Related
47MB and gave me yellow pages as well as lookout. I already use lookout but WTF ATT? Bloatware was already a problem but you're actually shoving more down my throat?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using XDA Free mobile app
abraxo said:
47MB and gave me yellow pages as well as lookout. I already use lookout but WTF ATT? Bloatware was already a problem but you're actually shoving more down my throat?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using XDA Free mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.androidcentral.com/updat...ls-more-apps-you-whether-you-want-them-or-not
Yup just got my update before I read this SCREW YOU AT&T
I haven't updated any firmware or security policies. I'm perfectly fine staying as is
The two apps can be disabled, so no biggie to me. There does seems to be at least one bug fix. My recent apps button was a little wonky. It is fixed now.
I hope there isnt something in the update that further prevents root being achieved. If you go to att website there is no way to prevent update either.
http://www.att.com/esupport/softwareUpdateArticle.jsp?sid=KB424084&cv=820#fbid=Vm6VYAFaBld
I just updated. Can someone who hasn't post their about device screen with the kernel and baseband and build info?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
mobilehavoc said:
I just updated. Can someone who hasn't post their about device screen with the kernel and baseband and build info?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here you go.
Thanks. New kernel, baseband and build. Took 5 seconds to disable the apps. Happy camper
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
AT&T marketing Geniuses....not!
More apps to disable because AT&T must think it's funny to push bloatware OTA and label it as an update. Seriously what are they thinking?
Is there actually some marketing strategist that is so out of touch with the real world as to think that people want this crap?
It boggles the mind really that senior leadership and marketing does not troll XDA for ideas that would actually help them succeed in product management.
The 1st carrier to the gate with a device that comes with nothing but vanilla android, is not boot locked, or in any other way hindered for root would (I predict) gain a 10% market share inside of 30 days. Business 101....cater to the majority ESPECIALLY when no one else is. fu***** idiots!!! Do they not realize that we all may enjoy different apps, but that is what the app marketplace is for? Some my even want At&t's apps ( lol ) but they need to put them on the play store and let people choose. You know...democracy and all that. Maybe they think that their apps give them a leg up on their competition? Really? Seriously? An app is going to make the difference of someone choosing AT&T S5 over Verizon S5? OMG please tell me they are not stupid. (I'm long winded and redundant due to hoping De La Vega is reading this btw) Evidently they need things spelled out. I certainly hope he realizes that most normal people make carrier decisions based on price of service, coverage, speed of 4G, etc. You know; that business 101 thing again. Hey Mr. Vega; how many people do you have writing code for AT&T apps? What are you spending on that? What are you paying that marketing jack ass that told you to hire people to write code for AT&T specific apps and bloatware? I hope you get where I'm going here. My God man, take a breath, sit back, clear your mind of all the hype and confusion of the bubble your in and look at this thing from the outside. Get back to the basics and provide a product and service that people want. We dont want or need to have to take the lessor of the evils (context of who has less bloat if we want a new device). Dont believe me? Attempt to find 0.1% of your customers that just has to have one of your bundled apps. Let me know how that goes for you. In the mean time the other 99.9% of us will only be getting more frustrated.
At any rate here is some contact info for At&t. I suggest we flood them with emails and try to get directly to "ATTN. Randall L. Stephenson, Ralph De La Vega"
[email protected]
[email protected]
https://www.facebook.com/ATT
https://twitter.com/ATTCustomerCare
bailey37821 said:
More apps to disable because AT&T must think it's funny to push bloatware OTA and label it as an update. Seriously what are they thinking?
Is there actually some marketing strategist that is so out of touch with the real world as to think that people want this crap?
It boggles the mind really that senior leadership and marketing does not troll XDA for ideas that would actually help them succeed in product management.
The 1st carrier to the gate with a device that comes with nothing but vanilla android, is not boot locked, or in any other way hindered for root would (I predict) gain a 10% market share inside of 30 days. Business 101....cater to the majority ESPECIALLY when no one else is. fu***** idiots!!!
At any rate here is some contact info for At&t. I suggest we flood them with emails and try to get directly to "ATTN. Randall L. Stephenson, Ralph De La Vega"
[email protected]
[email protected]
https://www.facebook.com/ATT
https://twitter.com/ATTCustomerCare
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You do realize the people on XDA are the minority right? We're definitely not the general population. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
mobilehavoc said:
You do realize the people on XDA are the minority right? We're definitely not the general population. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True in the literal sense that "people on XDA". I beg to differ though in that the general majority people would not want things shoved down their throat. All people want choice over the carriers take it or leave it attitude. In addition more and more people are becoming aware of what used to be only "for geeks". My 68 year old father for instance is fully aware of the advantages of having less apps taking up more storage and/or running in the background eating up ram and battery life when he has no need for most of them. The statement "if I wanted them loaded and running I should be able to choose that for myself" or something along those lines is growing among even the "non techies". And lets face it; I would bet that most people on XDA are the defacto come to people in their families for advice on all things electronic. Therefore even a minority can have a large effect on the majority.
BTW, I have no bubble to burst. My age, maturity, and I.Q. puts me well beyond trivial things like that.
mobilehavoc said:
You do realize the people on XDA are the minority right? We're definitely not the general population. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. Any company that followed the wishes/preferences of those on XDA would be out of business soon.
GeorgeP said:
Exactly. Any company that followed the wishes/preferences of those on XDA would be out of business soon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As above. Your looking at the small picture. Those wishes and preferences are not only those of XDA.
It's almost laughable that you are saying that a company that eliminates bloatware and possibly gives an opportunity for root would be out of business soon.
A very small example would be the fact that people are flocking to a carrier with substantially less coverage and reliability (T-Mo) because of wifi calling. A feature that AT&T and Verizon eliminated for seemingly no reason. Why? because a handful of people out of 10's of thousands might only use the device for free wifi calls versus buying service from them? How many people are going to buy a high end device averaging 650.00 to do that with? So your telling me that if AT&T released an update tomorrow that allowed easy rooting or at least got rid of bloatware and turned on wifi calling, that people would not flock to AT&T? Big picture...
bailey37821 said:
As above. Your looking at the small picture. Those wishes and preferences are not only those of XDA.
It's almost laughable that you are saying that a company that eliminates bloatware and possibly gives an opportunity for root would be out of business soon.
A very small example would be the fact that people are flocking to a carrier with substantially less coverage and reliability (T-Mo) because of wifi calling. A feature that AT&T and Verizon eliminated for seemingly no reason. Why? because a handful of people out of 10's of thousands might only use the device for free wifi calls versus buying service from them? How many people are going to buy a high end device averaging 650.00 to do that with? So your telling me that if AT&T released an update tomorrow that allowed easy rooting or at least got rid of bloatware and turned on wifi calling, that people would not flock to AT&T? Big picture...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OnePlus One is the closest thing to an XDA dream phone. Let's see how well it does.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
mobilehavoc said:
OnePlus One is the closest thing to an XDA dream phone. Let's see how well it does.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are a few out actually. The biggest issue is they are all pay retail upfront. I am specifically speaking to the fact of major carriers increasing their market share / customer base and customer loyalty through standard channels and current business practices and plans offered.
But i'll bite anyway. Lets look at Oppo. A Chinese company started on a shoe string budget and prayer mostly. I don't have the time or the room to fully explain all the numbers, but suffice it to say that if they were in America they would have set or broke dozens of records concerning initial interest, market share versus time in market, profitability, units sold, % increase in sales versus time, net worth versus initial valuation, etc, etc...
And that was for full price units from an unknown Chinese company in a market full of unknown Chinese companies that all have a low initial trust rating. Multiply their numbers X 1000 for a trusted US carrier to do anything similar with a hot trusted device
---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------
PS
Where do you think the one plus came from. That would be from the former VP of OPPO of course. He saw those numbers for the N1 and the Find and knew you don't have to be a marketing guru to see the obvious. He left a lot of money and an incredible future with Oppo to help bring out the one plus.
bailey37821 said:
More apps to disable because AT&T must think it's funny to push bloatware OTA and label it as an update. Seriously what are they thinking?
Is there actually some marketing strategist that is so out of touch with the real world as to think that people want this crap?
It boggles the mind really that senior leadership and marketing does not troll XDA for ideas that would actually help them succeed in product management.
The 1st carrier to the gate with a device that comes with nothing but vanilla android, is not boot locked, or in any other way hindered for root would (I predict) gain a 10% market share inside of 30 days. Business 101....cater to the majority ESPECIALLY when no one else is. fu***** idiots!!! Do they not realize that we all may enjoy different apps, but that is what the app marketplace is for? Some my even want At&t's apps ( lol ) but they need to put them on the play store and let people choose. You know...democracy and all that. Maybe they think that their apps give them a leg up on their competition? Really? Seriously? An app is going to make the difference of someone choosing AT&T S5 over Verizon S5? OMG please tell me they are not stupid. (I'm long winded and redundant due to hoping De La Vega is reading this btw) Evidently they need things spelled out. I certainly hope he realizes that most normal people make carrier decisions based on price of service, coverage, speed of 4G, etc. You know; that business 101 thing again. Hey Mr. Vega; how many people do you have writing code for AT&T apps? What are you spending on that? What are you paying that marketing jack ass that told you to hire people to write code for AT&T specific apps and bloatware? I hope you get where I'm going here. My God man, take a breath, sit back, clear your mind of all the hype and confusion of the bubble your in and look at this thing from the outside. Get back to the basics and provide a product and service that people want. We dont want or need to have to take the lessor of the evils (context of who has less bloat if we want a new device). Dont believe me? Attempt to find 0.1% of your customers that just has to have one of your bundled apps. Let me know how that goes for you. In the mean time the other 99.9% of us will only be getting more frustrated.
At any rate here is some contact info for At&t. I suggest we flood them with emails and try to get directly to "ATTN. Randall L. Stephenson, Ralph De La Vega"
[email protected]
[email protected]
https://www.facebook.com/ATT
https://twitter.com/ATTCustomerCare
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha wow. Not even sure where to start. For one it's a numbers game, throw the apps out there and maybe %10 will use it, maybe even %1. That's still more people putting money in their pocket than previously. Most of the users don't care about bloatware, if anything they view it as ATT offering them more than they got originally and at most a minor annoyance. So long as it doesn't brick their device they don't care, at most they just won't use it. The idea that "if you want it then find it on the market, and then choose ours over the competition" is just silly, why leave it to chance when you can increase your odds by putting your app on their phone directly in their face? %99.9 of users are frustrated by the addition of more bloatware or are infuriated by having it at all? we all know that's not even close to true, I've never heard a friend complain that the update to their phone added more apps. If you really think any of the higher-ups are reading your rant you're delusional. Go ahead and spam them, and again if you really think that goes directly to their inbox, you're delusional. Sure it will be addressed by someone, but it won't be any of the higher ups your trying to contact. Do you really think they're tech savvy enough to even know what you're talking about? They're put in place because they know how to manage multi-billion dollar companies, not because they know the ins and outs of a cell phone.
bailey37821 said:
True in the literal sense that "people on XDA". I beg to differ though in that the general majority people would not want things shoved down their throat. All people want choice over the carriers take it or leave it attitude. In addition more and more people are becoming aware of what used to be only "for geeks". My 68 year old father for instance is fully aware of the advantages of having less apps taking up more storage and/or running in the background eating up ram and battery life when he has no need for most of them. The statement "if I wanted them loaded and running I should be able to choose that for myself" or something along those lines is growing among even the "non techies". And lets face it; I would bet that most people on XDA are the defacto come to people in their families for advice on all things electronic. Therefore even a minority can have a large effect on the majority.
BTW, I have no bubble to burst. My age, maturity, and I.Q. puts me well beyond trivial things like that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"shoved down their throats" is a bit of an exaggeration. They load the app on the phones, it's not like it cripples the device or stops the device from functioning unless you use it. The S5 is still a rockstar even with the bloat. I do concur that most of us here are probably the people that relatives/family go to for phone advice. However guarantee neither of my parents or any relative for that matter would care about a phone having bloatware. They want a phone that will serve a purpose and maybe they can play some games on it.
bailey37821 said:
As above. Your looking at the small picture. Those wishes and preferences are not only those of XDA.
It's almost laughable that you are saying that a company that eliminates bloatware and possibly gives an opportunity for root would be out of business soon.
A very small example would be the fact that people are flocking to a carrier with substantially less coverage and reliability (T-Mo) because of wifi calling. A feature that AT&T and Verizon eliminated for seemingly no reason. Why? because a handful of people out of 10's of thousands might only use the device for free wifi calls versus buying service from them? How many people are going to buy a high end device averaging 650.00 to do that with? So your telling me that if AT&T released an update tomorrow that allowed easy rooting or at least got rid of bloatware and turned on wifi calling, that people would not flock to AT&T? Big picture...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are protecting their assets. The more options you have to use a competing service the more money they lose. reduce the ability to use the competitor and you rid yourself of that chance.
That all being said I am not a fan of bloatware, at all. Nor am I agreeing with their tactics. But step into reality. They want to maximize profits and get their users to use their apps so it can be billed to them.
I do have another theory for how much the phones are locked down these days. If anyone has followed the news; they're trying to head off phone thefts, they've spiraled out of control. Easiest way to prevent someone from stealing a phone? make sure that even if it is stolen, it can't be used anywhere because it's locked down like fort knox (pun sort of intended )
Sorry for any feathers i've ruffled.
To get back on track this update has made the phone smoother and have noticed no lag where there used to be lag before. Battery life seems better too so far.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
No OTA method (so far)
mobilehavoc said:
To get back on track this update has made the phone smoother and have noticed no lag where there used to be lag before. Battery life seems better too so far.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I read the AT&T update page- what i can offer. I didn't accept the last weeks security certificate and I've been going into Running apps and stopping the AT&T OTA update process on any reboot(it doesn't seem to auto-restart) and I have not gotten any alerts or been pushed the OTA since.
I'll update if this changes.
Updated and lost my s health data. All my steps lost ?
I never get any alerts and i agree to security certificates. Also i did not update yet just want to if we can revert back with Odin or if can use Kies to get back ?
There is an ota update of 142.00mb, Im trying to download it and I keep getting error. it reboots into recovery and says 25% then it boots into main phone, then it says install update was unsuccessful. Any ideas? I did have my phone rooted it before, the method I used was threw the app store.
the_professor. said:
There is an ota update of 142.00mb, Im trying to download it and I keep getting error. it reboots into recovery and says 25% then it boots into main phone, then it says install update was unsuccessful. Any ideas? I did have my phone rooted it before, the method I used was threw the app store.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Go here...http://forum.xda-developers.com/att-galaxy-s5/general/g900and3tong3keeprootota-zip-t2862299
Read trouble shooting
I dont want to root it again, i wanted to unroot it, i seem to be having alot of problems since I rooted .
the_professor. said:
I dont want to root it again, i wanted to unroot it, i seem to be having alot of problems since I rooted .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You don't have to root, that's why I said read the trouble shooting in the op.
what is op? sorry
the_professor. said:
what is op? sorry
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Opening post or sometimes Original poster.
I've been getting a notification about an update that I repeatedly decline. About 15 min ago it was forced to my phone but failed. What I mean by forced is I had no option to decline/remind me later. Now my biggest issue with that is how do they know or why do they think I'm not using my phone to handle important business? That is what aggravated me the most. Assuming I want the update, and attempting to force it on my phone. I'm pissed for real for the first time with AT&T.
Assassyn said:
I've been getting a notification about an update that I repeatedly decline. About 15 min ago it was forced to my phone but failed. What I mean by forced is I had no option to decline/remind me later. Now my biggest issue with that is how do they know or why do they think I'm not using my phone to handle important business? That is what aggravated me the most. Assuming I want the update, and attempting to force it on my phone. I'm pissed for real for the first time with AT&T.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Short answer - they don't care. Their interest in maintaining residual control over your property is more important to them than whatever you want to do with your property.
Assassyn said:
I've been getting a notification about an update that I repeatedly decline. About 15 min ago it was forced to my phone but failed. What I mean by forced is I had no option to decline/remind me later. Now my biggest issue with that is how do they know or why do they think I'm not using my phone to handle important business? That is what aggravated me the most. Assuming I want the update, and attempting to force it on my phone. I'm pissed for real for the first time with AT&T.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not to defend any carrier but my guess is they felt it was an important enough update and had to be pushed to the phone after the repeated attempts were declined. I agree that this is not a proper practice and perhaps a call to executive services filing a complaint might help in the long run. But as the other 99% of owners that are not rooted or modified will probably just accept the update, they have little concern for the rooted community. One would hope that it was detecting a period of low activity?
Kamchak said:
Short answer - they don't care. Their interest in maintaining residual control over your property is more important to them than whatever you want to do with your property.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah..the old "my property" argument....well what rights you have to things you purchase are subjective. In most communities a homeowner cannot park a vehicle on his own grass, nor keep unregistered vehicles in his driveway unless covered, has to maintain the property...and thousands of other laws and ordinances telling them exactly what they can and cannot do to their owned "property." Cell phones are a communication device thus governed by communication laws allowing the carriers to tell you what you can and cannot do to your "property" for security and communication regulated reasons. The only way around those regulations forcing updates to you (to a certain degree) is to buy an unlocked device from independent sales outlets. Using a certain carrier will then add their restrictions to you in the TOS that you sign.
KennyG123 said:
Ah..the old "my property" argument....well what rights you have to things you purchase are subjective. In most communities a homeowner cannot park a vehicle on his own grass, nor keep unregistered vehicles in his driveway unless covered, has to maintain the property...and thousands of other laws and ordinances telling them exactly what they can and cannot do to their owned "property." Cell phones are a communication device thus governed by communication laws allowing the carriers to tell you what you can and cannot do to your "property" for security and communication regulated reasons. The only way around those regulations forcing updates to you (to a certain degree) is to buy an unlocked device from independent sales outlets. Using a certain carrier will then add their restrictions to you in the TOS that you sign.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although I understand what you are saying, and (being a homeowner) understand the realities of your post, I am uncertain as to the purpose in making the answer. Although my answer may be an old argument, that doesn't make it an erroneous argument. Their consideration for our interests begins and ends with our wallets. They couldn't care less about what we want to do with our communication equipment, whether bought from a certain carrier or an independent sales outlet. I'd venture to guess that their TOS isn't any different, regardless from where you obtain the property.
As far as there not being a way around their control, isn't that why this site exists? I thought what xda-developers was here for was to help people get the most out of their devices by providing a collaborative environment where people could share their experiences of creative use and exploration of said property without restriction by other entities?
Kamchak said:
Although I understand what you are saying, and (being a homeowner) understand the realities of your post, I am uncertain as to the purpose in making the answer. Although my answer may be an old argument, that doesn't make it an erroneous argument. Their consideration for our interests begins and ends with our wallets. They couldn't care less about what we want to do with our communication equipment, whether bought from a certain carrier or an independent sales outlet. I'd venture to guess that their TOS isn't any different, regardless from where you obtain the property.
As far as there not being a way around their control, isn't that why this site exists? I thought what xda-developers was here for was to help people get the most out of their devices by providing a collaborative environment where people could share their experiences of creative use and exploration of said property without restriction by other entities?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you say is true...I was just trying to clarify the entitlement I see way too often regarding what people feel are their rights to do what they want with their "property." As a communication device it is not fully anyone's property until deactivated.
This site does exist to help members do more with their devices than intended by the carrier..however that comes with ramifications like voiding the warranty or violating TOS. There are many posts made by people thrown off of their carrier for tethering huge amounts of data. As for a way around their control...there are many methods available on this site to avoid updates. At the first sign of an unwanted updated the OP should have sought those methods out. I know...it was a surprise that it got forced on the device (though failing) without consent. I am sure there is some clause in the TOS allowing that. So I apologize if it seemed my post was directed at you..it was just to clarify this "property" idea that I see spouted way too often around this site. :good:
KennyG123 said:
Not to defend any carrier but my guess is they felt it was an important enough update and had to be pushed to the phone after the repeated attempts were declined. I agree that this is not a proper practice and perhaps a call to executive services filing a complaint might help in the long run. But as the other 99% of owners that are not rooted or modified will probably just accept the update, they have little concern for the rooted community. One would hope that it was detecting a period of low activity?
Ah..the old "my property" argument....well what rights you have to things you purchase are subjective. In most communities a homeowner cannot park a vehicle on his own grass, nor keep unregistered vehicles in his driveway unless covered, has to maintain the property...and thousands of other laws and ordinances telling them exactly what they can and cannot do to their owned "property." Cell phones are a communication device thus governed by communication laws allowing the carriers to tell you what you can and cannot do to your "property" for security and communication regulated reasons. The only way around those regulations forcing updates to you (to a certain degree) is to buy an unlocked device from independent sales outlets. Using a certain carrier will then add their restrictions to you in the TOS that you sign.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was able to get them to go away after freezing the updater apk file with Titanium BackUp. Haven't been bothered since. I think if it's that serious to where they need to force an update, they should at least tell us what the major concern is. Very likely that they won't but it's ok, I "fixed" it enough for my liking.
Assassyn said:
I was able to get them to go away after freezing the updater apk file with Titanium BackUp. Haven't been bothered since. I think if it's that serious to where they need to force an update, they should at least tell us what the major concern is. Very likely that they won't but it's ok, I "fixed" it enough for my liking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes! Thankfully there is no shortage of information on this site on how to prevent OTA's and the annoying nags.
KennyG123 said:
Yes! Thankfully there is no shortage of information on this site on how to prevent OTA's and the annoying nags.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I take my annoying nag out to dinner a couple times a month. Oops don't tell her I said that or I'll be building another doghouse. ????
"You stay classy San Diego"
Sent from my G900A powered by XKRom GoldLimiTed.
can anyone pointe to the thread to root a nexus 6 with marshmallow on it please? i search but i see a lot of old, conflicting and outdated reports
I just want solid instructions that somebody here already used
cpugeeker said:
can anyone pointe to the thread to root a nexus 6 with marshmallow on it please? i search but i see a lot of old, conflicting and outdated reports
I just want solid instructions that somebody here already used
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here are the steps I used:
- flash/upgrade to Marshmallow
- flash modified boot.img
- flash/boot TWRP and sideload latest v2.50+
No. Not that unless you want unknown evil invading your phone and stealing your private information.
Use this instead;
http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/root-t3231211
doitright said:
No. Not that unless you want unknown evil invading your phone and stealing your private information.
Use this instead;
http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/root-t3231211
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WOW what happen with them? I found some readings but now all. What exactly went down? Any good reads on this?
doitright said:
No. Not that unless you want unknown evil invading your phone and stealing your private information.
Use this instead;
http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/root-t3231211
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol. I appreciate your work on providing other root access methods, but you really shouldnt go around claiming made up info as fact and trying to spread fear everywhere you can. You have no proof whatsoever of the things you claim.
EniGmA1987 said:
lol. I appreciate your work on providing other root access methods, but you really shouldnt go around claiming made up info as fact and trying to spread fear everywhere you can. You have no proof whatsoever of the things you claim.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You obviously don't know the first thing about security, or the gravity of offering root control to an unknown entity.
To make it simple, unless you can *prove* that something is safe, the only rational assumption is that it isn't.
In other words, it is not my place to prove them unsafe. It is your responsibility to prove that they are safe, and frankly, that is an impossible task.
Feel free to use whatever you like. But don't go recommending to somebody that they take dangerous risks that are unnecessary.
---------- Post added at 01:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 AM ----------
cpugeeker said:
WOW what happen with them? I found some readings but now all. What exactly went down? Any good reads on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was almost acceptable when it was maintained by a single individual, but at some point fairly recently, the code was transferred/sold to an outfit that has been buying up all the root control software that can be found on play store.
Although the original author continues to make the software available under his pseudonym, there is no indication of the contract in place between him and the software's new owners, and no indication of their motives.
That makes the situation incredible frightening and dangerous.
doitright said:
You obviously don't know the first thing about security, or the gravity of offering root control to an unknown entity.
To make it simple, unless you can *prove* that something is safe, the only rational assumption is that it isn't.
In other words, it is not my place to prove them unsafe. It is your responsibility to prove that they are safe, and frankly, that is an impossible task.
Feel free to use whatever you like. But don't go recommending to somebody that they take dangerous risks that are unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So something that has always been a bit closed, yet still trusted and used, gets transfered to a newly made company started through XDA leaders and still maintained currently by Chainfire for a while, and suddenly this means secret organizations with corrupt ties have suddenly taken control of the Android root world?
EniGmA1987 said:
So something that has always been a bit closed, yet still trusted and used, gets transfered to a newly made company started through XDA leaders and still maintained currently by Chainfire for a while, and suddenly this means secret organizations with corrupt ties have suddenly taken control of the Android root world?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't guarantee that it's bad. But for it to not be controlled by the creator (a first ballot Hall of Famer in this community) and ownership switched to an unproven entity, it turns it from solid and secure to who knows what. The new owners could be just as good. But we should skeptically wait and see
EniGmA1987 said:
So something that has always been a bit closed, yet still trusted and used, gets transfered to a newly made company started through XDA leaders and still maintained currently by Chainfire for a while, and suddenly this means secret organizations with corrupt ties have suddenly taken control of the Android root world?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is not really a newly made company and no where are the XDA leaders involved.
Now make no mistake. Chains SU will be around for a very long time. Will there be other options? Sure, there are many already. If not as mainstream. Apps like this will come and go. It is the nature of the beast.
Now before people start bashing others they better have something to prove it. Other wise they have nothing to say worth listening to.
zelendel said:
It is not really a newly made company and no where are the XDA leaders involved.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you provide some info on the company to the people here then? Because business filings say that you are wrong on that. The filings for the company were done on August 11th of this year and they rent a virtual office space at the Trump Building on Wall Street. Chainfire himself also said that the XDA leadership was involved in getting his project moved over to this company. Now maybe he wasnt supposed to let that slip, IDK, but he did say it.
EniGmA1987 said:
Could you provide some info on the company to the people here then? Because business filings say that you are wrong on that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just look deeper and you will see. Just because they have a different name, or make an off shoot doesnt really make them a different company. If you read you will see that they already have their fingers into a few SU apps already. Dont you think that is odd for a new company?
XDA admins only made introductions. I personally dont really care. Nor should anyone really. If you are using SU then you know the risks you run and how to spot them.
zelendel said:
Just look deeper and you will see. Just because they have a different name, or make an off shoot doesnt really make them a different company. If you read you will see that they already have their fingers into a few SU apps already. Dont you think that is odd for a new company?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What would be incredibly useful and go a long way in putting people's minds at ease, would be a realistic explanation of the MOTIVATIONS of this company, WHICH IS NEW, regardless of your perception of it being a simple name change, for acquiring and controlling ALL of the different mechanisms for controlling root on Android.
Frankly, I can imagine only a few motivations, none of which ANYONE should be ok with;
1) Charging for it,
2) Forcing ads that the user cannot control,
3) Backdoor/botnet/etc.
You need to remember that while their software will prompt you when some OTHER software tries to access root, it has the ability to hide its own use of root, as well as to wipe evidence from the logs.
Root access should ONLY EVER be open source.
doitright said:
What would be incredibly useful and go a long way in putting people's minds at ease, would be a realistic explanation of the MOTIVATIONS of this company, WHICH IS NEW, regardless of your perception of it being a simple name change, for acquiring and controlling ALL of the different mechanisms for controlling root on Android.
Frankly, I can imagine only a few motivations, none of which ANYONE should be ok with;
1) Charging for it,
2) Forcing ads that the user cannot control,
3) Backdoor/botnet/etc.
You need to remember that while their software will prompt you when some OTHER software tries to access root, it has the ability to hide its own use of root, as well as to wipe evidence from the logs.
Root access should ONLY EVER be open source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The open source was done once. It didnt last very long and due to the nature of SU will never stay open source and mainstream at the same time. If someone wants to charge for the SU app then ok let them. Heck most already paid for the SU pro anyway. No point in going on a witch hunt before there is something to hunt. All we can do is sit back and wait. If chain trusts them then I am willing to give them a chance. Root itself is a security risk and anyone that does root should know just what they are doing. If not then they get whats coming to them.
This is not this companies first root app. As stated they own/profit from just about all the root apps that are around.
zelendel said:
The open source was done once. It didnt last very long and due to the nature of SU will never stay open source and mainstream at the same time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea how to respond to that besides saying to you that this statement is *ABSURD*.
The open source root was the *FIRST* root, and has persisted. In fact, the root that *I* am working on, is the extension of that very same *ORIGINAL* root done by Koush. It has remained *the* primary mechanism for controlling root access from 2009 to present, except for a brief loss of maintenance during the reign of Android 5.x.
Further, the nature of root REQUIRES it to be open source.
And will be THE ONLY mainstream method of providing root access control for anyone who has ANY consideration for security.
If someone wants to charge for the SU app then ok let them. Heck most already paid for the SU pro anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only because they are being denied simple and mandatory features. This isn't a voluntary charge, this is coercion and even RANSOM.
No point in going on a witch hunt before there is something to hunt.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But there IS a witch to hunt: SECURITY. Or lack thereof.
All we can do is sit back and wait. If chain trusts them then I am willing to give them a chance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are a fool. Not only did the author of that binary root NEVER actually do anything to EARN your trust, the fact that you put your trust into a business arrangement that doesn't even involve you is tremendously scary... for you.
Root itself is a security risk and anyone that does root should know just what they are doing. If not then they get whats coming to them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. This is entirely invalid. Root is not a security risk when done correctly, in open source, and treated with *respect*.
Binary root control *IS* a security risk, and unfortunately you are wrong again on this, since knowing what you are doing DOES NOT protect you from it. There is NOTHING you can do to protect yourself from binary software that you VOLUNTARILY put into a sensitive position of high trust.
This is not this companies first root app. As stated they own/profit from just about all the root apps that are around.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is a TERRIFYING prospect for reasons I've already discussed.
doitright said:
I have no idea how to respond to that besides saying to you that this statement is *ABSURD*.
The open source root was the *FIRST* root, and has persisted. In fact, the root that *I* am working on, is the extension of that very same *ORIGINAL* root done by Koush. It has remained *the* primary mechanism for controlling root access from 2009 to present, except for a brief loss of maintenance during the reign of Android 5.x.
Further, the nature of root REQUIRES it to be open source.
And will be THE ONLY mainstream method of providing root access control for anyone who has ANY consideration for security.
Only because they are being denied simple and mandatory features. This isn't a voluntary charge, this is coercion and even RANSOM.
But there IS a witch to hunt: SECURITY. Or lack thereof.
You are a fool. Not only did the author of that binary root NEVER actually do anything to EARN your trust, the fact that you put your trust into a business arrangement that doesn't even involve you is tremendously scary... for you.
No. This is entirely invalid. Root is not a security risk when done correctly, in open source, and treated with *respect*.
Binary root control *IS* a security risk, and unfortunately you are wrong again on this, since knowing what you are doing DOES NOT protect you from it. There is NOTHING you can do to protect yourself from binary software that you VOLUNTARILY put into a sensitive position of high trust.
That is a TERRIFYING prospect for reasons I've already discussed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He has done alot to earn my trust. You would know that had to been around as long as I have been.
I am fully aware of the first root. And the reasons behind him stopping its development. The only ones that I am aware of that was even using it was CM and they are almost as much of a joke as MIUI.
I am fully aware of what you are working on and to be honest not something I or many others would use would even use as you are unknown and to be honest not really trusted. Maybe after you have been around a while more people will put faith in you and your projects. Not to mention your attitude is enough to make many not bother with it.
Root is a security risk. Just as any real developer. Even Google is making things like root harder to obtain because they see the risk. But to be honest as I have already said "Mobile security is and illusion" If I was truly worried about security I would not unlock my bootloader or bother with rooting.
Now we can argue this back and forth and never get anywhere. So We can end this here.
doitright said:
You obviously don't know the first thing about security, or the gravity of offering root control to an unknown entity.
To make it simple, unless you can *prove* that something is safe, the only rational assumption is that it isn't.
In other words, it is not my place to prove them unsafe. It is your responsibility to prove that they are safe, and frankly, that is an impossible task.
Feel free to use whatever you like. But don't go recommending to somebody that they take dangerous risks that are unnecessary.
---------- Post added at 01:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 AM ----------
It was almost acceptable when it was maintained by a single individual, but at some point fairly recently, the code was transferred/sold to an outfit that has been buying up all the root control software that can be found on play store.
Although the original author continues to make the software available under his pseudonym, there is no indication of the contract in place between him and the software's new owners, and no indication of their motives.
That makes the situation incredible frightening and dangerous.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is almost the most amazing post on xda. :good:
Could you kindly prove that the Google Factory Image is safe? Otherwise I would advise you destroy your handset immediately as its probably not safe.
zelendel said:
He has done alot to earn my trust. You would know that had to been around as long as I have been.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been around longer than you. Try again.
I am fully aware of the first root. And the reasons behind him stopping its development. The only ones that I am aware of that was even using it was CM and they are almost as much of a joke as MIUI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I won't argue with CM being a joke, but MOST people used Koush's superuser up until they were stopped by selinux.
I am fully aware of what you are working on and to be honest not something I or many others would use would even use as you are unknown and to be honest not really trusted. Maybe after you have been around a while more people will put faith in you and your projects. Not to mention your attitude is enough to make many not bother with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Speak for yourself, but don't you DARE to speak for others.
As far as the trustworthiness of my work goes... go ahead and AUDIT IT. The code speaks for itself.
Root is a security risk. Just as any real developer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I ask myself. Answer is that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Even Google is making things like root harder to obtain because they see the risk. But to be honest as I have already said "Mobile security is and illusion" If I was truly worried about security I would not unlock my bootloader or bother with rooting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google is correctly worried about the dangers of binary root. As YOU should also be.
Now we can argue this back and forth and never get anywhere. So We can end this here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only because you have degenerated into personal attacks rather than rational argument.
---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------
Amos91 said:
This is almost the most amazing post on xda. :good:
Could you kindly prove that the Google Factory Image is safe? Otherwise I would advise you destroy your handset immediately as its probably not safe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't prove that google factory image is safe. I can make a strong argument to suggest that it most likely is, and I can prove that AOSP is safe.
FYI: I use a Nexus, so I'm not limited to factory images, as implied by your last sentence.
Well, I'm no techie, I'm just an end-user of other people's talented work, but I'm with doitright on this one. I have trusted Chainfire for years - I have a number of his apps on my device, all of them paid for even though most work perfectly as free apps, simply because I do trust his work. Even if it's closed source black box stuff, he has always appeared to be a straight-up guy.
Still, once the black box passes into company ownership, at that point my trust ends. Companies are not charities hoping for donations. They want some return on whatever investment they've put into taking over SuperSU. Bottom line, I don't trust companies - and yes, that does include Google or Alphabet or whatever piece owns Android these days. I live with the knowledge that I am the product - my choice.
It's also my choice to opt for an open-source solution over a black box one. If doitright's superuser can be audited by people who know what they're looking at (I don't) then that'll do it for me.
And as an afterthought, yes, doitright is a spiky character. So is Torvalds. So what? As long as he comes up with the goods I have no problem with it. He comes across as passionate, doesn't suffer fools gladly (and that is just a saying, I'm not referring to any posters), and since I'm pretty much the same, if a bit more politic in the way I write, I can't criticise that...
doitright said:
Feel free to use whatever you like. But don't go recommending to somebody that they take dangerous risks that are unnecessary
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Risk = Chance * Effect.
doitright said:
I've been around longer than you. Try again.
I won't argue with CM being a joke, but MOST people used Koush's superuser up until they were stopped by selinux.
Speak for yourself, but don't you DARE to speak for others.
As far as the trustworthiness of my work goes... go ahead and AUDIT IT. The code speaks for itself.
I ask myself. Answer is that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Google is correctly worried about the dangers of binary root. As YOU should also be.
Only because you have degenerated into personal attacks rather than rational argument.
---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------
I can't prove that google factory image is safe. I can make a strong argument to suggest that it most likely is, and I can prove that AOSP is safe.
FYI: I use a Nexus, so I'm not limited to factory images, as implied by your last sentence.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I only speak for the developers I have talked to about using your root set up instead of chains. Got the same answer from all of them.
As for being around longer then me in the modding area. I would put a bet on that. I have been modding phones before a smart phone was even a thought.
You were the first to throw insults. As seems to be your way. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is called a fool or other wise.
Nope you are right. I have no idea what I'm talking about. Now excuse me I have some bugs to fix thanks to Google messing things up.
This might be a silly question, I've not used Samsung in a long time, last one was the S2 haha.....but is it ever going to be possible to root and/or install TWRP on this device without breaking OTA updates? I love rooting my devices and using custom ROMs, I still have need for root access, but to be honest this phone I would be happy keeping as close to stock as possible, I could live without TWRP, but will we ever get root without losing the ability to OTA update? If not then I'll just go custom when the urge becomes too strong haha.
Oh and I have the exynos version.
beta546 said:
This might be a silly question, I've not used Samsung in a long time, last one was the S2 haha.....but is it ever going to be possible to root and/or install TWRP on this device without breaking OTA updates? I love rooting my devices and using custom ROMs, I still have need for root access, but to be honest this phone I would be happy keeping as close to stock as possible, I could live without TWRP, but will we ever get root without losing the ability to OTA update? If not then I'll just go custom when the urge becomes too strong haha.
Oh and I have the exynos version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
I too see a growing need for root elevation without destroying core security patch options. Either from stock, or with an aptitude like package management used by ROM creators, so you can even patch android files sooner than Samsung normally would. Because as it stands, the way we root now makes android a security disaster.
In essence this is a design failure by google and android. How could they expect users to be happy with non-configurable systems? That's why we don't have Apple devices, so we can config and alter whenever we would want to. Sigh.. Closed source for android is such a PITA. And so slow with patches..
?
jult said:
+1
I too see a growing need for root elevation without destroying core security patch options. Either from stock, or with an aptitude like package management used by ROM creators, so you can even patch android files sooner than Samsung normally would. Because as it stands, the way we root now makes android a security disaster.
In essence this is a design failure by google and android. How could they expect users to be happy with non-configurable systems? That's why we don't have Apple devices, so we can config and alter whenever we would want to. Sigh.. Closed source for android is such a PITA. And so slow with patches..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, people like Samsung who just want to lock down their devices for whatever reason is just getting a bit extreme now. I don't think it's Google to blame though as android is easily rooted in general, it's manufacturers like Samsung that make you jump through hoops to do it. And yes it's exactly why we don't have iPhones haha. I believe every android device should come with a setting in developer options that just activates root with a disclaimer.....take my warranty, I don't care in the slightest, but don't cripple my device that I payed £720 for that is now my property, just because I want to use some of the most useful features and app designed to work with root. After reading through these forums I see Samsung seem more like apple than ever. I mean God the guide to install a custom ROM is crazy haha, perfectly doable, but compared to my le max 2 which was just, plug your phone in, push this through ADB, then flash this zip and you're done, so simple.
beta546 said:
I agree, people like Samsung who just want to lock down their devices for whatever reason is just getting a bit extreme now. I don't think it's Google to blame though as android is easily rooted in general, it's manufacturers like Samsung that make you jump through hoops to do it. And yes it's exactly why we don't have iPhones haha. I believe every android device should come with a setting in developer options that just activates root with a disclaimer.....take my warranty, I don't care in the slightest, but don't cripple my device that I payed £720 for that is now my property, just because I want to use some of the most useful features and app designed to work with root. After reading through these forums I see Samsung seem more like apple than ever. I mean God the guide to install a custom ROM is crazy haha, perfectly doable, but compared to my le max 2 which was just, plug your phone in, push this through ADB, then flash this zip and you're done, so simple.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The most important part of your post is often missed by a lot of people.
"lock down their devices for whatever reason..."
No one thinks about the reason it seems. As much as it sucks for folks on XDA, the folks that come to XDA don't think about all of the people that DO NOT come to XDA, or why a device manufacturer that makes their devices primarily for the Corporate world, wouldn't want to let their devices be unlocked by the small amount of XDA folks that buy them.
And before anyone says "the exynos is unlockable!" Remember the Exynos version is international, not USA. There's are so much more benefits to Samsung keeping the USA devices locked than there are downsides. I work for a small corporate company of about 300 employees and I am not allowed to have a device with the bootloader unlocked, period. Why? I don't even know, and I am in the tech field. Each company has their rules and such. Imagine how much contracts Samsung could have with corporations out there for their devices. We used to have one, and look at how small we are. We don't have one anymore because it's cheaper to just have employees front the device cost instead of the company paying for devices! Lame I know. I fought against it but lost.
As far as the original question goes, no, you will not be able to keep OTA and root at the same time. Not for the way OTA are setup, and rooting works.
Jammol said:
As far as the original question goes, no, you will not be able to keep OTA and root at the same time. Not for the way OTA are setup, and rooting works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now. You mean. It can (and should) change. The way the android permission model is designed, is totally corporate-based, not user-friendly at all. And if Samsung would stay on top of security-patches and push updates (like you have with Win10 now, which are still totally under the user's control without having to 'root' anything), that would be fine, but time and again these smartphone manufacturers have proven to stop giving a hoot after they've released a new model, if they even cared at all about security patching in time, because they apparently really don't. Not enough anyway. If they would, we'd already be running Android 9 on our Notes by now.
Jammol said:
The most important part of your post is often missed by a lot of people.
"lock down their devices for whatever reason..."
No one thinks about the reason it seems. As much as it sucks for folks on XDA, the folks that come to XDA don't think about all of the people that DO NOT come to XDA, or why a device manufacturer that makes their devices primarily for the Corporate world, wouldn't want to let their devices be unlocked by the small amount of XDA folks that buy them.
And before anyone says "the exynos is unlockable!" Remember the Exynos version is international, not USA. There's are so much more benefits to Samsung keeping the USA devices locked than there are downsides. I work for a small corporate company of about 300 employees and I am not allowed to have a device with the bootloader unlocked, period. Why? I don't even know, and I am in the tech field. Each company has their rules and such. Imagine how much contracts Samsung could have with corporations out there for their devices. We used to have one, and look at how small we are. We don't have one anymore because it's cheaper to just have employees front the device cost instead of the company paying for devices! Lame I know. I fought against it but lost.
As far as the original question goes, no, you will not be able to keep OTA and root at the same time. Not for the way OTA are setup, and rooting works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That makes a lot of sense really, obviously there are going to be businesses and companies and such that wpild rely on their workers devices being as secure as possible, for multiple reasons. But again that's not really up to Samsung to decide really, now I agree that although there are a huge number of people that want to modify their devices in various ways, but on the grand scale it's a relatively low percentage of the market. Which is why I think it should always be an option, that way they cater to everyone. If a company has a requirement that all their employees devices stay locked down, they simply don't allow it, and if an employee does it regardless then the consequences would be their own. I guess Samsung could bake in the setting, but with an option at first boot as to leave the ability to unlock intact, or to choose to permanently remove any option of ever being able to do it. That way when a company bought the phones they could lock them all down before handing them out. But in the scenario where people must purchase their own device, they then would have to decide whether to follow company policy, or unlock the phone and risk potentially losing their job at worst because of it....that's just what I think really, but I'm in no way some business or manufacturing giant haha, there will be multiple arguments for and against this entire scenario.
And also thanks for the answer ? It was as I suspected, but always worth an ask.
Voiding the Warranty for unrelated modifications is illegal and there is a better way
It seems we are all getting used to the arrogance and impertinence ...
... with which manufacturers and telephone service operators want to dictate what we do with our property. Let us not forget that «this will void your warranty», though common practice, is not in accordance with current legislation.
Modifications to devices should be protected under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unless the modification caused the damage you're asking the manufacturer to repair. Manufacturers threatening to void warranties for rooting, even when they have no legal right to do so, is nothing but bullying, banking on the fact that most people are not feeling confident about legal battles with corporations for which time and money are of no consequence. It is about time that reviews took the aspect of rooting/customization friendliness into consideration, so that manufacturers like OnePlus and HTC receive the credit they deserve for being more lenient toward rooting and still receiving updates. If technology journalists pointed this aspect out in their reviews, companies might come to their senses. Being able to use some apps that can do what they do only with Root access is more important than yet another MegaPixel on the camera -- if the other manufacturers do not drop the ball yet again, by dumbing down their phone instead of building the best device they possibly can, this year's phone purchase will be from a brand that is user friendly and provides OTA updates even on customised devices.
As for the «security» fairytale, that's often the last aspect that manufacturers care about, skipping security patches even after exploits have been detected. By the way: if some guy with a mobile phone could really bring down or disturb an operator's network, the operator doesn't deserve better. Most people do not root because they are devious masterminds from a Bond movie who try to mess up their kernels or bring down the global communication networks, but because they want to customize the looks of devices to their liking, fix some flaws or get some software to work. Very few people would keep rooting if manufacturers only guarded their kernels against overclocking beyond what the phone can endure and operators blocked what could disrupt the network -- if they did that and only that, hardly anyone would complain or root.
Security is obviously not what it's really all about. On my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE 9, Amazon Shopping, Fakecrook, LinkedIn and a whole bunch of other garbage came pre-installed as system apps that can be disabled but not uninstalled. Like everything imposed on us by Google, these companies have no interest in enhancing their customers' security and privacy, but exactly the opposite, grab as much sensitive information about us as they possibly can and sell it to whoever is interested and willing to pay for it.
On a Windows PC, I can do most things I want to do if I really have to, via editing the Windows Registry if need be and turning off User Access Control (UAC) when the unnecessary extra-click got on my nerves. Millions of people are and have been doing the same without upsetting the space-time-continuum, and corporations can restrict whatever they want to restrict if there is an administrator to do it. In most cases, however, there is not, because after all, it's a Personal Computer (PC), managed by the user at home. If we pay for something -- and quite handsomely so -- we own it, consequently it should be us who, after a warning that can be turned off with a checkmark, have the final say. So far, the corporate world seems to thrive quite nicely with the kind of approach to security that MS Windows is taking, despite surely being the first and loudest ones to complain if there were any real and relevant problems that seriously threaten their dayly operations.
Mobile phone manufacturers and operators use «security» as an excuse to restrict what the owners of those expensive little toys can do, just like governments proclaim «terrorism» as the excuse for spying on and controlling their own populations by grabbing ever more power with authorizing laws that undermine constitutional civil liberties. In our societies, it is to keep track on any possible threats to the Status Quo that might be caused by a shift of public opinion if the media -- these days large corporations themselves -- did not distract us with polemics, sports and celebrity BS, but reported on and kept in focus issues such as ecology, human overpopulation, inequality, tax evasion, poverty, injustice, corruption, lobbyism and so on. In the mobile phone world, they do it to milk us for banalities like boot animations, wallpapers, type fonts, themes, icons and whatever we would like to do to make our phones look nicer. Under Windows, buy a shareware CD with 10,000 fonts, copy the 20 or 30 you like into the respective system folder -- done. On Android, they want to milk us for every bit they can and that's the real motivation for all the bull****, harassment, hoops and loops they make us jump through.
If companies were really interested in user privacy rights and security, the first thing that would be forbidden were advertisements, because a lot of sh.t can come in through those backdoors. Second, why does Apple not allow antivirii and firewalls if security is such a concern? Why are owners of devices with a custom recovery or root being punished by exclusion from OTA updates, given that these updates are supposed to improve stability and security? That's just bollocks and distraction to ram as much advertising down our throat, rip us off for every boot animation, wallpaper, theme, icon or type font that we have tons of lying around on our hard drive, and to obtain as much data from us as possible, in order to know and track what we buy, think, believe, suffer from, like, dislike or do in any place at any at any time.
Apart from a couple of absolute geeks and nerds, nobody would root their phones if adaptation and customization of our phones was easily possible, i.e. if everything except things that could irrevocably damage hardware or networks could be easily modified as we please. The introduction of a/b partition slots for Seamless Updates paved the way for preventing irreparable accidents and could easily be expanded and improved, together with a better design of the user interface and user experience to make the process more comprehensible for average users. Yet, most companies did not even implement a/b partitions, although this approach makes accidents and mistakes when playing around with the device «non-lethal» and saves the Customer Service costs that companies so often cite as the second excuse and pretext for the arrogance with which they keep and exert control over other people's property. With each new generation of phones and every new version of operating systems, the restrictions are getting worse, the options for access and harmless modification less, and that unacceptable trend needs to stop.
If companies want to disencourage people from rooting their phones, they need to stop bombarding us with intrusive ads, stop spying and imposing bloatware and replace it with useful tool bundles (Titanium Backup, decent file managers, cleaners, system tools and the like). It is okay to guard and firewall the indispensable and risky parts (hardware overclocking, network integrity), but only block those irreparable areas while opening up the rest for users to customise to their hearts content, making it as comfortable, easy and intuitive as possible to copy, paste, move and configure everything else between phone and PC. If something goes wrong while doing so, make sure that a system restore point and booting into the alternative partition means that there's no harm, no foul and therefore no problem and no service cost.
Instead of wasting our time hunting for patched partiton files, info on how to get out of bootloops, etc., users could then enjoy and be happier with our phone instead of fixing its shortcomings or, dare I say it, do something fun and entertaining outside while the snow is fresh or the sun is shining.
.
Qui Peccavit said:
It seems we are all getting used to the arrogance and impertinence ...
... with which manufacturers and telephone service operators want to dictate what we do with our property. Let us not forget that «this will void your warranty», though common practice, is not in accordance with current legislation.
Modifications to devices should be protected under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unless the modification caused the damage you're asking the manufacturer to repair. Manufacturers threatening to void warranties for rooting, even when they have no legal right to do so, is nothing but bullying, banking on the fact that most people are not feeling confident about legal battles with corporations for which time and money are of no consequence. It is about time that reviews took the aspect of rooting/customization friendliness into consideration, so that manufacturers like OnePlus and HTC receive the credit they deserve for being more lenient toward rooting and still receiving updates. If technology journalists pointed this aspect out in their reviews, companies might come to their senses. Being able to use some apps that can do what they do only with Root access is more important than yet another MegaPixel on the camera -- if the other manufacturers do not drop the ball yet again, by dumbing down their phone instead of building the best device they possibly can, this year's phone purchase will be from a brand that is user friendly and provides OTA updates even on customised devices.
As for the «security» fairytale, that's often the last aspect that manufacturers care about, skipping security patches even after exploits have been detected. By the way: if some guy with a mobile phone could really bring down or disturb an operator's network, the operator doesn't deserve better. Most people do not root because they are devious masterminds from a Bond movie who try to mess up their kernels or bring down the global communication networks, but because they want to customize the looks of devices to their liking, fix some flaws or get some software to work. Very few people would keep rooting if manufacturers only guarded their kernels against overclocking beyond what the phone can endure and operators blocked what could disrupt the network -- if they did that and only that, hardly anyone would complain or root.
Security is obviously not what it's really all about. On my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE 9, Amazon Shopping, Fakecrook, LinkedIn and a whole bunch of other garbage came pre-installed as system apps that can be disabled but not uninstalled. Like everything imposed on us by Google, these companies have no interest in enhancing their customers' security and privacy, but exactly the opposite, grab as much sensitive information about us as they possibly can and sell it to whoever is interested and willing to pay for it.
On a Windows PC, I can do most things I want to do if I really have to, via editing the Windows Registry if need be and turning off User Access Control (UAC) when the unnecessary extra-click got on my nerves. Millions of people are and have been doing the same without upsetting the space-time-continuum, and corporations can restrict whatever they want to restrict if there is an administrator to do it. In most cases, however, there is not, because after all, it's a Personal Computer (PC), managed by the user at home. If we pay for something -- and quite handsomely so -- we own it, consequently it should be us who, after a warning that can be turned off with a checkmark, have the final say. So far, the corporate world seems to thrive quite nicely with the kind of approach to security that MS Windows is taking, despite surely being the first and loudest ones to complain if there were any real and relevant problems that seriously threaten their dayly operations.
Mobile phone manufacturers and operators use «security» as an excuse to restrict what the owners of those expensive little toys can do, just like governments proclaim «terrorism» as the excuse for spying on and controlling their own populations by grabbing ever more power with authorizing laws that undermine constitutional civil liberties. In our societies, it is to keep track on any possible threats to the Status Quo that might be caused by a shift of public opinion if the media -- these days large corporations themselves -- did not distract us with polemics, sports and celebrity BS, but reported on and kept in focus issues such as ecology, human overpopulation, inequality, tax evasion, poverty, injustice, corruption, lobbyism and so on. In the mobile phone world, they do it to milk us for banalities like boot animations, wallpapers, type fonts, themes, icons and whatever we would like to do to make our phones look nicer. Under Windows, buy a shareware CD with 10,000 fonts, copy the 20 or 30 you like into the respective system folder -- done. On Android, they want to milk us for every bit they can and that's the real motivation for all the bull****, harassment, hoops and loops they make us jump through.
If companies were really interested in user privacy rights and security, the first thing that would be forbidden were advertisements, because a lot of sh.t can come in through those backdoors. Second, why does Apple not allow antivirii and firewalls if security is such a concern? Why are owners of devices with a custom recovery or root being punished by exclusion from OTA updates, given that these updates are supposed to improve stability and security? That's just bollocks and distraction to ram as much advertising down our throat, rip us off for every boot animation, wallpaper, theme, icon or type font that we have tons of lying around on our hard drive, and to obtain as much data from us as possible, in order to know and track what we buy, think, believe, suffer from, like, dislike or do in any place at any at any time.
Apart from a couple of absolute geeks and nerds, nobody would root their phones if adaptation and customization of our phones was easily possible, i.e. if everything except things that could irrevocably damage hardware or networks could be easily modified as we please. The introduction of a/b partition slots for Seamless Updates paved the way for preventing irreparable accidents and could easily be expanded and improved, together with a better design of the user interface and user experience to make the process more comprehensible for average users. Yet, most companies did not even implement a/b partitions, although this approach makes accidents and mistakes when playing around with the device «non-lethal» and saves the Customer Service costs that companies so often cite as the second excuse and pretext for the arrogance with which they keep and exert control over other people's property. With each new generation of phones and every new version of operating systems, the restrictions are getting worse, the options for access and harmless modification less, and that unacceptable trend needs to stop.
If companies want to disencourage people from rooting their phones, they need to stop bombarding us with intrusive ads, stop spying and imposing bloatware and replace it with useful tool bundles (Titanium Backup, decent file managers, cleaners, system tools and the like). It is okay to guard and firewall the indispensable and risky parts (hardware overclocking, network integrity), but only block those irreparable areas while opening up the rest for users to customise to their hearts content, making it as comfortable, easy and intuitive as possible to copy, paste, move and configure everything else between phone and PC. If something goes wrong while doing so, make sure that a system restore point and booting into the alternative partition means that there's no harm, no foul and therefore no problem and no service cost.
Instead of wasting our time hunting for patched partiton files, info on how to get out of bootloops, etc., users could then enjoy and be happier with our phone instead of fixing its shortcomings or, dare I say it, do something fun and entertaining outside while the snow is fresh or the sun is shining.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best post I've read in the recent years. Well done!
PS: Love the Angola flag.
Information available on Reddit seem to show that several of Motorola's phones have not had any security patch levels applied since after January. It also seems like as long as the known security issues are just documented as theoretically possible that Lenovo/Motorola seem happy to keep reiterating the same lie that they make security a "top priority" while not actually addressing these problems. It is also frustrating that Motorola seems unwilling to release a version of the Motorola One that is intended to be used in the USA.
It would be nice to have a proof of concept repository similar to Rapid7's metasploit but for the Motorola G-series. Please keep in mind, I am *NOT* talking about violating responsible disclosure. This would not include any unpatched vulnerabilities. Instead, this would be known issues were AOSP has provided fixes to Motorola for over a month and Motorola has selected to still notify it's customers that their device is "up to date" without having addressed the known issues.
I believe only by showing customers what is possible with this exploits can enough pressure be put on Lenovo/Motorola to make "top priority" mean actual action instead of empty posturing.
However, based on my careful reading of the XDA ToS, it seems anything that facilitate the creation of malicious content is not allowed. This seems vaguely worded enough to exclude all proof of concept exploit discussion. But several of the issues left unaddressed by Motorola seem to be fairly easy to exploit. So, is XDA really improving the situation or avoiding transparency in favor of shielding Motorola's poor behavior?
It would be really nice if someone could provide some clarification behind the wording of this ToS and XDA's position on vendors that make security a "top priority" leaving months of patches outside of the scope available to customers if the device is to remain under warranty.
This is what I already said.
Motorola is just a retarded company.
I don't know in which universe this is acceptable.
Someone needs to sh*t in a bag and address it at Motorola, so they see what they sell.
The G6 was my last Motof**k phone.
F**k Motorola. F**k Lenovo and f**k all the retards which work in this companies.
I hope the company dies and never sells a f**kphone again.
I completely understand your level of frustration ThisIsRussia but please don't get the thread locked.
If I were to mail something to Motorola to make a statement, it would probably be a finger-print reader attached to swiss cheese. They keep using user facing features to give the illusion of security while leaving the rest of the product full of security holes.
Yeah, sorry I was a little upset because they are always responding with phrases like "soon it will be updated" etc.
Since February. Its May now.
I just don't use Motorola phones anymore and if someone asked me for opinion I didn't recommend Motorola/Lenovo.
They are a bunch of liars. period.
I picked up the g6 on Fi just to have a cheap phone. I thought it was just the Fi version not getting security updates.. luckily I don't keep financials, etc on. Only good as a glorified phone and music streaming device, but for $99?
Not many budget phones get monthly patches on time. None that are under$150 anyways.
$99 or $150 isn't what I was charged for the Moto G6. It was released for a price of $200.
The Federal Trade Commission has fined D-Link, TP-Link and ASUS for marketing *BUDGET* wireless routers that sold for much less than $200 or $150 or $99 for misrepresenting their products as providing security while "failing to take reasonable steps to secure."
According to David Kleidermacher, Google's head of security for Android, ""Android security made a significant leap forward in 2017 and many of our protections now lead the industry" and also "as Android security has matured, it has become more difficult and expensive for attackers to find high severity exploits."
Google owned Motorola, they should have been able to established policies and procedures for Motorola to make good on David Kleidermacher's statements. Or they should have made establishing those part of terms of the sale to Lenovo.
Lenovo and Motorola also market themselves as providing security even for budget devices with statements as:
* "Prevent unauthorized access with secure biometrics"
* "keeping your devices and systems secure and your digital privacy intact is a top priority"
At no point do they put any exclusionary statement such as "but only if it is not a budget device."
Also, while Motorola One is also a budget device, it does get more frequent updates. However, the Moto One is clearly not intended for purchase in the USA market and is missing support for several LTE bands.
And the Moto G6 is supposed to be a Treble/GSI device were any effort Motorola put into providing updates to flagship GSI devices should also apply to being able to also update the G6 for almost no additional effort.
So, I reject the claim no one should expect Feb 2019 security updates by May 2019 because it is simply a budget device.
Then let's also look at the claim that if financials or similar are not stored directly on the phone then it is not really a big issue.
To respond to that I am going to focus on just one Feb 2019 patch. There have been plenty of other security issues in Jan 2019 to now but for purposes of this discussion, I will just focus on one. The CVE-2019-1988 seems to still apply to still apply to any Motorola phone that is "up-to-date" but has a Jan 2019 security level. This vulnerability as a high impact score of 10 out of 10 and an easy exploitability score of 8.6 out of 10. The attack complexity is low and "could lead to remote code execution in system_server with no additional execution privileges needed."
What would need to result from this for it to be considered a violation of Lenovo and Motorola's marketing of making security a top priority?
What if an email or MMS ("text message") or instant message could do any of the following:
* Open and stream the microphone while the phone is locked
* Take and transmit pictures from either the front or rear camera while the phone is locked
* Send and receive text messages while the phone is locked
* Transmit phone location while the phone is locked
* Access and transmit email and files/documents on Google Drive and Google Docs while the phone is locked
Would any of this be disturbing? Is Lenovo/Motorola really delivering on "[preventing] unauthorized access with secure biometrics" if this is possible while the phone is locked?
I get this is all theoretical and I sound like I have been wearing a tin foil hat (maybe I am ). Anyone want to find out? Anyone want to give me the phone number to a Moto G6? Anyone want to give me the email address that they use with their Moto G6? How confident are people that not having financials stored directly on the phone means CVE-2019-1988 is not a major issue?
So far, people's reactions have been similar to this forum that there is still things people can do to maintain their privacy while using a device in this state. No one wants to believe that a major company would leave them so exposed. Lenovo/Motorola seems to be banking on no one understand the full scope of the problem. But what if a Proof of Concept of a Remote Access Trojan launched not via installing an application but simply from viewing a PNG really happened, would anyone be interested that? Would being able to actually demonstrate a PoC RAT have any positive value in holding Motorola accountable to their marketing claims or simply feed "hackers" with an exploit? If it is already known to be easily exploitable, shouldn't it be safe to assume any criminal that wanted it already has created their own implementation?
What exactly is XDA's stand on a real PoC RAT full disclosure? Is XDA taking on the stance that a RAT disclosure is always only harmful? Or is it that Motorola's actions are harmful?
@chilinux
Relax, you don't need to attack me. I can see you're feeling very hostile.
I didn't say you or anyone should accept it. I said it's common on low end devices. Even low to midrange devices.
I don't care what you paid for it. I have the g6 play and paid $99 for it. And it has been updated to pie with March security patch.
Moto is not great at supplying updates the way they were when they were under Google. Not many companies in China that are shopping phones to other countries are good at it.
It sucks, I was agreeing with you.
So rant at someone else. Geez
madbat99 said:
@chilinux
Relax, you don't need to attack me. I can see you're feeling very hostile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am very sorry you feel personally attacked. I do admit that I have taken a hostile stance but I wasn't trying to attack you.
My point is that I have already heard from users that the issue is not really that bad. It really seems like a demonstration is the only way to change the Lenovo/Motorola business model of leveraging customer misconception. At the same time, the XDA ToS seems to be at odds with using this forum as the method of giving such a demonstration. To me, this means XDA is passively contributing to Motorola's clearly invalid marketing of using product security to protect against unauthorized access.
Allowing remote unauthorized access is very much part of how the Moto G6 functions.
chilinux said:
I am very sorry you feel personally attacked. I do admit that I have taken a hostile stance but I wasn't trying to attack you.
My point is that I have already heard from users that the issue is not really that bad. It really seems like a demonstration is the only way to change the Lenovo/Motorola business model of leveraging customer misconception. At the same time, the XDA ToS seems to be at odds with using this forum as the method of giving such a demonstration. To me, this means XDA is passively contributing to Motorola's clearly invalid marketing of using product security to protect against unauthorized access.
Allowing remote unauthorized access is very much part of how the Moto G6 functions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
XDA needs to cover their butts. They walk a fine line on many things.
To provide members the most information, useful guides, and general Android knowledge; they do have to remain, for lack of a better term, "neutral".
They allow us access to guides, knowledge, and even files, that allow us to take back some semblance of "ownership" of our devices. And that is despite many OEM, and country, restrictions, regulations, and "ownership", be it proprietary or what have you, that threaten their voice.
We, in turn, try to adhere to their rules to maintain an even keel, so to speak. So as not to make it harder, or impossible, to do the good work they are doing.
That said, this may not be the platform to achieve the ends you seek. Even if others share your view, in part, or otherwise.
Make sense?
madbat99 said:
XDA needs to cover their butts. They walk a fine line on many things.
To provide members the most information, useful guides, and general Android knowledge; they do have to remain, for lack of a better term, "neutral".
They allow us access to guides, knowledge, and even files, that allow us to take back some semblance of "ownership" of our devices. And that is despite many OEM, and country, restrictions, regulations, and "ownership", be it proprietary or what have you, that threaten their voice.
We, in turn, try to adhere to their rules to maintain an even keel, so to speak. So as not to make it harder, or impossible, to do the good work they are doing.
That said, this may not be the platform to achieve the ends you seek. Even if others share your view, in part, or otherwise.
Make sense?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand what it is you are trying to saying that XDA sees it to their advantage to not rock the boat too much. That doesn't mean it makes sense to me.
Here is how I view how the world works when people don't speak out:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/12/middleeast/khashoggi-phone-malware-intl/index.html
If Motorola wants to specify that security and safety simply is not part of this product, then I can understand them making that part of their *stated* business model. But Lenovo/Motorola has decided they can market a product as preventing authorized access without doing the work required to actually provide that feature. There should be moral and ethical issues raised when knowingly letting a company mislead their customers to that extent.
There should be room someplace on the XDA forum to create a penetration/vulnerability to put customers of Motorola in a better position for informed consent. The idea that the average person can take the April and May 2019 security bulletins and understand what that really means just doesn't work out. They know what the word "critical" means but usually don't know what RCE is and largely take it as being someone else's problem. The level of conflict of interest on the part of Motorola is not made clear.
Instead, the average person still focuses on if when they are going to see the latest Avengers movie. "CVE-2019-2027" means nothing but if you show them April/May gives criminals all of the infinity gems such that at a click of their fingers half of customers of Motorola have their privacy turn to dust, then that is something they can at least understand. Then they can more meaningfully decide if it is reasonable/safe to use that device without leaving airplane mode permanently on.
chilinux said:
I understand what it is you are trying to saying that XDA sees it to their advantage to not rock the boat too much. That doesn't mean it makes sense to me.
Here is how I view how the world works when people don't speak out:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/12/middleeast/khashoggi-phone-malware-intl/index.html
If Motorola wants to specify that security and safety simply is not part of this product, then I can understand them making that part of their *stated* business model. But Lenovo/Motorola has decided they can market a product as preventing authorized access without doing the work required to actually provide that feature. There should be moral and ethical issues raised when knowingly letting a company mislead their customers to that extent.
There should be room someplace on the XDA forum to create a penetration/vulnerability to put customers of Motorola in a better position for informed consent. The idea that the average person can take the April and May 2019 security bulletins and understand what that really means just doesn't work out. They know what the word "critical" means but usually don't know what RCE is and largely take it as being someone else's problem. The level of conflict of interest on the part of Motorola is not made clear.
Instead, the average person still focuses on if when they are going to see the latest Avengers movie. "CVE-2019-2027" means nothing but if you show them April/May gives criminals all of the infinity gems such that at a click of their fingers half of customers of Motorola have their privacy turn to dust, then that is something they can at least understand. Then they can more meaningfully decide if it is reasonable/safe to use that device without leaving airplane mode permanently on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope. Nobody is "honest" in marketing. They would sell nothing. Is it right....? No. Is it going to continue? Of course.
There are places to speak out. This isn't IT. Period.
You want a Google device that updates with every patch, you're gonna have to get a Pixel. Flat out. No company truly cares about you're security. They start companies to make money. The end. Right or wrong. Sorry bro. It is what it is.
Unless a company specifically spelled it out in the laws of the country their marketing in they don't have to do it. They can skirt rules and regulations anyway they possibly can. And they have lawyers to make sure they get around that crap. Marketing gimmicks do not equal legal regulation obedience.
if you have a medium to carry out the plan you intend to, find it and do it. just make sure no consumers are harmed in the process. because then the line has been crossed where you're not helping anyone but hurting people.
companies are going to sell their products at the greatest profitt imaginable and that's just the way things are going to be until some company proves that profits lie somewhere else. There isn't much you or I can do about it.
Again, this is not the medium for you to carry out such a vision. the most we hope to do here is to give users the keys to find a way to pick the lock for themselves. Not a way to circumvent the rules, punish the guilty, or vindicate innocence. There are places for that.
I'm going to bed now because I get up for work early. Good luck dude. hope you feel better in the morning.
how many people in the budget phone range are still using phones that haven't even been updated past kit Kat. Just a bit of a reality check. Up-to-the-minute security patches don't mean much to those who are struggling just to have a device to communicate with.
Infinity gems be damned, level-headed decisions with your device make all the difference in the world
madbat99 said:
just make sure no consumers are harmed in the process. because then the line has been crossed where you're not helping anyone but hurting people.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can not no consumers would ever be harmed by anything I ever released. TeamViewer has been weaponized to performing scams. UPX was weaponized to help hide malware from detection. Cerberus antitheft app for Android has the potential to be weaponized. Magisk can be weaponized for malware to avoid detection on Android. To claim any of those projects is "not helping anyone" is really a stretch.
The security audit PoC suite would be similar to previously publicly released project. It would have a method of install via exploit similar to JailbreakMe and it would provide demonstration on what privileged level access provides similar to Back Orifice 2000. Both of those previous project had the potential to weaponize but also helped customers make a better informed decisions about the products they use.
madbat99 said:
how many people in the budget phone range are still using phones that haven't even been updated past kit Kat. Just a bit of a reality check. Up-to-the-minute security patches don't mean much to those who are struggling just to have a device to communicate with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a bit of a reality check, I know a medical doctor that discusses information that should be legally protected under HIPAA in the same room as a Moto G6. When a vendor misrepresents the degree to which unauthorized access to a device's microphone is prevented, then more than just people struggling to communicate are impacted. That level of misplaced trust also means the privacy impact extends beyond just owners of the phone.
It is also a level of mistaken trust that was contributed to by people like Ronald Comstock with the XDA Developers sponsorship team which recommended this phone. It might be possible to make an excuse that at the time the recommendation was made it wasn't known how far behind security updates for the product would go. However, the XDA sponsorship team never posted a retraction and the XDA ToS makes it hard to effectively counter the vendor's misrepresentations of the XDA recommended product.
chilinux said:
I can not no consumers would ever be harmed by anything I ever released. TeamViewer has been weaponized to performing scams. UPX was weaponized to help hide malware from detection. Cerberus antitheft app for Android has the potential to be weaponized. Magisk can be weaponized for malware to avoid detection on Android. To claim any of those projects is "not helping anyone" is really a stretch.
Just a bit of a reality check, I know a medical doctor that discusses information that should be legally protected under HIPAA in the same room as a Moto G6. When a vendor misrepresents the degree to which unauthorized access to a device's microphone is prevented, then more than just people struggling to communicate are impacted. That level of misplaced trust also means the privacy impact extends beyond just owners of the phone.
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It can be said that security and privacy are separate issues.
But your insights are well stated.
I remember when a "researcher" seemingly died right before demonstrating how security flaws in insulin pumps could kill a man. (We know who did it Jack) so security is a real concern. And big money will always try to silence what is too expensive to fix. So I get your point. Just goes a little beyond XDA is all I meant. No hard feelings intended, so I hope you didn't take it that way.
madbat99 said:
And big money will always try to silence what is too expensive to fix. So I get your point. Just goes a little beyond XDA is all I meant. No hard feelings intended, so I hope you didn't take it that way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have hard feeling about this issue but not about what you have said.
I also have a much less issue with "big money" not spending money were it does not need to. But they need to be transparent about that.
What I have hard feelings about is this:
https://androidenterprisepartners.withgoogle.com/device/#!/5659118702428160
And statements from Google related to that page such as:
"Organizations can then select devices from the curated list with confidence that they meet a common set of criteria, required for inclusion in the Android Enterprise
Recommended program ... Mandatory delivery of Android security updates within 90 days of release from Google (30 days recommended), for a minimum of three years"
As appears in this document:
https://static.googleusercontent.co...droid_Enterprise_Security_Whitepaper_2018.pdf
Ninety days from the February 5, 2019 security update bulletin was May 6, 2019. Choosing from that list does not result in mandatory delivery of security updates within 90 days. Google and David Kleidermacher are drowning consumers with willfully misleading information to put trust into devices that aren't held to the criteria they claim they are.
am i the only one who doesn't give a crap about security patches? i just want my phone to work, which my G6 does, just fine.
Dadud said:
am i the only one who doesn't give a crap about security patches? i just want my phone to work, which my G6 does, just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are far from the only one who doesn't care about security patches. I would agree with you that you should not have to care. Addressing problems that are over 90 days old are stated to be the responsibility of Google and Motorola to have taken care of.
In terms of it working just fine, my point is while it appears to normally be fine there is known ways that unapproved behavior can be applied to the product without the owners being aware of them. To me that is not working as advertised and is also not really working fine.