Moto explains why they locked the bootloader

[garath]

Folks,

I understand the whole "open platform" thing and to an extent android has provided that ability to developers in the nexus 1. But keep in mind that this is a business and custom roms can at times also mean ripping other software makers ideas and implementing them on other devices. While thats not the case all the time, the risk posed may be worth it to encrypt. If you make it less appealing for hardware makers to sell realestate space on their phones..(because it can be removed) we will see less phones which equals less innovation. I understand that opening it up my spur more sales, but it actually might not be enough to offset the moneys gained by selling relaestate space on the phone. This may also pay off for us by giving more incentive to create better home replacement$ and launcher$... Developers should be paid for the hardwork and not have to worry about asking for donations.

Point is once the phone is sold they get their money. If a developer puts an app on a phone, take my wifes Backflip for instance, there are apps that are on there that cannot be removed. Every one of those apps my wife doesn't use and *****es because she can't remove them. Why should I, the consumer, be dictated as to what I can and cannot do or have on my device? The same device I spent MY money on and now own in full. It is no different than a PC manufacturer telling you you can't switch operating systems or run programs made by Activision/Blizzard. It is yours to do with what you want regardless if you ever do. To deny the consumer this is no different than telling them that the device they just paid for is not owned but rather the monies spent a "right to use" rather than a "right to own".

They have a right to protect their IP. You aren't just buying the hardware. You are buying a phone - hardware and software. It's yours to do what you want. Just because they have locked down the software doesn't make it any less yours. You got exactly what you paid for. If you don't agree with it, you can buy a different phone. However, if you like their product, you can buy it as is.

It is absolutely different than a PC. On a PC you are implicitly buying the hardware. The hardware and software are two different products regardless of their bundling. The DroidX is a consumer device. You aren't buying two different products, it's one. The software is part of it. Changing that is changing the device itself.

 

[sin vicious]

Folks,

I understand the whole "open platform" thing and to an extent android has provided that ability to developers in the nexus 1. But keep in mind that this is a business and custom roms can at times also mean ripping other software makers ideas and implementing them on other devices. While thats not the case all the time, the risk posed may be worth it to encrypt. If you make it less appealing for hardware makers to sell realestate space on their phones..(because it can be removed) we will see less phones which equals less innovation. I understand that opening it up my spur more sales, but it actually might not be enough to offset the moneys gained by selling relaestate space on the phone. This may also pay off for us by giving more incentive to create better home replacement$ and launcher$... Developers should be paid for the hardwork and not have to worry about asking for donations.

Point is once the phone is sold they get their money. If a developer puts an app on a phone, take my wifes Backflip for instance, there are apps that are on there that cannot be removed. Every one of those apps my wife doesn't use and *****es because she can't remove them. Why should I, the consumer, be dictated as to what I can and cannot do or have on my device? The same device I spent MY money on and now own in full. It is no different than a PC manufacturer telling you you can't switch operating systems or run programs made by Activision/Blizzard. It is yours to do with what you want regardless if you ever do. To deny the consumer this is no different than telling them that the device they just paid for is not owned but rather the monies spent a "right to use" rather than a "right to own".

They have a right to protect their IP. You aren't just buying the hardware. You are buying a phone - hardware and software. It's yours to do what you want. Just because they have locked down the software doesn't make it any less yours. You got exactly what you paid for. If you don't agree with it, you can buy a different phone. However, if you like their product, you can buy it as is.

It is absolutely different than a PC. On a PC you are implicitly buying the hardware. The hardware and software are two different products regardless of their bundling. The DroidX is a consumer device. You aren't buying two different products, it's one. The software is part of it. Changing that is changing the device itself.

Agree 100%.. no one has been duped or tricked into buying this product. I think the more important point is the un-intended consequences opening things up may cause. The road to hell is pathed with good intentions!! I am willing to give up flashing as a whole if it facilitates better devices being released as rapidly as they are now.

 

[h_10]

Folks,

I understand the whole "open platform" thing and to an extent android has provided that ability to developers in the nexus 1. But keep in mind that this is a business and custom roms can at times also mean ripping other software makers ideas and implementing them on other devices. While thats not the case all the time, the risk posed may be worth it to encrypt. If you make it less appealing for hardware makers to sell realestate space on their phones..(because it can be removed) we will see less phones which equals less innovation. I understand that opening it up my spur more sales, but it actually might not be enough to offset the moneys gained by selling relaestate space on the phone. This may also pay off for us by giving more incentive to create better home replacement$ and launcher$... Developers should be paid for the hardwork and not have to worry about asking for donations.

Point is once the phone is sold they get their money. If a developer puts an app on a phone, take my wifes Backflip for instance, there are apps that are on there that cannot be removed. Every one of those apps my wife doesn't use and *****es because she can't remove them. Why should I, the consumer, be dictated as to what I can and cannot do or have on my device? The same device I spent MY money on and now own in full. It is no different than a PC manufacturer telling you you can't switch operating systems or run programs made by Activision/Blizzard. It is yours to do with what you want regardless if you ever do. To deny the consumer this is no different than telling them that the device they just paid for is not owned but rather the monies spent a "right to use" rather than a "right to own".

They have a right to protect their IP. You aren't just buying the hardware. You are buying a phone - hardware and software. It's yours to do what you want. Just because they have locked down the software doesn't make it any less yours. You got exactly what you paid for. If you don't agree with it, you can buy a different phone. However, if you like their product, you can buy it as is.

It is absolutely different than a PC. On a PC you are implicitly buying the hardware. The hardware and software are two different products regardless of their bundling. The DroidX is a consumer device. You aren't buying two different products, it's one. The software is part of it. Changing that is changing the device itself.

HTC doesn't seem to have a problem with this. and what IP is moto trying to protect? it's not like the have a great GUI like Sense that they are trying to keep competitors from stealing. motoblur is crap.

i respect moto's decision to lock the bootloader. but i will exercise my right as a consumer and not buy their products. it may not mean much to motorola but at the end of the day, it doesn't mean much to me either as there are and will plenty of alternative android phones which aren't locked.

 

[sin vicious]

Point is once the phone is sold they get their money. If a developer puts an app on a phone, take my wifes Backflip for instance, there are apps that are on there that cannot be removed. Every one of those apps my wife doesn't use and *****es because she can't remove them. Why should I, the consumer, be dictated as to what I can and cannot do or have on my device? The same device I spent MY money on and now own in full. It is no different than a PC manufacturer telling you you can't switch operating systems or run programs made by Activision/Blizzard. It is yours to do with what you want regardless if you ever do. To deny the consumer this is no different than telling them that the device they just paid for is not owned but rather the monies spent a "right to use" rather than a "right to own".

They have a right to protect their IP. You aren't just buying the hardware. You are buying a phone - hardware and software. It's yours to do what you want. Just because they have locked down the software doesn't make it any less yours. You got exactly what you paid for. If you don't agree with it, you can buy a different phone. However, if you like their product, you can buy it as is.

It is absolutely different than a PC. On a PC you are implicitly buying the hardware. The hardware and software are two different products regardless of their bundling. The DroidX is a consumer device. You aren't buying two different products, it's one. The software is part of it. Changing that is changing the device itself.

HTC doesn't seem to have a problem with this. and what IP is moto trying to protect? it's not like the have a great GUI like Sense that they are trying to keep competitors from stealing. motoblur is crap.

i respect moto's decision to lock the bootloader. but i will exercise my right as a consumer and not buy their products. it may not mean much to motorola but at the end of the day, it doesn't mean much to me either as there are and will plenty of alternative android phones which aren't locked.

Bravo your going about it the right way.. perhaps MOTO can find a way to offset any loss of revenue and provide the means to open things up.. allowing the market (us the people) to dictate the terms spurs compeition which we all stand to benefit from. Either way im getting the droidx.. dancedroid, screen ..gaming possibilties, raw power..

 

[Darkseider]

Point is once the phone is sold they get their money. If a developer puts an app on a phone, take my wifes Backflip for instance, there are apps that are on there that cannot be removed. Every one of those apps my wife doesn't use and *****es because she can't remove them. Why should I, the consumer, be dictated as to what I can and cannot do or have on my device? The same device I spent MY money on and now own in full. It is no different than a PC manufacturer telling you you can't switch operating systems or run programs made by Activision/Blizzard. It is yours to do with what you want regardless if you ever do. To deny the consumer this is no different than telling them that the device they just paid for is not owned but rather the monies spent a "right to use" rather than a "right to own".

They have a right to protect their IP. You aren't just buying the hardware. You are buying a phone - hardware and software. It's yours to do what you want. Just because they have locked down the software doesn't make it any less yours. You got exactly what you paid for. If you don't agree with it, you can buy a different phone. However, if you like their product, you can buy it as is.

It is absolutely different than a PC. On a PC you are implicitly buying the hardware. The hardware and software are two different products regardless of their bundling. The DroidX is a consumer device. You aren't buying two different products, it's one. The software is part of it. Changing that is changing the device itself.

Agree 100%.. no one has been duped or tricked into buying this product. I think the more important point is the un-intended consequences opening things up may cause. The road to hell is pathed with good intentions!! I am willing to give up flashing as a whole if it facilitates better devices being released as rapidly as they are now.

Hell ain't a bad place. Hell is from here to eternity.

 

[EgooEspada]

Does Moto not realize that the Motorola Droid was one of the best selling devices and still is because it was stock and easily cracked. Motorola has done everything right with these devices, but now they do this to mess it all up. They could of easily trumped the iPhone alone with their strategy like that of with the original Droid and the only phones with the full Android experience (excluding the N1).
But I will say though, if they make the Droid Pro UI stock Gingerbread and with those awesome specs going around here, I'll be fine with it..

 

[Darkseider]

Folks,

I understand the whole "open platform" thing and to an extent android has provided that ability to developers in the nexus 1. But keep in mind that this is a business and custom roms can at times also mean ripping other software makers ideas and implementing them on other devices. While thats not the case all the time, the risk posed may be worth it to encrypt. If you make it less appealing for hardware makers to sell realestate space on their phones..(because it can be removed) we will see less phones which equals less innovation. I understand that opening it up my spur more sales, but it actually might not be enough to offset the moneys gained by selling relaestate space on the phone. This may also pay off for us by giving more incentive to create better home replacement$ and launcher$... Developers should be paid for the hardwork and not have to worry about asking for donations.

Point is once the phone is sold they get their money. If a developer puts an app on a phone, take my wifes Backflip for instance, there are apps that are on there that cannot be removed. Every one of those apps my wife doesn't use and *****es because she can't remove them. Why should I, the consumer, be dictated as to what I can and cannot do or have on my device? The same device I spent MY money on and now own in full. It is no different than a PC manufacturer telling you you can't switch operating systems or run programs made by Activision/Blizzard. It is yours to do with what you want regardless if you ever do. To deny the consumer this is no different than telling them that the device they just paid for is not owned but rather the monies spent a "right to use" rather than a "right to own".

They have a right to protect their IP. You aren't just buying the hardware. You are buying a phone - hardware and software. It's yours to do what you want. Just because they have locked down the software doesn't make it any less yours. You got exactly what you paid for. If you don't agree with it, you can buy a different phone. However, if you like their product, you can buy it as is.

It is absolutely different than a PC. On a PC you are implicitly buying the hardware. The hardware and software are two different products regardless of their bundling. The DroidX is a consumer device. You aren't buying two different products, it's one. The software is part of it. Changing that is changing the device itself.

What IP? Really? They use off the shelf parts, including the SoC, and throw it together in a case. I am not a lawyer but my understanding is as follows. The operating system is open source and under the Apache license. I am sure that some of the software that Motorola includes stock on Android is licensed in part or wholly under the GPL v3. In which case according to the Apache license the entire OS and everything contained therein falls under the GPL V3.

GPL compatibility

The Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) agree that the Apache License 2.0 is a free software licence, compatible with version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL).[6]
However, the Free Software Foundation considers all versions of the Apache License (as of 2007) to be incompatible with the previous GPL versions 1 and 2.[7][8]
It should be noted, however, that there is a one-way incompatibility between the Apache version 2 and GPL version 3 licenses, in that you cannot include GPL version 3 code in an Apache project without activating the requirement that the entire project be relicensed under the GPL version 3.[9]

In which case by encrypting the boot loader and denying the ability to root the device is a breech of the GPL V3 because even if the source code is available it cannot be modified for use on the device due to these restrictions. Any one else following this?

EDIT: I just contacted the FSF asking this very question to see if there is any merit to my ramblings. I will keep you updated with their response if I get one.

 

[steven.rn]

...snip...

As to hundreds of lemmings bricking phones - BS. First off, anything that might come down the pike in that reguard will be found out very quickly, and mods/admins pull those download links fast, the hacking community polices itself VERY well in this reguard. There were a few 2.1 ROM's out there that were suspicious, and you should have seen the response ...

more on lemmings bricking - first off, and I know there will be support for this from the rescue squad - 99% of the time the unit is NOT bricked. It takes a lot to truly brick a phone, many times it is something that can be undone. You say they will be nagging .. whom? They are doing something unsupported by the manufacturer right? They will be nagging US,not moto. Please show me a history of news coverage from people bricking their PC's from failed BIOS updates, and there have been PLENTY of them ...

the truth is, out of 100% lemmings, likely about 10% might think about modding, out of that another 5% actually try and go further. the rest just stay stock.
...snip

Yep, I haven't heard of anyone successfully bricking a droid.

But "bricking" is a BUILT IN FEATURE of the X. A software command will invoke it. And no one but verizon can unbrick it. Yes it can be undone- not by you or me.

That's the whole point of EFUSE, as I understand it. A bad OTA update could brick the phone so it can't be recovered until it visits Verizon.

You don't think this is an incredible vulnerability? Heck, if we have faith that someone can over come the encryption, and the hardware locks- I can't imagine it wouldn't be 1000 times easier to blow the EFUSE by some exploit.

Dangerous stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm still getting an X. I just don't know if this ever happens that there will BE a motorola in the future. That's all I'm saying. And it could even happen to someone who would never, ever think of doing anything not stock.

 

[Mule65]

Wait this means I won't be able to delete certain apps or at least make them totally unseen by me? I'll always have some crapware facebook/twitter/blockbuster app in the way in my drawer? Could someone please confirm?

If this is the case I'll pass...

You can't delete stock apps from the app drawer without root access. But, you don't have to put them on your home screens. Not a big deal.

 

[garath]

Point is once the phone is sold they get their money. If a developer puts an app on a phone, take my wifes Backflip for instance, there are apps that are on there that cannot be removed. Every one of those apps my wife doesn't use and *****es because she can't remove them. Why should I, the consumer, be dictated as to what I can and cannot do or have on my device? The same device I spent MY money on and now own in full. It is no different than a PC manufacturer telling you you can't switch operating systems or run programs made by Activision/Blizzard. It is yours to do with what you want regardless if you ever do. To deny the consumer this is no different than telling them that the device they just paid for is not owned but rather the monies spent a "right to use" rather than a "right to own".

They have a right to protect their IP. You aren't just buying the hardware. You are buying a phone - hardware and software. It's yours to do what you want. Just because they have locked down the software doesn't make it any less yours. You got exactly what you paid for. If you don't agree with it, you can buy a different phone. However, if you like their product, you can buy it as is.

It is absolutely different than a PC. On a PC you are implicitly buying the hardware. The hardware and software are two different products regardless of their bundling. The DroidX is a consumer device. You aren't buying two different products, it's one. The software is part of it. Changing that is changing the device itself.

What IP? Really? They use off the shelf parts, including the SoC, and throw it together in a case. I am not a lawyer but my understanding is as follows. The operating system is open source and under the Apache license. I am sure that some of the software that Motorola includes stock on Android is licensed in part or wholly under the GPL v3. In which case according to the Apache license the entire OS and everything contained therein falls under the GPL V3.

GPL compatibility

The Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) agree that the Apache License 2.0 is a free software licence, compatible with version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL).[6]
However, the Free Software Foundation considers all versions of the Apache License (as of 2007) to be incompatible with the previous GPL versions 1 and 2.[7][8]
It should be noted, however, that there is a one-way incompatibility between the Apache version 2 and GPL version 3 licenses, in that you cannot include GPL version 3 code in an Apache project without activating the requirement that the entire project be relicensed under the GPL version 3.[9]

In which case by encrypting the boot loader and denying the ability to root the device is a breech of the GPL V3 because even if the source code is available it cannot be modified for use on the device due to these restrictions. Any one else following this?

EDIT: I just contacted the FSF asking this very question to see if there is any merit to my ramblings. I will keep you updated with their response if I get one.

This is where I take issue with your stance. I fully appreciate the people that WANT to flash custom ROMs for their own benefit and in turn will not be buying the device. That's their choice and I support that. I do NOT understand the sense of entitlement some people have when it comes to the device. Rather than saying "the phone doesn't support my needs, I will look elsewhere", the approach is "I am going to boycott, sue, march outside their offices until they MAKE it the way I want it". I understand your desire to prevent future phones from other manufacturers to follow suit, but the only way to do that is to speak with the wallet. No matter the outrage on enthusiast forums, if the phone sells well that's that.

Even though this article is from 2007, it points out some key things about handset makers and their own proprietary software.

Why Google chose the Apache Software License over GPLv2 for Android

Availability of Android under the ASL will ensure that a broader number of companies will be able to adopt the platform and build on top of it without having to expose the inner workings of proprietary technologies that give them a competitive advantage.

 

[sic0048]

There are less than 100k members on this forum. What % of those root and want to load custom ROMs? Perhaps 10%, maybe 25% at most. While I realize this isn't the only forum of it's kind, you can see that the hacking community is a small % of users.

I haven't seen any recent Droid sales numbers, but it took 72 days for Motorola to sell 1,000,000 units when it first came out. I'm sure sales have slowed since then. So perhaps 1,500,000 units have been sold in total.

Lets say that 88,000 users represents all Droid users on all forums combined. After all there are 88,000 members of this forum, and the represent a lot more phones than just the Droid.

Lets say 25% of all those members root their Droid - equals 22,000 people. That would account for 1.5% of all Droid users. This for a phone that is easily hacked so more users are willing to try to root.

I realize these numbers are not scientific or even that accuate at all. But my point in all of this is to show that rooting isn't a large % of users. I have no doubt that Motorola makes/saves more money by encrypting their systems than the lost sales (perhaps 1-2%) that they would gain by actually not encypting their systems.

The bottom line is that all the hackers could rise up and boycott Motorola and it won't change Motorola's stance. The money equation just doesn't work in our favor.

 

[tt8698]

Moto does realize that the droid is the most popular android on the market? and the fact that the community behind it is the strongest and one of the most developed I do not understand why they would do this to all there phones most ppl who don't know how to root do not because they don't understand it I may be making a switch to htc because of this reason next time my contract is up now I'm fustrated haha

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[RolandDeschain]

Yep, I haven't heard of anyone successfully bricking a droid.

But "bricking" is a BUILT IN FEATURE of the X. A software command will invoke it. And no one but verizon can unbrick it. Yes it can be undone- not by you or me.

That's the whole point of EFUSE, as I understand it. A bad OTA update could brick the phone so it can't be recovered until it visits Verizon.

You don't think this is an incredible vulnerability? Heck, if we have faith that someone can over come the encryption, and the hardware locks- I can't imagine it wouldn't be 1000 times easier to blow the EFUSE by some exploit.

Dangerous stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm still getting an X. I just don't know if this ever happens that there will BE a motorola in the future. That's all I'm saying. And it could even happen to someone who would never, ever think of doing anything not stock.

Even though I'll have a Droid X, I actually wish someone would make a virus that ends up bricking all Droid Xs. It'd be a PR disaster for Motorola, and they'd fall more in line with future devices. They're starting to be like the "Apple" of Verizon. I don't care how great your vision for phones is, I don't want it force-fed to me, Motorola. *glare*

Definitely the last Motorola device I'll be buying.

 

[sin vicious]

They have a right to protect their IP. You aren't just buying the hardware. You are buying a phone - hardware and software. It's yours to do what you want. Just because they have locked down the software doesn't make it any less yours. You got exactly what you paid for. If you don't agree with it, you can buy a different phone. However, if you like their product, you can buy it as is.

It is absolutely different than a PC. On a PC you are implicitly buying the hardware. The hardware and software are two different products regardless of their bundling. The DroidX is a consumer device. You aren't buying two different products, it's one. The software is part of it. Changing that is changing the device itself.

What IP? Really? They use off the shelf parts, including the SoC, and throw it together in a case. I am not a lawyer but my understanding is as follows. The operating system is open source and under the Apache license. I am sure that some of the software that Motorola includes stock on Android is licensed in part or wholly under the GPL v3. In which case according to the Apache license the entire OS and everything contained therein falls under the GPL V3.

GPL compatibility

The Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation (FSF) agree that the Apache License 2.0 is a free software licence, compatible with version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL).[6]
However, the Free Software Foundation considers all versions of the Apache License (as of 2007) to be incompatible with the previous GPL versions 1 and 2.[7][8]
It should be noted, however, that there is a one-way incompatibility between the Apache version 2 and GPL version 3 licenses, in that you cannot include GPL version 3 code in an Apache project without activating the requirement that the entire project be relicensed under the GPL version 3.[9]

In which case by encrypting the boot loader and denying the ability to root the device is a breech of the GPL V3 because even if the source code is available it cannot be modified for use on the device due to these restrictions. Any one else following this?

EDIT: I just contacted the FSF asking this very question to see if there is any merit to my ramblings. I will keep you updated with their response if I get one.

This is where I take issue with your stance. I fully appreciate the people that WANT to flash custom ROMs for their own benefit and in turn will not be buying the device. That's their choice and I support that. I do NOT understand the sense of entitlement some people have when it comes to the device. Rather than saying "the phone doesn't support my needs, I will look elsewhere", the approach is "I am going to boycott, sue, march outside their offices until they MAKE it the way I want it". I understand your desire to prevent future phones from other manufacturers to follow suit, but the only way to do that is to speak with the wallet. No matter the outrage on enthusiast forums, if the phone sells well that's that.

Even though this article is from 2007, it points out some key things about handset makers and their own proprietary software.

Why Google chose the Apache Software License over GPLv2 for Android

Availability of Android under the ASL will ensure that a broader number of companies will be able to adopt the platform and build on top of it without having to expose the inner workings of proprietary technologies that give them a competitive advantage.

Well said... i just dont understand droiders would want to stifle innovation or create an environment where phones would cost us 700.00-800.00 to cover lost revenues.

 

[mflynn]

With the encrypted boot loader and the Efuse this essentially turns an Android into an iPhone. It is disgusting that Motorola has chosen this path with such an open and robust operating system.

With that said and I agree with you, does the average consumer care?

I mean just look at how they flock to iPhone. I bet if I walk into my verizon store right now, and ask the salesman (or woman) about the encrypted boot loader, I'd get a blank stare. Only a small minority care about this, in so much that it will have no affect on moto's bottom line nor will it ever.

Personally, I'm having a hard time justifying dropping my Nexus for the droid x.