Is there a reason I have to search for roms with HDMI compatibility? Can we have a list of fully functional roms please?
Sent from my DROID XT912 Maxxed Out!
Well, get to steppin' son! Somebody's got to do it!
I think the problem is- developers *generally* only worry about their ROM; users only need the ROMs they are interested in (usually Tier 1- CM, AOKP, Paranoid Android), and very few people have gone through a plethora of ROMs and used them enough to develop an opinion, "just cause".
Oh, and you're in the Q&A forum... not the Development forum.
I am asking why, because I assumed that there might be a reason. Asking a question and seeking an answer. XT910 ROM users have a list. If it's simply because no one has done it yet...maybe I'll try to put something together.
Sent from my DROID RAZR XT912
If I recall, isn't 1080p recording and HDMI a problem on all CM based roms? Somthing to do with the CM source?
If you really want HDMI, you could learn to program, debug, and troubleshoot, making that awesome fix and glow in the approval of grateful razr users!
I apologize, I guess I misunderstood the context of the question. I wasn't aware there were HDMI output issues on ROMs, so I did some research.
There is a dev over at droidrzr.com who attempted to troubleshoot, and it looks like there is a source/signature problem with non-stock based ROMs, I assume because Motorola hasn't released the source code required. Doesn't look like there are any ROMs that aren't stock based that have any HDMI or Webtop support.
Annnnd, here is the same posting on XDA:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=45489306&postcount=4
LuckiestNut419 said:
I apologize, I guess I misunderstood the context of the question. I wasn't aware there were HDMI output issues on ROMs, so I did some research.
There is a dev over at droidrzr.com who attempted to troubleshoot, and it looks like there is a source/signature problem with non-stock based ROMs, I assume because Motorola hasn't released the source code required. Doesn't look like there aren't any ROMs that aren't stock based that have any HDMI or Webtop support.
Annnnd, here is the same posting on XDA:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=45489306&postcount=4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah i was reading that, if I knew a lick of C I'd help. So basically it's verification for some moto stuff, and kernel issues, and people are working on it, which is good!
Related
Since I'm not a ROM developer, I probably have no right to complain.... but.
I've installed dozens of ROMs on my Note looking for the right one. One of my must-have features is audio out through the USB port to use in my car dock.
I understand that as of now, no ROMs that aren't based on the stock kernel have this. So my question is, why don't the ROM developers list this in their description of what works and what doesn't?
Also, is this some thing that we will ever see in a custom ROM? I was hoping that once Samsung released source code, we might se CM9 based ROMs incorporate this feature. :crying:
Thanks for letting me vent.
This should be in a different section.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk 2
atompson said:
Since I'm not a ROM developer, I probably have no right to complain.... but.
I've installed dozens of ROMs on my Note looking for the right one. One of my must-have features is audio out through the USB port to use in my car dock.
I understand that as of now, no ROMs that aren't based on the stock kernel have this. So my question is, why don't the ROM developers list this in their description of what works and what doesn't?
Also, is this some thing that we will ever see in a custom ROM? I was hoping that once Samsung released source code, we might se CM9 based ROMs incorporate this feature. :crying:
Thanks for letting me vent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sir this is better suited in the Gen or Q&A. Please read the sticky for future references on posting in any threads.
Well .....
It's not unusual too have trade offs in custom roms ...
To get kernels with OC /UV etc ...it does some damage on occasion ..
And with the note not really gaining a huge advantage running an over clocked kernel anyway ...why not run a stock kernel ??
You'll still get a good running device, and have full featured performance..
We have half a dozen rooted stock roms ....odexed or not ...that can be fully debloated and customized in about an hour.
In my opinion ....the development team here have done an exceptional job ...but like everything else ...we can't have it all.
And there's nothing wrong with asking about it either ....
The devs here have always been more than generous ...and could possibly hook you up....g
Flapjaxxx ULF6 has the car dock feature.
rangercaptain said:
Flapjaxxx ULF6 has the car dock feature.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed...and it's simply a fantastic rom...oh..look what I've got stuck in my browser clipboard...http://db.communityrelease.com/androidspin_filedownload.asp?release=878&type=1
LOL....g
Hi guys
I'm aware of CyanogenMod, but is it possible to have a completely stock JB ROM with no mods (other than busybox, deodexing, etc..) or custom apps installed? I can't seem to find one
Cheers
The community will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you'd have to build from source (AOSP) if you wanted something that is super-vanilla and hasn't been touched by a manufacturer outside of CM, AOKP, etc.
That said I also believe this particular question should be posted in the General or Q&A sections, for future reference.
djmatt604 said:
The community will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you'd have to build from source (AOSP) if you wanted something that is super-vanilla and hasn't been touched by a manufacturer outside of CM, AOKP, etc.
That said I also believe this particular question should be posted in the General or Q&A sections, for future reference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the reply
I mean Android was made to work on all devices right, but does CM do something like adding "drivers" (or the equivelent)? Is that what developers do when they "port" something like a new ROM that has been released on a similar device?
If multiple devices have a stock Android JB ROM, and they're also using a Tegra 2 CPU (and I'm guessing they all use the same type of RAM) etc.. is it quite easy to port? Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to compile it from source/getting it to run on a device?
I'm into technology, but without some serious research, I wouldn't have a clue where to start unfortunately
P.S. Yeah I realised after, already reported it to be moved
I've never ported between devices, but I've read enough to say confidently that things can be tough if you are porting between devices that are too different. At the very least you should stick between manufacturers...like it would be easier to port from Galaxy S2 Hercules to S2 Skyrocket for example than it would be from S2 to HTC xxx. There are quite a few good guides that explain how to port safely as long as the board configs and other important stuff are the same. If you aren't sure, don't do it.
For compiling from source, do a search on XDA here for shenye's guide "Compile JB on Ubuntu" - it was also featured on XDA TV. It's very helpful. Compiling isn't all that hard, but takes time and patience especially if you are working on a non-flagship device. It will likely take much research to find the right repositories for your device and vendor config, plus time to fix any errors the compiler reports.
Good luck!!
exactly like the op says, now that we have s-off, do you guys think we will get official aosp support sice some devs arent really willing to deal with s-on? im not requesting. i'm just interested in what others think
My question is what does the one have to do with the other? Or put it this way what does S-Off have to do with AOSP? just wondering, thanks.
Stryker1297 said:
exactly like the op says, now that we have s-off, do you guys think we can get official aosp support soon? im not requesting. i'm just interested in what others think
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My personal opinion, i'm sure others will. I won't compile an AOSP rom for the DNA. My reason. I happen to love sense. Reason I stick with HTC phones. I don't like touchwiz (earth, haze, whatever they keep changing the ui name to) and moto ui is too much like stock. I like personality in my phone.
Stryker1297 said:
exactly like the op says, now that we have s-off, do you guys think we can get official aosp support soon? im not requesting. i'm just interested in what others think
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not to sound like a jerk but it seems like you should know your way around....
We always have AOSP thats why its called android OPEN SOURCE project. The question is will someone be able to port it to the DNA.
Go to the Orig. Android Dev section for the DNA and you will see drewx2 an others have been working tirelessly on porting CM10.1 (AOSP) to the DNA. Instead of asking a question that has been answered in the thread you should go check it off.
And S-OFF has nothign to do with porting AOSP. It might make a difference considering other devs may get the phone now that the bootloader is fully unlocked. But it has no DIRECT effect.
How many of these threads do we need?? You could not have posted in the AOSP thread right below yours?? Besides if you people wanted AOSP you should have bought a Nexus. SMH
zone23 said:
My question is what does the one have to do with the other? Or put it this way what does S-Off have to do with AOSP? just wondering, thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My dear Zone. I think the question was, now that there's no security whatsoever, does it mean now we have the capability to modify the device even further.
The S-off feature allows us to upgrade the firmware (ie, bootloader ver, radios) on our devices. The software is capable after root is achieved. Root in lamens terms is giving yourself administrative rights over your phone, ,much like you have administrative rights on your windows computer. BUT, linux does not have administrator priveleges, it has root priveleges. Thats why Zone is confused by your queston.
Unphazed MD said:
Not to sound like a jerk but it seems like you should know your way around....
We always have AOSP thats why its called android OPEN SOURCE project. The question is will someone be able to port it to the DNA.
Go to the Orig. Android Dev section for the DNA and you will see drewx2 an others have been working tirelessly on porting CM10.1 (AOSP) to the DNA. Instead of asking a question that has been answered in the thread you should go check it off.
And S-OFF has nothign to do with porting AOSP. It might make a difference considering other devs may get the phone now that the bootloader is fully unlocked. But it has no DIRECT effect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
number 1, yes you sound like a jerk. number 2, some people dont have time to search for a partial answer to somebody else's question. 3, i asked for OPINIONS on the subject. not answers or eta's. 4, i have seen the thread, i asked for speculations on official ports, and i am very aware of the hard work devs put in (donated to jcase and beaups). and 5, s-off has a LOT to do with aosp ports, since many devs refuse to support locked phones, which is an effect. not direct, but still an effect.
honestly i know now why xda's rep is such crap now. when i try to start a conversation on this site all you get is a bunch of trolls with nothing better to do than act condescending and sarcastic.
and thank you dragonstalker for being just about the only person on this thread that even attempted to act sensible and polite
Memnoch73 said:
How many of these threads do we need?? You could not have posted in the AOSP thread right below yours?? Besides if you people wanted AOSP you should have bought a Nexus. SMH
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
where's the fun with nexus phones? number one, i am a strict lte user. two, i dont really like nexus because you dont get to really choose other oem skins. some days i like sense/touchwiz, and other days i like aosp. and no wont post in the other thread. they arent looking for the same conversation/info i am, and i'm not gonna add another question to a question thread. SMH
well some devs might be more interested in getting the phone now that it has s off. I don't think it has a direct effect either but making things more convenient for the end user to install kernels should entice more people, including devs looking for a new toy.
Stryker1297 said:
number 1, yes you sound like a jerk. number 2, some people dont have time to search for a partial answer to somebody else's question. 3, i asked for OPINIONS on the subject. not answers or eta's. 4, i have seen the thread, i asked for speculations on official ports, and i am very aware of the hard work devs put in (donated to jcase and beaups). and 5, s-off has a LOT to do with aosp ports, since many devs refuse to support locked phones, which is an effect. not direct, but still an effect.
honestly i know now why xda's rep is such crap now. when i try to start a conversation on this site all you get is a bunch of trolls with nothing better to do than act condescending and sarcastic.
and thank you dragonstalker for being just about the only person on this thread that even attempted to act sensible and polite
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Theres nothing wrong with "XDA's" rep. Its people posting/asking the same quesitons over and over again without taking the 5 minutes to browse the forums or 30 seconds to do a search. Theres been like 800 S-OFF/AOSP related threads/questions when in truth they honestly arent that related. S-OFF is essentially disabling a security check. AOSP is the source.
You could of also just posted like someone else said in one of the other threads on the front page of DNA Q/A asking about S-OFF/AOSP. I dont post a lot but honestly all of these questions being asked over and over again is really silly.
Same with asking about an ETA. The ETA is when the devs finish it. If you want it faster help out. Its not easy.
Maybe you should have reworded your question to something like "Now that we have S-OFF is porting AOSP and easier/quicker which would speed up the eta?"
Im sorry but after the whole debacle with people bugging devs and almost driving them out of the scene and taking them for granted I am not trying to have this widespread post spam happen.
and btw official CM10 support usually happens after somone has a stable and organized build. Then CM10 will usually ask them to become the official maintainer for that device. DrewX2 posted about it in the CM10.1 DNA thread I am not giving that great of an explanation.
dragonstalker said:
My dear Zone. I think the question was, now that there's no security whatsoever, does it mean now we have the capability to modify the device even further.
The S-off feature allows us to upgrade the firmware (ie, bootloader ver, radios) on our devices. The software is capable after root is achieved. Root in lamens terms is giving yourself administrative rights over your phone, ,much like you have administrative rights on your windows computer. BUT, linux does not have administrator priveleges, it has root priveleges. Thats why Zone is confused by your queston.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ya I get confused a lot thanks for cleaning that up for me.
Technically we have AOSP but with Sense skin. If you want AOSP feel then flash a deSensed rom (Sence isn't completely removed, only as much as possible) and use an AOSP theme.
orangechoochoo said:
Technically we have AOSP but with Sense skin. If you want AOSP feel then flash a deSensed rom (Sence isn't completely removed, only as much as possible) and use an AOSP theme.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Let me clarify something... AOSP is nothing like sense... Sense isn't a skin it's a full OS. HTC didn't theme AOSP, they built from ground up an os based on android kernel / Linux kernel
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using XDA Premium HD app
Nevermind, you're right.
http://www.xda-developers.com/andro...d-skins-aosp-sense-touchwiz-xda-developer-tv/
orangechoochoo said:
Nevermind, you're right.
http://www.xda-developers.com/andro...d-skins-aosp-sense-touchwiz-xda-developer-tv/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea that's exactly what I was referencing from lol
orangechoochoo said:
Nevermind, you're right.
http://www.xda-developers.com/andro...d-skins-aosp-sense-touchwiz-xda-developer-tv/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, someone who admits they're wrong. I didn't know that existed on the Internet.
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using xda app-developers app
Unphazed MD said:
Theres nothing wrong with "XDA's" rep. Its people posting/asking the same quesitons over and over again without taking the 5 minutes to browse the forums or 30 seconds to do a search. Theres been like 800 S-OFF/AOSP related threads/questions when in truth they honestly arent that related. S-OFF is essentially disabling a security check. AOSP is the source.
You could of also just posted like someone else said in one of the other threads on the front page of DNA Q/A asking about S-OFF/AOSP. I dont post a lot but honestly all of these questions being asked over and over again is really silly.
Same with asking about an ETA. The ETA is when the devs finish it. If you want it faster help out. Its not easy.
Maybe you should have reworded your question to something like "Now that we have S-OFF is porting AOSP and easier/quicker which would speed up the eta?"
Im sorry but after the whole debacle with people bugging devs and almost driving them out of the scene and taking them for granted I am not trying to have this widespread post spam happen.
and btw official CM10 support usually happens after somone has a stable and organized build. Then CM10 will usually ask them to become the official maintainer for that device. DrewX2 posted about it in the CM10.1 DNA thread I am not giving that great of an explanation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
did you not read how i just said i didnt ask for eta's or roms. do you know how to read. also did you read how i said i donate to devs when possible. also did you read how i said i wasnt asking for progress updates. i said i was looking for CONVERSATIONAL OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT
Bigandrewgold said:
Wow, someone who admits they're wrong. I didn't know that existed on the Internet.
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't hurt to be wrong, it's a learning experience :good:
No s off won't make CM10 any easier to build. Fixing not being able to push or pull system files while phone is booted makes things much easier to work with and in my opinion was way more helpful to the devs on general.
If you look at some of the recent HTC devices, a good number of those devices are s off, and the AOSP developers went back to s on because of safety concerns for the device after a few mishaps building from source.
To build AOSP for a device like this requires some serious skill on the RIL (radio interface layer) department especially. Using the command line for a few things like boot.img isn't challenging to someone that can build from source for AOSP. And definitely is a skill someone porting AOSP roms and especially trying to crack RIL would have acquired a long time ago. While on the surface it seems so advantageous to the end user, to port AOSP over to a brand new device, my 2 sense is that s on is the least of their worries.
And yeap the guys above me are right, sense is built as sense from the ground up. And unlike AOSP, most of sense is proprietary so unlike AOSP Android, it has to be reverse engineered and then built to work on the hardware in our phones. The linux kernel used by HTC is open source and they comply with the GPL and release kernel source code for it. But everything proprietary is kept pretty locked down to prevent Samsung from using sense 5 and calling it "Samsung inSense"
There may be
Sent from my DNA... S-Off like a baws
Why do so many people buy HTC phones which all come with some form of Sense and then spam XDA with questions about when can we get AOSP? The answer to the question by the OP is no because S-Off has nothing to do with getting AOSP. As Charles put it the biggest hurdle on every HTC device I have had for the devs to get AOSP working is RIL and kernel.
This might not be the right place for this, but is anybody working on porting an ICS kernel to the photon? I do not know enough programming to work on a port, but I am looking forward to something happening. The guys over at the Atrix forum are working on a kernel and are getting pretty far quickly. I do know that the Atrix shares some hardware with our Photons, like the GPU, which I have read is one of the biggest drivers that we need to have a proper working ICS or JB port for our phones. Well hopefully this will point some kernel devs to a forum that could have great benefits to the advancement of our phones. Thanks to any devs that may already or decide to work on this kernel.
Edit: Here is a link to their GitHub: https://github.com/CyanogenMod-Atrix/android_kernel_motorola_olympus/
Did everybody abandon us?
Sent from my MB855 using xda app-developers app
Kernel Devs Wanted
I don't think we've been abandoned. I saw that Th3Bill was on Moto's sourceforge trying to get the sources we need, a rep at Moto is trying to help us but they do not have a time frame yet. I also think that once the Atrix kernel is closer to being finished more devs will jump onboard to get the kernel going for our phones. Really I made this thread to get some devs attentions that may have not known about the Atrix development going on. Until then I am trying to learn some C coding and trying to make heads and tails of how the Atrix guys got to where they are. I've only coded in Javascript and for only about 2 years now, so it's kinda slow going, but We Still Have Hope! Also if I can come across a cheap Photon that I can dev on it may help out a bit, I can't really dev on my only phone.
Maybe some useful info.
A PM I got from lehjr over at the Atrix ICS port thread :
"Porting the kernel as it is right now isn't advisable because you may not know if issues are a problem with the hardware being setup slightly differently, or a problem with the kernel itself. We are currently only in a very early alpha stage.
Porting the kernel once it is stable should be much easier, but keep in mind that you will likely have to refer to device-specific references in the GB source to make the required changes, since technical documentation for the Photon and Electrify seems to be very scarce to non-existent, whereas we at least have documented teardowns and a nearly complete schematic for the Atrix as well as a serial out port from the JTAG port. "
I know that this is not new info, but for the programmers that do not know where to start I think this is a step forward in the right direction.
We're getting close. Well the Atrix is getting close.
I keep following the thread over on the Atrix Forums http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2016837 and it looks like their project has come together. They have marked almost every aspect of their kernel as Completed. If we still have any developers that know how to modify a kernel to port from the Atrix to our Photons it looks like the time is almost here. The one thing they have marked as "work in progress" is the fingerprint reader which we do not need. Well thought I would share the good news with you guys. A fully working ICS would be nice. Cheers!
Most of the official ROMS are still in alpha, beta or nightly with no milestone version. Why is that?
Because most people don't rely on roms....xposed framework has greatly impacted my usage of roms.
I dunno why. Most of what I have used certainly didn't feel like a beta.
I am pretty gosh darn thankful we have what we have considering the limited number of newer devices with Verizon that can be tinkered with.
Exactly,
You should be thankful for what you have and not question what you don't.
A lot of devs and myself have jumped to the nexus 6, yet we still come here and build for you guys.
jfriend33 said:
Because most people don't rely on roms....xposed framework has greatly impacted my usage of roms.
I dunno why. Most of what I have used certainly didn't feel like a beta.
I am pretty gosh darn thankful we have what we have considering the limited number of newer devices with Verizon that can be tinkered with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm only curious because it's over a year old and they are still in this stage. That's all.
bweN diorD said:
Exactly,
You should be thankful for what you have and not question what you don't.
A lot of devs and myself have jumped to the nexus 6, yet we still come here and build for you guys.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What was the purpose of your reply?
digitallure said:
What was the purpose of your reply?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What was the purpose of your question? To piss of the few devs that still build for the g3?
Because thats how it came off, as ungrateful.
bweN diorD said:
What was the purpose of your question? To piss of the few devs that still build for the g3?
Because thats how it came off, as ungrateful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well you need some perspective glasses. My question was just that, a question. If you have a problem with my question, maybe you should've asked someone else what they thought I'd the question instead of jumping to the conclusion that my question was other than a question. Don't be a troll.
Why would you insult someone who is contributing to the community? He was just saying that you shouldn't worry about the state of the roms here just be thankful that there is something for you to flash since a lot of developers have moved on from this device. I don't think your original question was wrong but the way you handled the responses were. Again just be thankful you have what you have or install Linux and compile the roms yourself.
Wow... His question didn't seem too insulting to me, just a bit ignorant and curious.
Most 'Unofficial' ROMs are work that someone has ported to the device; they are not supported by the teams that made the original.
Official ROMs are created by and most supported by the team on the specific device; the download is usually a link to the team's website. However, in many cases, they may only have one device among them and have not tested everything to the extent that either a test group or the public at large would, naturally. Development is always a WIP, so the BETA indicator is almost universal in custom ROMs where there is not major funding. More often, stock-based ROMs are called stable, because they are working with the base of a stable product that includes all the proprietary drivers and frameworks, vetted by a commissioned dev team at the OEM and another at the carrier.
Some devs/teams here are able to do more testing than others, but the BETA is often an exemption for anything that might not have been found in limited testing. In short, a ROM is often in beta because it has not been thoroughly tested by numerous testers on a specific device, providing detailed feedback and some debugging to the dev team. The more that users here dig in and try to help as opposed to saying "Does this work on this?" or "Why this don't workee??", the more stable those Beta ROMs tend to be--and some are rock solid or only have a few niggles.
Also, if the codebase that a dev starts with is a beta or nightly release (e.g. CM or PA), the child/forked ROM will most always carry over the alpha or beta label.
smartguy044 said:
Why would you insult someone who is contributing to the community? He was just saying that you shouldn't worry about the state of the roms here just be thankful that there is something for you to flash since a lot of developers have moved on from this device. I don't think your original question was wrong but the way you handled the responses were. Again just be thankful you have what you have or install Linux and compile the roms yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But I wasn't complaining. Simply asking a question about alpha and beta ROMs for the device. How is that insulting? If that was insulting, then every post made should be insulting. Why go any deeper? I just asked a question.
epidenimus said:
Wow... His question didn't seem too insulting to me, just a bit ignorant and curious.
Most 'Unofficial' ROMs are work that someone has ported to the device; they are not supported by the teams that made the original.
Official ROMs are created by and most supported by the team on the specific device; the download is usually a link to the team's website. However, in many cases, they may only have one device among them and have not tested everything to the extent that either a test group or the public at large would, naturally. Development is always a WIP, so the BETA indicator is almost universal in custom ROMs where there is not major funding. More often, stock-based ROMs are called stable, because they are working with the base of a stable product that includes all the proprietary drivers and frameworks, vetted by a commissioned dev team at the OEM and another at the carrier.
Some devs/teams here are able to do more testing than others, but the BETA is often an exemption for anything that might not have been found in limited testing. In short, a ROM is often in beta because it has not been thoroughly tested by numerous testers on a specific device, providing detailed feedback and some debugging to the dev team. The more that users here dig in and try to help as opposed to saying "Does this work on this?" or "Why this don't workee??", the more stable those Beta ROMs tend to be--and some are rock solid or only have a few niggles.
Also, if the codebase that a dev starts with is a beta or nightly release (e.g. CM or PA), the child/forked ROM will most always carry over the alpha or beta label.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you! Ignorant, yes. Curious yes, that's all. Ignorant because I don't know. Curious because I want to know why.
digitallure said:
Thank you! Ignorant, yes. Curious yes, that's all. Ignorant because I don't know. Curious because I want to know why.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get it, but you have to know your audience a little. Here, it's a bunch of developers and enthusiasts who freely give their time, skills, and work. While your question was about labels and versioning, the way that it is written, some may take it as "Why isn't your contribution further along and/or more stable than it is? Hell, it's been a year! How do you account for this?"
That BS isn't right when it's coming from someone who is paying you thousands for your work.