6 ms·
What do they gain by doing this? I just don't get it. I have no problem with them not supporting hacking their devices but to go out of the way to prevent it (l
by detst 16y ago
What do they gain by doing this? I just don't get it. I have no problem with them not supporting hacking their devices but to go out of the way to prevent it (let alone bricking it) doesn't make any sense. We wouldn't accept it from a computer manufacturer, so why with a phone?
EDIT:
I know most here will get it but this drives me crazy because it stifles progression. Did Motorola every think that their next best engineers might be the kids that are so passionate about this stuff that they want to tinker with their phone in these ways?
- jsz0 16y agoMotorola has the OEM mindset. Verizon is their customer. Verizon wants people to pay for tethering. Maybe GPS navigation. Maybe they don't want high bandwidth apps allowed on their 3G network. Since there's basically no market for unlocked phones in the US companies like Motorola and HTC can't really stand up to the carriers. It'd be suicide. (HTC is doing the same types of things by digitally signing the boot loader code on their handsets)
- Zak 16y agoAs I understand it, Motorola/Verizon did not do this with the original Droid. It seems strange that they would start now. Bootloader signing, though annoying and, I think inappropriate for a manufacturer to do is non-destructive. Intentionally bricking a phone is another thing entirely: it's vandalism.
- Supermighty 16y agoThe original Droid was developed in partnership with Google. Chances are this had something to do with the openness of the original.
- detst 16y agoYes, they were quite closely involved in that one. Which begs the question of will Google do something about this. I'm not sure this is something they are really looking to take a stand on but bricking a device is going too far. Maybe they should revoke license to Google apps on this phone until that feature is fixed.
- jsz0 16y agoVerizon has sold a lot of Android handsets at this point. Maybe they're starting to feel the strain on their network? or perhaps it has something to do with the Droid X's HDMI output and DRM?
- stuff4ben 16y agoI wonder if this (vandalism) could be grounds for a class action lawsuit?
- stcredzero 16y agoHow about just not buying a Droid X?
- rbanffy 16y agoA class lawsuit protects those who are oblivious to the problem. This is how you lose your rights - one by one, until you no longer remember you once had them.
- rbanffy 16y agoAnd you should never forget telcos are their clients. As long as consumers buy locked subsidized phones under the illusion they are paying less, we will see market distortion like this. BTW, Brazilian law mandates unlocked/unlockable phones and subsidies are just as present.
- technomancy 16y ago> As long as consumers buy locked subsidized phones under the illusion they are paying less, we will see market distortion like this. This. I was really excited about the way that the N1 was sold; unfortunately it seems they aren't going to continue sidestepping the carriers.
- rbanffy 16y ago> it seems they aren't going to continue sidestepping the carriers And that tells a lot about how much consumers really control their relationship with their suppliers. It's a lot like Microsoft. They don't sell Windows to Joe Sixpack. They sell it to Dell, HP, Lenovo and Acer.
- jonturner 16y agoIMO, this is about protection of revenue stream. Sale of the hardware is only the first transaction. Ongoing licensing and kickbacks from second-order sales is the second: bandwidth, app sales, accessories, etc. If users modify their phone, they could possibly escape the locked-down universe this maker has created, and therefore metaphorically short-circuit revenue stream plans. In short, it's about control. Manufacturer control of the user, but not user's control of the device. (Note I deliberately said "user" not "owner" since I believe that best reflects the viewpoint of the manufacturer.)