tethering. Although you can use foxfi, root tethering is not stoppable unless verizon uses packet sniffing but even so, unlimited data is unlimited data. They also do it for security reasons as unlocking a corporate phone can be bad.
I will admit, I skimmed all posts and see that most everyone has bought into what they want us to believe.
If it is to prevent unwanted warranty claims, then why would they not allow us to willingly void our warranty via HTCdev when we click the box that says so?
Rather then resort to undocumented or traceable ways of doing so in which case they are stuck with more returns for soft bricks, etc,..and are stuck accepting them because they chose to not take the easy way and let us void our warranty to begin with.
I just think all that warranty replacement crap is a bunch of nonsense and can't be their main incentive.
If it is, then they have their heads buried deeper then I thought and need to realize what I just stated above...
A really good friend of mine has been a tech with sprint for nearly a decade. From what he has told me, about 27 of 100 phones they can't fix are due to installing non official software. While that's not the highest percentage with damage as the worst, it still is very costly for them to replace. Most of the guys he works with can tell if a phone has been "tampered" with. Even with such things as triangle away with the Samsung lines, they still can find out. Having a locked boot loader on this phone is just one way of attempting to slow the numbers.
As he would put it, most people who do try flashing and other modification methods have very little experience with the phones and their inner workings. A lot of these people end up bricking their phones and try turning them in for insurance claims or warranty which he deals with. He actually saved me some coin by getting me a screen for one of my s2's from a completely fried emmc that he says someone tried a bad flash with.
But yeah, keeping the people like that out of the phones is one of the major reasons as it can become costly to them... I call bs though, considering the amount of profit they actually make on each one of our accounts.
Sent from my One in Blue!
You are exactly right.
To be honest, there isn't much of a business case for a carrier, when serving as the reseller of a phone, to offer the freedom of an unlocked boot loader. The savvy of the general populace hasn't yet reached the point where the downside is offset by a marketable upside. Hell, most folks still **** around happily with iPhones which lack any freedom whatsoever.
TidusWulf said:
It's all about quality control. Even if it is the fact that the vast minority root their phones, it's the minority of users who generate the majority of complaints (and that rule extends FAR beyond cell phone rooting, or cell phones in general). It takes 10 good comments to make up for one bad comment these days, and there just aren't enough good comments to go around.
How likely is it, if your unrooted phone has no physical damage that you'll suddenly find that it isn't booting up? How likely is it that, even if you don't want to do it, factory resetting your unrooted phone will fix whatever problem you're having?
Big Red's reputation, their entire brand, is built on reliability. NOT freedom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We can speculate all we want here. Verizon says they lock phones because it's better for the network.
http://bgr.com/2012/03/02/verizon-explains-locked-bootloader-stance-in-letter-to-fcc/
Whether or not anyone chooses to believe that is a matter of opinion, but this is pretty much as close to an answer from Verizon that we'll ever get.
Sent from my HTC One.
Very enlightening.
To comment on wanting the phones to be secure for corporate security... wouldn't the amazing track record of dev's who contribute here and other places sort of fly right in the face of that.
It seems that every single device that gains enough users has some kind of workaround or vulnerability to allow it to be unlocked. If the corporate world was worried about it, all they are doing is showing just how unable to lock it down the manufactures and carriers are.
Blah, blah, blah.... the network. that is just their excuse. They used it with the FTC to get by with rate limiting the LTE network. Some lame a$$ excuse about the CDMA legacy junk. Don't get me wrong I am sure that the old CDMA stuff may make the network less predictable, but not less stable. It is all about money, and VZW is the 800 pound gorilla that get to control what we have to deal with. Thank goodness we have talented and dedicated developers that almost always get around the blockades these fools put in place.
+1
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk now Free
From what I was told over at elevate, the biggest problem they don't want to expierence again is our phones not being able to dial to the correct 911 dispatch. There apparently was an incident where a rooting user had a modified dialer apk that didn't allow him dial to the correct dispatch. In an emergency for Verizon that is worse case scenario. Then there's a lawsuit that might be filed to both HTC and Verizon.
CNexus said:
Yeah, they say it's for the reasons above.
But given that, to begin with, the rooting community is a tiny slice of all mobile phone users, and then Verizon users are an even smaller portion of that. So I don't see why they even care. I highly doubt that even if ever single Verizon customer who does rooting messed up their expensive device it would cost Verizon more than .01% of their revenue, if even that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gotta disagree. When you see people in this forum bragging about getting seven replacements, it does add up.
And it really is a PITA to figure out if it was user error or something wrong with the phone. It's all about risk mgmt
Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk 4
Related
https://www.eff.org/pages/jailbreaking-not-crime-tell-copyright-office-free-your-devices
Take a look at the article and make a simple comment about what being able to legally root your phone means to you. The exemption that the dmca ruled on in 2010 is about to expire so let's make sure it gets renewed.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using XDA App
From what I hear jailbreaking iphones allows access to free paid apps, which is different than rooting android. However, I'm sure this should apply to both android and iphone users. If it became illegal, what would happen if we got caught? Jailed, fined, terminated by carrier?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Overstew said:
From what I hear jailbreaking iphones allows access to free paid apps, which is different than rooting android. However, I'm sure this should apply to both android and iphone users. If it became illegal, what would happen if we got caught? Jailed, fined, terminated by carrier?
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, Android has access to free paid apps without root. The act of jailbreaking and stealing apps are two different things I would think.
Same with modding consoles, you aren't doing anything illegal unless you download games which you never paid for and play them.
jmejiaa said:
The act of jailbreaking and stealing apps are two different things I would think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would absolutely agree with this. Just because I want to root my device, does not mean I desire to steal anything... in fact I buy paid apps all the time when I probably could get them for free if I looked enough.
The worst thing I have probably ever done (if you consider it wrong) as a benefit of root access, is tether my phones 3G connection (I don't get wimax) to my tablet for free. I don't consider this wrong because I am paying for the data service from Sprint, if I choose to share that with my own personal tablet, that should be my choice. I don't do it for my laptop cuz I have a much faster wifi connection at home, but its convenient for the tablet.
THe original ruling on this was in responce to Apple wanting to make it a crome to jail break the phone. The ruling said Jail breaking was legal for fair use IE being able to do customizations and use features the device would support that the Manufacturer did not want to support. These things have not changed the ruling was for fair use. you bought it you can do what you want with it. But the carriers and manufacturer's have the rigth to deny waranty if you do.
Considering Android is open source and we 'own' our phones, we can do what ever we want with them.
Without rooting, we could not access and remove the crap software that our carriers try to force down our throats. We never would have been able to remove CIQ or even know it was there. We would be helpless and putting control of everything we do into hands of the people we pay our money to every month. I don't trust my service provider to maintain my interests for me.
Its my understanding that jail breaking just lets you install apps that aren't in the app store which sounds legal to me
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
jmejiaa said:
Well, Android has access to free paid apps without root. The act of jailbreaking and stealing apps are two different things I would think.
Same with modding consoles, you aren't doing anything illegal unless you download games which you never paid for and play them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just mentioned it because my cousin wanted to jailbreak his ipod to get free paid apps. I didn't necessarily mean everyone steals with rooting/jailbreaking. It was just the first thing that came to mind. The biggest reason i'd see this law passing is because of the misuse of tethering.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
cds0699 said:
I would absolutely agree with this. Just because I want to root my device, does not mean I desire to steal anything... in fact I buy paid apps all the time when I probably could get them for free if I looked enough.
The worst thing I have probably ever done (if you consider it wrong) as a benefit of root access, is tether my phones 3G connection (I don't get wimax) to my tablet for free. I don't consider this wrong because I am paying for the data service from Sprint, if I choose to share that with my own personal tablet, that should be my choice. I don't do it for my laptop cuz I have a much faster wifi connection at home, but its convenient for the tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
while i do understand this, it becomes a conflict of interest because sprint offers the same service on your phone for $30/month... so while TECHNICALLY you didnt agree to ONLY use your data for your phone, they do offer the same service you arent paying for. kinda like using your buddy next door's cable. he pays for it, and doesnt mind at all that you use the other cable box from his service, but its still frowned upon. its a gray area, im not sure what kind of action the carriers can take other than drop you... not that i agree, i use hotspot too...
I hope it stays legal.
Hell all the damn money these carriers and phone manufacture's make off of us it should stay legal, at least for android phones. I could give a **** less about apple and their attitude against everyone and everything! They will put themselves out of business. But android wouldnt be android without Root/jailbreaking and everything that comes along with it. IF they ever took that away I will just use a phone for a phone and go to metro piece of **** or something!
In the apple spectrum, those slimy bastards that make fun of our everything android that's of lesser quality and how they are superior beings for being ifags, for them to go out and steal from the developers is just wrong and should be justifiable with punishment.
In the android spectrum, we don't want to steal. We just want to get the maximum potential out of our device that carriers for some odd reason try and hold back.
Probably because an android phone can last longer. Meaning: keep more interest in the end user for them not to upgrade earlier if they have rooting/rom capabilities keeping this new,fresh, and exciting. Which in turn makes less money for the carrier. But honestly i don't go to the carrier to have a bogged down **** phone and be a helpless lemon and just be forced to upgrade. I want the best bang for my buck and the sooner Carriers realize this the better we will talk of them.
well thats just like everything else these days! They make flat screen tv's to go out in 4or 5 years when the old box tv's would last 20-30 years. Cars are made to die after 150,000 miles or less and now they come out with new phones every couple of months to entice people into keeping up with the jones's and having to have the best instead of just rooting your phone and haveing anything you want on it! If we lose the ability to root and hack our phones, it will clearly be a step backwards...
punwik said:
well thats just like everything else these days! They make flat screen tv's to go out in 4or 5 years when the old box tv's would last 20-30 years. Cars are made to die after 150,000 miles or less and now they come out with new phones every couple of months to entice people into keeping up with the jones's and having to have the best instead of just rooting your phone and haveing anything you want on it! If we lose the ability to root and hack our phones, it will clearly be a step backwards...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
man, i just REALLY like your sig. and, i agree with ^
We are suppose to be making stuff biodegradeable and recycling and making less waste! But these companys making the products we have to use everyday like tv's, cars, computers, phones, ect.. are filling up our land fills and creating soooo much waste and ruining our planet! It has been said that at the rate we are going now by the year 2030 we will need at least 2 planet earths to sustain everyone. Its all about GREED and GREED only. The people running everything on this planet are only thinking about their lifetime and maybe their childrens.
If it wasn't bad enough losing file share websites, now this crap? If we can't root, I won't own an Android. It is easy to steal apps, but with these websites down, I am sure it forces more people to buy them. And how are we supposed to get all of our custom ROMs with no website to host them?
Sent from my GSII.
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone had tried taking HTC to court (I'm thinking small claims court in UK) for not giving those of us who purchased our handsets outright, full access to modify the bootloader etc (ie, S-OFF)?
I'm feeling some serious righteous indignation right now and am considering it.
Thought I'd ask if anyone from here has done it, or knows anyone who has, before I look too much into it.
Simple answer, No?
It's their product, they don't have to let you modify everything.
I doubt you'd have a cause of action for not being able to tamper with your phone.
Plus, you're obviously not aware how much it costs for such litigation. Even if you did have a potential cause of action, if you lost not only would you have to pay all of your own costs but may even have to pay some of the opponent's.
In any case, as much as I think S-OFF is awesome (and I'm continuously checking this forum to see when its available) I can understand why HTC would have shipped S-ON. Every time someone mucks with the bootloader and bricks, HTC will have to deal with fraudulent warranty returns otherwise...
Samsung don't seem to bothered by it though..
Nit3m4re said:
Samsung don't seem to bothered by it though..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My thoughts exactly, also the idea of a smartphone is like a miniature computer.
A fair number of us regularly install operating systems on those with no bother, why should it be any different on a phone.
anoniemouse said:
My thoughts exactly, also the idea of a smartphone is like a miniature computer.
A fair number of us regularly install operating systems on those with no bother, why should it be any different on a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A product is sold as it's sold. Unless they specifically advertise it being able to do something and it doesn't you have absolutely no case. Bringing a lawsuit against HTC for not making it so easy to tamper (although it's not like you can't) is like bringing a lawsuit against Microsoft for not making it easy to flash firmware onto the Xbox 360. They never said you'd be able to, even if you can — any case would be thrown out and you'd lose a lot of money. Although you're welcome to try.
TheHEFTA said:
Simple answer, No?
It's their product, they don't have to let you modify everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Their product, which they sold to me. Why should they have any say whatsoever on what I do with it??
ganny said:
I doubt you'd have a cause of action for not being able to tamper with your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not, I own it outright?
ganny said:
Plus, you're obviously not aware how much it costs for such litigation. Even if you did have a potential cause of action, if you lost not only would you have to pay all of your own costs but may even have to pay some of the opponent's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The small-claims court in the UK is for exactly that, small claims. In Scotland/Ireland the max compensation is £3k and England/Wales if £5k. The whole point of it is for smaller cases and that it doesn't cost a lot to file a case.
ganny said:
In any case, as much as I think S-OFF is awesome (and I'm continuously checking this forum to see when its available) I can understand why HTC would have shipped S-ON. Every time someone mucks with the bootloader and bricks, HTC will have to deal with fraudulent warranty returns otherwise...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nit3m4re said:
Samsung don't seem to bothered by it though..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly, its only HTC that make it so bloody difficult to modify your phone the way you want. Why would they be faced with a bigger problem than Samsung etc?
anoniemouse said:
My thoughts exactly, also the idea of a smartphone is like a miniature computer.
A fair number of us regularly install operating systems on those with no bother, why should it be any different on a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly! If I bought a PC and I wasn't allowed to change or even modify the OS, I'd be pissed.
Ryan J Williams said:
A product is sold as it's sold. Unless they specifically advertise it being able to do something and it doesn't you have absolutely no case.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bullcrap. See my analogy below...
Ryan J Williams said:
Bringing a lawsuit against HTC for not making it so easy to tamper (although it's not like you can't) is like bringing a lawsuit against Microsoft for not making it easy to flash firmware onto the Xbox 360. They never said you'd be able to, even if you can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but the legality of MS preventing the modification of your own xbox is highly questionable at best...
In this thread, I see a lot of negativity, do any of you actually want S-OFF on your phones?
We're not going to get it unless we ask and there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't have it on phones we own.
Here's an analogy I was thinking of.
Say you buy a house and once you've paid and moevd in etc you realise the garage and the basement are locked.
You contact the company that built and sold you the house and they say that's right, that's how its meant to be.
You speak to your neighbours and they're in the same boat and none of you are happy about it.
So you all band together and complain to the company and they relent and say "OK, we'll unlock everything".
You feel vindicated and not long after you get a key in the post that opens the garage but not the basement.
Are you happy?
Of course not.
You want full access to the house you bought, and rightly so.
HTC know they've no right to lock you out of your own phone.
That's why they relented and gave us HTC Unlock but it's nigh on pointless without S-OFF.
And since they force you to accept you're voiding your warranty by unlocking, the comment about increased warranty returns is unlikely.
So, my thoughts are, if I, or anyone else files a claim in the small claims court for nothing more than the value of their phone, it will send HTC a strong message.
If that claim is successful, it sends them an even stronger message and opens the door for others to follow suit after setting the precedent.
I know its unlikely to be plain sailing but its not going to happen unless we try...
airchie said:
Here's an analogy I was thinking of.
Say you buy a house and once you've paid and moevd in etc you realise the garage and the basement are locked.
You contact the company that built and sold you the house and they say that's right, that's how its meant to be.
You speak to your neighbours and they're in the same boat and none of you are happy about it.
So you all band together and complain to the company and they relent and say "OK, we'll unlock everything".
You feel vindicated and not long after you get a key in the post that opens the garage but not the basement.
Are you happy?
Of course not.
You want full access to the house you bought, and rightly so.
HTC know they've no right to lock you out of your own phone.
That's why they relented and gave us HTC Unlock but it's nigh on pointless without S-OFF.
And since they force you to accept you're voiding your warranty by unlocking, the comment about increased warranty returns is unlikely.
So, my thoughts are, if I, or anyone else files a claim in the small claims court for nothing more than the value of their phone, it will send HTC a strong message.
If that claim is successful, it sends them an even stronger message and opens the door for others to follow suit after setting the precedent.
I know its unlikely to be plain sailing but its not going to happen unless we try...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said & pointed out i agree with you
People took apple to court over jailbreaking, they claimed it was illegal as if was modifying it to run out of toc (should check reason why I believe that's right) but judge ruled against apple making jailbreaking legal in the US.
However HTC have got to keep devices as s-on due to contracts, debranding it would lose carriers money.
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA Premium HD app
treebill said:
However HTC have got to keep devices as s-on due to contracts, debranding it would lose carriers money
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure what you mean, can you clarify that?
My phone isn't branded (other than the HTC logo) and not on contract and I use a PAYG SIM.
The phone is outright mine and I'm not sure how giving me S-OFF would lose anyone money?
treebill said:
People took apple to court over jailbreaking, they claimed it was illegal as if was modifying it to run out of toc (should check reason why I believe that's right) but judge ruled against apple making jailbreaking legal in the US.
However HTC have got to keep devices as s-on due to contracts, debranding it would lose carriers money.
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough for branded phones, but unbranded ones there is no excuse for HTC not to make them s-off
Jailbreaking is done on top of the stock operating system, not replacing it, so it's not a comparable argument. HTC have the right to not allow mods to the system because they provide a warranty on the device when it's sold. No they won't sift through users whose warranty has expired, resources would be better used elsewhere.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
AUXRVIII said:
Jailbreaking is done on top of the stock operating system, not replacing it, so it's not a comparable argument. HTC have the right to not allow mods to the system because they provide a warranty on the device when it's sold. No they won't sift through users whose warranty has expired, resources would be better used elsewhere.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't implying that its the same more that people have taken a company as big as apple and won.
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA Premium HD app
airchie said:
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone had tried taking HTC to court (I'm thinking small claims court in UK) for not giving those of us who purchased our handsets outright, full access to modify the bootloader etc (ie, S-OFF)?
I'm feeling some serious righteous indignation right now and am considering it.
Thought I'd ask if anyone from here has done it, or knows anyone who has, before I look too much into it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only way you could go after HTC is if they documented a feature as being available and then didn't provide it. "S-Off" isn't a feature, it's part of the phones infrastructure as HTC ships it. Nothing is compromised in the use of the phone as it's shipped whether it's S-off or S-on so you're not being deprived of anything HTC intended to provide. In others words, based on the way HTC describes the phone, you've gotten what you paid for so there's no "harm" to justify a lawsuit. I'm not defending HTC's choice, but it's their choice to make. The simple solution is to not buy their phones.
I don't see the point of taking HTC to court. The comparison of Apple and HTC doesn't make sense. Apple doesn't want you to jailbreak period, while HTC is more open. To me, HTC s-on for a reason, if the users know they're doing, and gets s-off then good for them. Not like HTC will call you or send you a note that you'll get sued for getting s-off on your device. Just wait patiently for xmoo and Football to find the way to s-off, they are making good progress anyways.
BarryH_GEG said:
The only way you could go after HTC is if they documented a feature as being available and then didn't provide it. "S-Off" isn't a feature, it's part of the phones infrastructure as HTC ships it. Nothing is compromised in the use of the phone as it's shipped whether it's S-off or S-on so you're not being deprived of anything HTC intended to provide. In others words, based on the way HTC describes the phone, you've gotten what you paid for so there's no "harm" to justify a lawsuit. I'm not defending HTC's choice, but it's their choice to make. The simple solution is to not buy their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely agree with you.
AUXRVIII said:
Jailbreaking is done on top of the stock operating system, not replacing it, so it's not a comparable argument.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a large corporation trying to exert control over a device they've sold and have no legal right to try to control.
AUXRVIII said:
HTC have the right to not allow mods to the system because they provide a warranty on the device when it's sold. No they won't sift through users whose warranty has expired, resources would be better used elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that's the case, why do they make you invalidate your warranty to use HTC Unlock? And they can clearly see if a phone's been unlocked as we can't re-lock them. And it only takes common sense to see a manufacturing defect isn't caused by modifying software. There is nothing that justifies the way HTC are acting over this.
BarryH_GEG said:
The only way you could go after HTC is if they documented a feature as being available and then didn't provide it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How so?
BarryH_GEG said:
"S-Off" isn't a feature, it's part of the phones infrastructure as HTC ships it. Nothing is compromised in the use of the phone as it's shipped whether it's S-off or S-on so you're not being deprived of anything HTC intended to provide.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Something is compromised, my ability to modify my phone in the way I want to.
BarryH_GEG said:
In others words, based on the way HTC describes the phone, you've gotten what you paid for so there's no "harm" to justify a lawsuit. I'm not defending HTC's choice, but it's their choice to make. The simple solution is to not buy their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So by what you say there, you think HTC has a right to prevent me doing what I like to the phone I own? To me, that's like saying Ford has the right to stop me changing the wheels on my car.
gwuhua1984 said:
I don't see the point of taking HTC to court. The comparison of Apple and HTC doesn't make sense. Apple doesn't want you to jailbreak period, while HTC is more open. To me, HTC s-on for a reason, if the users know they're doing, and gets s-off then good for them. Not like HTC will call you or send you a note that you'll get sued for getting s-off on your device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The comparison of Apple and HTC is very valid. They're both trying to exert control over hardware they've sold when they have no right to do so. A fact proven by the Apple case.
gwuhua1984 said:
Just wait patiently for xmoo and Football to find the way to s-off, they are making good progress anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point is, we shouldn't have to wait for some enterprising users to break bast HTC's deliberate locking down of our phones. Especially if they provide the unlock option.
All I'm seeing in this thread is people saying things like "I'm not defending HTC but..." or "Why bother fighting for your rights..." etc.
Well, I think we should fight for what we want instead of rolling over and taking it.
The reason HTC, Apple et al all do these things is because they get away with them through apathy like has been shown in this thread, it makes me sad.
A stance has to be taken by a manufacturer of a product regardless of what it is, this sort of thing is not only restricted to mobile devices. If a company like HTC sets it conditions of use under warranty and consumers challenge them, then the company cops negative publicity regardless of the result, so its alway a no win situation. If you feel HTC are wrong in what they are doing then get a job there and change it or start up your own company and see if you want to risk your intellectual property.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
airchie said:
All I'm seeing in this thread is people saying things like "I'm not defending HTC but..." or "Why bother fighting for your rights..." etc.
Well, I think we should fight for what we want instead of rolling over and taking it.
The reason HTC, Apple et al all do these things is because they get away with them through apathy like has been shown in this thread, it makes me sad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think any of us are thrilled with the absence of S-OFF. The thread is about whether or not it's worth taking HTC to court over it, and my answer to that is 'no'. I don't have the money, I don't have the time, and I probably won't stand a chance because as has been pointed out repeatedly now a company is only obligated to provide the features they specified it'd include.
I often buy expensive sound equipment. Sometimes I like to replace parts with custom hardware, but with some equipment this isn't possible due to proprietary parts being used, or things not being feasibly removable. Could I take the manufacturer's to court over this? Well, yes. Would I win? Doubtful. They've provided me exactly what they advertised, the fact I can't do extra tinkering with it isn't their problem. And if I want to do it badly enough I'll probably figure it out (and void my warranty in the process so they don't have to deal with my screw-up).
As you feel so strongly about it, why don't you take the stand and go get a lawsuit rolling? I'm sure you'll get people to sign any petitions or whatever. Unfortunately I doubt many of us have the financial resources to commit to it too. :good:
LOL
For every response suggesting that OP cannot/ should not sue HTC, he has simply come up w an argument rebutting it. I'd like to see he goes ahead and does it and gets any result out of it. Is the outcome desirable for you all? Perhaps yes. But is there a practical mechanism to achieve that goal via litigation? I'd say not. But if OP doesnt trust the opinions offered, why bother posting something on here at all? Overall if you're serious about courts actions you should be talking to a lawyer not asking people's opinions on the internet.
I think youd have more success sueing them for charging for build defect repairs just because the phone is unlocked.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
Hey guys, first. Thank you for visiting the post and bring a little valuable knowledge.
I have a HTC ONE M7 VERIZON - currently ROOT with WeakSauce2
There is a way to get free S-OFF - other than SUNSHINE ...
android version 4.4.3 - attached screenshot so you can see the version of software.
Not possible in the current version, there is a way back to the factory system?
Thank You.
Only way to downgrade is to have s-off. For version 5.28.605.2 the only way to get unlocked and s-off is Sunshine, or pay for someone with a java card to s-off.
Sent from my HTC6500LVW using XDA Free mobile app
s off
Oh my god
I want s-off freeeeeee
29y6145 said:
Oh my god
I want s-off freeeeeee
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And I want a free car, neither one is gonna happen. [emoji5]
It is a bit ridiculous that they're taking advantage of the situation though. Verizon shouldn't be allowed to lock phones down so thoroughly that a phone model that specifically is supposed to be supported by the company's own official "developer program" is actually locked out as it is. These people are taking advantage of the fact that Verizon has done this to make quite a lot of cash. And if you have to get a different phone or something, you can't just "uninstall Sunshine" or something and reuse it. Nope. You get to buy it again. They don't even license it to one person, it's only licensed to one specific device. Simply put, they're taking advantage of everyone and getting away with it to make quite a lot of money on the process and everyone seems to be ok with that.
Now don't get me wrong here. I am not saying they shouldn't be allowed to make money. I'm sure they did a decent amount of work to find and utilize the new exploit(s) they are using and not sharing. To some extent, yeah, they should get money. Though I'm not convinced that donations alone wouldn't have been quite sufficient to more than cover their time and efforts with some small profit along the way (there are a lot of M7 users stuck with Verizon after all plus there can be advantages to Sunshine even when not on Verizon) I'll allow that they've a right to ask for money for this is general. My problem is the fact that they do that one device only for $25. That's a lot of money to run an exploit on a device one time and never again. A one user license for $25 would be a lot more fair and reasonable at least, but really I can't see why it shouldn't be more on the order of $5 or so anyway. Heck, let's say $10. But $25? They have us backed in a corner and they know it.
Nazo said:
It is a bit ridiculous that they're taking advantage of the situation though. Verizon shouldn't be allowed to lock phones down so thoroughly that a phone model that specifically is supposed to be supported by the company's own official "developer program" is actually locked out as it is. These people are taking advantage of the fact that Verizon has done this to make quite a lot of cash. And if you have to get a different phone or something, you can't just "uninstall Sunshine" or something and reuse it. Nope. You get to buy it again. They don't even license it to one person, it's only licensed to one specific device. Simply put, they're taking advantage of everyone and getting away with it to make quite a lot of money on the process and everyone seems to be ok with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But wait - - someone did a sh--load of work at the risk of nice phones to create an optional work-around to allow tinkerers to play with their phones.
Why shouldn't the guys who figured out what we can't figure out be paid ??????????
I tried to get you preemptively on that. Read my edit. Sorry, it took a bit before I realized someone was going to think I was saying they shouldn't get paid at all. Simply put, I'm not against them profiting at all. I'm against the way they're taking advantage of people. I do stick to my statement that donations alone would have been sufficient though. There are a lot of people who would have been really grateful for the exploits if posted and would have donated if they asked nicely (and maybe even if they didn't ask...)
Nazo said:
I tried to get you preemptively on that. Read my edit. Sorry, it took a bit before I realized someone was going to think I was saying they shouldn't get paid at all. Simply put, I'm not against them profiting at all. I'm against the way they're taking advantage of people. I do stick to my statement that donations alone would have been sufficient though. There are a lot of people who would have been really grateful for the exploits if posted and would have donated if they asked nicely (and maybe even if they didn't ask...)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"These people" don't give a crap about what you or what Verizon does.
There is no HTC or dev program that allows you to s-off your device.
Nobody is taking advantage of you, they are offering you a service.
Either accept their service and pay what they ask for it, or don't.
But please stop this self entitled attitude that gets us nowhere and causes the few exploits and devs that make them to disappear completely.
Don't like it? Buy yourself a Java card for a few hundred bucks, or an iPhone.
If folks like these guys didn't go through burning up devices for our benefit, you would have zero options.
If they depend on the general public to be generous with donations, when giving it away for free, they would be sadly disappointed, trust me on this one...it happens a lot less then you might imagine.
People nowadays are far too content to take whatever they can and if nobody makes them give back, they won't think twice about it.
So, I really suggest ending this now, as this won't end well for you and certainly won't change anything for the better.
Only effect it could possibly have is to jeopardize your xda membership, reputation, and potentially drive away the people who worked so hard on your only real available option for s-off.
See, this is what I don't get. People will defend this sort of thing fighting tooth and nail for them even to the point of flaming and insulting others. It's silly. Ultimately things like this being locked behind a pay wall hurts the community as a whole.
santod040 said:
"These people" don't give a crap about what you or what Verizon does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhm... What?
There is no HTC or dev program that allows you to s-off your device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm guessing you misunderstood what I was saying? I'm specifically referring to the official HTC developer program by which one can enter and get an unlock token to officially unlock their HTC devices: http://www.htcdev.com/bootloader/
Verizon is the only one that chooses to disallow its users from doing this and I'm only saying that this creates the situation being discussed. If, for example, there were no service in which one could not unlock their device via the official program and the only point of Sunshine was to avoid going through all that and to make it possible to effectively warranty voiding checks, then that alone might be a valid reason for it to cost. (And I personally am ok with going through the official HTC program and losing warranty officially. That was never the issue for me.)
Nobody is taking advantage of you, they are offering you a service.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you didn't really understand what I was saying. Basically Verizon has created a situation where people have no choice but to use exploits when they shouldn't have to. This, in itself, is already a not OK situation, but there's not much we can do about it short of using a different service (and some of us need various things like a particular plan/area/whatever.) The people behind Sunshine found a new exploit that works on the latest stuff (and claim it's hardware and unpatchable.) Great. But, they don't release it to the public. They keep it locked away behind a pay wall (and I'm sure the exact workings of it are encrypted and etc so people can't just reverse engineer the software easily or something.) Not just a pay wall though. They charge quite a lot for a single device. Then they don't let a user use what they paid for again ever. Nope. You get to unlock one device and that's it. Hence "taking advantage." They know we're backed up against the wall.
Either except their service and pay what they ask for it, or don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. They know you have no choice. Your argument for them is actually against them.
But please stop this self entitled attitude that gets us nowhere and causes the few exploits and devs that make them to disappear completely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who said self-entitled? I didn't say they owe it to me or something. I said this is ultimately bad for the community and the community shouldn't be happy with it and that they shouldn't charge so much for it or limit it so much. This is more a business discussion if anything. They don't owe it to me or anything, but they are still taking advantage of the situation. Essentially, it's extortion.
Nazo said:
Uhm... What?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nazo said:
These people are taking advantage of the fact that Verizon has done this to make quite a lot of cash.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
------------------
Nazo said:
They don't owe it to me or anything
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh good, then you do understand.... :good:
Good luck to you.
Before this exploit, there was firewater, moonshine, rumrunner for certain aged HTC devices, two worked on this phone. These were made by the same team that did Sunshine. They never got the income back via donations to pay for the countless bricked phones getting the exploit to work (yes, this type of exploit permanently damaged their test phones at $700 a pop.) This is why they had to resort to charging since the donations didn't make the lost money back.
Before the exploits worked on our phones, we HAD to pool money together and have a trusted member keep the java card, and pay him shipping and a fragment of the cost of the card. He made no money off this service either.
Do not sully and degrade and berate the payment wall. You bought a Verizon phone. A carrier who HATES their "customers" rooting their phones. Call Verizon support and say your phone is rooted and see their response. If you wanted an HTC phone that does work with htcdev, buy a different variant, or get the last Verizon model that did work, the Rezound.
Sunshine was made with the idea to s-off already rooted phones, unlocking Verizon variants is a side effect they don't put on the priority list. If it happens, it happens.
Edit: quick math for you. Let's say they had 20 failed attempts... For ONE device, if all 20 bricked the phone, that is $14000 $25 is reasonable given how many devices it works for and how much was spent to get it to work.
Sent from my HTC6500LVW using XDA Free mobile app
Well I never heard any dev that locked their phones on failed attempts to find exploits. Doesn't that one dev that does the exploits work for HTC or Verizon and his job is to find these exploits? I guess I see nothing wrong with charging to get your phone unlocked and rooted. Maybe the price be a little less but I doubt he made a lot of money unlocking peoples phones. If you don't want to pay for having your phone unlocked then look at getting s nexus 6 off T-Mobile. Everything works on Verizon's network and you never have to worry about having a locked boot loader.
Dark Jedi said:
Well I never heard any dev that locked their phones on failed attempts to find exploits. Doesn't that one dev that does the exploits work for HTC or Verizon and his job is to find these exploits? I guess I see nothing wrong with charging to get your phone unlocked and rooted. Maybe the price be a little less but I doubt he made a lot of money unlocking peoples phones. If you don't want to pay for having your phone unlocked then look at getting s nexus 6 off T-Mobile. Everything works on Verizon's network and you never have to worry about having a locked boot loader.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, beaups nor jacase work for Verizon. They frequent the blackhat convention. Most exploits they do they either sell to the bug bounty or give to the community depending on certain factors. They are not on either company's payroll.
Sent from my HTC6500LVW using XDA Free mobile app
I could swear jcase worked for HTC from one of his older posts form years ago. Oh well guess I was wrong. Just glad I rooted my phone when I first got it before everyone had to start paying!
Dark Jedi said:
I could swear jcase worked for HTC from one of his older posts form years ago. Oh well guess I was wrong. Just glad I rooted my phone when I first got it before everyone had to start paying!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope lol
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/04/samsung-galaxy-note-7-cut-off-by-new-zealand-mobile-networks/ I even do not know how to comment it...
It isn't like one didn't know it was coming. Bound to happen sooner or later.
Sent from my BBA100-1 using Tapatalk
This should be illegal
Enviado desde mi SM-N930F mediante Tapatalk
Before it was just some rep saying it but now its official carriers are going to do this.
Time to backup efs and find a usable imei to change to
statikk1 said:
Time to backup efs and find a usable imei to change to
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's going to come to that. I am sure I can find a suitable old phone to clone.
was obvious something like this was coming, they can't afford to legally force people to return the phones but since the recall is in effect they can legally disable them due to safety concerns. it's the same as I was reading the other day certain UK insurance companies are looking to void the insurance if a Note is anywhere near the incident. they are already banned on pretty much every airline, is it really worth putting up with a year of having to avoid people who don't want the phone in any situation it could cause a problem? the local hospitals in my area in the UK actually have a full ban on the Note as well if you are in the hospital with one you will be escorted by security off the grounds of the hospital and not allowed to return until you have got rid off the phone off site.
so yeah if you want to use a service and they have safety concerns and want to ban something that is entirely up to them, if you want to hang onto something that is potentially dangerous and take a chance that is up to you, but end of the day if it's their house it's their rules.
Belimawr said:
was obvious something like this was coming, they can't afford to legally force people to return the phones but since the recall is in effect they can legally disable them due to safety concerns.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but who is the "they" here?
What's in it for Verizon or Vodafone? Samsung can't block IMEI numbers. I'm genuinely puzzled why the industry is so hell bent on getting all of these phones out of circulation. The efforts they are going to are not commensurate with the levels of damage to people and property we have seen. Which incidentally, seem to be declining by the day.
The fact is that a single Note7 is about 100x less dangerous than a single Honda (or any other) motorbike. Does it not strike people as rather weird that all these agencies are trying so hard to get rid of Note7's? It does me.
I would have thought all that was needed was for Samsung to say they there's a problem and that you shouldn't use it and that if you do, it's at your own risk. But they are trying MUCH MUCH harder than this. It's almost like they know something terrible about the phone and are not telling us.
Chippy_boy said:
It's almost like they know something terrible about the phone and are not telling us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One of the phone has inside key for immortality hidden by one of samsung's engineer and now they try to find it by recalling all of them. Some people new it beforehand and tried to get to the key by smashing phone which then got fire as a result which gave solid base to recall all units by Samsung.
The rep from Verizon explained it to me. He also said Verizon employed some psychic to find the key by simply touching every note 7 before sent it to Samsung...
He said he hates one of the psychic to the guts because he touches iPhones as well and this is not professional.
Chippy_boy said:
Yes, but who is the "they" here?
What's in it for Verizon or Vodafone? Samsung can't block IMEI numbers. I'm genuinely puzzled why the industry is so hell bent on getting all of these phones out of circulation. The efforts they are going to are not commensurate with the levels of damage to people and property we have seen. Which incidentally, seem to be declining by the day.
The fact is that a single Note7 is about 100x less dangerous than a single Honda (or any other) motorbike. Does it not strike people as rather weird that all these agencies are trying so hard to get rid of Note7's? It does me.
I would have thought all that was needed was for Samsung to say they there's a problem and that you shouldn't use it and that if you do, it's at your own risk. But they are trying MUCH MUCH harder than this. It's almost like they know something terrible about the phone and are not telling us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lets say your phone does fail and causes considerable property of physical damage what would you then do? in the majority of cases the person will try to sue Samsung, the carrier or other so these firms are taking every effort to get the point across if you are still holding onto the phone it is entirely on you, if they take every option to stop people using the phone they are 100% free and clear as they have done everything possible to stop the use of a potentially defective device.
now on the other hand looking at all the places and insurance firms trying to discourage use of the phone or banning it, if your phone goes up in say a locker and damages the belonging of several other people would you be willing to cover those damages? because with the amount of action taken to discourage the use of the phone you are at a point where the user is 100% liable and firms will ban it because they know the type of person hanging onto the phone will likely be the type who would try to sue someone rather than admit fault and that is why people are trying to stop the use of the device "in their house" because they know it is likely them who will lose out and have to take legal action to recoup damages.
Belimawr said:
lets say your phone does fail and causes considerable property of physical damage what would you then do? in the majority of cases the person will try to sue Samsung, the carrier or other so these firms are taking every effort to get the point across if you are still holding onto the phone it is entirely on you, if they take every option to stop people using the phone they are 100% free and clear as they have done everything possible to stop the use of a potentially defective device.
now on the other hand looking at all the places and insurance firms trying to discourage use of the phone or banning it, if your phone goes up in say a locker and damages the belonging of several other people would you be willing to cover those damages? because with the amount of action taken to discourage the use of the phone you are at a point where the user is 100% liable and firms will ban it because they know the type of person hanging onto the phone will likely be the type who would try to sue someone rather than admit fault and that is why people are trying to stop the use of the device "in their house" because they know it is likely them who will lose out and have to take legal action to recoup damages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gosh, I hadn't thought of that.
I promise you they will get sued and lose if they do that here in the US. It is not the carrier's job to protect citizens, especially if they have no proof the phone is definitely going to burn.
I believe it is against the law to posses a recalled product in Australia and several European countries. Not so in the United States.
pinetreehater said:
I promise you they will get sued and lose if they do that here in the US. It is not the carrier's job to protect citizens, especially if they have no proof the phone is definitely going to burn.
I believe it is against the law to posses a recalled product in Australia and several European countries. Not so in the United States.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like Australia doesn't outlaw recalled products.
http://www.productsafety.gov.au/news/samsung-galaxy-note7
There is no wording to mention it's illegal rather that ACCC "strongly urges"
pinetreehater said:
I promise you they will get sued and lose if they do that here in the US. It is not the carrier's job to protect citizens, especially if they have no proof the phone is definitely going to burn.
I believe it is against the law to posses a recalled product in Australia and several European countries. Not so in the United States.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea where in the world it is legal or illegal to possess a recalled product but I agree wholeheartedly that there will definitely be lawsuits in the US if these phones are blacklisted. Without a doubt....
Question. If I see a robbery, rape, fire or an accident or some other public safety concern, should I attempt to dial 911 to assist or should I shrug it off because I am a rogue accident waiting to happen? Should I shudder in fear so much as to avoid calling altogether?
Should I report myself to authorities?.....lol
I'd say no because I am neither illegal or criminal, get it?
whoofit said:
I have no idea where in the world it is legal or illegal to possess a recalled product but I agree wholeheartedly that there will definitely be lawsuits in the US if these phones are blacklisted. Without a doubt....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having said that, here's me hoping that New Zealand users start suing which will serve to not give anybody else ideas :laugh:
http://www.droid-life.com/2016/11/0...imit-battery-60-continue-remind-users-recall/
Very soon Samsung will block all service.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
As long as Samsung gets replacement phones/refunds to all they promised, I don't mind the IMEI block so much. Problem is that 19 days ago, they promised me a replacement S7E would come "within 21 days". I contacted them yesterday about how this was going since 21 days is almost up, and...They have run out of S7E stock (black Onyx) and don't know when new stock is coming...
This is Australia though, where they have just sent the 60% thing through and no official IMEI block discussed, yet..
Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk
Verizon in the USA is also considering flagging accounts and suspending service for those of us who have a Note 7. I purchased it outright for $864 and was totally blown away with how nice the phone is. I don't want to return it.
The first batch was recalled due to a failure of the batteries circuitry to stop the charge. Statistic tell me that if an electrical component were to fail (aka infant mortality) then it would occur very early in the like cycle of a device. My device was always left overnight charging (until I learned about the 80% rule and battery life), and would never even get warm to the touch on either the usb-C or wireless charging. I was confident that my chances were slim to have an issue, but I returned it when they got the second batch of phones.
The failure of the second batch is being blamed on internal battery layers that are so close that they short out causing the catastrophic shorting of the battery. Again, no one knows how close is too close for these layers as Samsung never disclosed the details of the design much further. My phone gets charged every 30-36 hours since I got it and I have not had any issues. My second (current) Note 7 is even cooler when charging than the first one and as I never charge about 80%, my risk is even less. (what ever "less than less than 1%" is) I figure if my batteries plates were shorting out, I would have known it by now. So I feel my current phone is also safe.
Samsung or Verizon can not force me to return it. What they can do is exactly what they are: constant texts about the recall and now Verizon has stated (the store rep told me this when I went to inquirer about any changes to the return policy) that after November 25th, they will be suspending service. They told me originally the date was Nov 7th, but it got moved back. So take it with a grain of salt. I sometimes think that the reps don't have a clue. They will give owners no choice if they do this. But the question I ask is do we really own this? Verizon has already returned every penny I paid for the phone back to me. So in a sense I have the phone now for free, and that's not quite right either.
With the S8 four months away and a new Note 8 5-6 months after that (if rumors are true), Samsung in Korea is giving some great deals for those of us who stay loyal. (Korean customers if they stay with Samsung not only get the same $100 (equivalent currency) credit we are getting in the USA, but are also getting an opportunity to upgrade with no penalty to the S8 and Note 8. The new S8 and Note 8 will be sold for 1/2 the list price to these customer! I only hope the USA will get this same offer.
I agree that airlines and businesses have the right to ban the phone, and the liability now rest 99.9% with those of us who keep the phone. We have been warned in many ways. Its a slippery slope. Where does our right to keep it cross the line and endanger someone else? I looks at this like the smoking ban in the USA. Restaurants use to allow smoking in the dining rooms. They then morphed into having a "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections. I cant tell you how many times I would be in the non-smoking section that was right next to a smoking section and still had to breath their second hand smoke. I was glad when all restaurants when smoke free as did most businesses. I happen to be on the other side of the fence on this issue.
I only hope someone here extracts the firmware and kernel and can adapt it to say the S7 or another note device. I'm guessing the new 8 series will be very similar.
Belimawr said:
lets say your phone does fail and causes considerable property of physical damage what would you then do? in the majority of cases the person will try to sue Samsung, the carrier or other so these firms are taking every effort to get the point across if you are still holding onto the phone it is entirely on you, if they take every option to stop people using the phone they are 100% free and clear as they have done everything possible to stop the use of a potentially defective device.
now on the other hand looking at all the places and insurance firms trying to discourage use of the phone or banning it, if your phone goes up in say a locker and damages the belonging of several other people would you be willing to cover those damages? because with the amount of action taken to discourage the use of the phone you are at a point where the user is 100% liable and firms will ban it because they know the type of person hanging onto the phone will likely be the type who would try to sue someone rather than admit fault and that is why people are trying to stop the use of the device "in their house" because they know it is likely them who will lose out and have to take legal action to recoup damages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Save your breath... common senses does not apply here. At least to some. Saying anything other than keeping the Note7 will just cause you to be branded as part of the conspirator.
It makes no sense what so ever to keep the phone outside of ego issues. Either "look at me I am a rebel" or "I've got a phone you can't get."
- Alternatives with nearly the same specs are out (Pixel and V20 both outperform the Note 7)
- support is going to be dead, Samsung and 3rd party
- it's not going to receive updates
- it's a hazard, Samsung didn't just kill one of their golden eggs for fun.
- keeping your phone affects more than just you.
I think we are all aware of the Verizon issue, but my question is: what is the current hurdle we are trying to get over?
Like, forget the answer, what are the questions? The thing that comes to mind is 42 being the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything, but the characters in the guide not knowing what question that answers (analogy done).
So, even if we don't know what to do with the following, do we know 1) The steps, 2) What has worked in the past and what is different this time, and 3) what our current hurdle is.
I ask this because I'm genuinely curious, and because combining our efforts towards a, not specific, but general goal might help. Apologies in advance for being a pleb.
I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but what people think they want is to wax philosophically about phone ownership (which is most ironic while paying off a signed contract that proves the device is not yours). In reality what they want is to get a device that already exists at essentially half the cost of one readily available. In the past, exploits were the only way regardless of cost. Some were found with luck and others with a lot of work by a lot of people. All of what has happened in the past is still happening but by a lot less people with a lot less to gain because of the aforementioned availability of a device that doesn't need to be hacked. Heck, you don't even need a Verizon variant PIxel to be on their network. You just need to play by their rules if you want one for THEIR price. I guess that is my philosophic waxing. Keep in mind, I have ran plenty of hacked devices including Verizon ones including the OG Pixel and Pixel XL. The game changed almost immediately after dePixel was patched, and it became obvious that it was just going to be an exercise in futility to hope for it again. Even if an exploit is found, it might include having never upgraded past a certain version and will ultimately be patched immediately possibly in a way that even a non-upgraded phone might be patched for. Instead of worrying about the cat and mouse game, I'll purchase the right device for the price offered if I think it is worth what I gain from it. Punching in my card number for the BL unlockable P3/PX3 hurt when I did it, but I had the money and it was worth it to me. I can now enjoy using what I have instead of complaining about what I don't.
sliding_billy said:
I don't mean to be a jerk about it, but what people think they want is to wax philosophically about phone ownership (which is most ironic while paying off a signed contract that proves the device is not yours). In reality what they want is to get a device that already exists at essentially half the cost of one readily available. In the past, exploits were the only way regardless of cost. Some were found with luck and others with a lot of work by a lot of people. All of what has happened in the past is still happening but by a lot less people with a lot less to gain because of the aforementioned availability of a device that doesn't need to be hacked. Heck, you don't even need a Verizon variant PIxel to be on their network. You just need to play by their rules if you want one for THEIR price. I guess that is my philosophic waxing. Keep in mind, I have ran plenty of hacked devices including Verizon ones including the OG Pixel and Pixel XL. The game changed almost immediately after dePixel was patched, and it became obvious that it was just going to be an exercise in futility to hope for it again. Even if an exploit is found, it might include having never upgraded past a certain version and will ultimately be patched immediately possibly in a way that even a non-upgraded phone might be patched for. Instead of worrying about the cat and mouse game, I'll purchase the right device for the price offered if I think it is worth what I gain from it. Punching in my card number for the BL unlockable P3/PX3 hurt when I did it, but I had the money and it was worth it to me. I can now enjoy using what I have instead of complaining about what I don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No need to write a manifesto, Karl. My bad, I just graduated high school and I'm still on my parents plan. Surprisingly, I'm aware of such a "carrier-neutral" pixel 3XL, but I didn't have the means (and still don't have the means) to purchase one (and I was just grateful to my parents for the one I did get). Either way, you didn't have to try to be a jerk, you did just fine naturally. Even so, I've already GOT the Verizon Pixel 3XL, and buying a second would understandably be a lot to ask of anyone, unlike a simple answer on a topic directed at those knowledgeable on said topic.
notthatkindofclansman said:
No need to write a manifesto, Karl. My bad, I just graduated high school and I'm still on my parents plan. Surprisingly, I'm aware of such a "carrier-neutral" pixel 3XL, but I didn't have the means (and still don't have the means) to purchase one (and I was just grateful to my parents for the one I did get). Either way, you didn't have to try to be a jerk, you did just fine naturally. Even so, I've already GOT the Verizon Pixel 3XL, and buying a second would understandably be a lot to ask of anyone, unlike a simple answer on a topic directed at those knowledgeable on said topic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just to be sure that others know what you are talking about since your reply talks about "carrier-neutral" devices... Verizon contemplated locking their devices to the Verizon network and backed off. Both the Google and Verizon variants can be ran on other networks. I was talking about bootloader unlocking and rooting and nothing more. As far as I know, you can even put a phone on another network while paying Verizon your installments. Love the Karl Marx reference, BTW. His logic was flawed too, but it is still fun to read in a bubble world that I haven't lived in for the 30+ years since I was where you are now. Hope you find your answers, and I really do mean that.
sliding_billy said:
Just to be sure that others know what you are talking about since your reply talks about "carrier-neutral" devices... Verizon contemplated locking their devices to the Verizon network and backed off. Both the Google and Verizon variants can be ran on other networks. I was talking about bootloader unlocking and rooting and nothing more. As far as I know, you can even put a phone on another network while paying Verizon your installments. Love the Karl Marx reference, BTW. His logic was flawed too, but it is still fun to read in a bubble world that I haven't lived in for the 30+ years since I was where you are now. Hope you find your answers, and I really do mean that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does the term I used matter? The usage goes like this: sold by Google=carrier-neutral. That's not the only attribute that term grants; you know that, because you're obviously aware that pixel 3's sold by Google can be unlocked bootloader-wise. So the phone that is Sold by Google ("carrier-neutral") can have its bootloader unlocked.
I genuinely don't believe you mean that because you came here to give an answer to a different question (that no one asked by the way), and now want to leave triumphantly after pointing out a technicality like you just won a debate at a forensics competition, while receiving an Emmy at the Olympic Curling award ceremony going on in your head.
Get over yourself.
notthatkindofclansman said:
Does the term I used matter? The usage goes like this: sold by Google=carrier-neutral. That's not the only attribute that term grants; you know that, because you're obviously aware that pixel 3's sold by Google can be unlocked bootloader-wise. So the phone that is Sold by Google ("carrier-neutral") can have its bootloader unlocked.
I genuinely don't believe you mean that because you came here to give an answer to a different question (that no one asked by the way), and now want to leave triumphantly after pointing out a technicality like you just won a debate at a forensics competition, while receiving an Emmy at the Olympic Curling award ceremony going on in your head.
Get over yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not trying to leave triumphantly at all. I was waiting for your reply and at least now I know that we were talking about the same thing. As for you believing me or not, I just don't care. Your original reply confused me, and seemed like maybe I misunderstood the OP. No technicality pointed out in that case. Now, we can both have me off of your thread neither triumphantly nor award winning. Enjoy your day.