10 ms·

> connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes a

> connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them. The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them. With a promise that it will be given to them on request. Unless, of course, the manufacturer changes their mind. Unfortunately, there are cases when the manufacturer did not even make such a promise and disabled bootloader unlocking permanently with no way of enabling it again. On Pixel phones. This used to happen (and perhaps still happens) to some Pixel phones purchased in the USA from Verizon. They have been known [0] for disabling the bootloader unlocking and for giving their customers no way to enable it. Not even after phoning home. Some people claim [1] that they paid someone from China to unlock their Pixel 1 phone remotely using some shady approach. I assume that someone with inside information from Google has leaked some software and instructions for doing so. It is unclear whether later Pixel phones sold by Verizon with locked bootloaders could be unlocked in a similar way. As a result, it seems like the only way to have a chance at unlocking such Pixel phones, which have been made by a US company and purchased from a US carrier, is to pay someone in China and hope for the best. It has gotten that far. [0] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-on-verizon-pixel-xl.3796030/page-73 https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-... [1] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-on-verizon-pixel-xl.3796030/page-73#post-88299591 https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-...

ls65536 3y ago
> With a promise that it will be given to them on request. Unless, of course, the manufacturer changes their mind. Or if the manufacturer decides to simply shut down those servers after some time, at which point the effective default situation will almost certainly be a denied request. In this case, they may not necessarily even be actively changing their mind, but rather just trying to reduce some overhead for those devices they deem to be "no longer supported" but which are nevertheless still out there being used.
j1elo 3y ago
Xiaomi does the same (or at least did until my latest phone change i.e. around 3 years ago). You must unlock the bootloader before being able to install a custom recovery image such as TWRP, which itself is used to install custom ROMs. This unlock involves: creating a user account in the Xiaomi services website, logging into that account from your phone's system, then having the phone logged in for at least 7 days, then using a Windows software which sends a request for unlocking, which they will grant (at least in my experience). The most outrageous part of all this process (apart from the fact that it exists at all) is the 7 days of usage with the phone logged in. If you attempt an unlock earlier than that, the software will say: "You have to wait X days and Y hours before you can unlock this device." EDIT: This Reddit wiki page explains the process. I'm flabbergasted that it actually takes 720 hours aka 30 days: https://www.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/wiki/bootloader/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/wiki/bootloader/
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Samsung does the same fwiw for their newest phones. Pretty annoying.
  - jesprenj 3y ago
    You don't need an account, but it's still terrible. I experienced this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854287
  - ajolly 3y ago
    Samsung won't even let you unlock their US phones bootloaders.
  - barbariangrunge 3y ago
    I was never able to get lineage working on my old s8
    - stinos 3y ago
      Was that due to bootloader issues or just because there's no official support (It's not actually listed on https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/#samsung https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/#samsung) ? FWIW I have it running on a 2nd hand s10e and it's not flawless, but still pretty good.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
userbinator 3y ago
As a result, it seems like the only way to have a chance at unlocking such Pixel phones, which have been made by a US company and purchased from a US carrier, is to pay someone in China and hope for the best. It has gotten that far. That reminds me of the right-to-repair article about patched John Deere firmware created by Ukrainian hackers. It wouldn't surprise me that China has the same skills. I remember coming across a lot of products made to unlock/unbrick Apple's products too, although that was many years ago and I'm not sure if they've gotten through Apple's security for the newer models yet --- and it wouldn't surprise me if they knew but won't easily disclose.
dingledork69 3y ago
So google is going through all this effort and some guy in China will just bypass the bootloader lock for $30. There is absolutely no way that the intelligence agencies don't have this same capability, which makes all of this security posturing utterly pointless, other than to prevent regular users from owning their devices.
- shmichael 3y ago
  That's exactly the purpose of this measure - to prevent consumers from fully owning their device. Presumably the carriers are selling you the device at some discount for longer term loyalty (through constraining the phone). This is not a security measure and government agencies being able to bypass it seems irrelevant.
  - dingledork69 3y ago
    You are confusing Verizon's motives with Google's motives. Verizon disabling the bootloader on phones that users are still paying off, or bought at a discount together with special terms of condition, is something that might be defensible. Google however made it so that any Pixel phone bought anywhere, even by customers who pay 100% of the price themselves with no carrier involved are not actually owned by those users until they connect it to the internet and Google blesses the device.
    - amw 3y ago
      > is something that might be defensible. I would like to propose that it never is, and only seems so sometimes because our society is insane.
      - scarface74 3y ago
        If you don’t want the carrier to lock your phone and give you a discount, then pay full price for it.
        3y ago
xg15 3y ago
> Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them. Is this just philosophically speaking or were there some actual rights granted by law being violated?
- pbasista 3y ago
  I am unaware of any current law that would require devices which can run software to be able to run arbitrary software. That being said, Google's Pixel phones have widely been known for their ability to unlock the bootloader and install an Android software of the user's choice. It was one of their selling points for a long time. If this ability is turned into a "possibility" that can be taken away at any time and if it has not been properly communicated to the customers, then it might qualify as false advertising.
bombcar 3y ago
> Some people claim [1] that they paid someone from China to unlock their Pixel 1 phone remotely using some shady approach. I assume that someone with inside information from Google has leaked some software and instructions for doing so. It is unclear whether later Pixel phones sold by Verizon with locked bootloaders could be unlocked in a similar way. This usually involves someone who has bribed a Verizon support rep or otherwise obtained access to their internal systems so they can "unlock" you.
bitL 3y ago
Can Pi Hole block these "phoning home" attempts?
- bdcravens 3y ago
  I assume the device isn't just phoning home, but is expecting some sort of response, and likely isn't static.
  - bitL 3y ago
    So I guess one should activate the phone at some Wifi cafe first before unlocking bootloader and flashing a new OS otherwise Google could make a direct link to ownership during the lifetime of the device.
musicale 3y ago
> Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them. Smartphones have become pocket game consoles, with the same business model. There may be other Android app stores, but Google Play still owns the Android app store market (except in China where Google is blocked/unavailable) - in spite of charging hefty platform fees comparable to those charged by Apple or Nintendo.
hatsune 3y ago
It's not rocket science that some carrier and manufacturer lock the goat out of their phone like Samsung and Verizon, but I think this thread is dealing with a much more different problem and everyone who bought carrier does not belong.
- Ruq 3y ago
  I don't think carriers should be allowed to hard-lock phones either, but that's another thread for another day.
barbariangrunge 3y ago
The major innovation of Silicon Valley isn’t tech. It’s eroding out the concept of private property
uneekname 3y ago
Yep, my Pixel 2 is as good as dead because the bootloader can't be unlocked, Google refuses to do anything about it, and software updates stopped a long time ago. Great way to lose me as a customer.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Just upgraded from a, I think, 6 year old Pixel 2 to a carrier discounted Pixel 7. Being in Germany, I am fairly certain tue bootloader is unlocked (-able), I might try it during the weekend. Reason forbthe switch was that a) even CalyxOS stopped supporting it b) the phone lost the mobile network evervso often c) the screen was held together by clue and proteczive glass. Otherwise, it isbstill working and will stay as my backup phone. Now I kust try to make up my mind regarding CalyxOS on the Pixel 7. The pure Google andrpid looks good, I think I turned most of the tracking off (unique add ID to improve persobal adds, WTF?). But there are still some annoying things, e.g this crappy, unremovable, Google search bar. If Ibread correctly, one can go back from CalyxOS to stock android now, right? Not that I would really mind so, I didn't miss anything the last couple of years except maybe Google maps at some occassions, and I could have installed that using microG and Aurora store.
  - uneekname 3y ago
    I'd be interested to hear about your experience. My contact info is in my bio if you're up for it. I do really like the Pixel line, and I'd be excited to upgrade if I were sure the new device could be successfully unlocked. May I recommend LineageOS, which supports Pixel 7 [0] and the Pro version. Whatever you go with, yes I do think you can flash stock Android back on your phone if you like. [0] https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/panther/ https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/panther/
    - hef19898 3y ago
      In my experience, it worked great with a Pixel 2 XL. Except my botched attempt at getting stock back onto it, which resulted in warning during boot. Otherwise CalyxOS worked like a charm, incl. banking and 2FA apps. We'll see when I have time, and patience, to get it on my new phone... Might be a while, so far I manage to convince myself that I got rid of almost all tracking so far...
kristopolous 3y ago
It's crazy how much Google has become just another dickish proprietary corporation. If they could have somehow stayed ~2003 Google...
- HWR_14 3y ago
  This is pretty much where Google was obviously going in 2003.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    There's examples of companies that weren't like that. redhat, sgi, sun, novell, dec... Becoming another Oracle/Adobe isn't inevitable (and yes, I know the connection between sgi and Adobe) Then you have firms like Nvidia which regardless what do you think of them you can probably agree they've at least been consistent for the past 25 years
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  I am not sure why people are shocked by this, as any company gains market share in a given market the more hostile to their customers / users they become. This is not new to tech companies, I suspect though many people believed they would somehow be different than other corporations. Maybe because the people heading those corporation seemingly were aligned politically when in the past they were not? Regardless Google is following the same script that many many many other companies, tech and not, follow
Etrnl_President 3y ago
Verizon usually unlocks the bootloader for you after the phone's real cost has been covered by your monthly bills.
- pbasista 3y ago
  Do you have some references supporting that claim? If unlocking the bootloader on e.g. Pixel phones sold by Verizon would be as simple as asking Verizon to do it, I do not understand why there would be multiple long threads on XDA developers forum where people try to circumvent this restriction in various shady ways.
7e 3y ago
Isn't the bootloader software, so it's licensed, not sold? Are these "ownership rights" over the bootloader codified in law or a court decision?
jgerrish 3y ago
> The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them. Thank you for your comment and info. But be careful, this is the wrong argument here. They are still letting you use the software you choose. We can look at this move conceptually, keeping in mind the future. Here's one possible outcome. You need to phone in first. Imagine the phone is just an IMEI number or a serial number, or one part of a key pair. In a future regime, phoning in marks that phone as no longer "trustworthy". It's now in the digital quarantine or isolation pile. And future network services will isolate the device appropriately. Phoning in doesn't change what software you can install. It possibly changes who you can interact with. I don't know if the argument can be won. We could come up with examples where people were isolated wrongly with other technologies. But there's a subtle psychological trick there about solitary confinement and forcing a family of networks and social interactions. Using that argument reinforces the network that limited us. I don't want to hurt that network. But it also limits us. And the alternative, hidden network lockouts, is also troubling. So, lose lose I guess? I don't think I have the power to change the story.
- pbasista 3y ago
  > They are still letting you use the software you choose. At the moment, yes. My point was primarily about the fact that giving the customer an option to use Android software of their choice on recent Pixel phones is currently fully up to the manufacturer. Phoning in is merely a tool to achieve it. > possibly changes who you can interact with I am aware that identifying customers who have requested to have this option can potentially be used to mistreat them. Many mobile apps today are already trying to perform a similar form of identification. They check for non-OEM software or root access. If they detect something they do not like, they show warnings or refuse to provide some functionality. But that is, I think, another topic.

ls65536 3y ago

> With a promise that it will be given to them on request. Unless, of course, the manufacturer changes their mind. Or if the manufacturer decides to simply shut down those servers after some time, at which point the effective default situation will almost certainly be a denied request. In this case, they may not necessarily even be actively changing their mind, but rather just trying to reduce some overhead for those devices they deem to be "no longer supported" but which are nevertheless still out there being used.

j1elo 3y ago

Xiaomi does the same (or at least did until my latest phone change i.e. around 3 years ago). You must unlock the bootloader before being able to install a custom recovery image such as TWRP, which itself is used to install custom ROMs. This unlock involves: creating a user account in the Xiaomi services website, logging into that account from your phone's system, then having the phone logged in for at least 7 days, then using a Windows software which sends a request for unlocking, which they will grant (at least in my experience). The most outrageous part of all this process (apart from the fact that it exists at all) is the 7 days of usage with the phone logged in. If you attempt an unlock earlier than that, the software will say: "You have to wait X days and Y hours before you can unlock this device." EDIT: This Reddit wiki page explains the process. I'm flabbergasted that it actually takes 720 hours aka 30 days: https://www.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/wiki/bootloader/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/wiki/bootloader/

mschuster91 3y ago
Samsung does the same fwiw for their newest phones. Pretty annoying.
- jesprenj 3y ago
  You don't need an account, but it's still terrible. I experienced this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854287
- ajolly 3y ago
  Samsung won't even let you unlock their US phones bootloaders.
- barbariangrunge 3y ago
  I was never able to get lineage working on my old s8
  - stinos 3y ago
    Was that due to bootloader issues or just because there's no official support (It's not actually listed on https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/#samsung https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/#samsung) ? FWIW I have it running on a 2nd hand s10e and it's not flawless, but still pretty good.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

userbinator 3y ago

As a result, it seems like the only way to have a chance at unlocking such Pixel phones, which have been made by a US company and purchased from a US carrier, is to pay someone in China and hope for the best. It has gotten that far. That reminds me of the right-to-repair article about patched John Deere firmware created by Ukrainian hackers. It wouldn't surprise me that China has the same skills. I remember coming across a lot of products made to unlock/unbrick Apple's products too, although that was many years ago and I'm not sure if they've gotten through Apple's security for the newer models yet --- and it wouldn't surprise me if they knew but won't easily disclose.

dingledork69 3y ago

So google is going through all this effort and some guy in China will just bypass the bootloader lock for $30. There is absolutely no way that the intelligence agencies don't have this same capability, which makes all of this security posturing utterly pointless, other than to prevent regular users from owning their devices.

shmichael 3y ago
That's exactly the purpose of this measure - to prevent consumers from fully owning their device. Presumably the carriers are selling you the device at some discount for longer term loyalty (through constraining the phone). This is not a security measure and government agencies being able to bypass it seems irrelevant.
- dingledork69 3y ago
  You are confusing Verizon's motives with Google's motives. Verizon disabling the bootloader on phones that users are still paying off, or bought at a discount together with special terms of condition, is something that might be defensible. Google however made it so that any Pixel phone bought anywhere, even by customers who pay 100% of the price themselves with no carrier involved are not actually owned by those users until they connect it to the internet and Google blesses the device.
  - amw 3y ago
    > is something that might be defensible. I would like to propose that it never is, and only seems so sometimes because our society is insane.
    - scarface74 3y ago
      If you don’t want the carrier to lock your phone and give you a discount, then pay full price for it.
      - 3y ago

xg15 3y ago

pbasista 3y ago
I am unaware of any current law that would require devices which can run software to be able to run arbitrary software. That being said, Google's Pixel phones have widely been known for their ability to unlock the bootloader and install an Android software of the user's choice. It was one of their selling points for a long time. If this ability is turned into a "possibility" that can be taken away at any time and if it has not been properly communicated to the customers, then it might qualify as false advertising.

bombcar 3y ago

> Some people claim [1] that they paid someone from China to unlock their Pixel 1 phone remotely using some shady approach. I assume that someone with inside information from Google has leaked some software and instructions for doing so. It is unclear whether later Pixel phones sold by Verizon with locked bootloaders could be unlocked in a similar way. This usually involves someone who has bribed a Verizon support rep or otherwise obtained access to their internal systems so they can "unlock" you.

bitL 3y ago

Can Pi Hole block these "phoning home" attempts?

bdcravens 3y ago
I assume the device isn't just phoning home, but is expecting some sort of response, and likely isn't static.
- bitL 3y ago
  So I guess one should activate the phone at some Wifi cafe first before unlocking bootloader and flashing a new OS otherwise Google could make a direct link to ownership during the lifetime of the device.

musicale 3y ago

> Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them. Smartphones have become pocket game consoles, with the same business model. There may be other Android app stores, but Google Play still owns the Android app store market (except in China where Google is blocked/unavailable) - in spite of charging hefty platform fees comparable to those charged by Apple or Nintendo.

hatsune 3y ago

It's not rocket science that some carrier and manufacturer lock the goat out of their phone like Samsung and Verizon, but I think this thread is dealing with a much more different problem and everyone who bought carrier does not belong.

Ruq 3y ago
I don't think carriers should be allowed to hard-lock phones either, but that's another thread for another day.

barbariangrunge 3y ago

The major innovation of Silicon Valley isn’t tech. It’s eroding out the concept of private property

uneekname 3y ago

Yep, my Pixel 2 is as good as dead because the bootloader can't be unlocked, Google refuses to do anything about it, and software updates stopped a long time ago. Great way to lose me as a customer.

hef19898 3y ago
Just upgraded from a, I think, 6 year old Pixel 2 to a carrier discounted Pixel 7. Being in Germany, I am fairly certain tue bootloader is unlocked (-able), I might try it during the weekend. Reason forbthe switch was that a) even CalyxOS stopped supporting it b) the phone lost the mobile network evervso often c) the screen was held together by clue and proteczive glass. Otherwise, it isbstill working and will stay as my backup phone. Now I kust try to make up my mind regarding CalyxOS on the Pixel 7. The pure Google andrpid looks good, I think I turned most of the tracking off (unique add ID to improve persobal adds, WTF?). But there are still some annoying things, e.g this crappy, unremovable, Google search bar. If Ibread correctly, one can go back from CalyxOS to stock android now, right? Not that I would really mind so, I didn't miss anything the last couple of years except maybe Google maps at some occassions, and I could have installed that using microG and Aurora store.
- uneekname 3y ago
  I'd be interested to hear about your experience. My contact info is in my bio if you're up for it. I do really like the Pixel line, and I'd be excited to upgrade if I were sure the new device could be successfully unlocked. May I recommend LineageOS, which supports Pixel 7 [0] and the Pro version. Whatever you go with, yes I do think you can flash stock Android back on your phone if you like. [0] https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/panther/ https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/panther/
  - hef19898 3y ago
    In my experience, it worked great with a Pixel 2 XL. Except my botched attempt at getting stock back onto it, which resulted in warning during boot. Otherwise CalyxOS worked like a charm, incl. banking and 2FA apps. We'll see when I have time, and patience, to get it on my new phone... Might be a while, so far I manage to convince myself that I got rid of almost all tracking so far...

kristopolous 3y ago

It's crazy how much Google has become just another dickish proprietary corporation. If they could have somehow stayed ~2003 Google...

HWR_14 3y ago
This is pretty much where Google was obviously going in 2003.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  There's examples of companies that weren't like that. redhat, sgi, sun, novell, dec... Becoming another Oracle/Adobe isn't inevitable (and yes, I know the connection between sgi and Adobe) Then you have firms like Nvidia which regardless what do you think of them you can probably agree they've at least been consistent for the past 25 years
phpisthebest 3y ago
I am not sure why people are shocked by this, as any company gains market share in a given market the more hostile to their customers / users they become. This is not new to tech companies, I suspect though many people believed they would somehow be different than other corporations. Maybe because the people heading those corporation seemingly were aligned politically when in the past they were not? Regardless Google is following the same script that many many many other companies, tech and not, follow

Etrnl_President 3y ago

Verizon usually unlocks the bootloader for you after the phone's real cost has been covered by your monthly bills.

pbasista 3y ago
Do you have some references supporting that claim? If unlocking the bootloader on e.g. Pixel phones sold by Verizon would be as simple as asking Verizon to do it, I do not understand why there would be multiple long threads on XDA developers forum where people try to circumvent this restriction in various shady ways.

7e 3y ago

Isn't the bootloader software, so it's licensed, not sold? Are these "ownership rights" over the bootloader codified in law or a court decision?

jgerrish 3y ago

> The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them. Thank you for your comment and info. But be careful, this is the wrong argument here. They are still letting you use the software you choose. We can look at this move conceptually, keeping in mind the future. Here's one possible outcome. You need to phone in first. Imagine the phone is just an IMEI number or a serial number, or one part of a key pair. In a future regime, phoning in marks that phone as no longer "trustworthy". It's now in the digital quarantine or isolation pile. And future network services will isolate the device appropriately. Phoning in doesn't change what software you can install. It possibly changes who you can interact with. I don't know if the argument can be won. We could come up with examples where people were isolated wrongly with other technologies. But there's a subtle psychological trick there about solitary confinement and forcing a family of networks and social interactions. Using that argument reinforces the network that limited us. I don't want to hurt that network. But it also limits us. And the alternative, hidden network lockouts, is also troubling. So, lose lose I guess? I don't think I have the power to change the story.

pbasista 3y ago
> They are still letting you use the software you choose. At the moment, yes. My point was primarily about the fact that giving the customer an option to use Android software of their choice on recent Pixel phones is currently fully up to the manufacturer. Phoning in is merely a tool to achieve it. > possibly changes who you can interact with I am aware that identifying customers who have requested to have this option can potentially be used to mistreat them. Many mobile apps today are already trying to perform a similar form of identification. They check for non-OEM software or root access. If they detect something they do not like, they show warnings or refuse to provide some functionality. But that is, I think, another topic.