Related
I see it mentioned a few times but what on the phone prevents say 4.4.2 from being installed after the upgrade to 4.4.3?
Because the partion table and bootloader are different and can't be downgraded at all.
Or, you can downgrade... But brick your device after, even later.
Anyone who knows anything about the moto x will tell you just don't. ?
I find that odd. I wonder what the purpose is for doing that.
There is no way to just re-write those sections? Even on a Dev Edition?
knitler said:
I find that odd. I wonder what the purpose is for doing that.
There is no way to just re-write those sections? Even on a Dev Edition?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Security!
Look at the whole Windows/AntiVirus industry.
All because Microsoft wanted unsecure compatibility with the old OS.
Saving software dev time making things work.
knitler said:
I find that odd. I wonder what the purpose is for doing that.
There is no way to just re-write those sections? Even on a Dev Edition?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the Dev edition is no different. All the same "rules" apply.
The Dev edition is the same as any other.... It just keeps is warranty if you unlock it.
aviwdoowks said:
Security!
Look at the whole Windows/AntiVirus industry.
All because Microsoft wanted unsecure compatibility with the old OS.
Saving software dev time making things work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm kind of not buying this for a second?
How about linux, which is often pointed to for its security... And you can upgrade, down grade, switch out every component for newer/older/different, switch kernels, upgrade kernels, downgrade kernels... hell change out kernels with out even rebooting.
Really not buying it has anything with security.
KJ said:
Or, you can downgrade... But brick your device after, even later.
Anyone who knows anything about the moto x will tell you just don't. ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we understand that, I mean if the OP didn't he wouldn't have the question of "why not?". Its not I think it might be a good idea... We are just trying to understand the situation because it seems unique, and so we were hoping someone who knows a lot about
AGISCI said:
Because the partion table and bootloader are different and can't be downgraded at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the most I have heard so far, and I have heard it once or twice... But can't the recovery image include information on the partition table?
I realize the way it is, but was curious on some more technical information explaining it...
scryan said:
I'm kind of not buying this for a second?
How about linux, which is often pointed to for its security... And you can upgrade, down grade, switch out every component for newer/older/different, switch kernels, upgrade kernels, downgrade kernels... hell change out kernels with out even rebooting.
Really not buying it has anything with security.
I think we understand that, I mean if the OP didn't he wouldn't have the question of "why not?". Its not I think it might be a good idea... We are just trying to understand the situation because it seems unique, and so we were hoping someone who knows a lot about
This is the most I have heard so far, and I have heard it once or twice... But can't the recovery image include information on the partition table?
I realize the way it is, but was curious on some more technical information explaining it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is security. Specifically the SECURED BOOTLOADER. Don't confuse secured with locked. Yes, you can unlock your bootloader, but it is still secured.
Read up on "TrustZone" and see why it is important, and why the OEMs would not want you to be able to downgrade. You can "buy" or "not buy" whatever you want....
I really don't get the linux reference. We are talking about a bootloader, not linux in general. That's beyond the fact that any smart linux user would almost never have any reason at all to downgrade. Think about the heartbleed vuln that was discovered recently. Why on god's green earth would you want to downgrade openssl back to a version that is vulnerable??
The early (4.2.2 & 4.4) bootloader (motoboot.img) was vulnerable to an exploit that allowed us to disable write protection. The updated bootloader (4.4.2+) is patched. You *CAN NOT* downgrade back to the vulnerable version.
^Does that not have *everything* to do with security??
scryan said:
I'm kind of not buying this for a second?
How about linux, which is often pointed to for its security... And you can upgrade, down grade, switch out every component for newer/older/different, switch kernels, upgrade kernels, downgrade kernels... hell change out kernels with out even rebooting.
Really not buying it has anything with security.
I think we understand that, I mean if the OP didn't he wouldn't have the question of "why not?". Its not I think it might be a good idea... We are just trying to understand the situation because it seems unique, and so we were hoping someone who knows a lot about
This is the most I have heard so far, and I have heard it once or twice... But can't the recovery image include information on the partition table?
I realize the way it is, but was curious on some more technical information explaining it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because even though the patition file and bootloader are included in the archive, they fail to flash because they have a lower version than what is installed.
AGISCI said:
Because even though the patition file and bootloader are included in the archive, they fail to flash because they have a lower version than what is installed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can't just fake the version number?
No, it's not possible.
samwathegreat said:
I really don't get the linux reference. We are talking about a bootloader, not linux in general. That's beyond the fact that any smart linux user would almost never have any reason at all to downgrade. Think about the heartbleed vuln that was discovered recently. Why on god's green earth would you want to downgrade openssl back to a version that is vulnerable??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The linux reference was in direct reply to the quote above it that was making the argument that the PC anti-virus industry as well as the proliferation of malware and viruses is an example of the insecurity that is a result of a computers administrator having the technical ability to downgrade his OS software.
I mention linux because he was using PC OS's as an example, and Linux allows you not only to downgrade... but rewrite the bootloader. Or use a different bootloader. You bootloader can boot securely with UEFI, or you can just use BIOS. All this insecurity, but virtually no viruses, and very few security issues.
Why would you want to downgrade openssl? I wouldn't. I probably wouldn't flash back to an earlier version of android either... I keep my system pretty damn up to date. The point is more that his assertion that MS and Windows proves that being able to downgrade creates inherent security issues doesn't really hold up when you look at other systems that provide even more freedom.
samwathegreat said:
You can "buy" or "not buy" whatever you want....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, and that is why I want to understand what it is I would be buying.
AGISCI said:
Because even though the patition file and bootloader are included in the archive, they fail to flash because they have a lower version than what is installed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess this is the part that we are not understanding. Perhaps because I don't understand enough and have not looked through decompressed recovery images enough... but basically the issue is that Motorola is bricking the device, rather then letting it be downgraded to an potentially insecure image. I am guessing then this is a soft brick?
Does recovery not have the ability to re-write the partition table though? Is there no partition table information in this recovery image? I get that the stock recovery would not allow it, but wouldn't a developer edition user be able to flash a custom recovery that wouldn't have issues flashing the partition table. Don't TWRP or CWM, ect do this?
I guess then that is where the trust zone comes in...
scryan said:
The linux reference was in direct reply to the quote above it that was making the argument that the PC anti-virus industry as well as the proliferation of malware and viruses is an example of the insecurity that is a result of a computers administrator having the technical ability to downgrade his OS software.
I mention linux because he was using PC OS's as an example, and Linux allows you not only to downgrade... but rewrite the bootloader. Or use a different bootloader. You bootloader can boot securely with UEFI, or you can just use BIOS. All this insecurity, but virtually no viruses, and very few security issues.
Why would you want to downgrade openssl? I wouldn't. I probably wouldn't flash back to an earlier version of android either... I keep my system pretty damn up to date. The point is more that his assertion that MS and Windows proves that being able to downgrade creates inherent security issues doesn't really hold up when you look at other systems that provide even more freedom.
I know, and that is why I want to understand what it is I would be buying.
I guess this is the part that we are not understanding. Perhaps because I don't understand enough and have not looked through decompressed recovery images enough... but basically the issue is that Motorola is bricking the device, rather then letting it be downgraded to an potentially insecure image. I am guessing then this is a soft brick?
Does recovery not have the ability to re-write the partition table though? Is there no partition table information in this recovery image? I get that the stock recovery would not allow it, but wouldn't a developer edition user be able to flash a custom recovery that wouldn't have issues flashing the partition table. Don't TWRP or CWM, ect do this?
I guess then that is where the trust zone comes in...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The custom recoveries don't flash gpt.bin nor motoboot.img so using a custom recovery it's impossible to correctly flash a Moto X. You MUST use stock recovery with a Moto X. The problem isn't that it causes a brick by flashing an old version. The problem is that a brick happens the next time you do an OTA update. When the OTA update occurs there is a mismatched partion table and bootloader, so it ends up causing a brick.
The developer edition and the standard moto x are 100% identical. They only difference is that you don't void the warranty when you unlock the bootloader on the dev edition, however with the non dev edition your warranty is voided. So the same problem with the partition table and the bootloader ALSO apply to the developer edition as well.
AGISCI said:
The custom recoveries don't flash gpt.bin nor motoboot.img so using a custom recovery it's impossible to correctly flash a Moto X. You MUST use stock recovery with a Moto X. The problem isn't that it causes a brick by flashing an old version. The problem is that a brick happens the next time you do an OTA update. When the OTA update occurs there is a mismatched partion table and bootloader, so it ends up causing a brick.
The developer edition and the standard moto x are 100% identical. They only difference is that you don't void the warranty when you unlock the bootloader on the dev edition, however with the non dev edition your warranty is voided. So the same problem with the partition table and the bootloader ALSO apply to the developer edition as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said :good:
Still the answer is security.
So upgrade as Moto intended & do not downgrade!
---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------
scryan said:
Is there no partition table information in this recovery image? I get that the stock recovery would not allow it, but wouldn't a developer edition user be able to flash a custom recovery that wouldn't have issues flashing the partition table. Don't TWRP or CWM, ect do this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Our recovery devs never restore such partitions or boot loader elements.
scryan said:
The linux reference was in direct reply to the quote above it that was making the argument that the PC anti-virus industry as well as the proliferation of malware and viruses is an example of the insecurity that is a result of a computers administrator having the technical ability to downgrade his OS software.
I mention linux because he was using PC OS's as an example, and Linux allows you not only to downgrade... but rewrite the bootloader. Or use a different bootloader. You bootloader can boot securely with UEFI, or you can just use BIOS. All this insecurity, but virtually no viruses, and very few security issues.
Why would you want to downgrade openssl? I wouldn't. I probably wouldn't flash back to an earlier version of android either... I keep my system pretty damn up to date. The point is more that his assertion that MS and Windows proves that being able to downgrade creates inherent security issues doesn't really hold up when you look at other systems that provide even more freedom.
I know, and that is why I want to understand what it is I would be buying.
I guess this is the part that we are not understanding. Perhaps because I don't understand enough and have not looked through decompressed recovery images enough... but basically the issue is that Motorola is bricking the device, rather then letting it be downgraded to an potentially insecure image. I am guessing then this is a soft brick?
Does recovery not have the ability to re-write the partition table though? Is there no partition table information in this recovery image? I get that the stock recovery would not allow it, but wouldn't a developer edition user be able to flash a custom recovery that wouldn't have issues flashing the partition table. Don't TWRP or CWM, ect do this?
I guess then that is where the trust zone comes in...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Smh I normally don't chime into these threads but I had to, you can't downgrade the bootloader because of security/compatibility plan and simple. It's the same concept as why you can't downgrade most PC's bios, if there is a flaw found in the system as a whole, then they don't want you to downgrade to that version. A lot of the times when people brick their device trying to downgrade is because it will flash, but because an efuse was blown when it was upgraded the downgraded version will not boot. Yes the recovery can technically rewrite those partitions but again because the efuse was blown it will not boot. Also yes being able to downgrade on any system Windows, Linux, Unix, IOS, Xbox, PS, etc are causes to security issues. If you can downgrade a system to a vulnerable version, it is then by definition less secure, no matter how you try to spin it. Take the futex vulnerability which affected most linux kernels from the past 5 years, so why would any desktop linux user ever want to downgrade to a vulnerable kernel? They wouldn't but if the end user isn't knowledgeable of the vulnerability they wouldn't know that downgrading makes them vulnerable. So since phones are used by so many people who are not knowledgeable of vulnerabilities, why would you want to give them the opportunity to downgrade themselves to a vulnerable OS?
Appreciate the info given... I don't want to downgrade, I am not trying to downgrade, I understand why its a bad idea, ect...
My view point was more questioning the insistence that it being technically possible to downgrade creates a security flaw on a machine that is kept up to date by a responsible individual. Unless we are trying to speak more abstractly about that fact that given someone the opportunity to make a mistake makes it more likely for one to occur, I don't think that security threat exists until you actually use that ability to downgrade to something with a flaw.
I guess then it comes down to personal viewpoint of do I want my phone to brick it self to protect me from myself and like sam said, you choose to go elsewhere... But then that is somewhat what I am trying to figure out. Even though its not something I would probably ever have to deal with, I don't like the idea... But "bricking" can be such a vague term with manufacturer specific recovery tools and "different levels of bricking".
Just trying to understand how what and when actually happens. I probably need to read some more of the recovery threads, and I have been looking through old threads here while considering VZ dev moto X and waiting for the x + 1 announcement, but I figured I would jump on the thread while it was here.
I understand keeping it simple because its generally a bad idea all around, and its just best not to confuse things... but its been hard to find deeper discussion or information then the general warnings. A bit of a better picture from this thread though.
aviwdoowks said:
Still the answer is security.
So upgrade as Moto intended & do not downgrade!
---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:30 PM ----------
Our recovery devs never restore such partitions or boot loader elements.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By "Our recovery devs" do you mean the ones doing the moto specific stuff? Do you know if this Is typical of the custom recoveries for other devices?
@scryan
I know far less then other posters, but yes android recoveries are all very similar in that regard.
scryan said:
Appreciate the info given... I don't want to downgrade, I am not trying to downgrade, I understand why its a bad idea, ect...
My view point was more questioning the insistence that it being technically possible to downgrade creates a security flaw on a machine that is kept up to date by a responsible individual. Unless we are trying to speak more abstractly about that fact that given someone the opportunity to make a mistake makes it more likely for one to occur, I don't think that security threat exists until you actually use that ability to downgrade to something with a flaw.
I guess then it comes down to personal viewpoint of do I want my phone to brick it self to protect me from myself and like sam said, you choose to go elsewhere... But then that is somewhat what I am trying to figure out. Even though its not something I would probably ever have to deal with, I don't like the idea... But "bricking" can be such a vague term with manufacturer specific recovery tools and "different levels of bricking".
Just trying to understand how what and when actually happens. I probably need to read some more of the recovery threads, and I have been looking through old threads here while considering VZ dev moto X and waiting for the x + 1 announcement, but I figured I would jump on the thread while it was here.
I understand keeping it simple because its generally a bad idea all around, and its just best not to confuse things... but its been hard to find deeper discussion or information then the general warnings. A bit of a better picture from this thread though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thing is you keep looking at it from a PC point of view, where you basically have full control over the software and hardware. Phones have much tighter restrictions on them from carriers, fcc, etc they're not personal computers. So the reason they make it where you can't downgrade the bootloader is because that's what controls the restriction on downgrading any other partition on the device.
So with the Moto X's 4.4.4 update they probably blew an efuse, so users with a locked device can't downgrade. This is done because with locked devices they can only flash signed kernels, so by blowing the efuse they can't downgrade to the vulnerable 4.4.2 and below kernel even though it is signed correctly. This is because lets say a malicious app was able to get on a device that had the ability to downgrade say back to 4.2.2. That app could flash the older vulnerable signed kernel to the recovery partition, to disable write protection gain more control over the phone etc, without the users knowledge. Now that is a stretch and probably will never happen but that doesn't mean the threat isn't there, and hackers are very creative at deploying malicious attacks. So by updating the bootloader and blowing an efuse the older vulnerable kernels can't be flashed. Now this is all negated if you're unlocked of course, but if you don't want to ever worry about this issue don't update your bootloader. This is not recommended but I've mentioned it several times on this forum I haven't updated my X's bootloader since I bought it, it's still running the factory 4.2.2 bootloader, running 4.4.4 with no problem.
The other thing you're missing is we're technically not supposed to have the ability to restore our phones, except for the developer edition of course. The fastboot restore files are leaked not released to the public, they are designed for use when phones are returned to be refurbished. So they don't want the phones that are being refurbished to be flashed back to an older version, they want it to be refurbished and the latest software version flashed to it.
iKrYpToNiTe said:
The other thing you're missing is we're technically not supposed to have the ability to restore our phones, except for the developer edition of course. The fastboot restore files are leaked not released to the public, they are designed for use when phones are returned to be refurbished. So they don't want the phones that are being refurbished to be flashed back to an older version, they want it to be refurbished and the latest software version flashed to it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A bit selfish, and perhaps lazy of me but I am only really here talking about the developer version, I just haven't bothered to write the full "verizon developer edition " every time (most of this is research for next phone, which will be developer handset)... To me, obviously a locked phone is going to have weird restrictions and hacked together paths to getting things done, your not supposed to have admin rights...(yeah, maybe I do look at it too much as a computer. Mostly because I am annoyed the differences seem intentionally imposed). But when I pay outright for a device so that I can own it and have full administrative control... anyways, thats a different more philosophical discussion. The point is I have been talking about an unlocked device using third party software where possible.
Either way, appreciate the reply. I have a better understanding of the issue... Though coming from an S4 it still seems weird that MDK*/developer phones don't seem to have the same issues/warnings. It would seem however that the difference may be that MDK/dev owners only use kernels/roms prepared for their devices and do not update the bootloader. I suppose if more people in the Moto X community were worried about maintaining the ability to downgrade an unlocked device it would be technically possible to upgrade in a way that could be easily reversed, similar to the S4.
(*MDK was the first VZ S4 firmware, and the only one that has a released exploit to allow for a full custom recover. Later locked firmwares must rely on safestrap)
I understand that by being BL unlocked and rooted, I won't be able to get OTA's, and that I will have to flash any updates I want myself. I'm ok with that. What I don't know since I'm new to the Nexus world (I was a rom flashing madman with my Galaxy Note 2), is how to tell when there's a new update to flash, and where to find it. For example, Google's "factory images" web site currently showsLRX210, which is the build on my unlocked and rooted N6.
Does that mean there are no updates available yet?
Or will updates come in small pieces that do not alter the build number?
And where will we find factory updates? Over at Google's factory images site?
-Peter
pcrussell50 said:
I understand that by being BL unlocked and rooted, I won't be able to get OTA's, and that I will have to flash any updates I want myself. I'm ok with that. What I don't know since I'm new to the Nexus world (I was a rom flashing madman with my Galaxy Note 2), is how to tell when there's a new update to flash, and where to find it. For example, Google's "factory images" web site currently showsLRX210, which is the build on my unlocked and rooted N6.
Does that mean there are no updates available yet?
Or will updates come in small pieces that do not alter the build number?
And where will we find factory updates? Over at Google's factory images site?
-Peter
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes you're on the latest updated firmware. As far as taking otas it's my understanding you may be able to take them as long as you put the stock recovery back on your phone instead of Twrp. Not sure myself, haven't tried it.
You can still check for updates using the System Update feature so you can keep track that way.
Devs may also create flashable zips of Ota's as well, so that may be another option in the future. This is also my first Nexus and this is my understanding of how things will be progressing.
pcrussell50 said:
how to tell when there's a new update to flash, and where to find it.
Does that mean there are no updates available yet?
Or will updates come in small pieces that do not alter the build number?
And where will we find factory updates? Over at Google's factory images site?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You'll be prompted if there's an update unless you disable the prompts.
If the build number on your phone matches an image they're the same.
Images released by Google will be on their factory image page.
Sometimes factory images that have not been posted by Google are posted by other parties.
Since I first started down this Android path I've always brought my phones direct from big red which, for all the problems it created it did make life simple when it came to identify which ROM to download etc.
This week I broke tradition and dropped some money on Google's lap and picked up a Nexus 6 direct from them - no more locked down to VZW for me if I so choose.
Previously I had a Incredible, then a GS III then finally a M8 - all three rooted and unlocked\S-OFF'd so this isn't my first rodeo.
That said I'm also wanting to tread VERY VERY lightly here because time and time again I read the the biggest reason folk get bricks is because they assumed and didn't ask questions before they flashed.
So, all this aside, here I am with my now Unlocked 5.0 Non branded Nexus 6 with LNX07M with TWRP 2.8 latest as a custom recovery and, as of right now, no root (to help ease any upgrade).
I've found various Stock ROMS out there there would indicate I'd need to be however on 5.0.1 before I could sideload a 5.1.1. Is this true? If so, do I need to blow away TWRP before I do this because when I tried previously to take the update it dropped me into TWRP.
Is there any way I can avoid all this, wipe and flash a Stock 5.1.1 direct? Wiping the phone isn't an issue as there's nowt on it right now. And should I root now, while still on 5.0 or wait until 5.1.1 (because it'll require a factory reset). Would root even survive a 5.1.1 upgrade?
I'm nervous here because I keep seeing lines such as 'T-MOBILE only' and different code letters after the build name seemingly signifying the different vendors. Given that I got mine direct from Google though I'm unsure how I should proceed because I really don't want to be left with an unhappy 6 so soon after delivery.
Thanks in advance!
R
Rachel Ambler said:
Since I first started down this Android path I've always brought my phones direct from big red which, for all the problems it created it did make life simple when it came to identify which ROM to download etc.
This week I broke tradition and dropped some money on Google's lap and picked up a Nexus 6 direct from them - no more locked down to VZW for me if I so choose.
Previously I had a Incredible, then a GS III then finally a M8 - all three rooted and unlocked\S-OFF'd so this isn't my first rodeo.
That said I'm also wanting to tread VERY VERY lightly here because time and time again I read the the biggest reason folk get bricks is because they assumed and didn't ask questions before they flashed.
So, all this aside, here I am with my now Unlocked 5.0 Non branded Nexus 6 with LNX07M with TWRP 2.8 latest as a custom recovery and, as of right now, no root (to help ease any upgrade).
I've found various Stock ROMS out there there would indicate I'd need to be however on 5.0.1 before I could sideload a 5.1.1. Is this true? If so, do I need to blow away TWRP before I do this because when I tried previously to take the update it dropped me into TWRP.
Is there any way I can avoid all this, wipe and flash a Stock 5.1.1 direct? Wiping the phone isn't an issue as there's nowt on it right now. And should I root now, while still on 5.0 or wait until 5.1.1 (because it'll require a factory reset). Would root even survive a 5.1.1 upgrade?
I'm nervous here because I keep seeing lines such as 'T-MOBILE only' and different code letters after the build name seemingly signifying the different vendors. Given that I got mine direct from Google though I'm unsure how I should proceed because I really don't want to be left with an unhappy 6 so soon after delivery.
Thanks in advance!
R
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The main reason that some users bricked their phone is that they wiped the OS and had a locked bootloader which leaves no possibility ro recover the phone
What carrier do you use?
T-Mobile would be the LYZ28E rom and ATT/USC/International devices would be LMY47Z and Verizon is LMY47E.
Look here http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/ref-nexus-6-stock-ota-urls-t2906493 and here http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/guide-flash-factory-images-nexus-6shamu-t2954008.
Unless something is special about the N6 that I'm not aware of, the OS you update FROM only matters if you're sideloading an OTA file. Flashing factory images, you could be coming from a custom ROM(I just took my old N4 from CM12.1 to stock 4.4 on Sunday).
The current build for VZW is 5.1 LMY47E. I think they are updating to 5.1.1 now(LMY47Z, which seems to be universal now except for maybe T-Mo). I flashed mine from E to Z on Saturday because I bought mine unlocked but it had the VZW build, and I'm on an AT&T MVNO.
gee2012 said:
What carrier do you use?
T-Mobile would be the LYZ28E rom and ATT/USC/International devices would be LMY47Z and Verizon is LMY47E.
Look here http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/ref-nexus-6-stock-ota-urls-t2906493 and here http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/guide-flash-factory-images-nexus-6shamu-t2954008.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still with VZW for now, but, as I said, I didn't purchase the phone from them, I brought it from Google direct so it's carrier agnostic (well, in the US at least!) hence my confusion. The last thing I want to do is flash a ROM that's carrier specific but I don't know which one to take with this being the case.
As for the order, my M8 needed to go in two stages to jump from my old Venom build due to changes with the radio (I think) - hence my question there.
If you root, you'll.never get an OTA anyway, sonit doesn't matter which rom you flash aa you can flash any other rom.over it
None of the carrier specific roms will restrict anything, or add branding, so go for whichever.
Rachel Ambler said:
Still with VZW for now, but, as I said, I didn't purchase the phone from them, I brought it from Google direct so it's carrier agnostic (well, in the US at least!) hence my confusion. The last thing I want to do is flash a ROM that's carrier specific but I don't know which one to take with this being the case.
As for the order, my M8 needed to go in two stages to jump from my old Venom build due to changes with the radio (I think) - hence my question there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just flash the LMY47E rom and when its available you get the OTA to update or sideload the OTA from here http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/ref-nexus-6-stock-ota-urls-t2906493 when its available.
danarama said:
None of the carrier specific roms will restrict anything, or add branding, so go for whichever.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really? Is there a reason why they exist then? Usually my understanding was that they contained carrier specific items including radios and bloatware.
Rachel Ambler said:
Really? Is there a reason why they exist then? Usually my understanding was that they contained carrier specific items including radios and bloatware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no bloatware on these roms.
Verizon rom includes binaries that make VoLTE work properly on their network where as T-mobile adds a kernel fix to allow their wifi calling to work. And that's it...
gee2012 said:
Just flash the LMY47E rom and when its available you get the OTA to update or sideload the OTA from here http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/ref-nexus-6-stock-ota-urls-t2906493 when its available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So what would be the benefit of flashing a Verizon ROM is, for example I should suddenly decide to go to T-Mobile next week given that I didn't purchase the phone from them?
Sorry if these are noob questions but this whole carrier agnostic\yet not agnostic thing has me really wanting to make sure my phone stays as agnostic as it was when it left the factory, bar a VZW Sim nestled inside and a VZW APN entry.
danarama said:
There's no bloatware on these roms.
Verizon rom includes binaries that make VoLTE work properly on their network where as T-mobile addsna kernel fix to allow their wifi calling to work. And that's it...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting. So this would leave me to believe then that, should I decide one day to jump carriers, I'd be better off flashing a ROM for that carrier at the appropriate time?
This being the case, why would the phone come with no carrier specific software on board from Google? Wouldn't this mean I might get a degraded service?
Rachel Ambler said:
So what would be the benefit of flashing a Verizon ROM is, for example I should suddenly decide to go to T-Mobile next week given that I didn't purchase the phone from them?
Sorry if these are noob questions but this whole carrier agnostic\yet not agnostic thing has me really wanting to make sure my phone stays as agnostic as it was when it left the factory, bar a VZW Sim nestled inside and a VZW APN entry.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you want to use T-Mobile in the future you just flash the LYZ28E rom.
Rachel Ambler said:
So what would be the benefit of flashing a Verizon ROM is, for example I should suddenly decide to go to T-Mobile next week given that I didn't purchase the phone from them?
Sorry if these are noob questions but this whole carrier agnostic\yet not agnostic thing has me really wanting to make sure my phone stays as agnostic as it was when it left the factory, bar a VZW Sim nestled inside and a VZW APN entry.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well all Nexus 6 used to get the same updates but tmob and red, wanted approval on theirs - and now we know why.
Since google are still sending these updates and they update onto generic builds, they can only use your sim card as the identifier.
If you leave root out of it, the only way you can avoid the vzw update is to manually update to something else (something vzw updates won't work on). Each OTA looks for a specific build to flash on and won't flash on anything else.
If you do accept the vzw update, you'll never get away from them unless you manually flash a full factory rom.
Bringing root back into it, OTA will never flash anyway, so you'll have to either manually flash factory or flash rom.zips in TWRP
gee2012 said:
If you want to use T-Mobile in the future you just flash the LYZ28E rom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is already explaining a lot! So, given that, as I said, I'm not bog standard non-carrier specific 5.0 (and I've yet to even migrate my SIM over) the suggested action would be to download LMY47E 5.1 (as 5.1.1 is not yet out for VZW as they ALWAYS seem to be last to the party) and flash it via TWRP? And I can do that over my LNX07M build?
danarama said:
"Well all Nexus 6 used to get the same updates but tmob and red, ..."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great info, very useful.
Rachel Ambler said:
Interesting. So this would leave me to believe then that, should I decide one day to jump carriers, I'd be better off flashing a ROM for that carrier at the appropriate time?
This being the case, why would the phone come with no carrier specific software on board from Google? Wouldn't this mean I might get a degraded service?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There were no carrier specific ROMs when Nexus 6 came out. Using any rom on any Nexus and they will all act the same, except you wont get improved volte or wifi calling on those carriers. Their changes will not prove detrimental on other carriers
danarama said:
Well all Nexus 6 used to get the same updates but tmob and red, wanted approval on theirs - and now we know why.
Since google are still sending these updates and they update onto generic builds, they can only use your sim card as the identifier.
If you leave root out of it, the only way you can avoid the vzw update is to manually update to something else (something vzw updates won't work on). Each OTA looks for a specific build to flash on and won't flash on anything else.
If you do accept the vzw update, you'll never get away from them unless you manually flash a full factory rom.
Bringing root back into it, OTA will never flash anyway, so you'll have to either manually flash factory or flash rom.zips in TWRP
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now the murky seas are de-murkyfing!
So go for the VZW build for now with the knowledge and understanding that if I ever decide to bid them a less than fond adieu, I'd be best at that point flash a factory image OR flash another carrier specific ROM once I've chosen the new carrier?
And should I root now, or post the 5.1 flash? I'm guessing post because I'd assuming flashing 5.1 would blow my root away.
I assume I can flash post VZW 5.1 because the boatloader is still all mine and the flash doesn't effect that. Right?
Rachel Ambler said:
This is already explaining a lot! So, given that, as I said, I'm not bog standard non-carrier specific 5.0 (and I've yet to even migrate my SIM over) the suggested action would be to download LMY47E 5.1 (as 5.1.1 is not yet out for VZW as they ALWAYS seem to be last to the party) and flash it via TWRP? And I can do that over my LNX07M build?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends how you do it.
Google factory images are flashed from a computer using fastboot.
You may be able to find a rom.zip of that version on xda that can be flashed via TWRP.
As long as you aren't flashing an incremental OTA, you can flash over anything. OTA actually patch files not replace them, so they can only be flashed on the rom they are intended for.
Rachel Ambler said:
Now the murky seas are de-murkyfing!
So go for the VZW build for now with the knowledge and understanding that if I ever decide to bid them a less than fond adieu, I'd be best at that point flash a factory image OR flash another carrier specific ROM once I've chosen the new carrier?
And should I root now, or post the 5.1 flash? I'm guessing post because I'd assuming flashing 5.1 would blow my root away.
I assume I can flash post VZW 5.1 because the boatloader is still all mine and the flash doesn't effect that. Right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not go with a custom rom like chroma? Get 5.1.1 now and personally it works really well.
danarama said:
Depends how you do it.
Google factory images are flashed from a computer using fastboot.
You may be able to find a rom.zip of that version on sea that can be flashed via TWRP.
As long as you aren't flashing an incremental OTA, you can flash over anything. OTA actually patch files not replace them, so they can only be flashed on the rom they are intended for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry if that sudden flash of the light coming on in my head just blinded you, but that's what happens when things start to make sense!
OK, so, this all being the case, and that the OTA's are incremental, then in order to go 5.1 with the build from http://forum.xda-developers.com/nexus-6/general/ref-nexus-6-stock-ota-urls-t2906493 then I WOULD need 5.0.1? Would that work though if I'm on a generic build since, if it's expecting to patch existing VZW files, wouldn't it fail because they're not there? Failing that I'd need to find a flashable 5.1 for VZW (if one even exists)?
endlessryan said:
Why not go with a custom rom like chroma? Get 5.1.1 now and personally it works really well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But it wouldn't have the VoLTE improvements, etc, right? Besides, right now I'd like to stay as stock as possible as it's not just my phone I'm working on, both myself and my wife got one at the same time and I know she will most definitely NOT want anything other than stock.
that not only devs given up with the g6 play, so have Motorola.
I have tried every way possible to re-lock and completely without an error, flash a stock firmware
i have had problems with boot.img recovery.img with every firmware, all saying bad key
i cannot in any way relock the bootloader.
every time saying please flash a valid android image.
I have tried every firmware image for my model xt1922-2
I have used search here, on many other sites, to no avail......
i can root quite easily, i have used guides galore, but nothing flashes correct
i am not a noob and have been flashing firmware since xdas early days...
help!
biggary said:
that not only devs given up with the g6 play, so have Motorola.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Given up? Since when did you see any one actively developing roms or anything for the G6 Play?
i am not a noob and have been flashing firmware since xdas early days...
help!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then you know not to make multiple threads on the same issue? I am familiar with your issue but I don't have an answer. No one else does either it seems.
Sent from my moto g(6) plus using Tapatalk
biggary said:
that not only devs given up with the g6 play, so have Motorola.
I have tried every way possible to re-lock and completely without an error, flash a stock firmware
i have had problems with boot.img recovery.img with every firmware, all saying bad key
i cannot in any way relock the bootloader.
every time saying please flash a valid android image.
I have tried every firmware image for my model xt1922-2
I have used search here, on many other sites, to no avail......
i can root quite easily, i have used guides galore, but nothing flashes correct
i am not a noob and have been flashing firmware since xdas early days...
help!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's very obvious, even for someone who has never flashed a single phone before, not to mess with the g6 play - you're stuck with whatever you've got. Maybe in the future that will change, but I find it unlikely.
At least you have an official version of TWRP. The G6 doesn't.
Ginger Bier said:
At least you have an official version of TWRP. The G6 doesn't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Official and unofficial is not even important. For the G6+ we just got Official TWRP but if you flash anything with official twrp your device is soft bricked. However, unofficial build works great with the exception of 1 or 2 GSIs. Official was made by a dev who didn't test it(or have someone with the device since he doesn't own it) on our device and attached one of our devs name to it without him even knowing about it. For some reason Twrp team decided to approve it as official with out confirmation it even worked which is bad news imo and really disappointed me.
Sent from my Moto G6 Plus using Tapatalk
Is it possible to downgrade from 13 to 12? I think the upgrade messed up my camera. Or maybe a way to reflash the camera firmware?
If the bootloader wasn't updated you can roll it back.
How can I find out if it was updated? I have a US unlocked phone. Its updated from 11 to 12 and now to 13.
See this thread, different models but the same information applies.
blackhawk said:
See this thread, different models but the same information applies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the build I'm on now:
RedCrane3 said:
This is the build I'm on now:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hello good morning
Of course, it can be downgraded, as long as the binary number is the same... example in the image.
The bootloader version is 9 so for you to roll back that build number's 5th digit from the end needs to be the same or higher.
With stock Snapdragon's locked bootloader it's easy to get locked into an OTA upgrade you don't want if it updates the bootloader too. I have two N10+'s, one running on 9, the other 10 (can't be rolled back to 9). That's what they were loaded when bought new. They will likely remain on those versions for their service lives as they are running well. I prefer Pie though.
I could be running Android 11 or 12 but I blew them off mostly because of the scoped storage bs.
The first thing I disable is OTA updates, once bitten twice shy. Had a S4+ that got screwed up by a OTA update that couldn't be rolled back... it sucks.
Thank you guys for helping me with all of this information. I guess I have a decision to make.
I can try to rollback to Android 12 in the hopes that will fix my camera issue, or I can sit tight and hope that a future update will resolve it.
Either way, I'm beginning to regret allowing OTA updates.
I really love the hardware of this phone, especially the screen, but its not important to me to have the latest Android (security updates are important though).
I originnaly submitted the problem to Samsung through their members app and the tech who looked at it said he *thought* it was a hardware issue, but come on, what are the chances that the one camera stops working right after the update to 13 and OneUI 5? I take very good care of my phone and never drop it (certainly didn't recently, after the update), there's not a scratch on it.
I suppose its possible, but it would be an incredible coincidence...
The tech suggested I visit a service center (which for me would be a Best Buy, yikes) or call their support 800 number, but what are they going to be able to do that the tech couldn't?
I just don't know if I can trust their initial assessment - no one knows everything, and plenty of people give up on a problem and pass it off the first trouble they run into. Maybe the tech just wasn't interested in digging deeper? A quote from their answer:
"Chi request is getting timed out. Read wide camera sensor seems to be not responding to requests [...]"
I guess my question is: can a downgrade to 12 even fix the issue?
Should I wait for another update?
Or should i just heave Samsung over the side and try to install a custom ROM?
Thanks again for all your help.
You're welcome.
If the bootloader is locked you can't install a custom rom. This is the case with most newer Snapdragon's including the N10+.
The Samsung Experience center at the best buys can run advanced diagnostics so they might be able to find the issue. They can also roll it back or try a reflash of 13.
blackhawk said:
You're welcome.
If the bootloader is locked you can't install a custom rom. This is the case with most newer Snapdragon's including the N10+.
The Samsung Experience center at the best buys can run advanced diagnostics so they might be able to find the issue. They can also roll it back or try a reflash of 13.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, ok, but do you mean that the version I have (unlocked US snapdragon) is not able to unlock the bootloader, or just that I'd need to do that first? I do have experience with custom ROMS; my old moto X4 has seen many different ROMS in it's lifetime, so I do feel comfortable unlocking the bootloader and flashing other ROMS.
RedCrane3 said:
Ah, ok, but do you mean that the version I have (unlocked US snapdragon) is not able to unlock the bootloader, or just that I'd need to do that first? I do have experience with custom ROMS; my old moto X4 has seen many different ROMS in it's lifetime, so I do feel comfortable unlocking the bootloader and flashing other ROMS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That refers to the carrier not bootloader I think. Not sure about your specific model's bootloader.