02-15-2017 3:38 PM
I know I speak for a great number of people in the Android development community when I say AT&T's software policies are terribly restrictive. We need the ability to unlock our Android phones' bootloaders to do many of the things we do, particularly using other variations of the Android operating system. In recent years, AT&T has chosen to use signed bootloaders, which cannot be unlocked. Unfortunately, that hurts and limits developers who want to access the full potential of their devices. Because of this, many users have moved to T-Mobile and other carriers who choose to make their bootloaders accessible. The T-Mobile variant of the LG G5, for example, was unlockable, but the AT&T variant was not. I have not purchased a phone since my Galaxy S4 because it has been so hard to find a phone that has the features I want as well as an unlocked bootloader. Samsung phones usually have all the features I want but they haven't been unlockable since the S5. I would have loved to buy a Galaxy S7 last year, but AT&T and Samsung are both partially responsible in choosing to lock the bootloader. (I will get on Samsung's case later.) Please reconsider your policies and be more welcoming to the Android development crowd.
10-02-2017 11:50 AM
Signed bootloader=Planned obsolescence.
LineageOS provides up to date Security Patches
Change will only occur after some lawyer figures out the money to be made from the lawsuits from this.
@yoshkapundrick For the 100th time, it’s not yours to delete or alter. Read about intellectual property
10-03-2017 6:40 AM
My state has Strict Liability.
state dont trump fed law... Scotus ruled arbitration clauses can be used in Cali...
10-05-2017 8:39 AM
"Signed bootloader=Planned obsolescence"
So show me an Android 4 or 5 device that will not make calls, send texts or use data due to locked bootloader.
10-05-2017 8:54 AM
10-05-2017 9:04 AM
Secure from what exactly? Unless someone is a potential corporate espionage target or government official there isn't any reason why aftermarket security from Google Play won't secure a device. You show me a large percentage of proven examples that someone was severely compromised because they couldn't unlock a bootloader and I'll change my tune. Anyone claiming some kind of FCC or or legal regulation is merely blowing smoke. There are ZERO provisions requiring anything on behalf of carriers in this regard.
It's been said a million times. An end user is totally free to do what they want with their device. If they want to mess with the OS and bootloader no one is going to stop them. You're on your own though. Don't expect any assistance or help from the carrier or manufacturer. Their terms and policies are clear and legal in every US state and territory.
10-05-2017 9:25 AM
10-27-2017 4:41 PM
- edited 10-27-2017 5:23 PM
@yoshkapundrick Right. “Samsung declined to answer specific questions about the bitcoin mining rig, ”
Note it was SAMSUNG not any carrier. And you should not assume any were branded phones.
10-27-2017 5:38 PM
Right, got you. Because there are so many unbranded s5 galaxy's in the US being used that will make upcycling a total success.
10-27-2017 6:30 PM
Where in there does it say they are going to unlock bootloader's? Samsungs own internal lab did that stuff. Carrier contract on the phones with Samsung make it so they can't just unlock the bootloader's on att devices.
10-27-2017 6:39 PM
"The site will work by allowing users to download software that removes Android and opens the devices up to other forms of software"
10-27-2017 6:58 PM
Other forms of software.... Not Android and not to be a mobile phone anymore. This use case is for not being a phone anymore.
10-28-2017 12:34 AM