Database Info

In case no one saw this. "Samsung Secret"

Take it with a grain of salt. But it sounds mildly legit.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=913045
edit: actually i call b.s.

whiteguypl said:
edit: actually i call b.s.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why? I have no firm opinion one way or the other, but just saying "bull****" really doesn't mean much unless you're playing the card game.

How could Samsung charge for an open-source project update? Obviously they must make some modifications to make it fit their phones, but at its core, its still an open source program.

Billabong81 said:
How could Samsung charge for an open-source project update? Obviously they must make some modifications to make it fit their phones, but at its core, its still an open source program.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Open source doesn't mean free.

I'm inclined to believe it. It makes more sense than trying to say they have been testing it for months. I've had my captivate for 6 months, almost 5 of them running FroYo thanks to the awesome devs here. Has the froyo always been stable and fast? No. But the devs don't work for Samsung with all the resouces, they are doing it in their spare time. I would bet Samsung had a fairly stable, almost complete version of FroYo ready before the phone released.
I am really getting tempted by the Atrix, apart from the awesome hardware and webtop app, Motorola devices get updates. But, they sound harder to flash custom ROMs, so its a give and take. Based on what I saw on the CES coverage, going with only official software may not be so bad.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA App

Makes no sense. Regardless if Samsung charges for feature updates or not, terms of the upgrades would have been set between carrier and Samsung prior to the first handset even being made. Thus outside of any major surprises (which there are none here) the carrier knows from day one what upgrades will be offered, when and at what cost. It's not like Samsung turned around weeks after the devices shipped and said, "Hey. That Froyo upgrade is gonna cost ya, buddy!" That would have been known long before contacts were signed.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

Even if thus is true, both AT&T and Samsung have all ready made too many mistakes. Both will lose some business. Yes it won't be enough to hurt either but maybe all the pestering will make them rethink their business models. Probably not. My last Samschmuck phone on AT&T for sure.
Sent from a phone somewhere in the universe

ianwood said:
Makes no sense. Regardless if Samsung charges for feature updates or not, terms of the upgrades would have been set between carrier and Samsung prior to the first handset even being made. Thus outside of any major surprises (which there are none here) the carrier knows from day one what upgrades will be offered, when and at what cost. It's not like Samsung turned around weeks after the devices shipped and said, "Hey. That Froyo upgrade is gonna cost ya, buddy!" That would have been known long before contacts were signed.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the same point I tried to make on the thread. While Samsung may have been the ones to state that Froyo would come to Galaxy S, it may be that the carrier(s) decided to balk on the 2.2 update due to extra cost as probably stipulated by whatever contract they negotiated with Samsung.
If Froyo is already on Canadian carriers' devices (officially) why not U.S. carriers. Something reeks here.
While Samsung should have kept their mouths shut about the update, I'm sure a part is being played by the American carriers here.

Billabong81 said:
How could Samsung charge for an open-source project update? Obviously they must make some modifications to make it fit their phones, but at its core, its still an open source program.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are mixing up open source with free software. Ask Richard Stallman the difference
Also, I would imagine that they would not be paying Samsung for the software itself but more so the software development to tailor it to the carriers needs.

This sounds good in theory, but I think it has holes.
this would be the case for all phones on all carriers, but it isn't the same situation.
iphone updates are coming out all the time. With at&t subsidized out the butt on the iphone, I fail to believe they osu for all those updates.
I had a samsung blackjCk, and we went through the same thing with winmo, meanwhile other at&t phones got the updates.

Id have to say honestly in my personal opinion based from facts from an inside source... At&t is so obsessed with the iphone anything that costs them money or time that doesn't increase profits is going to be set on the backburner... Att has a time of year called "Iphone season" where they push the new versions and updates of the iphone to customers.... Seeing as how froyo itself was already released for almost every device on OTHER carriers and att has yet to push a single update aside from the eclaire update i doubt it will ever be coming.
Not to mention if anyone has noticed att removed ALOT of stuff from the captivates before they were able to ship them to customers... for example the third party apk allow button is completely gone from the stock phones due to att and their restrictions and the market having apps that just don't show up becuase of the way att wants to now start locking down phones like apple. (not trying to bash anyone or brands but from what ive seen from someone who loves to customize and believe anything i pay for is mine and i should be able to do as i wish with said product that's how it is in my eyes)
I think that since they have the rage over the iphones (another reason they try to sell them harder then any other phone is because of the "vast amount of accessories" ) it feels like they fell on the band wagon of the craze instead of actually worrying about ALL of their customers. It just seems like since iphone updates are pushed to phone and att doesnt have to deal with them, not to mention if the phone messes up it goes to an apple store and not att.
I've also heard rumors from att employees stating that something was signed with apple to put restrictions on android updates and phones in order to allow exclusivity for the iphone when it was first released. As to the truth behind this, anyones guess is as good as mine. Just seems funny how No att phones have gotten the froyo update unless they've (the customer) installed it themselves.
I wouldn't be looking forward to any updates from what i've seen on my end.

A.VOID said:
This sounds good in theory, but I think it has holes.
this would be the case for all phones on all carriers, but it isn't the same situation.
iphone updates are coming out all the time. With at&t subsidized out the butt on the iphone, I fail to believe they osu for all those updates.
I had a samsung blackjCk, and we went through the same thing with winmo, meanwhile other at&t phones got the updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AT&T has nothing to do with iPhone updates. Matter of fact, AT&T has nothing to do with iPhones at all, except sell them. All iPhone updates are done through iTunes and all iPhone support is handled by Apple. This is not a good comparison.
Even comparing WinMo doesn't really work. I had a Wizard on AT&T, and there was exactly one firmware update, even though there were other versions that were available later. Plus, Windows is not free and not based on open source code. So, carriers would expect to pay for updates with closed source operating systems.

Xaviorin said:
I've also heard rumors from att employees stating that something was signed with apple to put restrictions on android updates and phones in order to allow exclusivity for the iphone when it was first released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that were true, then Apple and AT&T would be facing some serious litigation. This is similar to the deals that Intel made with computer manufacturers, forcing them to slow leak AMD sales in order to sell more Intel chips. Intel paid quite a hefty fine and suffered a serious PR black eye. That type of practice stifles competition and is very, very illegal. So, I doubt that Apple and AT&T would even consider doing that.

Xaviorin said:
Id have to say honestly in my personal opinion based from facts from an inside source... At&t is so obsessed with the iphone anything that costs them money or time that doesn't increase profits is going to be set on the backburner... Att has a time of year called "Iphone season" where they push the new versions and updates of the iphone to customers.... Seeing as how froyo itself was already released for almost every device on OTHER carriers and att has yet to push a single update aside from the eclaire update i doubt it will ever be coming.
Not to mention if anyone has noticed att removed ALOT of stuff from the captivates before they were able to ship them to customers... for example the third party apk allow button is completely gone from the stock phones due to att and their restrictions and the market having apps that just don't show up becuase of the way att wants to now start locking down phones like apple. (not trying to bash anyone or brands but from what ive seen from someone who loves to customize and believe anything i pay for is mine and i should be able to do as i wish with said product that's how it is in my eyes)
I think that since they have the rage over the iphones (another reason they try to sell them harder then any other phone is because of the "vast amount of accessories" ) it feels like they fell on the band wagon of the craze instead of actually worrying about ALL of their customers. It just seems like since iphone updates are pushed to phone and att doesnt have to deal with them, not to mention if the phone messes up it goes to an apple store and not att.
I've also heard rumors from att employees stating that something was signed with apple to put restrictions on android updates and phones in order to allow exclusivity for the iphone when it was first released. As to the truth behind this, anyones guess is as good as mine. Just seems funny how No att phones have gotten the froyo update unless they've (the customer) installed it themselves.
I wouldn't be looking forward to any updates from what i've seen on my end.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Conspiracy theory much? Like someone said, your theories border on anti-competitive in practice. AT&T is also not so obsessed with the iPhone given how much they've diversified their smartphone portfolio in the past 9 months (+2 WebOS devices, +2 BlackBerrys, +3 Windows Phones, +5 Android devices).

I'm usually skeptical about these things, but this is about the only rumor that makes sense.
For those comparing it to the iphone, its like comparing oranges to apples. Apple pretty much takes care of everything on their side.At&t just peddles their product. Apple has a 400 person call center just for the iphone, next door to where I work.
Apple makes the hardware and creates the OS.
Samsung just makes hardware which is a good thing considering how bad their software engineers are at coding.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App

I'm more in the conspiracy theory side
Don't trust everything you read.
Thing about it deeply, what is more likely:
A Sammy employee risked his job, created an account just to create this post, and tell us the truth about the updates and how bad his employer is? seriously? What did he gain by doing this post? peace of mind? can he go to sleep now that he has revealed the truth of the US-only updates? Does really the Samsung employees care this much for only the US based users? This smells, and bad.
Now lets look at the conspiracy side. An AT&T employee notices our frustration against them. They see that seem to be more frustrated people are the non tech-savvy ones; that we got to admit they are more than us and represent a big number for them. On the other hand I bet they receive a gazillion calls from you guys on these subject.
Wouldn't be more likely than AT&T representative created that post to wash their hands and pass the blame to sammy? Isn't them who released a restricted phone and made a deal with Samsung saying that they will be in charge of this phone's updates? Samsungs cost in releasing an update of a phone that is almost equal to 6 other phones they released is null; whereas AT&T cost in updating their crap is high. Don't be blind. Carriers are the new tyrants. They will do anything in their power to get more money. If you could see what they are able to do in countries like mine you wont even doubt this. In my country of such a deal is made you can forget that you will ever get updates. There even is a carrier that, after 4 months passed that you have purchased a motorola's android based phone, charges you 10 uss monthly for MOTO BLUR, and this was written in the small print of the contract... seriously... I've seen carriers cancel their users contracts, saying they requested that, to bill them their contract-cancelation fee...
I could go on with this for pages... I've witnessed carriers lying, deceiving, and even more right in the people's face. If you want to check this, and know some spanish or use translators, just google "Claro hijos de puta" (sons of a...) or "claro estafa" (scam); both searches give more than 3 million results, and you wont imagine what you might find inside those pages...
This whole thing smells badly. And if I had to bet, I would say that post was made by a carrier to buy them time, or even to start making up an excuse so they wont ever release an update... after all, they would be the only ones that would benefit from such events...

I'm through waiting
This story was the final straw for me, whether it's true or not. I am tired of the drama and am no longer waiting for AT&T and/or Samsung to deliver what AT&T told me would happen when I bought the phone. If AT&T store staff said something incorrect it was corporate's fault for not guiding their staff correctly. I was told shortly Froyo was coming, but it never came. Samsung said on Twitter/Facebook we all would have Froyo last year. There is no excuse for what they have done, none. I've waded through the myriad of 3rd party ROMs and was leery of the leaked Froyo ones due to everyone seemed to have an issue here or there. The 9000 ROMs sounded exciting but came with issues I didn't want. I just want a working GPS and a stable phone, running Froyo, what I thought I was getting last summer.
Now that Rogers released a North American ROM and the talented coders have seized upon it, we seem to be approaching a new level of stability with Froyo. After reading up on the various Rogers ROM based images I installed Cognition (donation coming later tonight) and after 30 minutes of playing around, I am home with Froyo now. I am beyond tired of waiting for AT&T and/or Samsung to do the honorable thing for they are not honorable companies. I doubt another Samsung will grace my pocket and yet maybe it will be the 3rd party coders that will ultimately deliver what I have waited patiently for, for months. Wouldn't it be a wonderful environment if Samsung would just release the source to everything and let those out here, those infinitely more talented than Samsung staff, have access to the code they need to work pure magic.

Billabong81 said:
How could Samsung charge for an open-source project update? Obviously they must make some modifications to make it fit their phones, but at its core, its still an open source program.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
polarbee said:
Open source doesn't mean free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Open source comes under GPL license. This isn't the one that is of cost, but the efforts involved in packing for a device, its extensive testing is what is costly.
In the most simplest of terms, the following people would be involved:
Business Team x 3 people
Development Team x 6 people
Testing/QA Team x 10 people
To take care of these people:
Project Manager x 1 person
Team Leads x 3 people (1 for each team)
Taking this to 23 people, to say the least.
On an average, if we pay each person say $ 50k for 6 months effort, it would be $ 50,000 x 23 = $ 1,150,000 i.e., $ 1.15 millions for 6 months.
Now see, this is only the minimal scale. For a phone so wide spread, I would assume a team of atleast 50 where managers charge more than 100-200k a year.
Now u see why Samsung doesn't wish to put this kind of money into a phone already sold, and is looking into marketing newer phones.

I think its all hoopla.
This "leak" of sensitive information on one of many android forums is only going to reach the eyes of a hand full of readers.
We (the brave souls wanting new updates for our gadgets and willing to hack them to get it) are very few in numbers compared to the vast amounts of consumers who own this phone, and usually don't give a hoot about a new update/upgrade for their phones ROM, IF they even know what the heck it is. They only care that their calls and texts go through, and they can browse the web on their lunch break.
The ONLY issue that most would care about is the GPS issues we have had. And I bet that AT&T, and Samsung have both received tens of thousands of customer complaints regarding Mr. Joe Average not being able to find his way on his family vacation. Again, we are but a small number compared to that. I would think that alone would motivate something to happen, at least an OTA update to fix the GPS issues. Nope.
So other than an intellectual debate on "why haves", and "why have nots" on a forum like this, there is nothing else this message could possibly accomplish.
The above thread, and this one will slowly slide down the thread list and be forgotten and nothing else will change.

The Bottom Line
Rumors aside, if it doesn't sell more phones, minutes or data plans and it can be avoided without seriously upsetting customers, they won't bother. Outside of our merry band of flash-a-holics, what percent of Captivate owners even know what Froyo is or care?
Also, judging by the JH7 OTA debacle, Samsung's OTA upgrade capability is decidedly unreliable. I'd bet that caused a mountain of returns. AT&T HATES returns!!! Costs them a fortune. The cost of paying Samsung for a Froyo upgrade is a drop in the bucket by comparison. So a bad OTA system is worse than none at all. If AT&T can get away with avoiding it, they will.
I think our best hope is to make A LOT of noise! Complain to Samsung, AT&T and Google. Do it publicly on FB, Twitter, etc. Do it often. A small vocal group of XDA readers can probably stir up a decent amount of attention at AT&T if they coordinated their efforts.

Verizon / Samsung Corporate Contact Log

Updated 09/6/12 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=31190482&postcount=81
This is a combined log of my attempt to get answers from Verizon and Samsung regarding the encrypted bootloader. I currently have a ticket with level III tech support at Samsung. It took a huge dog and pony show to get this far and I have had several forum members contact me asking to pass along info and ask questions when I finally get a hold of the right people.
I posted most of this in another thread, but it not where it should have been so I am moving it for a mod so we can keep that other development thread clean. Its 8am EST and Samsung Level III should be open in three hours as they are not staffed 24/7 like Level II/I.
For the record Samsungs Tech Support phone number is 800-726-7864
Just remember the rep you talk to regardless of what their position in the company is had no say in the encrypting of the bootloader. Its not their fault Verizon screwed us, please keep that in mind if you call. Using 5c technical words will get you past Level I but level II seemed to be on point. It took some manipulative games to get the guy to admit there was even a level III department; at first he told me level II was the highest I could go in tech support. Will update with more info when I have something.
I am also considering contacting the firm that handled the Motorola V710 lawsuit against Verizon years ago. We won that one and anyone who wanted got to trade in their phone and accessories for a full refund, no ETF, and if they wanted could also get a new device w/o extending their contract. I hate lawyers and would rather cut off my pinky finger then deal with them but it may be the only option in the end. Its like Verizon delivered us cake, then shot our dog and walked away. So mentally exhausted dealing with this crap.
Lastly, I was able to get a hold of Verizon corporate and had a low level executive call me back. This was before the device was released and we knew the bootloader was encrypted. She told me to save her number, and I am glad I did because once we found out about the lockdown I called her back and left VM. Should hear back from her Monday.
Verizon's Corporate Contact Info.
Verizon Corporate Office Headquarters:
140 West Street
New York, NY 10007
Corporate Phone Number: 1-212-395-1000
Corporate Fax Number: 1-212-571-1897
Original Post:
Ok, just an update. Level III Samsung tech support is not 24/7 like Level II/I. I have a ticket in the system regarding the issue and its been forwarded to Level III.
They will be in tomorrow (Saturday) from 8am (PST) to 7pm (PST) and I have to call back to get a hold of someone in the Level III department. I will keep dragging this up the chain of command till I can get some answers. Level II once again confirmed what we already know, Verizon did mess with the phone. Level II said don't bother with Fastboot because were not getting in that way. I don't know if he was lying but he seemed to know exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned the odin/fastboot switch.
One more thing to note, I am not sure I believe him but he said that they sent the phones to Verizon, and its Verizon that did the messing around not Samsung. I find it hard to believe Verizon was able to do this without Samsung support.
I don't have high hopes of getting anything that will be able to help us out of Level III but I will try. They have also lodged a my customer complaint and supposedly I am going to be getting a call back from someone from their corporate office in consumer relations.
I wish I could help more on the technical side but my experience only takes me to the point where everyone else has gotten with fastboot. I am however quite the people person when it comes to making noise with corporations and will keep up the good fight with Verizon / Samsung Corporate.
If there is anything specific you want me to ask Level III send me a PM by tomorrow morning and I will address it with them when I call. I know enough that I should be able to at least hold a conversation with them on the subject but more ammo would be great. I would also be willing to conference call with a repeatable dev/mod when I call them so that you don't have to jump through the two hours of crap I just did to get this escalated.
Post 2: (A reply to a forum member asking for an update)
I asked them if there is a reason I can't get into fastboot and the guy said because Verizon has locked down the device. I asked him "how" and "why" but he was unable to provide me with an answer to both questions. He then referred me to Level III as he said they were the ones who could discuss how it was done. I asked him if there was a way around it through odin using .ops he went silent for a while and said he had no information to provide on the subject and just reiterated that Verizon has made changes to the device software and I would have to refer to them regarding those changes.
With regard to the "why" question he simply said that Samsung could not comment on carrier practices only that Verizon requested the lockdown and that the phones were sent to them first to have it applied. He made it sound like Samsung told them to go take a flying leap and Verizon went ahead and did it anyway. Again, were talking about a rep here so take it with a grain of salt.
I talked about the FCC's Block C agreement regarding carriers not locking devices but the rep said he did not have a comment on the subject as he was just tech support. Block C is probably the only legal course of action we have but despite the FCC saying they were going to enforce the rule, we all know how the FCC could give a crap.
I am going to flat out ask Level III to do the right thing and leak a file for us to fix the issue. I may be nuts but I am not delusional and have no real expectoration they will help. I am however going to do my best to get them to slip something that may help a dev find a solution. If I can get at least a small puzzle piece out of Level III it might be the crack in the dam we need to blow open the floodgates.
07/11/12 Samsung Level III blew me off yesterday as well saying they were still looking into the matter. I called again today and finally received an official reply. Samsung says they have no information exactly what Verizon has done to the phone, they do not know exactly what is and is not signed/encrypted, and they have no further information. I have submitted a complaint to the president of Samsung USA but thats as far as I could go with Samsung. They have closed my case and can not provide further information. I asked if they had an original system image before Verizon gimped the phone and they said "yes but we can not provide that to our customers per carrier agreement."
Lastly I was told that there is going to be a Verizon "Developer Edition" that you can buy directly from Samsung in the coming weeks. This is in "direct response to complaints filed by customers" according to Samsung and will be distributed and supported by Samsung directly. It will cost $600+ and basically be the same phone but w/o an signed/encrypted bootloader.
Off the record information from an unnamed outside source: Verizon is releasing a OTA update to patch the root exploit in the coming days. This OTA will break and prevent re-root as well as try and stop people from using the image off of the "Developer Edition" to mess with the "normal" Verizon Galaxy S3. I don't have specific details; sorry. Do not OTA unless you want to loose root and probably not get it back. Verizon is fk'ing pissed; I mean really pissed that we have root.
From what I am hearing, Verizon's "top %5 data abusers" are all typically rooted/romed. The whole point of locking this phone down was to mess with these unlimited data customers. Verizon started this war; let us end it and make them loath the day they decided to fk with the dev community.
Again, my case Support case has been closed with Samsung. We will get nothing further from them nor any direct help. My case with Verizon corporate is also closed; they said Samsung will offer a Developer model directly and if I wanted that kind of access I needed to talk to them not Verizon.
The lawyers still have not called me back. No shock.
Up until this point I have been angry; now I am pissed. This isn't over; not by a long shot.
Will update when I have more information.
07/17/12
Samsung "Office of the President" -
Phone 877-268-2121
eMail [email protected]
FYI Samsung records phone conversations between the 4th minute and the 18th minute. Anything you say after minute 4 and before minute 18 "MAY" be recorded. I know that sounds like a strange window of recording, but its straight out of the mouth of a sympathetic to the cause tech support rep. Just had a great conversation with a guy, nothing is fixed of course but needless to say, there are people in Samsung that have been hearing rumors that the company is tired of carrier's crap and with in the next few years will be offering all Samsung headsets for a subsidized price, directly through Samsung. There will probably be trade-in specials, loyalty discounts, etc. I can't wait not to buy my devices directly through Verizon! Secondly, as of now (Verizon lies again) anything software related with this phone is coming from, programmed by, and completely influenced by Verizon. Samsung manufacturing does not touch the device or support updates after its in the hands of Verizon. The developer model is not Verizon approved, nor is Verizon happy its going to be sold [from what I am told] however per FCC open network regulations Verizon has to allow the device on the network. Updates for the developer model will be directly from Samsung.
I was able to get the Samsung Apps (store) sideloaded on my device BTW. Verizon requested it be removed which is why its not on the device pre-installed. S-Suggest is NOT the same thing as Samsung Apps. Will Write something up here on XDA later when I get a chance.
07/24/12
The Electronic Frontier Foundation called me back and said they need more info on Block C. I am out of town until next Monday and let them know I would get back to them in a few days. They also are finding a lawyer who will do it pro bono. Looks like this may actually make it to court.

So we have root but we are still locked down unlike all other carriers. Basically this is going to turn into a Droid X situation and for those who know what I am talking about you know how bad this still sucks.
I am tired of this crap guys, and think with the amount of SG3 phones sold in the US and specifically Verizon, this is the time to strike back against all encrypted devices not just the GS3. We have dealt with this garbage long enough and now its time to end nonsense.
Kirtland and Packard, (310) 536-1000, 2361 Rosecrans Ave Ste 450, El Segundo, CA 90245
That's the law firm that won the huge case against Verizon over the Motorola v710 BT lockdown. I have left them a message asking if they will take this case too. In reality this one is going to vastly larger then the Moto case because of the number of users that have this device.
Please call them and let them know on the main VM that you too have been effected by this lockdown, or any lockdown in the US on any carrier. The more people who call the more likely they will take the case. Lots of people calling is how the guys over at Howard Forums were able to get the ball rolling on the v710, so let history repeat itself for the sake of every dev, phone enthusiast, and civil rights advocate.
ROM developers usually work off of donations and by encrypting this and other devices Verizon is stealing from these developers who's livelihood is phone software development. Software developers who want an open platform also have to deal with the hassle that Verizon and other carriers have put them through by locking down devices. If the personal computer was locked down like this when it was first created and sold to people we would never be where we were today technology wise. The crippling of our mobile devices needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.
Its time to take the fight to Verizon and hopefully end the lockdowns once and for all. If the lawfirm takes the case this is going to be winner takes all. This may be our best shot to end device lockdowns in the US once and for all.
I think the push we will make is going to be Block C. Normally Verizon could argue that they locked the device [against the FCC Block C mandate] because of network security. This is going to be hard for them to argue though when every other carrier in the US and internationally has not encrypted the device. It's a long shot, and its going to be up hill, but as far as I see it this is our best chance and the time to strike on this issue is now.
Samsung Level III opens in 30 min. Will update again soon.

Level III is not in on the weekends, so I was just told by the automated message I got when the guy transferred me to that department. ok... Not what they told me yesterday but ok.
So Monday at 8am PST it is, and that's also when Verizon corporate will be calling me back too as the past two calls they have made to me have been the ass crack of dawn. If I time it right I can conference the two in and let them try and point the finger at the other one, to each others faces. No more "That's what the manufacture wanted, go talk to them" vs "That's what the carrier wanted, talk to them" runaround bull****.
Anyway, no updates till Monday then. That gives me time to root.

i'll be the first to say it but thank you
going above and beyond especially considering nobody asked you to do this. great work and i hope it leads to some results

chill145 said:
i'll be the first to say it but thank you
going above and beyond especially considering nobody asked you to do this. great work and i hope it leads to some results
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes thank you 100%, we are all in this together.

Also please file FCC Consumer Complaints against Verizon for potentially violating the openness requirements of the Block C spectrum purchasing agreement.
https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000F
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/it-is-illegal-for-verizon-to-lock-some-bootloaders/
It's a long shot, but maybe worth it.

Have filed complaint with FCC and BBB, posted poor review on both Blue and White versons on VZW website, wall post ripping them apart on VZW facebook, poor reviews on every device site that will let me do so that I know of, personal contact with VZW reps filing complaints.
Any other avenues we can take?

Here's what I wrote in my FCC complaint:
The new Samsung Galaxy SIII on Verizon Wireless has a locked and encrypted bootloader, which appears to violate the openness requirements that Verizon agreed to when it purchased Block C, pursuant to § 27.16 (b) of 47 CFR Ch. I (10–1–10 Edition) available here-- http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title47-vol2-sec27-16.pdf
§ 27.16 (e) clearly states "Handset locking prohibited" except under certain circumstances previously delineated. The anti-consumer actions taken by Verizon impinge upon the free of use of devices by consumers, and potentially harms the livelihoods of developers, who may not be able to do their work on the device of their choice.
I would appreciate the FCC investigating and clarifying this situation.
Thank you,

Thinking further about it, with how prominent devices are in today's world, would various news providers not want to run this story as well?
I recommend tipping off any local newspaper and news station you have access to. Lets get this story out there~!

Thalinor said:
So we have root but we are still locked down unlike all other carriers. Basically this is going to turn into a Droid X situation and for those who know what I am talking about you know how bad this still sucks.
I am tired of this crap guys, and think with the amount of SG3 phones sold in the US and specifically Verizon, this is the time to strike back against all encrypted devices not just the GS3. We have dealt with this garbage long enough and now its time to end nonsense.
Kirtland and Packard, (310) 536-1000, 2361 Rosecrans Ave Ste 450, El Segundo, CA 90245
That's the law firm that won the huge case against Verizon over the Motorola v710 BT lockdown. I have left them a message asking if they will take this case too. In reality this one is going to vastly larger then the Moto case because of the number of users that have this device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that the dev's are working there rear ends off, and I appreciate all their efforts. I am truly pulling for them and hope that they can get the bootloader figured out. I'm not an expert, but in my opinion the ROMs on the DX didn't compare to a fully unlocked device and I'd prefer not to have to suffer through 2+ years of touchwiz.
Thalinor,
I agree that this maybe turning into the Droid X. As a droid x owner, waiting and watching for 18 months to see VZW and Motorola dump on us, I don't think we'll get anywhere with them. There was a huge effort on the DX with petitions, phone calls, emails, twitter, and FB posts.
Just a thought, but what about petitioning the law firm to take up this case. We are not going to get anywhere from VZW's or Samsung's pity for us. If this bootloader is truly encrypted, and if it is anything like the DX, the only way we will get this device completely unlocked is through a legal obligation on VZW's part. I think our energy would be better spent with the Attorneys who stand to profit from this case rather than burning our energy on VZW and Samsung who probably don't give a crap. I would think that the law-firm would have some interest in this (maybe?):

File with the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints/
Talk about the Block C complaints. Don't attack them.
Post on VZW's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/verizon
Talk about how dissatisfied you are and how you're looking to switch. Don't attack them.
Post on Samsung Mobile's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SamsungMobile
Don't attack them. Talk about how you will reconsider purchasing their devices in the future. They don't want to have to lock bootloaders, Verizon is almost certainly making them do it.
File with the BBB:
http://www.bbb.org/us/verizon-wireless/
Talk about how anti-competitive their practices are and how dissatisfied you are as a customer. Require an answer.
Complain to Verizon Wireless' Site:
https://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/contact/email.jsp
Don't attack them. Keep in mind you're talking to an employee, they didn't choose to lock down the bootloader. Be respectful but make your concern noted.
The problem lies with Verizon Wireless. They believe that there are not enough people concerned about this to affect their profit margin. You need to show that you will vote with your dollar and move somewhere else if this complaint is not answered. Also, bring up the Block C agreement. There are potential legal repercussions-- meaning that the FCC may be the best place to direct your complaints. Be respectful, I know we're upset, but being pissed off won't get you anywhere.

I just filled out a complaint with the FCC basically asking them to enforce the Block C agreement from Verizon.
I'll phone the lawyers posted on the first page when I get a chance at work tomorrow.

amt897 said:
File with the FCC:
http://www.fcc.gov/complaints/
Talk about the Block C complaints. Don't attack them.
Post on VZW's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/verizon
Talk about how dissatisfied you are and how you're looking to switch. Don't attack them.
Post on Samsung Mobile's Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/SamsungMobile
Don't attack them. Talk about how you will reconsider purchasing their devices in the future. They don't want to have to lock bootloaders, Verizon is almost certainly making them do it.
File with the BBB:
http://www.bbb.org/us/verizon-wireless/
Talk about how anti-competitive their practices are and how dissatisfied you are as a customer. Require an answer.
Complain to Verizon Wireless' Site:
https://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/contact/email.jsp
Don't attack them. Keep in mind you're talking to an employee, they didn't choose to lock down the bootloader. Be respectful but make your concern noted.
The problem lies with Verizon Wireless. They believe that there are not enough people concerned about this to affect their profit margin. You need to show that you will vote with your dollar and move somewhere else if this complaint is not answered. Also, bring up the Block C agreement. There are potential legal repercussions-- meaning that the FCC may be the best place to direct your complaints. Be respectful, I know we're upset, but being pissed off won't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't even own an S3, nor am I on Verizon, but damn't...I'm doing every one of things and calling just out of principle. I'm glad I left Verizon a long time ago, but they still tried to get more for money for almost 2 years. Damn near ruined my credit...assholes are going down.
Sent from my SGH-I727 using xda premium

I'd love to see this in major media:
"The Samsung S3 is a excellent smartphone, but Verizon's software modifications have made it unlikely to be upgraded and supported long term. If that's important to you, we recommend you consider another carrier."

My girlfriend used to work for the local news, I'll talk to her about contacting her friends at the station and see if I can get a face to face, or at least an email contact. I'll have to dig up all the info I can on the block C stuff and locked/encrypted bootloaders to take to them first.
Sent from my Droid X until I get my SGS3

block c
The Block C issue relates more toward unlocked devices like the nexus on the play store than unlocked bootloaders. You may be able to press the unlocked bootloader issue under the 'open applications' provision, but obviously that did a ton of good for Google Wallet. Of course, I can't find a single device you can use on Verizon's network that isn't held in verizon's death grip, so even the open device provision seems to be being ignored. The worst part is that verizon filed suits against these provisions and LOST. But true to form, if you have enough money and pull, and are willing to screw your customers as every turn (share everything plans are such a great deal right?) you can break the law over and over in broad daylight, and no one with power will bat an eye. Also, I'm not sure why the 'open application' provision was never really used as a battering ram when in came to things like tethering applications.

I think this type of work is very important. Thanks so much. Very much looking forward to hearing more from the companies themselves about why they make these types of decisions. Can't wait for an update here.
Sent from my Incredible 2 using xda app-developers app

Complained with the FCC, here is my complaint for anyone looking for somewhat of a template.
Recently, after preordering a Samsung Galaxy s3 handset from Verizon, I learned that they have violated the openness requirements of the Block C spectrum purchasing agreement by encrypting my device. This directly impacts my ability to enjoy my phone, and take advantage of the spectrum which Verizon owns. While I understand that the purchasing agreement gives Verizon leeway in regards to "reasonable" protection of the network, no other carrier in the United States (or the world), has done this, leading me to believe that this action is indeed unreasonable. It is unfair and anti-competitive for a company to misuse frequencies they own in this way.
I appreciate your time, and would appreciate a response in this matter.
Thank you,

With Verizon Twitter claiming it was Samsung, I'm curious what both companies said.

skennelly said:
I know that the dev's are working there rear ends off, and I appreciate all their efforts. I am truly pulling for them and hope that they can get the bootloader figured out. I'm not an expert, but in my opinion the ROMs on the DX didn't compare to a fully unlocked device and I'd prefer not to have to suffer through 2+ years of touchwiz.
Thalinor,
Just a thought, but what about petitioning the law firm to take up this case. We are not going to get anywhere from VZW's or Samsung's pity for us. If this bootloader is truly encrypted, and if it is anything like the DX, the only way we will get this device completely unlocked is through a legal obligation on VZW's part. I think our energy would be better spent with the Attorneys who stand to profit from this case rather than burning our energy on VZW and Samsung who probably don't give a crap. I would think that the law-firm would have some interest in this (maybe?):
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the whole point! I certainly don't have the money to go up against Verizon and do not want to make a dime out of this; that's not the point at all. I want Verizon to once and for all agree to stop ****ing with our phones. Phones should be sold locked not signed/encrypted.
Locked protects Verizon or the manufacture from having to eat the costs of a new phone when an end user breaks their device doing something irresponsible. I don't want Verizon paying for people's screwed up devices because eventually it will lead to MY bill going up. Its not my fault if someone screw's up their device. On the other hand by encrypting the bootloader Verizon is forcing people to do things that may lead to breaking your phone. If the manufacture offered a phone number for unlocking, where you would agree that unless it was something hardware defective, if you unlock and your device breaks, its not under warranty. Problem solved for everyone; no encrypted bootloader needed.
I am going after Verizon but this is really about every carrier who gimps cell phones. Smartphones have become pocket computers. They are no longer PDA's, or "like" pocket computers, they ARE pocket computers. Hell, my SG3 is got better hardware specs than the **** netbooks people waited in line for last black Friday at Walmart. If we consider netbooks in that they come giving the buyer full administrative access over the device and yet still give the end user the option to hook it up to Wi-Fi. One way or another my devices are hooking up to a company who I pay for data and/or voice service. My rights should be universal and now that the device in my pocket has evolved into a full blown computer, my access rights should evolve as well. Whether its a computer in your pocket or a computer on your desk, it can be used in accordance with your providers service agreement, or it can be abused.
Prejudging your entire customer base to abuse your network and handing down sentence as judge, jury, and executioner like Verizon has done, before people have even had the chance to make the decision to do right or wrong; to me that just violates every ideal set forth in this countries constitution. I am ****ing sick of corporate america ****ting on this countries citizens, and the whole god damn world for that matter. It needs to stop. While I despise lawyers to the core, I sincerely hope they take on this case and prove there are still people in the field who remember why their profession exists (Hint: Its NOT to make money) and that there is some justice left in this country.
/end rant
Update: Talked to Verizon Exec, they have passed info on to the lawyers to look over and may or may not get back to me; at this point its out of her hands.
Update: I have not heard back from the lawyers above, but another user here on XDA PM'd me and said they were able to talk to someone today who told them that the legal team was looking into the case and make a decision after getting more information. They have my number, if they want to call me they can; if not I could care less who spear heads this as long as the battle is fought and won.
Update: I called Samsung, talked to Level I, they tried to transfer me to level III, I was put on told and Level I came back and said they would call me back later. The call never came. I will try them again more vigorously tomorrow.
MichaelVash7886 said:
With Verizon Twitter claiming it was Samsung, I'm curious what both companies said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LMFAO @ Verizon's blatant bull**** lies. Why would Samsung decide, at their own free will and expense, to sign-encrypt ONLY Verizon's Galaxy S3, and not one other carrier in the world? Verizon is full of **** and the fact they think the line "Its the other guys fault" is actually going to work, is flat out ****ing insulting.
Screenshot that and post it here please. I do not use social networking; if they really need to spy on me they have my smartphone information, and know where to find me.

Why isn't there more of a rally against AT&T?

I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?

AnthomX said:
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.

burhanistan said:
Don't give AT&T your business? I know the locked bootloader issue incenses the Android modding community, but the vast majority of consumers don't know and don't care. AT&T is practically the government, and they don't care either. It's frustrating, but if you don't like it please vote with your dollars.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.

AnthomX said:
I know that Dan found an exploit, I have a feeling this is part of why nobody seems to be complaining to AT&T about the locked bootloader, but the problem is that it isn't a permanent fix, granted we have the ability to disable automated updates, etc. My problem is that AT&T is going to lock all devices from here on out, simply because we allowed them too.
So what can we do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices. Congress has given the carriers most of the deciding power over what extent the end-user may manipulate the software on the device. After a petition gained enough friction and reached the White House, the executive branch has agreed consumers deserve the right to invoke their will over devices sold to them without criminal liability, there has yet been any legislative change regarding the matter.
Ultimately, what we can do is multi-faceted to get the attention of carriers [AT&T] to cave to our demands:
1: We can vote with our money by refusing to purchase devices distributed by them, citing their abuse of power over devices sold to consumers -- leaving us no freedom to do as we please with merchandise we contractually own.
2: We can appeal to authority by raising the issue to a federal level to be examined by either higher courts, consumer affairs, Better Business Bureau, or writing your congressman.
3: Start an online petition and hope it gains enough traction to put AT&T and other carriers in a negative light publically on the national stage.
These options work well with numbers and have a better chance of success when done in conjunction with one another. The armchair approach has very little chance of success and often doesn't even merit a reply by way of spokesperson.

AnthomX said:
I can agree with that, my only complaint is the small majority of us that notice the lock. Speaking with our money in this case isn't going to make much of a point. There simply isn't enough of us to make them take a hit in their margins. So my guess is that in this instance, it is, what it is, for us? I know AT&T provides us (me and family) the best service in terms of voice/data.
That is just disappointing, because other carriers will follow behind it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!

antde201 said:
Right now there isn't many legal avenues in favor of the consumer concerning the access to unlocked devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AGREED very much Burhanistan, I know that is a hit for AT&T, but you know, they could offer repair services at a decent rate that could fix these bad flashes, as most of the time only a JTAG is needed. Which leads into support and encouragement for the Android communities. But, one can dream. They are more about that profit margin than a profit margin AND great customer service.
Antde, I am looking at starting a petition, maybe gain some traction there? Who knows, but I think you are right, in the end, AT&T doesn't want our business, and I am ok with that. Unfortunately it will be a headache similar to swapping from Apple after using them for so many years. Time to bust out the aspirin I guess. We will see.

Becasue carriers dont care about what we think about locked bootloaders.At the end of the day this device is making millions for them think about it to them it doesnt make a difference.I myself work for a carrier in the U.S and trust me to them what ever rants and complaints we post mean squat....
Anyways its going to be unlocked soon when the VZW releases so whatever I dont even get why we should make such a big deal locked bootloaders always get hacked ...

burhanistan said:
I agree, but to play devil's advocate, I can see why AT&T would want to lock down devices. I imagine since they've been selling Android devices they've had to process tons of RMAs on devices that were bricked by amateurs installing the wrong ROMs. That may well amount to a minuscule hit in their bloated profit margin, but a corporation tends to do whatever it can to prevent dollars from leaking out. If the locked bootloader prevents the casual ROM flasher from bricking a new S4, then they view that as success. I don't know if that's why they did it, though.
The other side to that, of course, that an unlocked bootloader makes it easy to restore a bricked device back to stock. I'd like to see AT&T and other carriers reach out to the dev community more and have some provisions for installing alternate ROMs and OSes on the devices. I'd also like them to just sell me bandwidth and not interfere with content or operating systems, but I won't hold my breath!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's more to a carrier's decision to lock down a device's bootloader than just pure spite and asserting their control. Carriers are also charged with mobile security, protection of their assets (bandwidth), and again security.
An unlocked bootloader theoretically opens the floodgates to a plethora of security threats to both the device and information stored and/or shared therein. Google and their partners are pushing mobile security to both stay relevant in the mobile OS market and to appeal to other markets where they may have been previously overlooked, such as defense and business.
You also have to consider the possibility of unregulated mobile tethering which falls under the umbrella of loss prevention to any business.
Lastly, as you and others have mentioned, the possibility of insurance claims due to bricked devices. Though I'd argue that this area doesn't pose much risk to the carrier directly as you void your warranty as soon as you flash a custom ROM.
So with all of these facets together, you'd see how it would be a no brainer to a corporation to purchase the secure version of an OEM device. Especially if you've chosen to adopt a subsidized device. The contract you sign is subject to whatever terms they produce and if you do not agree, you're free to stay with your current device and leave when your contract expires. I don't care for this sentiment, but it's the reality they have procured.

I think they did it to fight back against tethering.

ATT getting phone manufacturers to lock their phones started a while back. IIRC the first big uproar was for the HTC Vivid. IMHO it's for security and ATT keeping their big accounts. BB ruled for so long because of security. iPhones are the same way. Companies want a secure device. Moto (one of the main ones that market to business use) has always had the stingiest bootloaders regardless of carrier.

poofyhairguy said:
I think they did it to fight back against tethering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya because that really stopped us from tethering... Oh wait..

Verizon refuses to publish my reviews of the GS5

I've submitted two reviews on the Verizon website giving my honest opinion of the device. They have denied posting both times due to what they say violates the guidelines. Admittedly, my first review was rather harsh. After the first denial, I went back and read the guidelines and posted a very toned down version. I didn't post anything that was specifically prohibited in the second review. They did not see it that way and denied posting the second version for the same given reason. Apparently, Verizon will not tolerate ANY criticism of their company by reviewers.
Here are their guidelines:
Verizon values your feedback!
When writing your review, please consider the following guidelines:
Focus on the product and your individual experience using it
Provide details about why you liked or disliked a product
All submitted reviews are subject to the terms set forth in our Terms of Use
We reserve the right not to post your review if it contains any of the following types of content or violates other guidelines:
Obscenities, discriminatory language, or other language not suitable for a public forum
Advertisements, “spam” content, or references to other products, offers, or websites
Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, physical addresses or other forms of contact information
Critical or spiteful comments on other reviews posted on the page or their authors
In addition, if you wish to share feedback with us about product selection, pricing, ordering, delivery or other customer service issues, please do not submit this feedback through a product review. Instead, contact us directly.
Enjoy writing your review!

What is the text of your review?

KarlStyles said:
What is the text of your review?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't keep my exact text, but this is pretty close to what I said in my edited review:
Samsung did a great job designing this device. Why isn't this device sold with an unlockable bootloader as the manufacturer intended? Power users should be able to use their own property as they see fit as long as it doesn't break any laws.
I'm disappointed that Verizon chose not to offer the 32gb version of this phone. Because of the way that Android manages memory, many apps can't be moved to the Micro SD card. For users that need a lot of apps, memory will quickly become an issue.
I'm not happy that the phone is sold loaded down with software that is designed to promote sales and marketing of other products and I'm not allowed to disable or uninstall it.

They own the site so they're entitled to filter content as they see fit.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using xda app-developers app

mike163 said:
I didn't keep my exact text, but this is pretty close to what I said in my edited review:
Samsung did a great job designing this device. Why isn't this device sold with an unlockable bootloader as the manufacturer intended? Power users should be able to use their own property as they see fit as long as it doesn't break any laws.
I'm disappointed that Verizon chose not to offer the 32gb version of this phone. Because of the way that Android manages memory, many apps can't be moved to the Micro SD card. For users that need a lot of apps, memory will quickly become an issue.
I'm not happy that the phone is sold loaded down with software that is designed to promote sales and marketing of other products and I'm not allowed to disable or uninstall it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't disagree with anything you said, but it does fall out of their guidelines. It is more a complaint against Verizon than a review of the phone. Maybe the way to go about it is to rephrase it more like a product review. For example, instead of generalizing on limited apps to card, phrase it as your experience. Something like "unlike previous phones, the new android system didn't let me move as many apps to the external card. As a result, I find the 16 gb storage is filling up quickly." Then move to disappointed that Verizon doesn't have 32gb version.
Similarly you can mention that the device runs ok, and Samsung added a feature to turn off system apps in order to conserve battery and reduce clutter. But then move to however there is a lot of bloat that can't be turned off.
I'm not sure what to do with the rooting portion, maybe keep it as a final note rather than making that your main point. I would also add a starting statement of "I've used the phone for x days and here's my impression so far". That may be enough to qualify it to their standard.
Btw, you didn't mention the fact that Verizon disabled two of the main advertised features of the phone - download boost and finger print payments.

You must be maintain guidelines.. All time..

I'm considering going back to T-Mobile over the S5 root issues. It gets worse and worse each year with them. I've been a loyal customer for 10 years and they took my unlimited away, bloated my phone with apps, raised rates and now they pretty much don't allow the truth to be told on their site. I've been due for an upgrade for a LONG time and I think I might take up t-mo's buy out your contract thing just to stick it to them.

1timer said:
I'm considering going back to T-Mobile over the S5 root issues. It gets worse and worse each year with them. I've been a loyal customer for 10 years and they took my unlimited away, bloated my phone with apps, raised rates and now they pretty much don't allow the truth to be told on their site. I've been due for an upgrade for a LONG time and I think I might take up t-mo's buy out your contract thing just to stick it to them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm debating going with you to be honest.

thewebsiteisdown said:
I'm debating going with you to be honest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me too. Another Cincinnatian here as well. Shame T-Mo coverage isn't that great here. Neither is Sprint...only good ones are VZW and ATT and C-Bell (now VZW! I think I am gonna puke).

SOCOM-HERO said:
Me too. Another Cincinnatian here as well. Shame T-Mo coverage isn't that great here. Neither is Sprint...only good ones are VZW and ATT and C-Bell (now VZW! I think I am gonna puke).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look what I just read.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...s-browsing-to-advertisers-20140426-zqzzq.html

thewebsiteisdown said:
Look what I just read.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/te...s-browsing-to-advertisers-20140426-zqzzq.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you know that every other provider DOESN'T do this? Doubt it's just VZW.

jmill75 said:
Do you know that every other provider DOESN'T do this? Doubt it's just VZW.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon has their phones locked down completely and T-mobile doesn't. There for I can rid the problem with T-mobile pretty easily, not so much with Verizon. That's my point what's yours?

thewebsiteisdown said:
Verizon has their phones locked down completely and T-mobile doesn't. There for I can rid the problem with T-mobile pretty easily, not so much with Verizon. That's my point what's yours?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL, yes you may be able to get rid of carrier IQ type programs running on your phone. Not sure what this has to do with TMOBILE seeing what websites you are visiting using there network and selling this to advertising companies etc....
Ex 2: Just because I run Chrome in incognito mode doesn't mean Time Warner doesn't monitor my traffic.
Back to you, whats your point, you said it like "OMG LOOK AT WHAT I JUST READ" "BAD VERIZON"
LOLOLOLOLOL

jmill75 said:
LOL, yes you may be able to get rid of carrier IQ type programs running on your phone. Not sure what this has to do with TMOBILE seeing what websites you are visiting using there network and selling this to advertising companies etc....
Ex 2: Just because I run Chrome in incognito mode doesn't mean Time Warner doesn't monitor my traffic.
Back to you, whats your point, you said it like "OMG LOOK AT WHAT I JUST READ" "BAD VERIZON"
LOLOLOLOLOL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Almost all mega-corps data mine like crazy. Fine. Discover that I like rooting on XDA, have a facebook account, play video games...I don't care.
What I do care about is being able to do what I want, when I want with my device. VZW doesn't seem to care about the customer at all anymore.

SOCOM-HERO said:
Almost all mega-corps data mine like crazy. Fine. Discover that I like rooting on XDA, have a facebook account, play video games...I don't care.
What I do care about is being able to do what I want, when I want with my device. VZW doesn't seem to care about the customer at all anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly thank you for summing it up for me.

VZW, and ATT, are required by law to allow you to network unlock the device, not boot loader unlock. The carrier covers warranty claims on the device, therefore it is in their interest to minimize the amount of damage "power users" can do to their devices
in my opinion, this trend of carriers locking bootloaders is the direct result of unscrupulous "modders" sending in for warranty or insurance claims after bricking their devices.
finally, we are by far the minority of smartphone users. a very very small percentage of Samsung, or the carriers, customer base and we DO have other options. the Nexus line, HTC with their unlockable bootloaders, GPE, and Dev edition devices.

/rant sorry
Russ77 said:
great input, thanks.
call it whatever you want, companies are in business to make money. if they're giving up profit margin due to fraudulent warranty claims on modified devices, they're well within their rights to sell locked devices.
was anyone here really surprised that the s5 is locked? really?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How much profit has been lost on this? $10k? $1 million? If you took the entire user base of XDA or any other tech forum and had all of them return broken phones, then you'd attention of a company like VZW. Otherwise, they don't care. They just want to pick a fight they can win easily and make the "modding" community look bad because 1% have not followed directions or are just plain dumb.
A) if you bring in a rooted device that is bricked, they won't even offer you a claim
B) How many people are dumb enough to spend hours on XDA and other sites following instructions and asking questions, only to just give up and go back to VZW/ATT with their bricked phone and say "Idk how this happened?"
Please. These companies aren't in business to make money, they are in business to advance an agenda for shareholders while raking in the money from consumers who have a rapidly disappearing range of options to consider. Cincinnati is a great recent example. Our local provider just got bought out by VZW and at the same time, laid off a decent chunk of staff to make way for the corporate shift. All the while, these same companies lie to the customer with their marketing fluff.
I am not an advocate for one carrier over another, as I have no vested interest in any one of them over another. However, I will say that T-Mo's "in your face" approach to their new marketing is quite polarizing to the rest of the status quo in the industry of "corporate bs doublespeak" where one day you have a contract for $99/mo unlimited everything, and the next, you are paying $130 with a data cap. (Which happens to be what happened to me).
If the PC industry was this way, we wouldn't have half the progress we have seen in the last 20 years. Instead, the PC industry (mac included) embraced unique user created content (hackers included) and actually employed some of those who were great at it to work for them. But, NO, not in the telecom industry. It is the most ridiculous double standard.
So yes, these companies can go shove it. I'm done here. I won't be getting an S5 or and HTC M8 at this point. I have analyzed the phones and neither one is getting the "ok" from me anyhow. I just think it is very interesting how much a company is willing to combat what the "android community," if you can even call it one, has become.
A bunch of polarizing, angry tech loving people who never agree on anything, myself included. Get me out of here. I'm done.

Make it easy on yourself. Don't buy Samsung-Verizon ****. I got an m8. Sharp looking phone, rooted and unlocked in days. Even if you rock stock, there is far less bloat. Sense isn't the steaming pile that touchwiz is. And they sell 32 GB for the same price as this unholy garbage.

SOCOM-HERO said:
Me too. Another Cincinnatian here as well. Shame T-Mo coverage isn't that great here. Neither is Sprint...only good ones are VZW and ATT and C-Bell (now VZW! I think I am gonna puke).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm from NKY and just switched from sprint to T-Mobile. I don't get LTE in NKY, and I haven't been to Cinci yet since the switch. That being said, my coverage has been pretty good and so long as I'm in anything resembling civilization I pretty much always get 4g (5-10Mbps). It's not all bad, and hopefully LTE is on the way, Unlimited data is nice, and I have JUMP, so being able to upgrade yearly is awesome as well.

1timer said:
I'm considering going back to T-Mobile over the S5 root issues. It gets worse and worse each year with them. I've been a loyal customer for 10 years and they took my unlimited away, bloated my phone with apps, raised rates and now they pretty much don't allow the truth to be told on their site. I've been due for an upgrade for a LONG time and I think I might take up t-mo's buy out your contract thing just to stick it to them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They didn't take away unlimited, they basically forced you to opt out of that option in order to pay for contract price phones when you upgrade. I've never had the unlimited, so it's nothing I really bothered to complain about. I did however, end up doubling my coverage for the same price one day 2 years ago when I was on the My Verizon app, and noticed they were offering it. Of course they didn't bother to advertise it anywhere else though.
I will never lose Verizon. I know it sucks how freaking crazy they are locking everything, but there are Devs out there who always find a way. I can not simply give up the best coverage just for root. As much as it might suck one day, not being able to actually use your phone due to **** service would be even worse.
---------- Post added at 12:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 AM ----------
k.electron said:
Make it easy on yourself. Don't buy Samsung-Verizon ****. I got an m8. Sharp looking phone, rooted and unlocked in days. Even if you rock stock, there is far less bloat. Sense isn't the steaming pile that touchwiz is. And they sell 32 GB for the same price as this unholy garbage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung phones are superior to HTC. Not just my opinion, but basically backed up by facts. S5 has the best display on the market, hands down. Faster processor, better camera, better layout, better extras. The only thing the HTC has over the S5 is exterior speakers, but honestly, who even uses them that much? You're either listening to music on your headphones, or plugging the phone into better speakers anyways

[Poll] Do you think Verizon has the right to lock the S6 bootloader (or any)?

I mean come on seriously Verizon in my opinion already charges too much just for their data plans and then you pay for a $600 phone on top of it that you can't even mod, no flashing AOSP for you, no experimenting with the phone that you OWN! I switched to T-Mobile a few weeks ago just for this reason I found out TWRP came out for the S6 on T-Mobile and then I thought no way am I going to miss out on CM and other AOSP ROMS I love having the ability to change my kernel and ROM sure there is SafeStrap which I don't really know when that will come out for Verizon S6 but you can't install AOSP ROMS on it there is no REAL freedom until you have an unlocked bootloader.
I made this to see how many people think like me when it comes to Verizon locking bootloaders.
Do you think Verizon owns their phones and they have every right to lock down their phones?
Or do you think you are paying these crazy amounts of money for a phone you can't even customize?
If you want to comment saying why you chose your answer that would be great! You don't have to though.
Edit: worded wrong The thing that should replace yes is "I think having a locked bootloader is fine".

I could either have an unlocked bootloader on a network with terrible service or a locked boot loader on a fantastic network. I choose the latter. Got lucky we got root but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I would have gotten the nexus 6 if I was still that into Roms. Root will keep me very happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2

hopesrequiem said:
I could either have an unlocked bootloader on a network with terrible service or a locked boot loader on a fantastic network. I choose the latter. Got lucky we got root but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I would have gotten the nexus 6 if I was still that into Roms. Root will keep me very happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand Verizon has the best service but I am saying wouldn't it be nice to have both an unlocked bootloader for easy root and custom recoverys AND the nice Verizon service. Thanks for the response

ethanscooter said:
I understand Verizon has the best service but I am saying wouldn't it be nice to have both an unlocked bootloader for easy root and custom recoverys AND the nice Verizon service. Thanks for the response
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Omg yeah that would be THE best lol. If only the nexus 6 wasn't so big
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2

hopesrequiem said:
Omg yeah that would be THE best lol. If only the nexus 6 wasn't so big
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then vote no lol that is what the poll is about no means having both unlocked bootloader and great service on the galaxy s6.
xD

Isn't your first option misleading thus skewing everyone to vote for the 2nd option? Wouldn't it be more fair to have the first option read
"Is it OK that Verizon makes the phone extra secure by locking the bootloader"
They do not own the phones unless you are leasing yours. I am also not seeing the point of this poll...to show how many here in a rooting hacking development site are unhappy because they can't do anything with the phone? I understand your frustration, I am just trying to see the point here.
Maybe you should ask if Verizon has the right to gain more commercial and military contracts by making the phone secure. Just playing devil's advocate here.
Isn't this poll akin to asking a group of kids "Who wants ice cream?" Just sayin'

KennyG123 said:
Isn't your first option misleading thus skewing everyone to vote for the 2nd option? Wouldn't it be more fair to have the first option read
"Is it OK that Verizon makes the phone extra secure by locking the bootloader"
They do not own the phones unless you are leasing yours. I am also not seeing the point of this poll...to show how many here in a rooting hacking development site are unhappy because they can't do anything with the phone? I understand your frustration, I am just trying to see the point here.
Maybe you should ask if Verizon has the right to gain more commercial and military contracts by making the phone secure. Just playing devil's advocate here.
Isn't this poll akin to asking a group of kids "Who wants ice cream?" Just sayin'
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good post. I agree.
I didn't take the poll because I feel Verizon can do whatever they like since I knew all of it up front, yet the first choice also includes an untruth....that Verizon owns the phone.
I own my phone, and I think Verizon made their choice clear before I purchased it.
Buyer beware.
Also....if you think they are just getting rich from us....I suggest you buy Verizon stock and share in the wealth.

The poll has 2 selections which are both invalid.
Bottom line is, if you wish to connect your device to the Verizon network, your device should follow their standards. Don't see a problem with that. If standardizing and locking devices keeps the network superior, I support them.

Unlocked Bootloader Is A Major Disincentive To Change Devices
As many are saying, I will not change devices (currently, Verizon HTC M8), unless I can properly mod my new device with root and recovery, and the unlocked bootloader is the absolute prerequisite for this ability to produce the optimal features, performance, and aesthetics in any new device.

Verizon made a marketing choice between selling supportability and network costs (no root means all phones allegedly have the some OS and basic settings, network has been discussed) or the cost of hiring people for support that can do more than read a script and follow a flow chart, which is what would be needed if they allowed for rooting. Also, think of the variety of phones. If they sold one brand of phone, and maybe only 2 or 3 of that brands models, supportability would not be as much of an issue.
Do I like being locked out from under the hood of my phone? No, of course not. Why else would I be on this site??
Do I understand their reasoning? Yes! Good technicians are not cheap. The person you call for tech help probably starts at under $12 an hour, and *might* have an A+ certification.
I'd rather have good cell service at a relatively reasonable rate and a variety of smartphones to choose from than pay how ever much extra it would cost to hire actual technicians to troubleshoot the myriad of issues opening the bootlocker would cost. Even with the "If you brek in, you don;t get support" type wanings, they would still have to pay hundreds iof not thousands of manhours for all the schmucks that would go in, unlock their phones, throw on custom ROM, or just start deleting files, and still call Verizon Support to fix it.
Source of my opinion - I have worked tech support for years. No amount of warnings, labels, etc will prevent customers for demanding you fix their stupidity, even when they admit that is the problem.

hopesrequiem said:
I could either have an unlocked bootloader on a network with terrible service or a locked boot loader on a fantastic network. I choose the latter. Got lucky we got root but I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I would have gotten the nexus 6 if I was still that into Roms. Root will keep me very happy.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best network is very subjective to the area/region your in the most. In southwestern Ohio it is defiantly NOT the best network.
But I agree with OP on we should be allowed to unlock bootloader.

bkeaver said:
Best network is very subjective to the area/region your in the most. In southwestern Ohio it is defiantly NOT the best network.
But I agree with OP on we should be allowed to unlock bootloader.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THANK YOU!!! It's like seriously we just want to use CWM or TWRP on OUR PHONES WE PAID FOR it is just ridiculous how they expect us to pay all this money for a phone that we own that we can't even modify!

Unfortunately all the b**ching and complaining isn't going to change that anytime soon I'm afraid

While I hate restrictions and censorship and over-protectiveness, I realize big red will only change when the market demands it. Unfortunately, we're too small a percentage of said market for the other players to even speak about bootloaders and root access, much less convince Verizon that they need to change. All Verizon cares about is the bottom line $$$, and apparently locking down everything is more profitable than attracting xda members to their network. As if they need the money, lol. I live in an area where there is only one choice, so I take what I can get.
I agree, the poll question is totally like asking a bunch of dairy-tolerant children if they want ice cream. I'd rather see something like "if you could pay more and waive any software support for a mobile device that has an unlocked bootloader, would you and how much more would you be willing to pay?" I suppose that question was sort of answered with the Google Edition devices (answer: $450 was too much for most) and sort of with the Nexus devices. I would pay at least $100 personally for an open bootloader, and probably waive the warranty completely. How could this not make Verizon money. Oh and my problem with the Nexus devices was the network exclusivity and then the Nexus 6 just being too big.

The real problem is there is no good developer program with Verizon or Samsung. If you buy a dev edition phone you are stuck with the OS that comes on it and Samsung's dev program is terrible. Verizon needs to create a good dev program with unlocked and not supported phones but give access to OTA updates. It's that simple...

MOS95B said:
Verizon made a marketing choice between selling supportability and network costs (no root means all phones allegedly have the some OS and basic settings, network has been discussed) or the cost of hiring people for support that can do more than read a script and follow a flow chart, which is what would be needed if they allowed for rooting. Also, think of the variety of phones. If they sold one brand of phone, and maybe only 2 or 3 of that brands models, supportability would not be as much of an issue.
Do I like being locked out from under the hood of my phone? No, of course not. Why else would I be on this site??
Do I understand their reasoning? Yes! Good technicians are not cheap. The person you call for tech help probably starts at under $12 an hour, and *might* have an A+ certification.
I'd rather have good cell service at a relatively reasonable rate and a variety of smartphones to choose from than pay how ever much extra it would cost to hire actual technicians to troubleshoot the myriad of issues opening the bootlocker would cost. Even with the "If you brek in, you don;t get support" type wanings, they would still have to pay hundreds iof not thousands of manhours for all the schmucks that would go in, unlock their phones, throw on custom ROM, or just start deleting files, and still call Verizon Support to fix it.
Source of my opinion - I have worked tech support for years. No amount of warnings, labels, etc will prevent customers for demanding you fix their stupidity, even when they admit that is the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has nothing to do with hiring technicians to fix rooted phones...that is such a small small percentage of actual sales and technical errors. It is purely to provide maximum security for Exchange services for commercial and military contracts. AT&T and Verizon Samsung phones were rated the most secure phones on the market. And boom in came the dollars and contracts.
Any technician can drop the phone on their jig and push go for an Odin reset and restore to factory stock.
You all are taking this personal and it is not..blocking root or blocking kernel flashing (AOSP) was a side effect, not the intention of making it secure.
There are a lot of things that you choose to spend a lot of money on but cannot do what you want with. Here is the analogy, you buy Verizon because of the network...you spend $200,000 on a house in a good neighborhood. You cannot park your boat in your own driveway..why? Because the Home Owners Association for that nice neighborhood says you can't. You made your choice when you purchased this device knowing it was locked down as that has been the history of Verizon and AT&T for the past few devices.

bkeaver said:
Best network is very subjective to the area/region your in the most. In southwestern Ohio it is defiantly NOT the best network.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then why did you choose Verizon?
---------- Post added at 10:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------
KennyG123 said:
It has nothing to do with hiring technicians to fix rooted phones...that is such a small small percentage of actual sales and technical errors. It is purely to provide maximum security for Exchange services for commercial and military contracts. AT&T and Verizon Samsung phones were rated the most secure phones on the market. And boom in came the dollars and contracts.
Any technician can drop the phone on their jig and push go for an Odin reset and restore to factory stock.
You all are taking this personal and it is not..blocking root or blocking kernel flashing (AOSP) was a side effect, not the intention of making it secure.
There are a lot of things that you choose to spend a lot of money on but cannot do what you want with. Here is the analogy, you buy Verizon because of the network...you spend $200,000 on a house in a good neighborhood. You cannot park your boat in your own driveway..why? Because the Home Owners Association for that nice neighborhood says you can't. You made your choice when you purchased this device knowing it was locked down as that has been the history of Verizon and AT&T for the past few devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This.

Squintz said:
Then why did you choose Verizon?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be honest I was all set to go back to att from tmobile but att pissed me off and I had never been on verizon so I went with them because of all the rave reviews about better network. Now we're kind of stuck for the time being.

This poll is stupid. Of course they have the right. They don't have to sell you the phone on their network. They're also not forcing you to stay, you could easily leave. Wonders of capitalism.
Disclaimer: Not saying I agree with it, but they certainly have the right.

KennyG123 said:
It has nothing to do with hiring technicians to fix rooted phones...that is such a small small percentage of actual sales and technical errors. It is purely to provide maximum security for Exchange services for commercial and military contracts. AT&T and Verizon Samsung phones were rated the most secure phones on the market. And boom in came the dollars and contracts.
Any technician can drop the phone on their jig and push go for an Odin reset and restore to factory stock.
You all are taking this personal and it is not..blocking root or blocking kernel flashing (AOSP) was a side effect, not the intention of making it secure.
There are a lot of things that you choose to spend a lot of money on but cannot do what you want with. Here is the analogy, you buy Verizon because of the network...you spend $200,000 on a house in a good neighborhood. You cannot park your boat in your own driveway..why? Because the Home Owners Association for that nice neighborhood says you can't. You made your choice when you purchased this device knowing it was locked down as that has been the history of Verizon and AT&T for the past few devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellent analogy! In that same mindset though, Cox cable didn't paste a giant tramp stamp on my garage door because there the internet provider of my home. Just sayin ?