No Path to Official DROIDX Update Coming from Motorola for Leaked 2.2 Users

Discussion in 'Droid X Hacks' started by Shadez, Aug 30, 2010.

DroidForums.net is the premier Android Forum - Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  1. Shadez
    Offline

    Shadez Super Mod/News Team Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,460
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    178
    Location:
    Lafayette Hill, Pa
    Ratings:
    +204
    Current Phone Model:
    HTC One M8
    Twitter:
    @Shadez69
    [​IMG]


    Motorola doesn’t appear to want to follow in the steps of HTC when it comes to updating to Froyo. If you remember, during the series of leaked Android 2.2 builds for the EVO, HTC was doing their best to create patches and fixes to early adoptees that were having trouble updating to their official release. Moto on the other hand, appears to be taking the other path which could explain their prompt spraying of C&D letters to anyone hosting the leaked 2.2 for the Droid X from 10 days ago.
    The Motorola Support Forums mentioned the following today…
    WARNING: Do NOT load the leaked 2.2 upgrade that has been floating around on the Internets. There is currently no upgrade path from that load to the official 2.2 load that will be released by early September. Unless you have some plan to flash your phone back to the current official load, you could be stuck on the leaked version.
    Let me just say that we warned you twice about this, so if you are getting all red and out of breath with droplets of sweat beginning to form on your forehead, stop now. There are risks involved in the flashing of any leaked Android update and we make that as clear as can be.

    But not to leave you hanging, we figured we should probably give you some instructions on how to get back to 2.1 so that you can receive the official 2.2 and save yourself from an aneurysm. Stay tuned for those…

    Oh yeah, and that note also mentions an “early September” release which could mean as early as this weekend?


    Via: Motorola Support
    Droid-Life.Com
  2. Abe21599
    Offline

    Abe21599 DF Super Moderator Rescue Squad

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,345
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    163
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +30
    ehh i can take 2.2 off when i choose. we just need people posting when 2.2 comes out
  3. Breezer23
    Offline

    Breezer23 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Ratings:
    +0
    Blah. Why wouldn't it work?

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
  4. Abe21599
    Offline

    Abe21599 DF Super Moderator Rescue Squad

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,345
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    163
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +30
    they dont want people using it so they set it up like that.
  5. avt123
    Offline

    avt123 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm sure someone will make the OTA available for download for all of us on the leaked 2.2. I don't think we would have to downgrade to 2.1 if we have that option.
  6. iojk9999
    Offline

    iojk9999 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    When they say the upgrade 'will be pushed to you' do they mean your phone will do the update pre-emptively, without user interaction (or without the user being able to control or cancel the interaction)?
  7. BOA
    Offline

    BOA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Maryland
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is all a bunch of BS. Who cares; just release the stupid thing so we can move on. I mean we spend so much money on these devices to be sitting around waiting for one release over another waiting and waiting for something that probably should have been released from the beginning. I'm patient to a degree but this is starting to be ridiculous.

    Someone will figure out a way to get things working so I'm not worried. Either way I just want the official 2.2 and I'll take care of the rest even if it means going back to 2.1.

    OK enough rant! LOL
  8. YukonCornelius
    Offline

    YukonCornelius Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Ratings:
    +0
    I may be way off here, and not know my sh#t like I probably should, but under that new ruling, wouldn't Moto HAVE to release that update at least via a down-loadable package to conform? We now have the "official" right to hack our devices without worries of vendor ramifications, no? I swear that ruling just recently came down and/or went into effect. If anyone can provide accurate info on this issue, please post. Like I said, I may be way off - but dag nabbit, I know I saw something to that effect. Just to darn lazy to research it at the moment...
  9. GrillMouster
    Offline

    GrillMouster Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yukon, I think the ruling you're referring to is the one that says it's not illegal to jailbreak/root your phone. That doesn't mean that manufacturers must make it easy for you to do so or that they can't void the warranty if you do so. Why should Moto or VZW be expected to support or fix your device when you did something to it that they told you not to do? I support your right to root your phone, as long as you take ultimate responsibility for it.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2010
  10. Akita
    Offline

    Akita Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    In before the self righetous say "I'm glad I waited" responses.
    Also, in before the clueless who either rooted or installed the leak will post a million threads asking how to revert back to 2.1 stock.

    There is some great comedy over @ the android forums on said topic
  11. InfamousDX
    Offline

    InfamousDX New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2010
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    LOL yea the panic that is going on about going back to 2.1 is hilarious.
  12. YukonCornelius
    Offline

    YukonCornelius Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Ratings:
    +0
    I take full responsibility - and I've reverted to 2.1, and back to 2.2, and reverted, and back... - if I brick it it's no fault but my own. However, I think that the point of the ruling was that as long as you did not intentionally do physical damage to the device, the vendor can not penalize you... a "bricked" phone is not permanently damaged - and therefore should be covered. The ruling also indicates that firmware updates must also be made available - now this was spelled out citing Apple and the iPhone, but any lawyer worth his weight in salt could argue the point across other manufacturers. My point is this: Why would Moto risk the support issues if they know ultimately they would have to respond in a manner that would get your device back to a working state? Would it not be in their best interest to make the file available as a final release? If we are competent enough to find a way to get an unsupported version running, I think we'd be perfectly fine installing an official release manually as well - Moto needs to look at the big picture here.

    Besides - Moto could take it as an opportunity to impose changes that would cause everyone to try to break the newest version all over again... a win for them!

    BTW - I have no intentions of rolling back my phone just to get the official release via OTA... just my 2 cents.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2010
  13. tobytl
    Offline

    tobytl Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    The ruling was a DMCA "fair use" exemption. Meaning it deals solely with copyright law enforcement and penalization. The library of congress declared that rooting/jailbreaking is not a violation of copyright law under the DMCA, not that the manufacturer has to support it. Specifically, all it says is that "the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply". They made it legal. That doesn't mean the manufacturer has to help you, or support you in any way. It is still their right to deny you warranty _and_ support for any action that is stated in any type of licensing agreement, regardless of the legality of that action.

    The ruling really did nothing for us, one way or another. It was only needed as Apple has been making noises about jailbreaking lawsuits, and laying the groundwork for copyright infringement claims in such cases. The Library of Congress effectively shut the door on it, that's all.

    Edit: And as a side note, the ruling may not technically apply to Android devices at all. The whole argument hinges on Apple locking you out of applications that it does not approve through it's app store, and the interoperability arguments that brings up. Android allows the installation and use of apps that are not distributed through the market as a base part of the OS. This damages the interoperability argument, and hasn't been tested.

    Edit2: Made it sound less combative... I'm a typical american, everything I say sounds like I'm trying to start a fight, hate my speech patterns.
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2010
  14. YukonCornelius
    Offline

    YukonCornelius Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    Ratings:
    +0
    LOL! Never took it as combative... I asked for it, so I got it! Heh heh. I did look it up - the ruling specifically cited Apple. But it did go further to say that they would have to continue to make the OS available to "jailbroken" firmwares. That is, Apple could not penalize someone for circumventing the measures they put in place to prevent just that. I could see how this could easily apply to "rooting" a device - especially one that is touted as open source - it's big selling point over the IOS.

    Anyways, thanks for your info. Cheers!
  15. tobytl
    Offline

    tobytl Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, as it is "fair use" they have to continue to allow jailbroken firmware into their walled garden, and future updates/features as well. But they don't have to go out of their way to do so, at least in the sense that if the user does something that puts them outside the current upgrade path, they don't have to provide an easy solution back into it. In the Apple world, this isn't a problem, upgrades are more or less destructive, they just overwrite the firmware. In the android world, upgrades are scripted and have to be tailored in going from a specific version to another. The catch is, this doesn't really matter to us as has been pointed out. All we need is the signed boot image that has the new kernel, we can then make our own update.zip or rom that is version independent. It's actually relatively simple, but Moto is not required to do it.

    That is to say, under "fair use", Moto can't lock us out of the ecosystem, but they don't have to go out of their way to let us back in once we actively leave it either. If we can find a way to use their standard upgrade path, they also can't stop us from using it. As my cousin puts it "They can't lock the door once you step outside, but they ain't gotta help you back up the front stairs either".

    As far as the exemption applying to android, it really depends on how the judge reads it in the first court case that cites it as pertaining to android. Until then, we really can't say one way or the other. I only say it may not apply, due to the exemption citing application interoperability, and that not being an issue on android. But if that hypothetical judge takes a broad view, he can also interpret the "implied" extensions as well and include it.