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

[Vihzel]

And why does everyone assume litigation must be involved?

I guess the poll and the intent of this thread threw me off. Your first post definitely threw me off.

 

[JQwerty91]

Who said it would cost that much money?

You actually think a lawyer here in America with a class-action lawsuit case on his or her hands will charge you just a penny? Unless you have friends who are good good lawyers, this will cost a lot of money.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I actually am interested in "cell phones as pc's" as an idea.

So here's a question:

If a manufacture made a device Seperate (say the Evo)... estimated cost?

If the OS providers developed them for different handsets (Android, Windows 7 etc) what type of cost would it be to purchase an OS seperate?

The downside to the proposal above could likely be cost. The upside (however) could also be cost if it increased competition...

Hrm... i'm not sure.

 

[ekyle]

You actually think a lawyer here in America with a class-action lawsuit case on his or her hands will charge you just a penny? Unless you have friends who are good good lawyers, this will cost a lot of money.

I think what he is getting at is that this would cost a lot of money and you wouldn't really get much in return. Yes, devices would be more open, but then you're out of whatever sum you paid the lawyers to take on these huge corporations. Might be easier to push it into law form maybe? Similar to how they made jailbreaking and rooting legal. Just the other way around, make it illegal for manufacturers to lock devices.

Just a suggestion, might be cheaper and more feasible.

 

[kaneda312]

Ive never understood why it "voids your warranty" to unlock your own device. I've never had any of my warranties voided on my pcs that Ive owned after installing various versions of linux.

Not to go all conspiracy theory, but I see no other reason for leaving Eris users with a very bloated version of 2.1 other than to make them want to buy a "better" phone (reminds me of how microsoft has handled windows over the years...).

I havent even had my eris more than 6 months and it was running so horribly that I had no other choice than to root the thing to make it usable again. xtrROM, Tazz, and Kaos all make it run awesome and efficiently (Kaos has cam issues, but otherwise is solid ) and I would think that these custom roms would be better for the phone anyway due to them needing less from the hardware than the crap that VZW left on the phone.

Im running Tazz now, and I'm actually quite happy to have an Eris. Its not such a bad phone once you root the d*mned thing.

 

[Napalm]

I actually am interested in "cell phones as pc's" as an idea.

So here's a question:

If a manufacture made a device Seperate (say the Evo)... estimated cost?

If the OS providers developed them for different handsets (Android, Windows 7 etc) what type of cost would it be to purchase an OS seperate?

The downside to the proposal above could likely be cost. The upside (however) could also be cost if it increased competition...

Hrm... i'm not sure.

Know that the market for this is pretty slim, just like it is in the PC world but less than that.

Also I thought about this lately. Would there be any benefit to starting up a competitor company to market a full open source product. Consumer be ware, etc etc. I don't honestly think you could make a business case for it. Most people see cell phones/personal computers as a safety net device. it has to work. So there may be some marketing challenges, and cost will be atleast double without some corporate sponsors.

 

[ekyle]

Ive never understood why it "voids your warranty" to unlock your own device. I've never had any of my warranties voided on my pcs that Ive owned after installing various versions of linux.

Not to go all conspiracy theory, but I see no other reason for leaving Eris users with a very bloated version of 2.1 other than to make them want to buy a "better" phone (reminds me of how microsoft has handled windows over the years...).

I havent even had my eris more than 6 months and it was running so horribly that I had no other choice than to root the thing to make it usable again. xtrROM, Tazz, and Kaos all make it run awesome and efficiently (Kaos has cam issues, but otherwise is solid ) and I would think that these custom roms would be better for the phone anyway due to them needing less from the hardware than the crap that VZW left on the phone.

Im running Tazz now, and I'm actually quite happy to have an Eris. Its not such a bad phone once you root the d*mned thing.

I could be wrong but:

Say users rooting or modding their phones don't void warranty. "User Joe" mods his phone and bricks it and he wants Moto to replace the device under warranty because his device "stopped functioning", when in fact he broke it. Now Moto needs to dish out a device because the user broke his phone, not their fault in the least.

Motorola doesn't want to lose money from replacements when people break their phones. Might as well just prevent them from doing it in the first place.

Now I'm not defending their stance. I do think that if users want to risk breaking their device then let them. Just make sure it is spelled out for them when they get the device. "You break it because you performed non-industry modifications, tough shit."

Also, don't forget that you're buying the phone and licensing the software. Moto still owns it.

 

[howetechnical]

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

So I lied, I'm reading responses again.

In response to this, IOWA, go for it...just be prepared to fork out a LOT of money to the cause. I'm thinking something in the range of $15,000 - $30,000 would convince a law firm to take it on (think about it, they'd need to sue all the major companies...that's a huge thing)...even if they know it'll lose and are only it in to make some money off of your efforts.

And why does everyone assume litigation must be involved?

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

Typically this type of exposure leads to settling out of court if anything at all...which means that you accept a sum of money to stop pursuing the lawsuit, and also means that you sign something saying you will never sue for that again (they don't change their ways with this, FYI). If you did this, you would be going against every post that you've bashed all of us for being un American for not joining your efforts based on principal and what's right and wrong.

I could be wrong but:

Say users rooting or modding their phones don't void warranty. "User Joe" mods his phone and bricks it and he wants Moto to replace the device under warranty because his device "stopped functioning", when in fact he broke it. Now Moto needs to dish out a device because the user broke his phone, not their fault in the least.

Motorola doesn't want to lose money from replacements when people break their phones. Might as well just prevent them from doing it in the first place.

Now I'm not defending their stance. I do think that if users want to risk breaking their device then let them. Just make sure it is spelled out for them when they get the device. "You break it because you performed non-industry modifications, tough shit."

Also, don't forget that you're buying the phone and licensing the software. Moto still owns it.

Good points. This would also make that first 6 month estimation of still getting brand new phones when using insurance to more like 1 - 2 months. The more warranty returns a company gets, the quicker their new stock of devices for warranty replacement or insurance replacement goes down.

FYI: Warranty replacement = full replacement (new or "like new" device), or simply repair. Insurance replacement = new or "like new" device once new stock is depleated.

 

[tommy_ed]

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

actually i think it does.. renting wouldn't make it yours, but if I buy something it is definitely mine

 

[ekyle]

actually i think it does.. renting wouldn't make it yours, but if I buy something it is definitely mine

when you buy Windows you don't own Windows. you have it licensed to you. you aren't free to modify it or distribute it. you never own software

 

[IOWA]

I could be wrong but:

Say users rooting or modding their phones don't void warranty. "User Joe" mods his phone and bricks it and he wants Moto to replace the device under warranty because his device "stopped functioning", when in fact he broke it. Now Moto needs to dish out a device because the user broke his phone, not their fault in the least.

Motorola doesn't want to lose money from replacements when people break their phones. Might as well just prevent them from doing it in the first place.

Now I'm not defending their stance. I do think that if users want to risk breaking their device then let them. Just make sure it is spelled out for them when they get the device. "You break it because you performed non-industry modifications, tough shit."

Also, don't forget that you're buying the phone and licensing the software. Moto still owns it.

Moto doesn't own Android. And since the phone is HARDWARE, why are they locking bootloaders so I can't put MY OWN SOFTWARE on my HARDWARE.

-Your argument has been invalidated.

As for the warranty thing, Yeah I agree. You modify, it voids your warranty outside of common & known hardware failures. Just like with cars. If you add aftermarket parts, warranty gets voided, and people are OK with that, and it's fair.

----------------------------

EDIT:

And howetechnical, to address you, I'm not after money. I just want rights to MY hardware =(. So getting paid off isn't really an option for me.

 

[ekyle]

Moto doesn't own Android. And since the phone is HARDWARE, why are they locking bootloaders so I can't put MY OWN SOFTWARE on my HARDWARE.

-Your argument has been invalidated.

As for the warranty thing, Yeah I agree. You modify, it voids your warranty outside of common & known hardware failures. Just like with cars. If you add aftermarket parts, warranty gets voided, and people are OK with that, and it's fair.

----------------------------

EDIT:

And howetechnical, to address you, I'm not after money. I just want rights to MY hardware =(. So getting paid off isn't really an option for me.

You're right, they don't own Android, they license it

 

[IOWA]

You're right, they don't own Android, they license it

And what about the voiding of the warranty thing, do you think that solution is fair?

 

[Jammy]

You're right, they don't own Android, they license it

Nope, Android is open source.

 

[ekyle]

Nope, Android is open source.

Android is a GPL licensed product that what Motorola sells Android under. Just because it is open sourced doesn't mean it isn't licensed. Motorola is still licensing the product to the consumer..

 

[ekyle]

And what about the voiding of the warranty thing, do you think that solution is fair?

If I owed a company I wouldn't want to be losing money because people are bricking their phones. At the same time, I do agree with you. Let me set that straight, I'm not against you on this. I do think that we should be allowed to do what we want with our phones, but just as if you wanted to return a Windows PC that you installed Linux on to Best Buy.

But if you can't to bring it back to factory conditions, it's not their problem. For example: I rooted my phone the other day. Never did it before. I voided my warranty. BUT if I can bring it back to factory conditions and replicate a problem that I am having then it was not my fault. Moto should cover it. A bricked device though; sorry, those guys are SOL if they can't bring it back to factory conditions. Maybe the wireless carrier's insurance could step in here since they do cover accidental damage.

 

[Palmetto Fellow]

I'd like to see tiered pricing.

Locked versions will cost less than unlocked versions.

Also, if they are subsidizing the phone at all for you, you have no case. Perhaps after 2 years, you gain full rights to your phone...at which time, they have to supply you with an unlock password.

 

[IOWA]

If I owed a company I wouldn't want to be losing money because people are bricking their phones. At the same time, I do agree with you. Let me set that straight, I'm not against you on this. I do think that we should be allowed to do what we want with our phones, but just as if you wanted to return a Windows PC that you installed Linux on to Best Buy.

But if you can't to bring it back to factory conditions, it's not their problem. For example: I rooted my phone the other day. Never did it before. I voided my warranty. BUT if I can bring it back to factory conditions and replicate a problem that I am having then it was not my fault. Moto should cover it. A bricked device though; sorry, those guys are SOL if they can't bring it back to factory conditions. Maybe the wireless carrier's insurance could step in here since they do cover accidental damage.

See THAT would be doable. I'd agree with that and I'm sure most/all of the devs would as well.

And Motorola can't license Android. The license (and all the rules of Android) come from Google. Motorola is simply allowed to re-distribute and edit the code. Now if they named the (modified) OS something other than Android(Which is what Apple did with Mac OSX), then they'd have some rights to the OS.

 

[ekyle]

See THAT would be doable. I'd agree with that and I'm sure most/all of the devs would as well.

And Motorola can't license Android. The license (and all the rules of Android) come from Google. Motorola is simply allowed to re-distribute and edit the code. Now if they named the (modified) OS something other than Android(Which is what Apple did with Mac OSX), then they'd have some rights to the OS.

I've made a couple Android apps that I haven't released into the market yet, but I have never read the Android GPL... haha I'll have to look into it. There might be something in the Android ToS or license that would help you there

 

[Bitbang3r]

The "prevention of warranty claims by bricking" argument is specious. A "bricked" phone merely has its bootloader mangled. The bootloader's only purpose is to enable updates to be applied by end users. Any phone with nonworking bootloader can be reflashed via JTAG, which can loosely be described as a way to directly connect to a flash memory chip and reprogram it "from the outside". It's how phones get programmed in the first place, and many phones sold today don't even have to be disassembled to reflash via JTAG if you have a fairly expensive interface that lets you connect through the pins in the USB port (It's not actually USING usb, it's just borrowing the pin that's normally unused or used for sensing, and serializing the JTAG protocol so it runs over a single wire).

Dealing with rooted phones is easy: you tell the customer that if he sends in his phone for a warranty repair, it's likely to get everything on it blown away and reflashed to stock. If you send your laptop to Dell for a warranty claim, they'll troubleshoot it with Linux booted from USB, but if your complaint is something like "Windows crashes", they aren't going to troubleshoot your Windows installation -- they're just going to blow it away and restore it to the disk image it shipped with, and call the job "done" when it works properly when booted from that image.

Going a step further, if it were even POSSIBLE to "brick" a phone so badly through software that it can't even be resurrected via JTAG, you could make a strong argument that the fact that it's even POSSIBLE on that one specific device is *itself* a fundamental design flaw that should be covered by warranty, because a manufacturer would almost have to TRY to make a device that can truly be irreparably bricked today.

A few years ago, Samsung got itself into trouble over this with the SPH-I330. Samsung made the firmware non-upgradeable by burning it into mask ROM, and programmed it to make certain boot-time decisions based upon values stored in nonvolatile memory. Unfortunately for Samsung, there ended up being a bug that was basically guaranteed to eventually get the phone into a state where nothing short of factory disassembly to reset the nonvolatile memory could resurrect the phone -- and even after you did that, it was only a matter of time before the phone got itself into the same state again. I'm not sure whether the onus ended up being on Samsung or Sprint, but everyone who bought one ended up getting a free SPH-i500 with spare battery. Had Samsung fought it, the case never would have made it past the judge's pretrial hearing, and consumers would have walked away with a summary judgment in their favor.

In any case, if someone like HTC tried to deny a warranty claim for a bad solder joint on the USB port, or a delaminated LCD, because the phone was rooted, American consumers have a very powerful ally: the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which was passed about 35 years ago to stop the auto industry from doing this exact same thing. Back then, automakers would try to nullify the car's entire warranty if you installed a non-factory radio, or used parts not explicitly blessed by the manufacturer. What the new law did was force them to demonstrate that whatever it was that they claimed you did was, in fact, the reason for the failure. So, if they wanted to nullify a warranty claim for the power steering pump because you installed an Alpine 8-track deck (it was the mid-70s, remember), they would have had to somehow prove that it was even POSSIBLE for the 8-track player to somehow affect the operation and reliability of the power steering fluid pump. Epic win for consumers. Over the years, Magnuson-Moss has been reaffirmed and strengthened to the point where no sane manufacturer will dare to even try challenging its applicability, because it would be suicidal. They'd lose, and be humiliated and/or punished by the federal trade commission in the process.

Specific example of MM in action: ~2 years ago, MSI sold lots of netbooks with 1 gig of ram and an empty SoDIMM slot. The problem was, you couldn't add a second stick of memory without opening up the case... and to do that, you had to break a sticker that claimed your warranty was void if you did. Within a matter of weeks, MSI had a press release on their website apologizing for the misunderstanding, and emphasizing that the sticker was merely a "screening" tool, and that opening your netbook for the specific purpose of adding compatible memory (particularly since the box itself advertised that you could expand it) would NOT nullify the warranty.

 

[riffdex]

I think what would probably sink any lawsuit like this is that you didn't buy a device that the carriers later locked. You bought a locked device. You have exactly what they advertised to you, no less. I think a more apt comparison would be how the XBox only plays XBox games and not PlayStation games.

Unless you buy a PS3 with a Linux feature advertised for it, only for Sony to later disable this feature through a FW update, and then bring Sony to court, and still lose.

 

[IOWA]

The "prevention of warranty claims by bricking" argument is specious. A "bricked" phone merely has its bootloader mangled. The bootloader's only purpose is to enable updates to be applied by end users. Any phone with nonworking bootloader can be reflashed via JTAG, which can loosely be described as a way to directly connect to a flash memory chip and reprogram it "from the outside". It's how phones get programmed in the first place, and many phones sold today don't even have to be disassembled to reflash via JTAG if you have a fairly expensive interface that lets you connect through the pins in the USB port (It's not actually USING usb, it's just borrowing the pin that's normally unused or used for sensing, and serializing the JTAG protocol so it runs over a single wire).

Dealing with rooted phones is easy: you tell the customer that if he sends in his phone for a warranty repair, it's likely to get everything on it blown away and reflashed to stock. If you send your laptop to Dell for a warranty claim, they'll troubleshoot it with Linux booted from USB, but if your complaint is something like "Windows crashes", they aren't going to troubleshoot your Windows installation -- they're just going to blow it away and restore it to the disk image it shipped with, and call the job "done" when it works properly when booted from that image.

Going a step further, if it were even POSSIBLE to "brick" a phone so badly through software that it can't even be resurrected via JTAG, you could make a strong argument that the fact that it's even POSSIBLE on that one specific device is *itself* a fundamental design flaw that should be covered by warranty, because a manufacturer would almost have to TRY to make a device that can truly be irreparably bricked today.

A few years ago, Samsung got itself into trouble over this with the SPH-I330. Samsung made the firmware non-upgradeable by burning it into mask ROM, and programmed it to make certain boot-time decisions based upon values stored in nonvolatile memory. Unfortunately for Samsung, there ended up being a bug that was basically guaranteed to eventually get the phone into a state where nothing short of factory disassembly to reset the nonvolatile memory could resurrect the phone -- and even after you did that, it was only a matter of time before the phone got itself into the same state again. I'm not sure whether the onus ended up being on Samsung or Sprint, but everyone who bought one ended up getting a free SPH-i500 with spare battery. Had Samsung fought it, the case never would have made it past the judge's pretrial hearing, and consumers would have walked away with a summary judgment in their favor.

In any case, if someone like HTC tried to deny a warranty claim for a bad solder joint on the USB port, or a delaminated LCD, because the phone was rooted, American consumers have a very powerful ally: the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which was passed about 35 years ago to stop the auto industry from doing this exact same thing. Back then, automakers would try to nullify the car's entire warranty if you installed a non-factory radio, or used parts not explicitly blessed by the manufacturer. What the new law did was force them to demonstrate that whatever it was that they claimed you did was, in fact, the reason for the failure. So, if they wanted to nullify a warranty claim for the power steering pump because you installed an Alpine 8-track deck (it was the mid-70s, remember), they would have had to somehow prove that it was even POSSIBLE for the 8-track player to somehow affect the operation and reliability of the power steering fluid pump. Epic win for consumers. Over the years, Magnuson-Moss has been reaffirmed and strengthened to the point where no sane manufacturer will dare to even try challenging its applicability, because it would be suicidal. They'd lose, and be humiliated and/or punished by the federal trade commission in the process.

Specific example of MM in action: ~2 years ago, MSI sold lots of netbooks with 1 gig of ram and an empty SoDIMM slot. The problem was, you couldn't add a second stick of memory without opening up the case... and to do that, you had to break a sticker that claimed your warranty was void if you did. Within a matter of weeks, MSI had a press release on their website apologizing for the misunderstanding, and emphasizing that the sticker was merely a "screening" tool, and that opening your netbook for the specific purpose of adding compatible memory (particularly since the box itself advertised that you could expand it) would NOT nullify the warranty.

BAM!


See everyone, all we need is people like THIS on our side, and we've got more than a chance.

If I could thank you again, I would.

 

[_J.J._]

let us know how this turns out for ya

 

[howetechnical]

BAM!


See everyone, all we need is people like THIS on our side, and we've got more than a chance.

If I could thank you again, I would.

While the information he provided was a good read, it doesn't do anything for your case. It only makes mention of what "bricking" really is and how it's recovered from, how Samsung made a phone that had imminent and repeating issues by locking the bootloader, and something about cars. Lastly he mentions one case about an obvious disconnect, being advertising that you could upgrade ram in a netbook but having a sticker that says doing so voids the warranty.

None of this applies to your case of how carriers should not lock their devices. They currently do not practice the one method he mentioned about what Samsung did before, so it's a different situation. And the media exposure was due to an obvious oversight.

I'm coming to believe that you love the idea of a consumer-driven, perfect-for-consumers world and ignore the possible negatives of something while focussing on the positives. Fact, negatives are a part of life, and must be taken into consideration as much as the positives. Expect for the best, prepare for the worst. Otherwise you end up like Pauly Shore.

 

[mcatdtDROID]

I think IOWA should go get a lawyer today. I think you have a great chance.... bwhahahahaha