OSNews

It shows once again that Android should have been core distribution not a per-vendor spagetti mash. Let the flashing utility include two files; one for the Android standard image and one for a smaller binary of device specific drivers. Ideally vendors should be putting the hardware drivers directly back into the stock Android distribution but I could accept the slipstreamed driver package if they'd at least stop with the malware infested one-off firmware images.

Why are you guys buying the phones from the carrier? Can't you just buy the phone in a store and then just get the SIM card from the carrier?

Ha, you certainly don't live in the US where the vast majority of phonse are only sold from the carrier and if you don't go that way you are doomed (eg Nokia).

My suggestion is simpler, just don't buy it, there are many android phones in the market.

Edited 2010-10-07 07:43 UTC

Correct, I certainly don't. One of these days I should go to the mall and take a few pictures of the cellphone shops jampacked with carrier-neutral phones just to make you americans jealous.

WTF is a service provider doing making a device firmware image? I pay them for a network connection and expertise not there developer skills. This, assuming it is the telco's firmware.

Stamping the base bios or os on a rom chip so it can't be modified is nothing new at all. In a device branded as "tinker friendly" and open; it's malware regardless of the method used to do it.

I tried that once. Got a form letter that they couldn't get the unlock code from the manufacturer.

Ended up just going to a 3rd party phone shop to unlock the phone.

Indeed, this is one of the reasons I switched from ATT to T-Mobile. I had been hesitant to switch for the longest time, because if you just go by their website they seem to have more expensive plans. After taking the plunge, I found this to be completely untrue; I'm paying less for three lines on a family account with unlimited messaging and internet on all three devices, than I did for two lines on ATT with limited messaging and internet on one line only. I think the difference is that you can work with their sales staff, whereas with ATT you pretty much have to take what they shove down your throat.

Combine that with the great selection of smartphones, the (so far) excellent customer service and their open stance towards devices and I'm very happy to be with T-Mobile.

Having said all that, I find this article to be disconcerting. I want to believe that Tmo is the consumer-friendly carrier I've found them to be over the last few months, but I wonder if they are like Apple in a way: Open and accepting of consumer driven initiatives in some ways, and very anti-consumer in others.

Yea, it's a good security policy. Let's remember we actually hack our devices to root them, those security vulnerabilities are often kept there for years because users don't usually upgrade their phone if they don't have a centralized interface like iTunes to push them. As good as I like taking advantages of my hardware, I saw too much of Windows viruses over the year to think about myself first.

I will never buy a device that have not been rooted first. I waited the day until the second gen iTouch was rooted until buying mine, same for my Nexus.

"No matter what they do, what they install, or what they break, the phone can always be restored to a clean working state."

Yes, on non-smart phones, by removing the battery cover and pressing a pencil against a recessed button for five seconds, or shorting two pins, or some such. It isn't going to happen by accident, or in secret when you power up. That is exactly *not* the case with the G2.

This maneuver by (who? Google? HTC? T-Mobile? someone else?) is dirty, at best. It's yet another example of why the GPLv3 includes special language to prohibit Tivo-ization of embedded devices.

I read stories like this, and I'm so glad I don't have a "smart" phone that thinks it can arrogate the authority to dictate to me what I can and can't do.

Some might say it is better with the G2. Certainly better for tech support when they can simply say "Did you try rebooting your phone?".

In any case, I'm not ready to cry foul play. It seems like a good feature for the other 99.5% of people out there who run stock firmware.

But they also don't have the right to block you from modifying your OWN device. Sure, they can kill support and kick you from their service (and even that is debatable in Europe), but they can't prevent you. That's dirty and evil.

There's no evidence that they have. As other people have said, the main purpose of this layered file-system is to protect the data from accidental damage and to provide a reliable way to restore the phone to its original condition.

The fact that it makes custom modifications harder is probably an unfortunate side effect.

There's nothing stopping you from taking a soldering iron or JTAG programmer to the device.

The Nexus One is no longer available. So where in the marketplace can one find an Android phone that to date does not go to lengths to block the user's freedom?

US Democratic? I’m still laughing.

note: I’m in Europe.

Edited 2010-10-07 11:53 UTC

You are confusing issues. If you sign a contract you will abide by its terms.

One of the terms, is if you cancel early, you pay an early termination fee. That is purely a financial consideration. So, imagine I got my G2, paid the early termination fee - I'm in complete compliance with the terms of my contract. Why do you think I can't do what I want, with my phone, that I bought, with my money?

Or, let says I get a G2, and one month later I decide I want a Samsung phone instead. I buy one off ebay. Why do you think I shouldn't be able to unlock my G2 and sell it to ebay? I'm carrying the contract to full term, so why can't I do what I want, with the phone that I own?

Stop confusing a contract, with a carrier lock.

Those carrier locks have nothing to do with your contract, and unlike your contract, they never expire.

Your 2g iPhone could be off contract for many years now, you could have upgraded to the 3g, the 3gs, and the iPhone 4 - and AT&T will never unlock that 2g iphone, not ever.

You must do it yourself.

I know a lot of people love big corporations - to each his own - but this is not about the contract - what enforces the contract, is the law. You owe what you owe, and believe me, they'll make you pay. It has nothing to do with the phone being locked or unlocked.

They want to lock the phone to their carrier, so that even if you complete all the terms of your contract, anyone who ever comes across that phone, even the 10th owner of the phone, 20 years from now, still must subscribe to their network.

And that, my friend....defend all you want - is ABSURD.

Edited 2010-10-07 21:12 UTC

If you see a sign "Mine field" and still walk there it's your own problem. Everyone knows that operator contracts are mine fields, but still people sign them and then complain about something. And this is totally absurd. Don't be stupid, buy unlocked phones - there will be no problems.