Motorola Photon announced for Sprint, ships with unlocked boatloader?

[czerdrill]

Yeah that's all I was really trying to say - it's somewhere in the middle and the carriers (or at the very least Verizon) definitely have a say in it.

And, at least according to Motorola's recent statements, starting later this year carriers will have the final say in it.

exactly, even Moto has alluded to the fact that it's not up to them.

 

[Malvado]

You're not wrong, you're right. The final decision is verizon and like you said it's silly if you think otherwise. So ppl are saying moto can tell verizon "we're releasing this phone on your network and there's nothing you can do about it!"

If that's the case, then why would MOTOROLA publicly announce that they will be shipping devices with the same bootloader as the XOOM in late 2011? Shouldn't it be verizon saying that if THEY were the ones locking them?

Sent from my DROID2

Again, do you think that Motorola can make an announcement like that without Verizon's approval? I don't get why you would think that could ever possibly be the case.

That's like me saying "The house on 123 Main St is on sale starting today and I haven't told the current homeowners" and then trying to argue that I don't need their permission to sell their house.

If Moto makes an announcement like that, it's with VZW's approval, not done behind their back...

So ur saying that someone also gave aproval for htc to announce that they won't be locking bootloaders...I don't think so...MY OPINION

Sent from my DROID2

 

[czerdrill]

If that's the case, then why would MOTOROLA publicly announce that they will be shipping devices with the same bootloader as the XOOM in late 2011? Shouldn't it be verizon saying that if THEY were the ones locking them?

Sent from my DROID2

Again, do you think that Motorola can make an announcement like that without Verizon's approval? I don't get why you would think that could ever possibly be the case.

That's like me saying "The house on 123 Main St is on sale starting today and I haven't told the current homeowners" and then trying to argue that I don't need their permission to sell their house.

If Moto makes an announcement like that, it's with VZW's approval, not done behind their back...

So ur saying that someone also gave aproval for htc to announce that they won't be locking bootloaders...I don't think so...MY OPINION

Sent from my DROID2

You're still not paying attention and that's strange. Again, no one is saying they need permission to make announcements. Try to understand that. What I'm saying is devices have to be approved by the carrier. It doesn't matter if htc unlocks all boot loaders. If vzw tells them they won't sell the phone unless its locked, htc can't just sell them to vxw customers anyway. The fact that you don't get that is either hilarious or just plain weird.

 

[pc747]

I really don't think the lock bootloader is all on VZW. I believe MOTO wants them locked and VZW may "prefer" secured devices but VZW, Sprint, and other oems continue to allow other carriers to unlock their device. If you want the answer you have to look no further than the CEO speech. He believed 3 rd party apps are more to blame than his motoblur software. MOTO want to be like Apple and do it there way. They want to control the software and what is on the device. They believe they can match their hardware with great software from them. And they want it locked to prevent any other software from going on that device other than what is was shipped with. They believe the issues were more from unapproved software and they want to show us.

sent from droidforums app

 

[czerdrill]

I really don't think the lock bootloader is all on VZW. I believe MOTO wants them locked and VZW may "prefer" secured devices but VZW, Sprint, and other oems continue to allow other carriers to unlock their device. If you want the answer you have to look no further than the CEO speech. He believed 3 rd party apps are more to blame than his motoblur software. MOTO want to be like Apple and do it there way. They want to control the software and what is on the device. They believe they can match their hardware with great software from them. And they want it locked to prevent any other software from going on that device other than what is was shipped with. They believe the issues were more from unapproved software and they want to show us.

sent from droidforums app

No matter how you slice it, the carrier has to approve the device. whether it's locked/unlocked/encrypted/unencrypted I don't understand how you think VZW doesn't have the final say on this.

it doesnt matter if Moto/HTC/Samsung all take out a billboard to be displayed on I-95 that says "We're selling phones with unencrypted bootloaders on Verizon" ...if VZW says no, it's no, and they can't do it. I can't imagine how people are actually arguing something like this.

This is almost as bad as arguing that tethering is somehow not a violation of your contract (keyword almost, the people who argue about tethering are on another level of ridiculousness)

 

[Malvado]

Again, do you think that Motorola can make an announcement like that without Verizon's approval? I don't get why you would think that could ever possibly be the case.

That's like me saying "The house on 123 Main St is on sale starting today and I haven't told the current homeowners" and then trying to argue that I don't need their permission to sell their house.

If Moto makes an announcement like that, it's with VZW's approval, not done behind their back...

So ur saying that someone also gave aproval for htc to announce that they won't be locking bootloaders...I don't think so...MY OPINION

Sent from my DROID2

You're still not paying attention and that's strange. Again, no one is saying they need permission to make announcements. Try to understand that. What I'm saying is devices have to be approved by the carrier. It doesn't matter if htc unlocks all boot loaders. If vzw tells them they won't sell the phone unless its locked, htc can't just sell them to vxw customers anyway. The fact that you don't get that is either hilarious or just plain weird.

dude i get everything...you clearly said Motorola needed approval from Verizon to make the announcement. In response to that, I said if you also think HTC had to ask for approval before they announced they werent locking their bootloaders. You're the one thats taking this way out of proportion.

 

[czerdrill]

So ur saying that someone also gave aproval for htc to announce that they won't be locking bootloaders...I don't think so...MY OPINION

Sent from my DROID2

You're still not paying attention and that's strange. Again, no one is saying they need permission to make announcements. Try to understand that. What I'm saying is devices have to be approved by the carrier. It doesn't matter if htc unlocks all boot loaders. If vzw tells them they won't sell the phone unless its locked, htc can't just sell them to vxw customers anyway. The fact that you don't get that is either hilarious or just plain weird.

dude i get everything...you clearly said Motorola needed approval from Verizon to make the announcement. In response to that, I said if you also think HTC had to ask for approval before they announced they werent locking their bootloaders. You're the one thats taking this way out of proportion.

I thought it was also clear, that I was talking about devices released on Verizon, like the XOOM example you used. If Moto said, "we are releasing the XOOM with an unlockable bootloader" they need Verizon's approval to make that statement (meaning Verizon has to approve the device). If HTC says "we're unlocking all bootloaders" that doesn't mean Verizon approves unlocked HTC devices on their network. HTC is not Verizon is not Motorola. I'm not taking it out of proportion, I'm actually amazed that this even has to be discussed lol. I would think it would be obvious to everyone.

 

[Malvado]

You're still not paying attention and that's strange. Again, no one is saying they need permission to make announcements. Try to understand that. What I'm saying is devices have to be approved by the carrier. It doesn't matter if htc unlocks all boot loaders. If vzw tells them they won't sell the phone unless its locked, htc can't just sell them to vxw customers anyway. The fact that you don't get that is either hilarious or just plain weird.

dude i get everything...you clearly said Motorola needed approval from Verizon to make the announcement. In response to that, I said if you also think HTC had to ask for approval before they announced they werent locking their bootloaders. You're the one thats taking this way out of proportion.

I thought it was also clear, that I was talking about devices released on Verizon, like the XOOM example you used. If Moto said, "we are releasing the XOOM with an unlockable bootloader" they need Verizon's approval to make that statement (meaning Verizon has to approve the device). If HTC says "we're unlocking all bootloaders" that doesn't mean Verizon approves unlocked HTC devices on their network. HTC is not Verizon is not Motorola. I'm not taking it out of proportion, I'm actually amazed that this even has to be discussed lol. I would think it would be obvious to everyone.

But I wasn't saying HTC was Verizon. I just simply asked if HTC had to go through the same process as the one you said Motorola went through. And I stated that this whole thing was my opinion and simply used HTC as my "somewhat" source

Sent from my DROID2

 

[jntdroid]

slightly different discussion, but interesting nonetheless:

Virgin Mobile: No Android Skins For Us | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

So the carriers make the call on the UI? Weird...

 

[czerdrill]

dude i get everything...you clearly said Motorola needed approval from Verizon to make the announcement. In response to that, I said if you also think HTC had to ask for approval before they announced they werent locking their bootloaders. You're the one thats taking this way out of proportion.

I thought it was also clear, that I was talking about devices released on Verizon, like the XOOM example you used. If Moto said, "we are releasing the XOOM with an unlockable bootloader" they need Verizon's approval to make that statement (meaning Verizon has to approve the device). If HTC says "we're unlocking all bootloaders" that doesn't mean Verizon approves unlocked HTC devices on their network. HTC is not Verizon is not Motorola. I'm not taking it out of proportion, I'm actually amazed that this even has to be discussed lol. I would think it would be obvious to everyone.

But I wasn't saying HTC was Verizon. I just simply asked if HTC had to go through the same process as the one you said Motorola went through. And I stated that this whole thing was my opinion and simply used HTC as my "somewhat" source

Sent from my DROID2

You said "So ur saying that someone also gave aproval for htc to announce that they won't be locking bootloaders...I don't think so..."...and no one is saying that. No one ever said that. HTC doesn't need to consult Verizon when they make business decisions, and no one said they do or implied they do.

This started with you stating that it's not the carriers who decide if bootloaders are locked, and then taking one twitter post out of context and assumed that to mean that we will get unlocked bootloaders.

What I'm saying that yes it is carriers who decide to allow unlocked bootloader phones on their network. they have the final say as to what devices are on their network. if an HTC phone comes unlocked on Verizon, it's cause Verizon approved it. So while HTC doesn't have to get verizon's permission to unlock their phones or make announcements about unlocked phones, they sure as hell need Verizon's permission to keep it unlocked or not if they want to sell to Verizon customers.

 

[JohnnytheK]

Hey it kinda looks like a book from Battle Star Galactia, with all the corners cut.

 

[pc747]

I really don't think the lock bootloader is all on VZW. I believe MOTO wants them locked and VZW may "prefer" secured devices but VZW, Sprint, and other oems continue to allow other carriers to unlock their device. If you want the answer you have to look no further than the CEO speech. He believed 3 rd party apps are more to blame than his motoblur software. MOTO want to be like Apple and do it there way. They want to control the software and what is on the device. They believe they can match their hardware with great software from them. And they want it locked to prevent any other software from going on that device other than what is was shipped with. They believe the issues were more from unapproved software and they want to show us.

sent from droidforums app

No matter how you slice it, the carrier has to approve the device. whether it's locked/unlocked/encrypted/unencrypted I don't understand how you think VZW doesn't have the final say on this.

it doesnt matter if Moto/HTC/Samsung all take out a billboard to be displayed on I-95 that says "We're selling phones with unencrypted bootloaders on Verizon" ...if VZW says no, it's no, and they can't do it. I can't imagine how people are actually arguing something like this.

This is almost as bad as arguing that tethering is somehow not a violation of your contract (keyword almost, the people who argue about tethering are on another level of ridiculousness)

The carriers are leaving it to the oems. If vzw was so heavy on locked bootloaders then they would REQUIRE it. I find it odd they will require some devices to have it and others are allowed to go with out them. So you argument about it being carrier have the final say, yeah they do but they are leaving it to the oem. And moto actually want to encrypt them.

 

[jntdroid]

slightly different discussion, but interesting nonetheless:

Virgin Mobile: No Android Skins For Us | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

So the carriers make the call on the UI? Weird...

well I tried to change the subject...

 

[kodiak799]

The carriers are leaving it to the oems. If vzw was so heavy on locked bootloaders then they would REQUIRE it.

For the most part, I think the only devices on VZW to be unlocked are the D1, the Xoom, and the TBolt....And if you think about it, there might be a commonality among those 3 devices as to why.

 

[czerdrill]

The carriers are leaving it to the oems. If vzw was so heavy on locked bootloaders then they would REQUIRE it.

For the most part, I think the only devices on VZW to be unlocked are the D1, the Xoom, and the TBolt....And if you think about it, there might be a commonality among those 3 devices as to why.

Exactly. It's not like we see a locked phone, then a bunch of unlocked ones, then a locked one again, and then 10 more unlocked ones haha. The reason the three above were unlocked were, like you said, because they were the first of their kind in their specific specifications/device types.