Help Samsung gakaxy A146u 5g frp

[talways932]

Can anyone assist me with my galaxy a146u 5g ? It is frp locked, which I'm not new to, I am a self taught, no school, no training self proclaimed tech for smart phones. I've manged being able to access most of the phone, except apps, accounts, lock screen, etc. But can't figure out how to disable the proper app to completely reset the frp. I even got it to where the time and notification shade will show, no notifications though. I even found the way to install app through my browser which was hard enough. Ps nothing on YouTube or the internet has helped at all. I have no access to a PC at all. Someone please assist me, I love this phone and would love it more I think if I could see it full potential.

 

[Dannydet]

Bypassing FRP is frowned upon here.
Good luck.

 

[ocnbrze]

yep we don't talk about bypassing frp. we do not know who you are. i'm not accusing you, but you could be someone who has stolen or found this phone. how do we know if this is your phone even? frp is there for a reason and it works really well as you are finding out. you are just going to have to find out what the original account info was to unlock the phone.

 

[rafidhcell]

If you can't find a tool to bypass FRP on that device, you can use remote services from a distance. Because the Samsung device in question may already have the latest security measures. If you need remote assistance, I'm ready to help.

 

[nickdalzell]

I bought a cheap RCA tablet once at Walmart that was new in box, but was FRP locked as soon as I got it home. I ended up having to return it and go without since it was the last one they had in stock at the time, but I spent a good portion of a day attempting to disable or get past it. I don't think it's possible. I couldn't even get past the welcome wizard because of it, so I couldn't even do anything--it was a paperweight.

Just saying the OP might be dealing with a similar issue. The tablet I had was not returned merchandise, it still had the seal on the box. RCA, or rather the Chinese company illegally using their name today bungled somehow.

 

[Hadron]

We don't discuss FRP bypasses here as there are obvious problems with publishing advice on how to break an anti-theft measures. But you should know that it's a moving target anyway: where a method exists it will be for some devices running some versions of the software, and where exploits that allow this are discovered then updates will patch them. So there is no guarantee that a solution exists.

The real solution is not to forget your Google credentials, and not to buy phones second-hand without establishing that they are not FRP locked.

RCA, or rather the Chinese company illegally using their name today bungled somehow.

You may not like the fact that GE sold or licensed the RCA brand to (amongst others) a couple of Chinese manufacturers, but that doesn't make it illegal. "Misleadingly" or "deceptively" would be fine, but unless you can cite a statute which the licensing or selling of this brand or its use in the USA violates (in which case you should raise it with the relevant authorities) you can't just call it illegal.

 

[nickdalzell]

Misleading/deceptive marketing is illegal, and punishabe by law. Unfortunately, the law refuses to enforce it.

It it is not an RCA product, it's not RCA. I cannot think of any reason to use the name alone except to deceive and take advantage of brand loyal buyers. It is the same law regarding country of origin. if it says for example 'made in USA' and is in reality made in china, that's also illegal. The reality that such laws, unfortunately, are not enforced does not change that fact.

 

[Hadron]

And does it say "made in the USA"? I'll bet it doesn't, in which case that's irrelevant.

But if you want to argue in court that a brand is being used illegally, that will not be settled by the question "is this the same company making products to the same design philosophy and quality as historically?". The only question they will want to answer is "are these products being sold under this branding with the agreement of the owner of the brand?". Nothing else.

The fact that some customers won't know the history of the brand and what has changed will not be judged relevant. After all, branding is about creating a perception, and at some level those perceptions are always misleading. Presumably you aren't arguing that a company should not be allowed to sell a cheaper or lower quality product using their existing brand? But that would be the same thing, surely? And when a company is failing (and by definition any company that has sold or licensed its brand was failing with it) that is one of the strategies they use: cut the costs and hope the brand reputation will give them an advantage. So what is the meaningful difference, from the customer's point of view, between a failing company deciding to focus on the budget sector, lay off most of their staff and outsource remaining production, and the same company laying off their staff and licensing the brand to someone else? In the latter case a few more people lose their jobs, and the managers take less risk, but the effect on the products and hence the use of the brand is about the same.

 

[nickdalzell]

why would anyone use the brand RCA, Westinghouse, or Fisher unless they were outright trying to mislead some Boomer who assoiates it with those names back when they were relevant? Nobody from later generations even cares about brand name. Brand loyalty hasn't been a real thing since like 1998 if that.

However, in history, certain brands known for quality, reliability and repairability were cemented as 'good' and people bought them, their kids bought them, and they had kids who also bought them. Brands known for quality would outsell brands known for junk. Brands known as junk would go bankrupt in short order. It was a good system, unlike today where the brands are used fraudently relying on any holdout who might associate it with past experience. Fraud is also illegal. Chinese companies using old names instead of the actual name are ultimately committing fraud and deceiving people. I can't imagine why they bother. Just let the brand die if you're not going to at least put effort into maintaining its status.

What I will never grasp is why the old system that relied on quality and brand recognition for decades had to change. It worked previously, so it should have kept working


No, the tablet was not labeled 'made in USA' but I have ordered stuff online in the past that insisted it was made in the USA and when I get it, looking at the fine print, such as the so-called 'DeWalt' branded drill and impact combo, discovered it was not only in reality 'professionally made in China' but was owned by another defunct-now-Chinesium name called Black and Decker. It was literally a green painted, relabeled Black and Decker product. Obviously i was quite upset. I obviously don't trust any brand anymore from such fraudulent and deception and often go for vintage options in vendor malls today. at least a metal drill from the '50s branded Montgomery Ward was American made.

 

[Hadron]

My point was merely a legal one: the practice of selling a brand, either by itself or with the rest of a company's assets, or of licensing it to someone else, is legal. If someone takes the brand only then sure, their only reason is that they think it will give the products more recognition than a new, unknown brand. But as I say, I don't see much real difference between that and the company deciding to cut corners on its products to reduce costs (which happens all the time: a recent phenomenon is food manufacturers changing to cheaper ingredients, which you'll only spot if you read the fine print of the label, or if you get suspicious about why it doesn't taste like it used to). It's the same branding, but it's not the same product, but that version doesn't involve any transfer of the IP.

Of course these things will degrade the value of the brand. I assume that companies that do this plan to use the residual recognition of the brand to get enough of their products out there to establish a new (and different) reputation for the brand, because if their products change then inevitably brand perception will too.

Interesting about your "deWalt" being green-painted though: in my experience deWalt tools are always yellow and black.

 

[ocnbrze]

OMG guys, let's get back on topic.

frp is a good security feature that google has implemented. it is not easy to bypass.

the reason we don't like to talk about it here is because we don't know who the phone belongs to. also the info here can be used by somebody else to bypass frp. so unfortunately here we can't discuss it.

you can google it. there is plenty of info on the net. but be careful some are scams. also some will wipe data.

 

[mikedt]

OT:

Misleading/deceptive marketing is illegal, and punishabe by law. Unfortunately, the law refuses to enforce it.

It it is not an RCA product, it's not RCA. I cannot think of any reason to use the name alone except to deceive and take advantage of brand loyal buyers. It is the same law regarding country of origin. if it says for example 'made in USA' and is in reality made in china, that's also illegal. The reality that such laws, unfortunately, are not enforced does not change that fact.

It's all completely legal. "RCA"(Rugs, Chickens & Automobiles) branded products always have something like these statements with them. Same for Polaroid, Kodak, and other now defunct corporations.

Technicolor, formerly Thomson, now called Vantiva. Technicolor was originally a movie film process, that started in the 1930s, but was very much obsolete by the 1960s, but the trademark still lives on for cheap Android tablets, etc.

Anyway, back to the main subject of FRP....

 

[Dannydet]

FRP, KFC, RCA... Ugh I'm confused, lol.

 

[nickdalzell]

FRP = Factory Reset Protection

KFC = Kentucky Fried Chicken (prior to the scandal where their 'chicken' is a lab-grown abomination that can't legally be classified as chicken and they were forced to change their name, which leads me to wonder, what did Dairy Queen do to force them to use DQ?)

RCA = Radio Corporation of America before China ruined their good name with crappy cheap junk landfill fodder.

 

[AugieTN]

Off topic for clarification

False claim KFC is using 'lab-grown' meat in products | Fact check

 

[ocnbrze]

Ok is official this thread has been derailed

 

[mikedt]

KFC = Kentucky Fried Chicken (prior to the scandal where their 'chicken' is a lab-grown abomination that can't legally be classified as chicken and they were forced to change their name, which leads me to wonder, what did Dairy Queen do to force them to use DQ?)

I thought it stood for Kentucky Fried Cat....or was that in Guangdong Province?

RCA = Radio Corporation of America before China ruined their good name with crappy cheap junk landfill fodder.

I do believe RCA ruined their own good name and self destructed through bad business decisions, mismanagement and corporate infighting. When they got into floor coverings, poultry, and car rentals(RCA becoming Rugs, Chickens and Automobiles, rather than Radio Corporation of America). As well as their very costly CED videodisc debacle. Anyway it's not China, Vantiva S.A. (the owners and licensors of the RCA trademarks) is a French multinational.

In the UK back in '70s and '80s I'd only really heard of RCA as a record label.

Kodak and Polaroid collapsed basically because nobody wanted film any more, and those good names are licensed to whatever "crappy cheap junk landfill fodder". EDIT: I was reminded of that this morning at the local Lidl supermarket, when I saw a bargain bin full of cheap Kodak branded batteries.

 

[talways932]

I bought a cheap RCA tablet once at Walmart that was new in box, but was FRP locked as soon as I got it home. I ended up having to return it and go without since it was the last one they had in stock at the time, but I spent a good portion of a day attempting to disable or get past it. I don't think it's possible. I couldn't even get past the welcome wizard because of it, so I couldn't even do anything--it was a paperweight.

Just saying the OP might be dealing with a similar issue. The tablet I had was not returned merchandise, it still had the seal on the box. RCA, or rather the Chinese company illegally using their name today bungled somehow.

 

[ocnbrze]

@talways932 you just quoted @nickdalzell. Did you want to say something about his post?

 

[nickdalzell]

I see those kinds of 'posts' often. It's some weird forum 'thing' and I don't get it either, Ocnbrze