I've had with with smartphones and carriers. Seriously, I'm done..

[IOWA]

Thanks for the complement. I only mentioned it as you said that I was blissfuly ignorant and shortsighted with your insinuation that with more people like me, we'd still be at 1990. You're right that it's not at all pertinent to the discussion at hand, but then again, neither is your reference to women's rights. Just sayin' .

Anyway, good luck with your pursuit, and I do hope that it instigates changes with carriers to an extent.

P.s., much like you, I'm a conservative-liberal leaning on the republican side. I don't share the same Prius driving Obama loving culture that most here do, haha. <politics />

I already see why there is a clash between us. It seems we are too alike. Lol.

BTW my reference is valid, because it is used as a reference(in the sense it was a similar situation where the odds seemed hopefully stacked against us, but they were victorious none the less. . =)

 

[Thefoodman52]

Well, I'll take this thread by the horns here and put it back on topic...

The general message I think IOWA, and I, want to convey, is why is it so hard to let us have what we bought, and paid for in full? I get that the carriers want to milk you for as much cash as ppssible... but i shouod have full power to do as I please to the hardware i hold in hands typing this message out. When their actions infringe upon what is now MY device, that's over the line. I want control over my phone, I don't care what they think. Sure, leave it 'safe' by their standards stock, but dont do shit like lock out the bootloader and put stuff in the phone to prevent me doing what I should rightfully be able to with my device. There's no way in hell I'd buy a computer if it was going to be impossible to ipgrade it later on. Same thing for the smartphone. I wouldn't buy an android device at this point if it was locked out.

 

[Bob Maxey]

First, the suit will never see a court. No merit and no reason for forcing a change through the court system.

Second, I have seen first hand what happens when you make some things available to the user. Most here have as well. If you want total access to your computer, why shouldn&#8217;t Microsoft also make the uncompelled OS code available to the masses for editing, so &#8220;I can change it to make it run better, my way.&#8221; Then again, MS owns the code and lets you use it in accordance with their rules. Is the OS on a cell phone any different? Don&#8217;t the apps we hate help pay for things?

Third, if the technically inclined want access, there is no shortage of help. Re, this forum. Win the proposed CA suit and this forum might not be so helpful because the phones might be locked down to such a degree that we cant do anything about it. This is completely legal.

Fourth, some assume that this suit would be in the public's interest. Prove it. One good reason.

Fifth, perhaps a better approach would have been to ask if there is a compelling reason to open up the phone so the public can have access to whatever a Root does. AND, explain why or why not.

Sixth, I think in order for a court case to proceed, you would need to prove that consumers have been harmed because they are not allowed to meddle with something they do not understand.

Seventh, I am not sure some readers fully understand the potential problems with giving us total access. I remember when people on our production lines had access to MS-DOS batch files for testing modems. Disaster and a constant battle to keep undoing the damage. I remember when our department had complete access to several Access databases. Ditto, disaster, like renaming fields in tables and not changing controls.

Eighth, why cant we simply be happy, use our phones, and stop trying to instigate battles with companies we cant win? If you want to root, God&#8217;s speed. Don&#8217;t blame the manufacturers for protecting us by making things a tad difficult..

Ninth, stop thinking suits and perhaps try to persuade companies to make everything available.

Bob Maxey

 

[howetechnical]

Well, I'll take this thread by the horns here and put it back on topic...

The general message I think IOWA, and I, want to convey, is why is it so hard to let us have what we bought, and paid for in full? I get that the carriers want to milk you for as much cash as ppssible... but i shouod have full power to do as I please to the hardware i hold in hands typing this message out. When their actions infringe upon what is now MY device, that's over the line. I want control over my phone, I don't care what they think. Sure, leave it 'safe' by their standards stock, but dont do shit like lock out the bootloader and put stuff in the phone to prevent me doing what I should rightfully be able to with my device. There's no way in hell I'd buy a computer if it was going to be impossible to ipgrade it later on. Same thing for the smartphone. I wouldn't buy an android device at this point if it was locked out.

I completely understand the point of view that you two are trying to convey, and agree to an extent. The main thing that I think of when considering this topic is, those of us who want to take advantage of this type of unrestriction already can as the tools to do so are readily available. I'm just not sure I understand the disconnect here. We've all rooted our phones, applied fixes, can use them on any GSM carrier we want, so the points that are being fought against here are already achievable. I guess it's simply the convenience of not having to do it ourselves that's being argued?

 

[IOWA]

I completely understand the point of view that you two are trying to convey, and agree to an extent. The main thing that I think of when considering this topic is, those of us who want to take advantage of this type of unrestriction already can as the tools to do so are readily available. I'm just not sure I understand the disconnect here. We've all rooted our phones, applied fixes, can use them on any GSM carrier we want, so the points that are being fought against here are already achievable. I guess it's simply the convenience of not having to do it ourselves that's being argued?

But here's the problem. Carriers, and Manufacters are now loading bootloaders with e-fuses and enrcyption, making it damn near impossible to obtain root access, something that is rightfully mine. I DID pay for the product, after all.

Hell, the Motorola Milestone Bootloader still has never been cracked, and probably never will be, unless someone invents a quantum computer soon, or has a super machine with multiple processors and the best GPU unit in existance, which is unlikely.

First, the suit will never see a court. No merit and no reason for forcing a change through the court system.

Second, I have seen first hand what happens when you make some things available to the user. Most here have as well. If you want total access to your computer, why shouldn&#8217;t Microsoft also make the uncompelled OS code available to the masses for editing, so &#8220;I can change it to make it run better, my way.&#8221; Then again, MS owns the code and lets you use it in accordance with their rules. Is the OS on a cell phone any different? Don&#8217;t the apps we hate help pay for things?

Third, if the technically inclined want access, there is no shortage of help. Re, this forum. Win the proposed CA suit and this forum might not be so helpful because the phones might be locked down to such a degree that we cant do anything about it. This is completely legal.

Fourth, some assume that this suit would be in the public's interest. Prove it. One good reason.

Fifth, perhaps a better approach would have been to ask if there is a compelling reason to open up the phone so the public can have access to whatever a Root does. AND, explain why or why not.

Sixth, I think in order for a court case to proceed, you would need to prove that consumers have been harmed because they are not allowed to meddle with something they do not understand.

Seventh, I am not sure some readers fully understand the potential problems with giving us total access. I remember when people on our production lines had access to MS-DOS batch files for testing modems. Disaster and a constant battle to keep undoing the damage. I remember when our department had complete access to several Access databases. Ditto, disaster, like renaming fields in tables and not changing controls.

Eighth, why cant we simply be happy, use our phones, and stop trying to instigate battles with companies we cant win? If you want to root, God&#8217;s speed. Don&#8217;t blame the manufacturers for protecting us by making things a tad difficult..

Ninth, stop thinking suits and perhaps try to persuade companies to make everything available.

Bob Maxey

And this if this was the attitude everyone had throughout history, the United States would still be part of England, there would still be Slavery in "democratic free nations", and only men would have the right to make decisions.

And There's a slight difference in asking for someone's proprietary code/software and overwriting it with your own

I can delete windows and put Linux or my choice of Operating System as I please, without the BIOS re-rewriting my work and putting Windows back on the machine.

 

[Snow_Fox]

I just bought an electronic appliance from Europe, but I can't plug it into my home in the United States. Different plug and different wattage and voltage. Heck, that's Anti-Trust! They made something that I can't use however and wherever I want! Let's sue somebody!

Your device was created for use in europe.

We are discussing two phone providers which use the EXACT same frequencies.

If we end up paying the total cost of the phone through termination fee's or completion of a two year contract, why should we not be allowed to use the phone on any network we want, other than some jerk in a company saying "Nope, can't do it"

Meanwhile, the rest of us are at least OK with sticking with out carrier, otherwise we wouldn't be (minus that small number who don't like their carrier). Some things need to be left alone. The excuses and arguments people (usually Americans) come up with these days to sue somebody is lunacy. Seriously. I bet my dog will get sued one of these days for peeing on the bush outside our house, and it offends somebody's nasal passage walking by, and they'll cry that it mentally prohibited from taking that route ever again.

So your perfectly content paying for a phone that will never really be yours?

I will stick to my American mentality of "If I end up paying more for a device than it's total worth through a contract, why should I am I NOT allowed to do whatever I want to with MY device?"

 

[Snow_Fox]

OK, here is a question for the group.

Lets say all cellphones were factory rooted. Every part of the OS was open and available to the user. You can move, rename, delete files; download and install any software you find on the web, and there are no restrictions.

What percentage of phones would be rendered unusable because someone did something they should not have done? Lots of computers are rendered useless because the user has access to the file system; I see no change in behavior when it comes to cell phones.

I do not want to root my phone because I am happy with it. I'll upgrade to the next version of Android when (or if) Cricket releases an upgrade. If not, well, it works for me and I am satisfied.

Bob Maxey

The same thing that happens when I get a little too frisky with root in ubuntu, I stick the disk in and fix it.

Or in this case plug it into a computer and run "recovery" mode. They can get it so that we can have the best of both worlds.

Heck you don't even have root by default on ubuntu, you have to enable it.. however, enabling it and hacking it are two different things..

 

[howetechnical]

Your device was created for use in europe.

We are discussing two phone providers which use the EXACT same frequencies.

If we end up paying the total cost of the phone through termination fee's or completion of a two year contract, why should we not be allowed to use the phone on any network we want, other than some jerk in a company saying "Nope, can't do it"

So your perfectly content paying for a phone that will never really be yours?

I will stick to my American mentality of "If I end up paying more for a device than it's total worth through a contract, why should I am I NOT allowed to do whatever I want to with MY device?"

We've already moved on past these old posts, but I'll say it again for you. The europe example was for symbolism, not fact. Lastly, your final paragraph indicates that you are arguing that we don't "own" the phones after purchase. That's not what this thread is about, and nowhere did anybody say that we don't own them. The argument is whether carriers should be required to sell them unlocked data wise as well as carrier wise when we purchase them.

In any case, and this is in no offense to anybody here, I think this thread has gleened everything that it can from the interested users of the forums. This is probably the last time I'll visit it, as there's really nothing more to say. Good luck.

 

[mikedt]

I put down 'Not sure', because 'Class action lawsuit' sounds like a USA type thing. I'm not sure if we can do those in China.

When you buy a PC, you can do what you want...but the PC is just the hardware. Software (including being loaded with an operating system when purchased) is optional.

You're still paying for Windows even if you use it or not. AFAIK the only way to avoid this 'tax' is to build the PC yourself.

 

[sniperifle72]

please do not hold me to this but wouldn't you need to prove if not active than some form of past collaberation for it to be a violation of anti trust laws? since the phone market is somewhere between an oligopoly and a monopolistically competitive market it becomes hard to prove whether similar business practices in most companies i.e. SIM locking are the practice of common business sense. the examples most often used to illustrate anti trust violations are Ivy leauge admissions boards meeting to determine the price of an ivy leauge education or opec meeting to limit the production of oil for that period of time (granted this is not a violation of our laws since no opec meeting has ever occured on us soil) so without proof of meetings such as these youll have a hard time proving theyre all in a collaberating oligopoly

 

[Bob Maxey]

please do not hold me to this but wouldn't you need to prove if not active than some form of past collaberation for it to be a violation of anti trust laws? since the phone market is somewhere between an oligopoly and a monopolistically competitive market it becomes hard to prove whether similar business practices in most companies i.e. SIM locking are the practice of common business sense. the examples most often used to illustrate anti trust violations are Ivy leauge admissions boards meeting to determine the price of an ivy leauge education or opec meeting to limit the production of oil for that period of time (granted this is not a violation of our laws since no opec meeting has ever occured on us soil) so without proof of meetings such as these youll have a hard time proving theyre all in a collaberating oligopoly

Anti trust laws are laws that help promote and/or maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct. I am not sure that is happeninhg in this case.

Besides, a case will never be brought and quite likely, it would be dismissed.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that you would need to prove that it is in the best interest of the public or a large group of people were materially damaged.

Bob Maxey

 

[gallandof]

to everyone bringing up the issue or what if people brick their phones.

as we have seen with the moto droid and RSD lite its very easy to bring a phone back to life. someone screws up their phone they bring it into a store store flashes original software problem solved.

if someone fully bricks their phone beyond an RSD flash then odds are they knew what they were doing and arent too worried about the warrenty anyways.

If something like this were common practice then all the manufacturers would release a tool like this. Do not see what the issue here with this is. For the average user nothing would really change too much. For the more tech savy people its only for the better.

 

[sniperifle72]

Anti trust laws are laws that help promote and/or maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct. I am not sure that is happeninhg in this case.

Besides, a case will never be brought and quite likely, it would be dismissed.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that you would need to prove that it is in the best interest of the public or a large group of people were materially damaged.

Bob Maxey

technically anti trust laws are laws designed from one dominating market force company from buying out the smaller competitors placing them in a trust held by the company and running both putting up the facade of competetion when in all actuality its a monoply with two faces theyre are other laws commonly called anti trust laws but they all require collaberation with competetion or an intentional effort to elimanate all competetion besides the normal cut throat business practices we have all come to adore but nothing here is against economic law however neither was rockerfeller's practice of complete horizontal integration when he was doing it

 

[ElasticNinja]

I would like to see this happen (a class-action)
But lets face it, you couldnt win

 

[IOWA]

I would like to see this happen (a class-action)
But lets face it, you couldnt win

That's just the thing. I can win. There is no limit, no bounds, to what a person like I can achieve.

 

[Vihzel]

That's just the thing. I can win. There is no limit, no bounds, to what a person like I can achieve.

Go ahead with it! You're not making any progress with complaining about it on here.

 

[IOWA]

Go ahead with it! You're not making any progress with complaining about it on here.

I plan on it. And if you don't care, don't post in this thread. It's that simple.

 

[3devious]

My rant about the allegation that my worth as an American is somehow decided by my participation in this lawsuit has been eaten by IE 8 demons. (It was pretty cool, too.)

Needless to say, I would rather see all of this energy go into developing a competing product to show the offending parties how it's done correctly than hiding behind the skirt (I mean robe) of some judge.

Real Americans used to make stuff. Just like Metallica used to make music, now they just sue people. Don't let this country suck as much as Metallica.

 

[IOWA]

My rant about the allegation that my worth as an American is somehow decided by my participation in this lawsuit has been eaten by IE 8 demons. (It was pretty cool, too.)

Needless to say, I would rather see all of this energy go into developing a competing product to show the offending parties how it's done correctly than hiding behind the skirt (I mean robe) of some judge.

Real Americans used to make stuff. Just like Metallica used to make music, now they just sue people. Don't let this country suck as much as Metallica.

Excellent reference =P

And I don't care how it gets done, sue, don't sue, influence the carriers to avoid legaleze, as long as we(or I) can formulate a plan to give us true ownership of our devices, I'm in. I'm just looking for the end result, and don't care about the means.

 

[ekyle]

I think taking on VZW would be tough, more power to you if you can pull it off.

 

[JQwerty91]

EDIT: And this is addressing the people who are not willing to stand up and fight for what's right, those who think that its too hard, or too complicated, your all a bunch of cowards and shame on you if you call yourself an American.

Actually it's called being financially smart and provoking logical reasoning. The corporations have an abundant of resources and will hire the top lawyers in America to nail every loophole you present. In comparison you will be shoveling thousands of dollars that will ultimately wasted and not to mention affect your credit score. Most of the people who agree won't do. And most of the people who are "not willing" are people who are holding jobs and raising a family, people who have other things to do. And was it not you who signed on the "dotted line" the phone/carrier contract without reading word line by line? You sir are a bigot for making a statement like that.

Being hypocritical now: More kudos to you IF your able to amass your "phone army justice" w/e you would like to call it.

 

[batgeek]

just because you buy something, doesn't make it "yours".

 

[IOWA]

Actually it's called being financially smart and provoking logical reasoning. The corporations have an abundant of resources and will hire the top lawyers in America to nail every loophole you present. In comparison you will be shoveling thousands of dollars that will ultimately wasted and not to mention affect your credit score. Most of the people who agree won't do. And most of the people who are "not willing" are people who are holding jobs and raising a family, people who have other things to do. And was it not you who signed on the "dotted line" the phone/carrier contract without reading word line by line? You sir are a bigot for making a statement like that.

Being hypocritical now: More kudos to you IF your able to amass your "phone army justice" w/e you would like to call it.

Who said it would cost that much money?

 

[Vihzel]

Who said it would cost that much money?

Lawyer and court costs I assume? ...unless you plan to represent yourself against the top corporate lawyers...

 

[IOWA]

Lawyer and court costs I assume? ...unless you plan to represent yourself against the top corporate lawyers...

And why does everyone assume litigation must be involved?

There are plenty of things that get done that only get media attention.