Related
First off, I want to apologize if this information is either or both regurgitated and irrelevant.
I was looking for information on eMMC, and there really isn't much, and I found an old article that describes how data reliance works with eMMC. At least a cursory look.
One of the features of Reliance (and Reliance Nitro) file system is that it never overwrites live data. It will always use free space on disk or in case there is no space, it will give “disk full” error back to the application. Reliance also has a special transaction mode called “Application-controlled”. In this case, Reliance only conducts a transaction point when asked by the application.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Full article here. Information about integration with embedded linux, here.
What struck me was the "Application-controlled" part. It would explain the technology that is undoing changes to /system when the system kills the temp root. I wonder if its possible for temp root to trigger the "commit" function of reliance once some small changes have been made...
Hope this is of some use.
CyWhitfield said:
First off, I want to apologize if this information is either or both regurgitated and irrelevant.
I was looking for information on eMMC, and there really isn't much, and I found an old article that describes how data reliance works with eMMC. At least a cursory look.
Full article here. Information about integration with embedded linux, here.
What struck me was the "Application-controlled" part. It would explain the technology that is undoing changes to /system when the system kills the temp root. I wonder if its possible for temp root to trigger the "commit" function of reliance once some small changes have been made...
Hope this is of some use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just an FYI, system is an EXT4 FS. This would require not only a custom kernel, but a lot of one offs in the way it's dealing with data. From what I've seen, this isn't what they are using.
But that's a very good find, I am looking into some of the information. Never heard of this before.
Thanks for the info. I would love to find out more about how this memory technology works. More articles are welcome!
Isn't that basically just wear leveling?
Is your name Ben? Or are you perhaps searching on this because of a post that Ben made on HTC? His claim was that even with an unlocked bootloader, that the eMMC could still be locked and prevent us from getting root. This seems far fetched to me.
edufur said:
Is your name Ben? Or are you perhaps searching on this because of a post that Ben made on HTC? His claim was that even with an unlocked bootloader, that the eMMC could still be locked and prevent us from getting root. This seems far fetched to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In all reality, I'm thinking this is the eventuality. Sprint knows that with root access we can circumvent the WiFi tether that they want to charge you for. They would never be OK with that.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Just an FYI, system is an EXT4 FS. This would require not only a custom kernel, but a lot of one offs in the way it's dealing with data. From what I've seen, this isn't what they are using.
But that's a very good find, I am looking into some of the information. Never heard of this before.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Given that you have taken a much closer look at the inner workings than I have, I will defer to your observation with a caveat
According to wiki eMMC supports something called Reliable Write. This suggests that the reversion capability is a part of the eMMC standard. Reliance sounds more and more like a commercial implementation of this function decoupled from a specific media type. After looking it over again, nowhere in the article about Reliance is eMMC mentioned.
Isn't that basically just wear leveling?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wear leveling is a byproduct of what reliable write is doing. The difference is the ability to defer commitment of file system changes, so that a failed system update wont brick the device.
I do not know if changes made to the device are immediate and revertable (i.e., if eMMC is not told to commit a write, the changes just "go away" when its remounted). Nor do I know if reversions can be made on the fly, as we are experiencing when temp root gets deactivation.
There really isn't much information out there about this that is easy to find.
Is your name Ben? Or are you perhaps searching on this because of a post that Ben made on HTC? His claim was that even with an unlocked bootloader, that the eMMC could still be locked and prevent us from getting root. This seems far fetched to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Neither. eMMC isn't "locked" per se. HTC is using some mechanism that will revert the contents of /system to a prior state when some unknown condition is met. I do not mean to suggest that this is being done through "reliable write" or "Reliance", since it has already been pointed out by someone much more knowledgable on the subject than I that a standard EXT4 file system is being used. I honestly have no idea. I found this information somewhat by accident, and thought that if it could prove useful I should share it here.
Something is dynamically protecting the contents of /system. Once the phone is rooted, I have no doubt that this "something" will be rendered quite impotent. If it were not possible to do so in the first place, OTAs wouldn't work
Sprint knows that with root access we can circumvent the WiFi tether that they want to charge you for. They would never be OK with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The first part of your statement is true, Sprint knows full well that we can circumvent their attempts to charge us for WiFi tethering with root access. They have known this for years. They also know that in reality there is no way they can completely prevent someone from tethering their phone in one way or another. Even without root access. Ref: PDANet.
In my opinion, this protection of the eMMC contents was designed to reduce support costs from failed OTA updates bricking phones, and perhaps as protection against malware that can attain root, not unlike what Temp Root does.
I am not as paranoid as some here and refuse to accept that this was done specifically to thwart efforts to root the phone. The vast (and i mean VAST) majority of people who buy this phone will never even consider rooting the devices. This same majority has a subset of people that are easily stupid enough to screw up an OTA update or download and install malware.
I will take it a step further and opine that the only reason HTC is unlocking the bootloader is because we are such a minority AND that by tinkering with an unlocked device, we are actually helping HTC improve their product. They would rather have a more appealing facebook page than worry about losing a minuscule fraction of wifi tethering income.m Moreover, take a good look at where Sprint stands in the market, and what they have done recently to improve their position. They are doing a lot of really cool things, and have taken impressive steps to improve customer service and corporate image. That they would allow this bashing of HTC to continue unabated over a handful of tethering dollars is unlikely.
I appreciate your canter, very informative. A thanks will come your way.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Does pdanet allow wireless tether? I didn't think it did.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Nutzy said:
Does pdanet allow wireless tether? I didn't think it did.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't act as a hotspot, no.
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
Nutzy said:
I appreciate your canter, very informative. A thanks will come your way.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Much appreciated!
Sent from my PG86100 using XDA App
So, I would be interested in hearing more thoughts on this. Is the eMMC independent of the OS? In other words, would a custom ROM have to obey and work with the eMMC? Or could a custom ROM be made to either disable the eMMC or make it do what we want?
edufur said:
So, I would be interested in hearing more thoughts on this. Is the eMMC independent of the OS? In other words, would a custom ROM have to obey and work with the eMMC? Or could a custom ROM be made to either disable the eMMC or make it do what we want?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're misunderstanding this. The eMMC is the memory inside the device that everything is stored on. It replaced the old NAND chips in older devices.
The OS is stored & runs off of eMMC memory, it's not independent. If you were to 'turn off' the eMMC the device would do nothing. A lot of the security features available on the chip itself probably aren't in use. HTC has been using their own form of write protection since early last year, even on the NAND based Evo 4G. I'd stake a bet they're using the same system here, and we just need to find a way to flash the ENG bootloader like we did last year to get around it.
I agree with you. reliance is setup to ward against "unauthorized" changes to the /system partitions. i believe the developer community takes way too deep a look at each action made by a corporation (htc) and view them as "big brother", when infact most changes are actually approved, reviewed, and committed by someone in accounting with no technical skills whatsoever. these people are forced to look at the bigger scheme of things and make a decision about it (after working for sprint for almost 2 years now...i can tell you how many decisions are literally made by someone who has no idea what the heck he is making decisions on).
instead of looking at them "trying to stop the development community from unlocking wireless tether" look at them as a CEO (who most of the time has no technical knowledge) and a PR rep (who really only cares about how their company is viewed) and using this kind of encryption is only there to "safeguard" their devices against attacks.
one would think the secret to perm rooting the device is triggering the reliance write function so it commits the changes instead of reloading them. if /system doesnt get changed unless theres an OTA of some sorts....theres more than likely a hash table that reliance would check against to verify...so an OTA would need to write to that table first, then make the changes....
more than likely some other noob has already said something along those lines and been flamed for it as well...just throwing it out there....
newkidd said:
.........
one would think the secret to perm rooting the device is triggering the reliance write function so it commits the changes instead of reloading them. if /system doesnt get changed unless theres an OTA of some sorts....theres more than likely a hash table that reliance would check against to verify...so an OTA would need to write to that table first, then make the changes....
........
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that stuck out in bold to me..... hmmmmmm
I probably was overlooking what eMMC was, however based on the links the user gave, I later learned a little more about its potential. It would appear that HTC is doing something along the lines of the operations expressed in the link. And if they are not fully replicating efforts, it would be a shame. I like the concept of wear leveling and efficient read/writes. It would be my hope that we could integrate all those functions within a custom rom.
I found a page on the Micron site on eMMC. In the tech notes section there are informational downloads for just one chip. Specifically, the Qualcomm QSC6695
You have to register to download them. A process I have already started. Their site claims it takes a half hour to register a new account.
Once I have the PDFs, I will attach them to the OP.
I don't know if this is the chip the evo 3d is using, but if it is these may prove beneficial to have.
EDIT: Nevermind. i'd have to sign an NDA first.
EDIT: Although, this looks interesting.
Geniusdog254 said:
A lot of the security features available on the chip itself probably aren't in use. HTC has been using their own form of write protection since early last year, even on the NAND based Evo 4G. I'd stake a bet they're using the same system here, and we just need to find a way to flash the ENG bootloader like we did last year to get around it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps, but a hint at the design really tells me that it would only make sense to offload this protection to the eMMC. Posted a link just a minute ago with the eMMC "enablement" model in PDF form. Interesting read...
CyWhitfield said:
I found a page on the Micron site on eMMC. In the tech notes section there are informational downloads for just one chip. Specifically, the Qualcomm QSC6695
You have to register to download them. A process I have already started. Their site claims it takes a half hour to register a new account.
Once I have the PDFs, I will attach them to the OP.
I don't know if this is the chip the evo 3d is using, but if it is these may prove beneficial to have.
EDIT: Nevermind. i'd have to sign an NDA first.
EDIT: Although, this looks interesting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
VERY interesting link & read for sure
CyWhitfield said:
The first part of your statement is true, Sprint knows full well that we can circumvent their attempts to charge us for WiFi tethering with root access. They have known this for years. They also know that in reality there is no way they can completely prevent someone from tethering their phone in one way or another. Even without root access. Ref: PDANet.
In my opinion, this protection of the eMMC contents was designed to reduce support costs from failed OTA updates bricking phones, and perhaps as protection against malware that can attain root, not unlike what Temp Root does.
I am not as paranoid as some here and refuse to accept that this was done specifically to thwart efforts to root the phone. The vast (and i mean VAST) majority of people who buy this phone will never even consider rooting the devices. This same majority has a subset of people that are easily stupid enough to screw up an OTA update or download and install malware.
I will take it a step further and opine that the only reason HTC is unlocking the bootloader is because we are such a minority AND that by tinkering with an unlocked device, we are actually helping HTC improve their product. They would rather have a more appealing facebook page than worry about losing a minuscule fraction of wifi tethering income.m Moreover, take a good look at where Sprint stands in the market, and what they have done recently to improve their position. They are doing a lot of really cool things, and have taken impressive steps to improve customer service and corporate image. That they would allow this bashing of HTC to continue unabated over a handful of tethering dollars is unlikely.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely agree with all of that. Other carriers have taken many steps to try to prevent wireless tethering. They've asked google to filter certain apps from the market from their customers, they've sent out letters to their customers who they suspect of tethering, they've used ECM's to try to stop it.
But Sprint...they've been remarkably silent on that front. Hell they don't even seem to plan on putting any usage caps in place. In my opinion, I suspect that Sprint wants to be different from the other carriers. They can't outright allow tethering because people would go nuts with it and it would saturate their network. Instead they have this approach of telling you that you can't do it without paying extra, but they look the other way when you do.
I don't know if I fully agree on why HTC locks the phone so tight though. I mean they really went out of their way to make sure nobody touches it. There could have been far more simple countermeasures in place to prevent malware yet still be open to somebody who has physical access to the phone.
It can't be that Sprint insisted on it being that way, otherwise Sprint would have insisted that the Nexus S be fully locked, so I don't believe that this is a carrier issue at all, at least not as far as the Evo 3D is concerned.
One of my suspicions is that HTC may make a profit off of having certain apps installed, much in the way that PC OEM's get paid to preload different apps (e.g. norton.) It could be that they want to make sure that you can't remove them. However that profit they make off of these apps may be significantly offset by having a really negative facebook page, hence the decision to unlock.
Hard to say really.
I am not here to start a flame war. I am here to express my honest opinion. I would be more than happy to engage in polite rhetoric, but I will ignore any post containing personal attacks and completely illogical jumps/wild conjecture.
I have been paying very close attention to the OPMOSH movement, and I must say, I am extremely disappointed with what I have seen. To those who have already stopped, I thank you for either realizing that this movement is not going to accomplish its stated goal, or for giving up and moving on to another manufacturer's device, which I truly hope you are enjoying.
For those still pursuing this course of action, I offer the following:
Motorola Mobility, in response to a very poorly written reply from one of their Facebook page operators, stated that they were working with carriers to provide a solution that allowed their devices to be open to developers, and still stisfied their overall security policies. This statement was not a promise to unlock anything, merely stating that they were working towards a solution.
In April of 2011, Motorola released a statement that it was their intention to offer unlockable/relockable bootloaders across their portfolio in late 2011 where carriers would allow it. Again, this statement is not a promise, but a clarification and expansion of their Facebook reply in January. They were aiming for deployment in late 2011, but they didn't explicitly state that there would definitely be an unlock tool at that time.
In October of 2011, Motorola stated that the Motorola Razr would have an unlockable bootloader if the carrier wanted it. This statement is indeed a promise, but there was no timeline given for its deployment. If they were still on course for late 2011, I'm absolutely certain they would have been more than happy to announce that as well. Since they did not say the tool would be available at launch, nor did they say when it would be available, the only logical conclusion is that it would be made available when it was ready and the proper agreements had been reached with each specific carrier, which I'd gather is more difficult than simply notifying the carrier of their intended action.
And so, we come to OPMOSH. The thread was started on the xda website on January 4th of 2012. The idea was that if enough people screamed loud enough, and long enough, and disrupted their operationss enough, Motorola Mobility would give in to the demands of the community and provide the unlock tool that was "promised" nearly a year prior.
Except there was no promise, there is no "right" to having an unlocked bootloader. There is a possible FCC violation, but at this point I'm absolutely sure they are aware of the situation, and we can let them go about their investigation. They won't tell us the progress on such investigation, but continually showering them with notifications will not speed the process.
Motorola's position is fairly well laid out in post #40 of the Razr Developer Edition discussion thread on their official forums. For those who don't want to Google it, essentially one of the forum managers states that they have had issues with working with the developer community in the past, and are not exactly jumping at the chance to open what they see as a Pandora's box of sorts. And, based on the actions taken by many supporting OPMOSH, I really can't blame them. The community has shown that they are willing to maliciously disrupt Motorola's normal business operations because they want something they are not entitled to in the first place. OPMOSH is the equivalent of a smear campaign, and if Motorola were to give in at this point and provide an unlock tool, it would only open them to further abuse from the community, or anyone else who wants a particular feature they think is "necessary" or their "right".
And before anyone throws the "it can't be *insert carrier*, they let the Nexus/HTC/Samsung phone be unlocked", I'm certain that each carrier has an agreement with each phone manufacturer that differs in key aspects. In the Verizon/Motorola agreement, there could very well be a clause that prevents Motorola from unlocking their devices. Obviously, encrypting the locked bootloader was Motorola's choice, but by doing so they can more effectively market their products to the lucrative enterprise and government accounts, who welcome such details to retain the integrity of their intranets. I know several IT departments that have issued Droid X2s, and more recently Razrs, to replace aging Blackberries for precisely this reason. True, some others are starting to use HTC and Samsung handsets, but there is no denying that Motorola produces the most secure and business oriented devices of any current major manufacturer.
And so, it is my firm opinion that based upon the above arguments, OPMOSH needs an immediate and total cease and desist. We are shooting ourselves in the foot at this point. They are removing/ignoring posts on their Facebook because that is their right. They are removing/ignoring tweets because that is their right. We do not have the right to abuse, slander, or otherwise disrupt any corporate entity, when they are well within their own rights to distribute their products within the confines of their legal obligations based upon binding carrier agreements which were most likely made long before having a locked bootloader became such a huge issue.
If you do not like the handset you have, sell or trade it for another one through Swappa, eBay, or Craigslist. If you like the handset you have, then be patient. I can guarantee that Motorola has heard what now amounts to little more than whining, and will move forward with their stated intent of unlocking their bootloaders where they can, and possibly (hopefully) working to renegotiate their carrier agreements to allow unlocked bootloaders. Thinking that all it takes for Motorola to unlock their bootloaders is to flip a switch and there will be no repercussions to that decision is to not only overlook important facts, but in the end is simply wishful thinking. If it really was that simple, then all HTC phones would have been unlockable as soon as their site went live.
Regardless, by pitching the internet equivalent of a child's fit, constantly bombarding Motorola's social media outlets, and wasting the time of several Motorola employees in the process, we are only reaffirming Motorola's view of our lack of trustworthiness as a community.
I, for one, love my Motorola device. I will continue to hack it to my liking and to the best of my ability. I will share anything I think is cool or interesting with the community because I want to do so, not because I am or feel obligated to. I will make the choice to believe that I am not limited by the manufacturer of my device, but only by my imagination and ingenuity. I will continue to support the countless devs who use their precious personal time to enhance my user experience far beyond what I thought possible.
Finally, I will continue to believe that Motorola still intends to follow through on their statements, and are working toward a solution that will allow us to have the freedom to do as we please with our phones, while providing a strong and secure experience to the customers who require such things.
I appreciate anyone who has made it this far, and apologize for the wall of text. I hope that my plea does not go unnoticed, and can bring at least some sanity to our community.
TL;DR : Motorola never promised us anything. We do not have any right to an unlocked bootloader, any more than we have a right to use exploits in the Android code to gain root access. OPMOSH is a smear campaign that is likely to only serve to deepen Motorola's distrust in the Android development community. Only by stopping OPMOSH, and showing faith in Motorola as a company, will they ever see fit to give us what we ask for, and start to close the massive rift that has come between us.
As an aside, I am in no way affiliated with Motorola or any of its partners. I'm just a guy who is severely disappointed at the lack of reason and basic decency shown by the Motorola development community with regards to this situation. I have no illusion that my opinion means anymore than anyone else's, but I felt that I must at least try to forestall what I see as the only possible outcome should this operation continue, which is that Motorola will issue a statement that despite their best efforts they did not find a solution which is feasible at this time beyond offering special "developer edition" phones.
Kindly post a link to this "post #40" of which you speak of...
I have tried looking for it on their Support Forums, and their Developer Forums but I could not seem to find it.
This is an interesting post, and - if nothing else - I appreciate the amount of thought you've put into it.
I can agree on some points, and do feel that social media smear campaigns and/or armchair activism will accomplish little beyond hot air, as Motorola have not shown any indication that they're willing to budge. Endless Facebook spam does little to aid anyone, since the poor social media team and other customer-facing representatives are, in all likelihood, on the side of the customers they have to deal with on a daily basis, and have little to no power to make the fundamental changes we seek.
I have no doubt that there are Motorola representatives both among us, and on 'our side', as it were. There have been leaks galore, including one that resulted in the Atrix's bootloader being unlocked, a massive boon for its community. The GSM RAZR has already seen an early ICS leak, which was very welcome. Whispers and rumours have it that Moto has had some falling out with the developer community at some point. If anyone knows more about this, I'm very interested.
What you're missing, here, is a combination of expectation and impression. To make it personal, this is the first Motorola device I have personally owned, as there simply haven't been any flagship Moto devices that came in GSM flavours as well as CDMA (Aside from the too-little-too-late nobody-really-cares Milestone range, and the Atrix, which was a great idea that ended up outdated by launch). The RAZR's wonderful industrial design spoke to me, as did its SAMOLED screen, as Samsung have spoiled me and I can't stand LCDs any more. So I took the plunge, shifting from the very popular and very well supported Galaxy S II. No offense to Moto, their hardware is lovely, but their software is awful, the battery life is awful (A bigger battery is a very blunt force solution, re: RAZR MAXX), and it disappoints me greatly that I can’t change that when I could with my past three Android phones, and even my last Windows Mobile phone. I don't fully regret making the shift, but in retrospect, I wish I'd bought a Galaxy Note or Galaxy Nexus instead.
There are reasons for locking bootloaders that, disagree as I may, make a degree of sense. There's 'security', there's DRM content, there's enterprise IT requirements, and there's (supposedly) carrier requirements. But at this point, there's really not much reason to keep it locked, as the only thing it does is prevent running unsigned kernels. ROMs can be flashed, security can be breached, bloatware can be removed, and all that reasoning is essentially null and void. There is no advantage to a locked bootloader when a device is already rooted, it really doesn't provide any added security - indeed, the ability to flash one's own custom kernel compiled from source is the domain of the security conscious, not the casual user who might haphazardly harm their device - which, again, is certainly possible without the bootloader being unlocked.
There is really no good, specific argument in favour of locking the bootloader, especially when other OEMs – see: HTC, Sony Ericsson – are happy to provide tools that allow this, and Motorola did lead consumers to believe that the RAZR would be unlocked in much the same manner. A quick Googling leads me to this post here, which I believe to be the origin: http://ausdroid.net/2011/10/21/motorola-razr-to-be-unlockable/
Here, one Christy Wyatt is quoted as saying that the GSM variant of the RAZR would have an unlockable/relockable bootloader, and that Verizon had disabled this feature. The interesting thing about “where carriers allow” is that a large number of GSM RAZRs are sold SIM-free, and contain no carrier branding. There is no carrier to disallow the unlocking of the bootloader. Where is the excuse here?
I think it’s safe to say that the majority of RAZR owners pushing for the bootloader unlock would be happy to give up any features Moto – or carriers – feel the bootloader needs to be locked to enable. Webtop? DRM? Citrix? Enterprise security? Honestly, it seems like Moto is trying to market their devices to a specific niche, the BYO corporate market, and it feels to me that there’s too many compromises for what amounts to a relatively small segment (Or one that’s happy with iOS/Blackberry/et cetera anyway). Take a record of my IMEI. Disable as many stock features as you like. I would even give up Activesync support if I could have that unlocked bootloader.
These phones are hardware platforms, computing platforms. Back when the original Milestone was released – the delayed GSM counterpart to the original Droid – its bootloader was locked where the Droid’s was not. Motorola representatives went as far as to suggest that development enthusiasts purchase the then-current Nexus One instead of a Milestone. Bad form to actively turn their customers towards the competition. Android development has bloomed in the last few years, and it’s now expected that one should be able to modify one’s mobile device, just as has been the case with desktop hardware for decades. When one buys a phone, one owns that hardware. Even if they only have a ‘license’ to Motorola’s (Flawed) flavour of the software, they currently have no choice but to use it, and it’s an expectation of the open-source Android operating systems that its hardware platforms should be open for development.
There’s two more factors, here. One is damage control. Regardless of how this came about, consumers DID get the impression that – at the very least – the open market GSM RAZR would have an unlockable bootloader. It does not. Moto have only issued vague statements, some of which specifically mentioned software solutions (rather than “Buy another phone”) but have done very little to clarify the situation, or to placate their increasingly upset userbase.
Motorola might not ‘owe’ us an unlocked bootloader, per se, but they do owe their audience some clarity and some answers. It was also suggested in the above article that the bootloader solution may be rolled out with the Ice-Cream Sandwich updates, but this too has been a point of contention. Many are very disappointed with the Q2 timeframe when, again, the expectation was that the RAZR would be swiftly updated and not leave fans disappointed that they opted for a device shipping with an old OS revision when the new one was announced the same day as the RAZR itself. Moto have not been clear – and yes, I know there’s the old business mantra of underpromise and overdeliver, but it’s been going from bad to worse. Which brings me to the final factor…
The ‘Developer Edition’ is no solution at all. It is hardly fair to anyone, least of all existing customers who purchased the original RAZR in good faith, to announce a hardware revision to circumvent a firmware restriction. No warranty, full retail price for the same hardware, and just to make it laughable, the development device can’t even be unlocked at present.
TL;DR?
Yes, childish spam and/or smear campaigns on social media channels are childish. But there is no good reason for the bootloader to remain locked, and many customers purchased the device under the impression that an unlock method would be provided. Motorola’s communication has been poor at best, and people are understandably upset.
"I can guarantee that Motorola has heard what now amounts to little more than whining"
Please explain.
How long have you worked for Motorola?
And a short answer to your question:
NO!
In my opinion the problem is not only the locked bootloader. The bootloader is only a trigger that forced people to go over the edge. The problem is the arrogant and ignorant stance the motorola has been taking toward the common user of their devices. I know we live in an ultra capitalist world where "big players" can get away with anything, but in my opinion that alone should not be the reason for all of us to just give in and take it up our butts. Maybe these kinds of rebellions don't bring much success right away, but it sure as hell reminds these people that what they are doing will make some noise, and maybe will at least force them to think twice next time.
If we talk about this specific case: I understand that to some 400+ euro is not a lot of money, but to some it is almost their entire monthly paycheck and if i am willing to spend so much money on a product, the producer can expect from me wanting to get some "love" in return. Of course it is not their legal obligation, but just common logic that not all of us will be quiet and let them get away with anything and that is very important....what i was saying earlier. I'm sure in todays world when people are being eaten alive by the current political and social system, a little "love" (even if its fake), can take a company a long way and can in a long run be a market advantage and bring more money to that company. And money is the only thing they really care about. Well maybe 10.000-15.000 signatures are very little, but 5+ million users of xda now have heard or know for a fact (many known before OPMOSH) that motorola is the most unfriendly user company in the market. These people being a bit of tech-geeks have friends that come to them for advice when buying new phones,.... and very soon you come to a number ob 20+ million people having an argument against buying your product. And that is a very bad thing in todays highly competitive market where differences between products are very small.
So what i want to say is, that no matter what the way, it is always important that not all people are quiet, because even if it doesn't look like it straight away, it does makes a difference....maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but surely the day after that
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1511364
It does in fact elicit a response, so it is working
Im happy I also own a Xperia. I got my Razr because I belived the an article about the loader. Wont do that again.
http://blogs.sonymobile.com/wp/2012...e-for-unlocked-2011-xperia-smartphone-models/
Sent from my XT910 using Tapatalk
Well put by the OP and too have an honest opinion. I have followed the threads and it started strong but just like the whole "Occupy Wall Street/whatever city they wanna occupy" movement, it lost the true message and became a bunch of adults acting like spoiled 3 year olds when an adult tells them no. I could care less about an unlocked bootloader, I care more about rooting my Android phone and being able to use a stable custom ROM. I understand however taking a stand for a product we own. If y'all desperately want an unlocked bootloader got get the GNex
Sent from my rooted and Safe Strapped Motor DROID RAZR
kimo91 said:
I could care less about an unlocked bootloader, I care more about rooting my Android phone and being able to use a stable custom ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry, this is a ridiculous opinion to hold. I can understand frustration at people's behaviour, and I can understand playing devil's advocate, but custom ROMs are practically little more than themes without custom kernels. The locked bootloader is the reason we don't have a wide selection of stable custom ROMs for you to flash.
Enjoy your 'themes and tweaks'.
Sent from my XT910 using xda premium
onslaught86 said:
I'm sorry, this is a ridiculous opinion to hold. I can understand frustration at people's behaviour, and I can understand playing devil's advocate, but custom ROMs are practically little more than themes without custom kernels. The locked bootloader is the reason we don't have a wide selection of stable custom ROMs for you to flash.
Enjoy your 'themes and tweaks'.
Sent from my XT910 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rediculous opinion? Last I checked I wasn't one if the many that claimed to be duped into buying a phone because Motorola said they would unlock the bootloader. I bought my Razr to suit my everyday needs, accessibility to root, and what not. Who cares if the current roms out now are mainly themed and has tweeked kernels, cause I simply don't. If my simple ways of using my phone or even customizing it the way i like it then im one of the few that perfers my phone the way it is currently. You sound like one of the many sheep out there that bought the Razr for Motorola to unlock the bootloader. Baaaaaa
Sent from my rooted and Safe Strapped Motor DROID RAZR
kimo91 said:
Rediculous opinion? Last I checked I wasn't one if the many that claimed to be duped into buying a phone because Motorola said they would unlock the bootloader. I bought my Razr to suit my everyday needs, accessibility to root, and what not. Who cares if the current roms out now are mainly themed and has tweeked kernels, cause I simply don't. If my simple ways of using my phone or even customizing it the way i like it then im one of the few that perfers my phone the way it is currently. You sound like one of the many sheep out there that bought the Razr for Motorola to unlock the bootloader. Baaaaaa
Sent from my rooted and Safe Strapped Motor DROID RAZR
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You like custom ROMs and claim not to care about unlocked bootloaders. Do you genuinely not see the fundamental contradiction in that, or are you just arguing the point because it's cool to be non-conformist these days?
Unlocking the bootloader affects you and your usage of the phone all of not - that's great, good for you. But it does affect plenty of other people, and your being a little tired of seeing them complain on social media channels does not invalidate their claim.
Sent from my XT910 using xda premium
Do not attack or offend other users regardless of your PERSONAL opinions. Keep this thread clean from abusive, flaming or attacks.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-03/security-enhanced-android-nsa-edition
Bottom line is NSA injects code into Android and have been doing so since 2011. Google says one of the perks of NSA contributions is that they are invisible to user, don't even know it's running. Sure you can check the source and see line by line, supposedly.
I'm just curious, does AOSP and custom roms remove code injected by the NSA?
As it is I already feel like a target with a smartphone, got AT&T recording my crap, then Google, and of course being US citizen, have the wonderful privilege of Patriot Act which allows gov agencies to request information at will without warrants or without anyone's knowledge prior.
I understand that the code can be reviewed, supposedly. But noticed that Apple and Microsoft don't accept government agency code for their mobile OS. I don't see why Android can't take the same stance.
It's more than likely in the radio baseband software.
Putting something into the OS would be too inconsistent and detectable.
SEAndroid is not a tool used by the NSA to spy on people. This article is horrible misinformed, and was made to scare users to get page views. SEAndroid is a security tool, made to help protect users from malicious attacks on their device. As said on the selinux project wiki page:
Security Enhancements for Android™ (SE for Android) is a project to identify and address critical gaps in the security of Android. Initially, the project is enabling the use of SELinux in Android in order to limit the damage that can be done by flawed or malicious apps and in order to enforce separation guarantees between apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://selinuxproject.org/page/SEAndroid
Again, this is NOT a tool used to spy on any android users. It is a port of the popular SELinux tool to Android. It was developed by the NSA to protect their electronic devices, and is now being incorporated into consumer phones, notable those manufactured by Samsung and HTC.
As the article states, Microsoft and Apple do not accept code for their application. This is because they are not open, like Android. For Android, anyone can look at or submit modifications to be reviewed for inclusion in the AOSP Android source. This means that thousands of qualified people have looked at this code being given by the NSA, therefore there is very little chance that anything that they include there could be used maliciously.
To recap, this is not a threat. This is the NSA helping to improve the security of Android as a whole. This article is nothing more than a tactic to get page views, not a realistic representation of the reality of things, which anyone with half a brain to research the topic more can see.
Hi,
with all media attention related to NSA spy activities.
How does one know this all happening here is not related to NSA activities?
If i'm correct the bloatware a provider installs when you bought it gives nsa access or gives provider unwanted access.
Maybe i'm thinking too much, but even NSA could bring out a rom which looks great and so and you think it's save and not accessing your private details, mic or camera.
Just a thought i had.
(on duckduckgo.com there was this advertising for save internet and cyanomod, thatss how i came here)
Thanks !
Have you been abusing ice or something ?
haha no, just curious that's all. As you know google ain't clean either in terms of privacy. And Android is Google.....
But no, i like what's happening here, it was just a thought.
Alright...
Intelligence agencies can already essentially look at whatever they want whenever they want via direct access to all networks. They can break a lot of encryption. Most operating systems (whether phone/PC/whatever) either have some NSA designed bits (I.E SELinux) or 'backdoors' which enable them to access even the most tightly 'locked up' systems.
I very much doubt they need to release a bit of 'crapware' or an OS of their own given the above. Though I can imagine in certain cases they custom design an exploit for a particular individual or organisation they want keep tabs on, but I can't imagine they'd want to do it to ordinary phone users en masse in the manner you suggested.
They already 'passively' surveil just about everyone (I.E collect all data but tend not to look at it unless they need to), so they don't need to do what you mentioned.
In my view opensource system has an advantage that you can check the source code yourself for a potential backdoor.
Most of the ROMs here are opensource so you can download, check, compile and install.
However you do not have 100% opensource devices - you have for example radio drivers which we just trust they will send data to correct receiver and in correct format...
I don't think it is proven SELINUX introduces backdoor or was it? If yes, I'm very interested to see it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux. Everything is backdoored.
MistahBungle said:
Alright...
Intelligence agencies can already essentially look at whatever they want whenever they want via direct access to all networks. They can break a lot of encryption. Most operating systems (whether phone/PC/whatever) either have some NSA designed bits (I.E SELinux) or 'backdoors' which enable them to access even the most tightly 'locked up' systems.
I very much doubt they need to release a bit of 'crapware' or an OS of their own given the above. Though I can imagine in certain cases they custom design an exploit for a particular individual or organisation they want keep tabs on, but I can't imagine they'd want to do it to ordinary phone users en masse in the manner you suggested.
They already 'passively' surveil just about everyone (I.E collect all data but tend not to look at it unless they need to), so they don't need to do what you mentioned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes you're right. it totaaly agree.
thanks a lot for your answer.
MistahBungle said:
Everything is backdoored.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I checked Wikipedia SELinux Entry. I remember Linus's nodding, however there is no hint it was with relation of SELinux.
I found another discussion on this topic and I agree with the point that "It would be singularly dumb of them to inject backdoors in their own name."
Time will show.
Anyway - if you do not trust it, you can turn it off completely or use an alternative - AppArmor - which does not come from NSA.
My rant about At&t and I why I am angry with them about my predicament with my s7.
PLEASE READ DISCLAIMER AT THE BOTTOM AND ALL ASTRICKED ITEMS. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
I will say how disappointed in at&t I am; it should be illegal to lock phones like this. The last samsung galaxy able to be rooted was the s4 and note 2 (don't quote me on that is was guestimation). But like all the idiots caught up in the buzz of owning the newest device, I got burned by the note 4. Fool me once shame on you, but fool me twice shame on me. I got burned again on the s7, and developers on here have basically given up rooting anything else (since the note 4 crisis there's a large bounty for whomever get the first permaroot) . Maybe if millions of us write to samsung about how at&t is ruining their products, they could do something about this travesty. <b>
Well if could some root required apps to work on my phone I would be much happier. I can't even use the current version of lucky patcher, how stupid is that. <b>
If your phone isn't rooted or have never felt the joy of a rooted phone (it is like endless possibilities all in the palm of your hand), and if you don't know what rooting is, get a clue, (Google it). Beg, barrow, steal one from a guy the next County over, forge one, trade for one, find one, save up for 3 months to buy one on eBay, I don't care how you get a clue, but you need one. The ability to Root our phone should be a fundamental right. (particularly with what went on with Apple and the FBI in California) We buy the phone, pay for it's service, then you treat us like we somehow don't know something has changed. (All the sudden "security updates that happen right after finding root for other devices and then people update their devices and it is gone back to square one.) Who is going to be responsible for all the millions of phones that are going to be trash because of this?
(because now on certain devices it softbricks the phone, sure it roots it, but what good is a rooted phone when you can't use it? (I relate it to something close to ransomware, on a computer, where software hold it (the computer) hostage until you meet the criminal's demands (usually money), so that you can get your computer back, and then sometimes they just leave it in place. (nasty crap fun to get rid of without reinstalling the OS) In this case it holds your phone hostage until you meet at&t's demands of "removing non at&t software", and until such time that the software is removed it remains bricked. If you have this issue, which I have only seen it mentioned a handful of time, and happen to have a Samsung device (with or without warranty) they will fix for free and even pay shipping both ways (now that's how you keep customers happy) I still have this issue as I have not sent my phone in yet and if someone knows how to fix it I would like to know. It goes from the ransom page with the padlock unlocked and warnings from at&t, then it goes to a second page saying that I have a Reactivation Lock in place. I have tried everything stated on the forum about RL, but my case is unique because of my stupid idea of seeing if king root had figured out how to root note 4 at&t sm-N910A version. To answer your question did it work, yes and no. Read the bricking bit above.)
Surely not your loyal customers, surely not the one who actually make and put their name on the phone, no I blame the cell phone companies. They have gotten to big for their own shoes on this one, they stepped in a giant pile of it. How many millions of customers have you lost at&t? Hmmm? Answer that one. Maybe I'll be the next to jump ship, sprint has a great plan, half the price, and they'll pay our way out of the eta( early termination fee(s) ln case you didn't know) up to 600 USD on each line. Sounds good to where do I sign, oh you need to take my piece of it phone and trade it for one the COMES with an unlocked bootloader. Take it I never wanted this piece of it to begin with. Bye At&t, you had a good ride with most of us for longer than a decade, but you done shot yourself in the foot on this one. You should have never changed your name and started in the cell phone business. South Western Bell is dead, and this monstrosity that has been created is nothing more than a shell of its former company, what a bunch of sell outs. I hope you sleep good at night knowing how many people are cursing your name from every roof top and highest building. You don't play with other people's it. It isn't proper nor is it called for. Some customers will be loyal to the end, but I am sick of all the red tape and garbage we have to put up with. Higher rates for the same service? Do you think we are stupid?
DISCLAIMER
*PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS MY OWN OPINIONS. IT IS AIMED AT AT&T, AND THEIR INABILITY TO LEAVE A GOOD THING ALONE. IT IS NOT MEANT TO OFFEND US NORMAL FOLK THAT PAY RIDICULOUS PHONE BILLS EVERY MONTH. IF YOU ARE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE AND YOU FIND THIS OFFENSIVE I AM SORRY. I NEVER CUSSED OR SAID ANYTHING OFFENSIVE ABOUT OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL. *
*ANY INSTANCES OF "IT" THAT ARE EXTRAGRAMMATIC ARE A CUSS WORD IN DISGUISE AND IS SELF EXPLANATORY*
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT WITH YOUR OWN OPINIONS THIS A JUDGEMENT FREE ZONE, SO PUT SOME FEELING IN IT. OCCASIONAL SWEARING IS TO BE EXPECTED (AS LONG AS IT IS OK WITHIN THE POLICIES OF XDA IF DOUBT DON'T DO IT.).
ANY HELP WITH ABOVE STATED ISSUE PLEASE LINK BELOW SO THE POST ENDS UP IN THE PROPER SECTION (TROUBLESHOOTING AND WHATNOT).
ANYTHING FOUND IN PARENTHESES WAS ADDED FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, AND NOT MEANT TO DEMEAN ANYONE. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW THE TERM OF KNOWLEDGY.
IF ANYTHING IN THIS RANT HAS BEEN MISREPRESENTED OR IS INCORRECT PLEASE BRING TO MY ATTENTION.
THANK YOU TO ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY READ ALL THIS.
God bless and peace out,
Kelentaria
I switched to AT&T because of direcTV unlimited (saves me 15 bucks a month from what I was paying). I don't really care much about having root access, but I do care about being able to erase the bloat on the phone. Bloat should be optional software, not burned into the OS. Look at Windows for a PC. If you don't want an app that came preloaded, you simply uninstall it. How is that even legal to have software stuck on your phone, which you have no idea what it is doing in the background and also claim you have 32gigs of storage, but you actually only have 19?
I see some of your points, but the whole rooting thing will be an uphill battle. Each company is required by law to patch exploits that allow the system to be compromised. Unless Google makes root access standard (meaning easily unlocked with an app etc) you won't see it again , and if you do, rarely.
I could forgive them for the root issue, but not for the bloat, lack of WiFi calling on android devices, etc.
Your points and opinion is well taken here as a fellow ATT user. We won't even get Samsung to move on rooting and bootloader unlocking since they're path is the business level users. That's mostly to do with all of us modder folks being in the small minority when it comes to purchasing their phones. There should be an option to unlock the bootloader from them directly. Basically them allowing us to either choose to void our warranty to unlock the bootloader which relieves them of the responsibility of folks blaming them for their choice of modding the phone. Similar to the HTC process. But again this is my opinion. ATT on the other hand has been a constant pain with not being consumer friendly for the last 4 years from my guestimation.
psufan5 said:
I switched to AT&T because of direcTV unlimited (saves me 15 bucks a month from what I was paying). I don't really care much about having root access, but I do care about being able to erase the bloat on the phone. Bloat should be optional software, not burned into the OS. Look at Windows for a PC. If you don't want an app that came preloaded, you simply uninstall it. How is that even legal to have software stuck on your phone, which you have no idea what it is doing in the background and also claim you have 32gigs of storage, but you actually only have 19?
I see some of your points, but the whole rooting thing will be an uphill battle. Each company is required by law to patch exploits that allow the system to be compromised. Unless Google makes root access standard (meaning easily unlocked with an app etc) you won't see it again , and if you do, rarely.
I could forgive them for the root issue, but not for the bloat, lack of WiFi calling on android devices, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suggest you try Package Disabler Pro, its a small price to pay but it works perfectly disabling bloat from Samsung devices. It is not root but at the very least it helps make touchwiz bearable.
---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------
I don't think there is a single ATT user that doesn't share your opinion but nowadays we all know what we are getting into with them. Only the Nexus line remains untouched but with the recent surge in mobile payment use the manufacturers are locking down phones harder than eve, one the plus side it helps maintain security and protect your hard earned money but sadly some sacrifices must be made. My only wish is that Samsung would finally see the light and at the very least give us the option of stock android in their devices, a tall order I know but one that would be met with enthusiasm.
glm0025 said:
I suggest you try Package Disabler Pro, its a small price to pay but it works perfectly disabling bloat from Samsung devices. It is not root but at the very least it helps make touchwiz bearable.
---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------
I don't think there is a single ATT user that doesn't share your opinion but nowadays we all know what we are getting into with them. Only the Nexus line remains untouched but with the recent surge in mobile payment use the manufacturers are locking down phones harder than eve, one the plus side it helps maintain security and protect your hard earned money but sadly some sacrifices must be made. My only wish is that Samsung would finally see the light and at the very least give us the option of stock android in their devices, a tall order I know but one that would be met with enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ive done that, but the bloat still takes up a huge chunk of space - the APKs are just disabled
there hasn't been a bootloader unlocked at&t galaxy since the S3. The S4 was bootloader locked, but anyone with AMDL firmware (the second OTA) could bypass the bootloader and load ROMs that way. Anyone that updated past that was stuck with bootstrapped ROMs. The S4 was never bootloader unlocked ever.
psufan5 said:
Ive done that, but the bloat still takes up a huge chunk of space - the APKs are just disabled
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rooted or not, you wouldn't get that space back. The pre-installed crud is installed on the system partition which is a separate space from where user apps (and all data) are stored. If you rooted and deleted those apps, the space would just go unused. (And really, those apps don't take up much space in storage.)
On the other hand, there are things in the AT&T preload that can't be disabled. Some might be daemons that load before (and outside the scope of) android, and others are embedded deep into the existing modules (such as systemUI.) For example, AT&T still uses a variation of carrier IQ software for analytics.
However, even if you had root, you couldn't easily get rid of those things without completely changing the firmware to something else. Once you did that, you'd also lose AT&T variant specific things such as AT&T's implementation of VoLTE, video calling, etc. (Just because other firmware might support features by the same name, it doesn't mean that they'll work on AT&T's network.)
My biggest complaint these days with AT&T variants is that AT&T blocks important system updates. Even VERIZON has become better about releasing firmware updates and upgrades for android phones when compared to AT&T. (Verizon used to hold the crown of being the absolute LAST carrier to update their phones... but no more. Now AT&T clearly owns it.)
Here's the funny thing: AT&T claims that they are locking down bootloaders and such in order to have a higher level of security for business customers. Yet, by taking MONTHS longer to release firmware updates, AT&T phones are often vulnerable to malicious exploits long after those exploits have been fixed by Samsung/HTC/etc.
garyd9 said:
Rooted or not, you wouldn't get that space back. The pre-installed crud is installed on the system partition which is a separate space from where user apps (and all data) are stored. If you rooted and deleted those apps, the space would just go unused. (And really, those apps don't take up much space in storage.)
On the other hand, there are things in the AT&T preload that can't be disabled. Some might be daemons that load before (and outside the scope of) android, and others are embedded deep into the existing modules (such as systemUI.) For example, AT&T still uses a variation of carrier IQ software for analytics.
However, even if you had root, you couldn't easily get rid of those things without completely changing the firmware to something else. Once you did that, you'd also lose AT&T variant specific things such as AT&T's implementation of VoLTE, video calling, etc. (Just because other firmware might support features by the same name, it doesn't mean that they'll work on AT&T's network.)
My biggest complaint these days with AT&T variants is that AT&T blocks important system updates. Even VERIZON has become better about releasing firmware updates and upgrades for android phones when compared to AT&T. (Verizon used to hold the crown of being the absolute LAST carrier to update their phones... but no more. Now AT&T clearly owns it.)
Here's the funny thing: AT&T claims that they are locking down bootloaders and such in order to have a higher level of security for business customers. Yet, by taking MONTHS longer to release firmware updates, AT&T phones are often vulnerable to malicious exploits long after those exploits have been fixed by Samsung/HTC/etc.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bootloader is locked down for one reason - stop tethering on unlimited plans.
Thats about it.
psufan5 said:
Bootloader is locked down for one reason - stop tethering on unlimited plans.
Thats about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are misinformed.
I completely agree that the situation sucks. I know that this will fall over into the Note 6, and that saddens me. That is why I set up camp on the Apple side of the fence. They are always hacking into ios somehow (no fragmentation i guess?), and the OS, while still not as open as Android has matured a little. I do miss Android, but Samsung was my home, and it isn't easy switching to another OEM when their hardware designs are so different (no physical home button).
I happen to work for Sprint (for the time being), and the prices are better, but our systems suck, and our business practices are kind of shady. Hopefully I don't get into any trouble for this, but customers deserve to know the whole story. Example: a gentleman came in to get a new sim card for his S4 Mini. Now with at&t, you just go get a sim card, and all you have to worry about is standard/micro/nano. With Sprint, however, each size sim card has a wide variety of skus (barcodes), and we use a tool to see which ones are compatible with the device in question. In this guy's case, Sprint had discontinued the only sim card that would work with his phone.
To put it plainly, we force ultimatums on our customers; buy another phone, or do without. I'm actually ashamed to work for this company.
What sickens me is that they disable perfectly fine features to replace them with their crapware. I like their network coverage, but I'm really doubtful if I would/should stay with At&t anymore. I personally don't care much about the bootloader, but the fact that they are doing this sort of thing without facing any sort of push-back, is what annoys me.
sireniankyle said:
I completely agree that the situation sucks. I know that this will fall over into the Note 6, and that saddens me. That is why I set up camp on the Apple side of the fence. They are always hacking into ios somehow (no fragmentation i guess?), and the OS, while still not as open as Android has matured a little. I do miss Android, but Samsung was my home, and it isn't easy switching to another OEM when their hardware designs are so different (no physical home button).
I happen to work for Sprint (for the time being), and the prices are better, but our systems suck, and our business practices are kind of shady. Hopefully I don't get into any trouble for this, but customers deserve to know the whole story. Example: a gentleman came in to get a new sim card for his S4 Mini. Now with at&t, you just go get a sim card, and all you have to worry about is standard/micro/nano. With Sprint, however, each size sim card has a wide variety of skus (barcodes), and we use a tool to see which ones are compatible with the device in question. In this guy's case, Sprint had discontinued the only sim card that would work with his phone.
To put it plainly, we force ultimatums on our customers; buy another phone, or do without. I'm actually ashamed to work for this company.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get what you are saying 100% but the only problem for me is that a locked down Android device does more than a jailbreaked iPhone any day of the week.,at the end of the day Android is still more open than IOS. As of right now Marshmallow has proven good enough for me that I'm not missing root or custom roms, that I would root and unlock if I had the chance you better believe it but even 6.0 Touchwiz is bearable right now.
glm0025 said:
I get what you are saying 100% but the only problem for me is that a locked down Android device does more than a jailbreaked iPhone any day of the week.,at the end of the day Android is still more open than IOS. As of right now Marshmallow has proven good enough for me that I'm not missing root or custom roms, that I would root and unlock if I had the chance you better believe it but even 6.0 Touchwiz is bearable right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It heavily depends on how well you know Cydia. . You can change everything about the layout in an iphone through winterboard or dreamboard. You can customize power options, and assign on screen and button shortcuts no matter where you are on the device (app, home screen, locked). Ad blocker, free spotify premium, a youtube downloader built into youtube, custom carrier logos, system wide night mode, keyboard sub symbols, finger print locked apps, remove the media cap in imessage or text messages, enable zedge ringtone downloads, kill all background apps, pop out video for any app, and custom folder sizes.
I can agree that a few of those are just catching up with Android, but a system wide on or off wifi ad blocker is something that only root can do. There are some things, like the no media cap in messages, that even a rooted android device can't technically do (depends on the carrier I suppose), because they don't go through Apple servers.
This isn't me crapping on Android. I love Android. I just needed a place to hold up until Samsung gets it together. I refuse to buy their locked up garbage anymore. The htc 10 is looking pretty good, too, but I was hoping for something with amoled.
Just so everyone is clear, we dont discuss piracy or fraud or such on XDA.
App developers work hard for their money, trust me it is hard to earn a living at 99cents a pop. Lets support our developers instead of supporting theft.
You're dumb. You're *****ing about a $600 term fee which is impossible for a single line. Buy your phone international or unlocked if this is such an issue for you and stop whining. The ATT model of phones are NOT for power users. Plain and simple. I'm surprised so many people are taking the time to read you *****ing.
This post is so funny...
You are all over the place with your words, your thoughts and your anger.
Why would you purchase the S7 on AT&T if you already knew all of this?
Especially if this has already happened to you with your Note 4?
End of the day, most of the customers who use AT&T have no idea about root. They have no care or concern about these things.
People like us, on XDA, who love to root and customize our phones have to understand that there is a paradigm shift in Android (particularly in regards to Samsung devices) that focuses on security rather than customization. Especially when dealing with Carrier phones. The bloat, the locked bootloader, the restrictions all have their reasons for existing.
Especially when Samsung is amidst a global (albeit slow) roll out of Samsung Pay. Trying to align themselves ever so closely with Apple in terms of quality and brand recognition.
Samsung Pay will NEVER work on a rooted phone, EVER! Doesn't matter if you restore stock firmware etc...
Carriers also have their reasons as well...
There are plenty of reasons why they both do it, most of which I don't want to sit here and write out one by one. Like you said in your post... Google it.
End of the day, if you want to root or customize your device then you should do your research before dropping $700+ on a phone.
Plenty of bloat free, bootloader unlocked, international and non carrier phones available for you to achieve root and enjoy Android.
Coming on here and posting a wall of whine just makes you look silly and childish.
Yes, it sucks... I share your annoyance as I'm sure many other AT&T/XDA members do as well - for years now.
End of the day, these mega corporations don't care about you or what makes you happy. It's a business, their business, deal with it. We all have to... If you want to protest, protest with your wallet.
HNIC215 said:
Samsung Pay will NEVER work on a rooted phone, EVER! Doesn't matter if you restore stock firmware etc...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While I tend to agree with the majority of your post, I think this one statement I quoted might be a bit too absolute.
My understanding of SPay is that it relies on the KNOX fuse to determine if a phone is modified. If true, then if an exploit is discovered and implemented which grants root without tripping KNOX, then SPay could possibly work on a rooted device. (Hiding root is doable, and supersu has been playing the cat/mouse game with Android Pay for several months on this...)
The galaxy S6 was rootable without tripping KNOX when it was initially released...
Of course, it's possible that there's something in the samsung firmware that will immediately trip KNOX if root is even detected. If so, it's something new that hasn't been there before. Previously, tripping KNOX required an action at the bootloader level - and usually occurred when an image not signed by samsung was flashed via ODIN.
Moving slightly off topic...
The problem, in my opinion, isn't that root can't be gained. There are plenty of exploits for gaining privileges that either Samsung takes too long to patch, or that the carriers (specifically AT&T) take too long to release the patches for. (AT&T is already 2 months behind on the S7's security patches. Those are patches for security concerns that are now publicly announced and should be easily exploited by reverse engineering the fixes that google publishes.)
The real problem is that people who would develop and publish a root method for hobbyists don't care anymore. Those people aren't going to buy a bootloader locked S7. Either they'll buy a different phone entirely (from a manufacturer that's more dev friendly), or they'll buy a non-carrier model that isn't bootloader locked. (Actually, there's another group, but it's very small: Industry insiders who are constrained by legal agreements (such as NDA's) preventing them from releasing anything they might come up with.)
garyd9 said:
While I tend to agree with the majority of your post, I think this one statement I quoted might be a bit too absolute.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what a Samsung Rep told me when I had the international Note 5 and wanted to know if I would be able to use Samsung Pay here in the states.
First, they said Samsung Pay would have to be available in the device's country of origin.
Second, they said the device can NEVER be rooted. If the device is rooted, it will NEVER be able to run Samsung Pay on it for the remainder of its life. Regardless if you restore with stock firmware and unroot.
Which makes sense actually when you think about it.
Apple is and has been synonymous with security and safety - in general but especially in regards to Apple Pay.
Samsung has always been considered the "Apple" or "iPhone" of the Android world - this statement holds true now more than ever before.
With Samsung Pay being released globally (slowly but surely)... Samsung will not risk the security of their platform by any means at all.
Letting users gain root access to their devices can potentially expose parts of their secure Samsung Pay platform and risk a major security or privacy incident that would lead to global fallout regardless of where the incident took place.
They will never allow this - especially with the progress they have made over the years to build a premium brand.
With the S7 and S7 Edge - they further that tradition and bring more security than ever.
Don't take my word for it...
Samsung Knox recognised as the strongest mobile security platform
Samsung has received strongest ratings for its mobile security platform Knox in areas including authentication methods, encryption management, jailbreak or root protection and application vetting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The latest version of Knox is currently available for Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge and optimised for Android 6.0 Marshmallow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
According to a report, Mobile Device Security: A comparison of Platforms by renowned market analyst firm Gartner, Samsung's latest security platform Knox version 2.6 got the most strong ratings for any mobile security platform. The firm analysed the core OS security features built into a total of 12 mobile device platforms as well as enterprise management capabilities. Samsung also managed to gain leadership in mobile security market though Knox, coupled with Samsung Pay.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Source:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/samsung-knox-recognised-strongest-mobile-security-platform-1554836
HNIC215 said:
That's what a Samsung Rep told me when I had the international Note 5 and wanted to know if I would be able to use Samsung Pay here in the states.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay.. I wonder if he's related to one of the "samsung reps" that work in Best Buy stores.... or the ones that come visit AT&T stores on occasion. For the most part, they are really good in reciting the marketing material, but when it comes to details, they are clueless. In fact, at least as bad as Radio Shack sales people.
"KNOX" is a confusing term.
First, there's "KNOX" as a software security suite that is very closely related to what google calls "Android for Work." Both are basically a "secure" and private container/sandbox. The idea is that you take a personal smartphone to work and can run "work" apps that are completely sandboxes from personal apps. This has nothing whatsoever to do with SPay. SPay doesn't make use of this element of KNOX.
KNOX is also the name of a fuse in the device (which is likely a qualcomm "qfuse" in the SD820 S7's) that trips when the bootloader detects an unsigned kernel/recovery. _THIS_ is the KNOX that relates to SPay. Real human beings (not samsung sales or support reps) have confirmed that once the KNOX fuse is tripped, it prevents SPay from working. (It also prevents KNOX, the software suite mentioned above, from working.)
Now I need to express things in strange ways, and I hope you'll forgive the odd phrasing:
As far as devs on XDA and other sites similar to XDA have been able to determine, "root" does not prevent SPay from functioning. In fact, my understanding is that there are people who rooted their Galaxy S6 without tripping the KNOX fuse, later reverted to factory firmware, allowed the phone to OTA to newer firmware that included SPay, and SPay worked fine. However, there are others who have tripped the KNOX fuse while rooted who can no longer use SPay. The key here is that KNOX fuse...
I can say with a very large degree of confidence that SPay will work just fine if you happened to had a device that somehow had a working "su" binary in the path AND KNOX wasn't tripped. That might happen if the bootloader was designed to not trip KNOX... such as someone who developed software for preloads might have on a test device. Based only on information in the public domain, it might also happen if an exploit was found that didn't require flashing a custom kernel, recovery, etc.
It's POSSIBLE, and I actually don't know this, that the firmware released on these devices publicly has code to force tripping the KNOX fuse if root is detected. The galaxy S6 did NOT have this mechanism when towel root (or whatever root method it was) worked on it. I somehow doubt that samsung would have added this to the firmware, as there's too great a chance for a false positive, and tripping that KNOX flag is permanent.
In android user terms, a "rooted" device is merely a device that has a working suid "su" binary in the path owned by the 'root' user. (Later versions of android also require some sepolicy changes, but that's outside the scope of this thread.) That binary might be on /system or it might be in the kernel partition. However, neither is a permanent change to the device, and therefore it can be removed with no trace.
garyd9 said:
Okay.. I wonder if he's related to one of the "samsung reps" that work in Best Buy stores.... or the ones that come visit AT&T stores on occasion. For the most part, they are really good in reciting the marketing material, but when it comes to details, they are clueless. In fact, at least as bad as Radio Shack sales people.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No this wasn't in person... Nor was it someone from the states (from what I could tell).
It was with a technician over the phone because the first customer service rep had no idea - so she transferred me to a technician.
Regardless, there is no point in discussing this endlessly.
There are already plenty of folks out there who are trying to solve this issue, only time will tell if they can succeed.
Let's see what happens.