Moto explains why they locked the bootloader

[sin vicious]

1. None!

Please give me evidence of a newb calling Motorola saying "Help me help me, I bricked my phone doing something that is not supported but allowed by you".

Those lemmings are on par with the ones calling VZ saying they are wi fi tethering on the droid rooted, ran up 50Gb of bandwidth and wondered why they were "overcharged" on their bill.

for the other two, I stand with DS ...

There are PLENTY of people in the XDA forums who used a bad update (unRevoked) from the recent major OTA and totally busted their 4G on their EVO. Many of them have returned/exchanged their phones because they could not fix it. Here are two I found with a quick glance. You can bet there are others.

xda-developers - View Single Post - 4G Troubles? Get Insight Here (Don't be deceived by fake "fixes")

xda-developers - View Single Post - 4G Troubles? Get Insight Here (Don't be deceived by fake "fixes")

Sorry had a meeting to attend to... Gotta love deploying docis 3.0..

This i my point exactly..

 

[Darkseider]

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.

In response to the Apache License there is GPL V2 code used in Android. Due to this anything associated with that particular code falls under GPL V2. An clipping from the Motorola Milestone forums regarding the legality.

""No it really isn't. Some people are just obviously not really well informed in the topic, which unfortunately doesn't prevent them from expressing a strong opinion based on half-truths and misinformation. Unfortunately, fact is: Motorola is not obligated to remove signaturechecking just because they're using (partly) GPLed code in their phones."

The fact is that Tivoization under GPLv2 has never brought to court so to say Moto is NOT breaking GPLv2 is at least unproved. Even if the use of signed images (and not publishing the keys) is allowed Moto is STILL violating the GPL on several other points.

Read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.htm (these guys won over 100 GPL cases in and out of court and did not loose a single one, so I guess that they know the subject rather well)

GPLv2: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. ”

"What are "scripts used to control installation"?
After having translated software from its source code form into executable format, the program quite often needs to be installed into the system. The process of installation is often automatized by installation scripts. Exactly those scripts are referred to by the GPL. Please note that this is of special practical importance in the case of embedded devices, since the executable program(s) need to be somehow installed onto the device. If the user is not given a way to install his own (modified) versions of the program, he has no way of exercising his freedom to run modified versions of the program.

Sometimes, the process of installation is not facilitated by scripts, but by some other means (such as executable programs). The GPL text only mentions the word "scripts". But when reading and interpreting the license, it is clearly understood that the license doesn't specifically only mean "scripts", but any kind of software programs that are required to install a (modified) version of the compiled program. "

Most definition I see of the Install/installation of a computer software component define it simular to this : "Installation (or setup) of a program (including drivers, plugins, etc.) is the act of putting the program onto a computer system so that it can be executed."

So by using a commonly accepted definition someone (preferable a judge in a GPL court) can conclude that a program that is copied to the device but does not execute (due to signature check) is NOT installed, GPLv2 requires it CAN be installed by provided scripts hence Motorola IS violating GPLv2."

You are absolutely correct - that is, if Android used GPL. The exact reasons you cite is why Google (not Motorola) opted to use Apache Software License.

From here:

Licenses | Android Open Source

We are sometimes asked why Apache Software License 2.0 is the preferred license for Android. For userspace (that is, non-kernel) software, we do in fact prefer ASL2.0 (and similar licenses like BSD, MIT, etc.) over other licenses such as LGPL.

Android is about freedom and choice. The purpose of Android is promote openness in the mobile world, but we don't believe it's possible to predict or dictate all the uses to which people will want to put our software. So, while we encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable, we don't believe it is our place to force them to do so. Using LGPL libraries would often force them to do so.

Yes Android uses the Apache license but it also has code, being in the linux kernel patches themselves, that are GPL V2 and because of this anything that relies on these patches is by default covered under the GPL V2 as stated in the excerpt from the article I posted. So regardless of the licensing being touted by Google, et al. the GPL V2 comes into play in this instance. Which is why I contacted the FSF for further clarification as to whether or not there is a legal issue. IF there is I will then request that this issue be pursued and rectified. Either by removing the GPL'd code which would essentially cripple Android OR by forcing the hardware manufacturers whether it be Motorola, Samsung, etc... to open their bootloaders and allow root access easily and have a safe backup and restore method similar to that used on the Droid with a .SBF file. Richard Stallman is coming to visit my workplace in a few weeks to talk with some friends and I am going to ask his opinion on this as well to see if there is any merit.

 

[steven.rn]

..snip...

Yes Android uses the Apache license but it also has code, being in the linux kernel patches themselves, that are GPL V2 and because of this anything that relies on these patches is by default covered under the GPL V2 as stated in the excerpt from the article I posted. So regardless of the licensing being touted by Google, et al. the GPL V2 comes into play in this instance. Which is why I contacted the FSF for further clarification as to whether or not there is a legal issue. IF there is I will then request that this issue be pursued and rectified. Either by removing the GPL'd code which would essentially cripple Android OR by forcing the hardware manufacturers whether it be Motorola, Samsung, etc... to open their bootloaders and allow root access easily and have a safe backup and restore method similar to that used on the Droid with a .SBF file. Richard Stallman is coming to visit my workplace in a few weeks to talk with some friends and I am going to ask his opinion on this as well to see if there is any merit.

Bravo! Keep 'em honest. It's "for their own good".

 

[sin vicious]

As listed on a earlier post:

1. How much support is used because of bricking (employment costs)
2. How much revenue is lost in potential realestate space (trial sofware)
3. Loss of IP going into other phones that were not properly liscensed

OK and I addressed bullet point 1. Using the .SBF method as currently used on the Moto Droid bricking isn't happening. Point 2 is moot simply because said trial software being removed by someone who roots the device and installs a custom ROM afterward is no different than someone ignoring/never using the trial software. Loss of IP? What IP? Android is open sourced under the Apache license and partly through the GPL V2. The only IP Motorola could possibly have is some widgets on the phone, in which case, they can be licensed under something other than Apache or the GPL assuming that violates neither. Everything else from the Kernel to the OS is open source, free as in beer and free as in speech. So again. There is no loss of revenue at all for Motorola and in fact I would argue just the opposite. Seeing as how Linux has taken over the server room due to its' openness, Android can do the same assuming that handset manufacturers let it.

1. On bricking: We see many newbs on these forums plus many others asking for help because they bricked their phones. That is just fact.. Maybe you dont brick phones, but many do.

2. Trial software is not moot. Whether its via root or flashing, advertisers loose interest if they forsee their product being shafted or deleted. This is a loss of revenue PERIOD.

3. What IP? You dont forsee something like HTC's apps getting ripped in the future? Oh wait you wont see it in the future because it already happened: HTC's new Sense user interface ported to the Motorola Droid | Android Central . The droidx has a couple cool features that have come by way of MOTO.. resizing widgets etc.. I can certainly see a reason to try and port (steal) IP. A vague reading of the liscensing terms "scripts" or not will not hold up in court. SENSE UI and MOTO Blur is IP, done in house.

Still the main point is, why would you want to force a company to take less risk? At the end, thats what your asking them to do.. less risk means less innovation which has effects throughout our economy. If they can secure their platform and feel confident their IP and profit interest will be protected.. they'll continue to develop android phones.. if not, they'll just develop their own thing and thats one less manufacturer (we all loose, as they do.. and so does our economy).

 

[garath]

In response to the Apache License there is GPL V2 code used in Android. Due to this anything associated with that particular code falls under GPL V2. An clipping from the Motorola Milestone forums regarding the legality.

""No it really isn't. Some people are just obviously not really well informed in the topic, which unfortunately doesn't prevent them from expressing a strong opinion based on half-truths and misinformation. Unfortunately, fact is: Motorola is not obligated to remove signaturechecking just because they're using (partly) GPLed code in their phones."

The fact is that Tivoization under GPLv2 has never brought to court so to say Moto is NOT breaking GPLv2 is at least unproved. Even if the use of signed images (and not publishing the keys) is allowed Moto is STILL violating the GPL on several other points.

Read http://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.htm (these guys won over 100 GPL cases in and out of court and did not loose a single one, so I guess that they know the subject rather well)

GPLv2: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. ”

"What are "scripts used to control installation"?
After having translated software from its source code form into executable format, the program quite often needs to be installed into the system. The process of installation is often automatized by installation scripts. Exactly those scripts are referred to by the GPL. Please note that this is of special practical importance in the case of embedded devices, since the executable program(s) need to be somehow installed onto the device. If the user is not given a way to install his own (modified) versions of the program, he has no way of exercising his freedom to run modified versions of the program.

Sometimes, the process of installation is not facilitated by scripts, but by some other means (such as executable programs). The GPL text only mentions the word "scripts". But when reading and interpreting the license, it is clearly understood that the license doesn't specifically only mean "scripts", but any kind of software programs that are required to install a (modified) version of the compiled program. "

Most definition I see of the Install/installation of a computer software component define it simular to this : "Installation (or setup) of a program (including drivers, plugins, etc.) is the act of putting the program onto a computer system so that it can be executed."

So by using a commonly accepted definition someone (preferable a judge in a GPL court) can conclude that a program that is copied to the device but does not execute (due to signature check) is NOT installed, GPLv2 requires it CAN be installed by provided scripts hence Motorola IS violating GPLv2."

You are absolutely correct - that is, if Android used GPL. The exact reasons you cite is why Google (not Motorola) opted to use Apache Software License.

From here:

Licenses | Android Open Source

We are sometimes asked why Apache Software License 2.0 is the preferred license for Android. For userspace (that is, non-kernel) software, we do in fact prefer ASL2.0 (and similar licenses like BSD, MIT, etc.) over other licenses such as LGPL.

Android is about freedom and choice. The purpose of Android is promote openness in the mobile world, but we don't believe it's possible to predict or dictate all the uses to which people will want to put our software. So, while we encourage everyone to make devices that are open and modifiable, we don't believe it is our place to force them to do so. Using LGPL libraries would often force them to do so.

Yes Android uses the Apache license but it also has code, being in the linux kernel patches themselves, that are GPL V2 and because of this anything that relies on these patches is by default covered under the GPL V2 as stated in the excerpt from the article I posted. So regardless of the licensing being touted by Google, et al. the GPL V2 comes into play in this instance. Which is why I contacted the FSF for further clarification as to whether or not there is a legal issue. IF there is I will then request that this issue be pursued and rectified. Either by removing the GPL'd code which would essentially cripple Android OR by forcing the hardware manufacturers whether it be Motorola, Samsung, etc... to open their bootloaders and allow root access easily and have a safe backup and restore method similar to that used on the Droid with a .SBF file. Richard Stallman is coming to visit my workplace in a few weeks to talk with some friends and I am going to ask his opinion on this as well to see if there is any merit.

I'm not a lawyer and I'll be the first to admit that quite a bit of the "legalese" of the licenses go over my head. You may be right, I don't know if such a case is fruitful but you could be right.

However, the portions of the linux kernel that fall under GPL v2 are mentioned on the page I linked and explicitly states "with system exceptions". Regardless of what those exceptions are, I believe that when Google states their reasoning for choosing the licensing they did for Android is to allow manufactures to lock down their devices (paraphrased of course), they probably looked into it.

I understand your reasons for being upset. It's a testament to the device that it is desirable enough to cause such frustration. I don't agree with your approach to the problem, but this is the internet, no need to always agree.

 

[sin vicious]

@sin vicious

The only motive behind Motorola's decision to lock the bootloader on the Droid X and all upcoming devices is nothing more than control and forced obsolescence. No more no less. They want you to buy widgets and if Widget X doesn't get an "official upgrade" to the next operating system even though it is perfectly capable of running it you get forced into buying Widget Y that can. This is why the Droid continues to stand next to the Nexus One as the PREMIER Android device. Simply put you can GUARANTEE there will be no official Gingerbread update for the Droid. With that being said you can also guarantee that the Droid will have Gingerbread running on it when the AOSP is updated. Same as the G1 running Froyo. Motorola has stepped onto a slippery slope.

Your speaking from a programmers perspective, you standto loose much fun. However, when you purchase a phone you accept the terms of service that is attached to said device. Again like a car..you purchase a car, is it yours? Yes.. is it legal or permissible mess with the regulator? No. Can the car go faster then 120? Yes.. Because its capped. The same with many many other products. Are they trying to force obsolescence? Sure.. just as pc manufacturers do, fashion does, game systems do and just about any technology gadget does. I see it as progress, as they try to attach newer software to better hardware. This leaves room for smart people to create some really cool apps and home replacements apps to do some really neat things. Just remember a company is in business to do whats right for the shareholders, money is what its all about. The very reason droidforums has advertisers and androidcentral and droid-life...

 

[Darkseider]

OK and I addressed bullet point 1. Using the .SBF method as currently used on the Moto Droid bricking isn't happening. Point 2 is moot simply because said trial software being removed by someone who roots the device and installs a custom ROM afterward is no different than someone ignoring/never using the trial software. Loss of IP? What IP? Android is open sourced under the Apache license and partly through the GPL V2. The only IP Motorola could possibly have is some widgets on the phone, in which case, they can be licensed under something other than Apache or the GPL assuming that violates neither. Everything else from the Kernel to the OS is open source, free as in beer and free as in speech. So again. There is no loss of revenue at all for Motorola and in fact I would argue just the opposite. Seeing as how Linux has taken over the server room due to its' openness, Android can do the same assuming that handset manufacturers let it.

1. On bricking: We see many newbs on these forums plus many others asking for help because they bricked their phones. That is just fact.. Maybe you dont brick phones, but many do.

2. Trial software is not moot. Whether its via root or flashing, advertisers loose interest if they forsee their product being shafted or deleted. This is a loss of revenue PERIOD.

3. What IP? You dont forsee something like HTC's apps getting ripped in the future? Oh wait you wont see it in the future because it already happened: HTC's new Sense user interface ported to the Motorola Droid | Android Central . The droidx has a couple cool features that have come by way of MOTO.. resizing widgets etc.. I can certainly see a reason to try and port (steal) IP. A vague reading of the liscensing terms "scripts" or not will not hold up in court. SENSE UI and MOTO Blur is IP, done in house.

Still the main point is, why would you want to force a company to take less risk? At the end, thats what your asking them to do.. less risk means less innovation which has effects throughout our economy. If they can secure their platform and feel confident their IP and profit interest will be protected.. they'll continue to develop android phones.. if not, they'll just develop their own thing and thats one less manufacturer (we all loose, as they do.. and so does our economy).

1. To my knowledge there has never been a bricked Droid. The posts that say bricked in fact are not bricked and a simple wipe or .SBF away from full function.

2. It is moot. If someone removes it OR if the same person NEVER uses it because it is "trialware/vendor spam" there is no difference. NONE, Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

3. Sense UI, MotoBlur, Widget Blur, whateverBlur will become null and moot come Gingerbread as stated by Google. As for stealing IP by porting it to another phone there is a defense for that. Cyanogen can no longer include Google apps in his ROMs and the package has to be downloaded separately. Same can be done with the Blur/Sense components.

Lastly how is this less risk? If anything by offering a more open environment is will spur innovation and creativity. What Motorola is doing is stifling it. Last I checked when looking at the Nexus One and the Droid and what the devs have done for them. Whether it be Pete, Cyanogen, Koush, XDA, etc.. is far more innovative because they were ALLOWED to. Now that is being taken away.

 

[Darkseider]

You are absolutely correct - that is, if Android used GPL. The exact reasons you cite is why Google (not Motorola) opted to use Apache Software License.

From here:

Licenses | Android Open Source

Yes Android uses the Apache license but it also has code, being in the linux kernel patches themselves, that are GPL V2 and because of this anything that relies on these patches is by default covered under the GPL V2 as stated in the excerpt from the article I posted. So regardless of the licensing being touted by Google, et al. the GPL V2 comes into play in this instance. Which is why I contacted the FSF for further clarification as to whether or not there is a legal issue. IF there is I will then request that this issue be pursued and rectified. Either by removing the GPL'd code which would essentially cripple Android OR by forcing the hardware manufacturers whether it be Motorola, Samsung, etc... to open their bootloaders and allow root access easily and have a safe backup and restore method similar to that used on the Droid with a .SBF file. Richard Stallman is coming to visit my workplace in a few weeks to talk with some friends and I am going to ask his opinion on this as well to see if there is any merit.

I'm not a lawyer and I'll be the first to admit that quite a bit of the "legalese" of the licenses go over my head. You may be right, I don't know if such a case is fruitful but you could be right.

However, the portions of the linux kernel that fall under GPL v2 are mentioned on the page I linked and explicitly states "with system exceptions". Regardless of what those exceptions are, I believe that when Google states their reasoning for choosing the licensing they did for Android is to allow manufactures to lock down their devices (paraphrased of course), they probably looked into it.

I understand your reasons for being upset. It's a testament to the device that it is desirable enough to cause such frustration. I don't agree with your approach to the problem, but this is the internet, no need to always agree.

Unfortunately because Motorola is a corporation this is the only way to approach the situation. Motorola will not listen to the consumer unless the vast majority of them forgo the purchase of a Droid X for a competing manufacturers device.

 

[Darkseider]

@sin vicious

The only motive behind Motorola's decision to lock the bootloader on the Droid X and all upcoming devices is nothing more than control and forced obsolescence. No more no less. They want you to buy widgets and if Widget X doesn't get an "official upgrade" to the next operating system even though it is perfectly capable of running it you get forced into buying Widget Y that can. This is why the Droid continues to stand next to the Nexus One as the PREMIER Android device. Simply put you can GUARANTEE there will be no official Gingerbread update for the Droid. With that being said you can also guarantee that the Droid will have Gingerbread running on it when the AOSP is updated. Same as the G1 running Froyo. Motorola has stepped onto a slippery slope.

Your speaking from a programmers perspective, you standto loose much fun. However, when you purchase a phone you accept the terms of service that is attached to said device. Again like a car..you purchase a car, is it yours? Yes.. is it legal or permissible mess with the regulator? No. Can the car go faster then 120? Yes.. Because its capped. The same with many many other products. Are they trying to force obsolescence? Sure.. just as pc manufacturers do, fashion does, game systems do and just about any technology gadget does. I see it as progress, as they try to attach newer software to better hardware. This leaves room for smart people to create some really cool apps and home replacements apps to do some really neat things. Just remember a company is in business to do whats right for the shareholders, money is what its all about. The very reason droidforums has advertisers and androidcentral and droid-life...

It's not about apps. You can make an app to run on anything. It is about the ability to control the device fully. Install a custom ROM compiled from the Google AOSP. The fact that the phones are being locked down completely negates the need for the AOSP as it will then become a formality of the software licensing to offer the source even though you can't do anything with it. Get it?

 

[sin vicious]

1. On bricking: We see many newbs on these forums plus many others asking for help because they bricked their phones. That is just fact.. Maybe you dont brick phones, but many do.

2. Trial software is not moot. Whether its via root or flashing, advertisers loose interest if they forsee their product being shafted or deleted. This is a loss of revenue PERIOD.

3. What IP? You dont forsee something like HTC's apps getting ripped in the future? Oh wait you wont see it in the future because it already happened: HTC's new Sense user interface ported to the Motorola Droid | Android Central . The droidx has a couple cool features that have come by way of MOTO.. resizing widgets etc.. I can certainly see a reason to try and port (steal) IP. A vague reading of the liscensing terms "scripts" or not will not hold up in court. SENSE UI and MOTO Blur is IP, done in house.

Still the main point is, why would you want to force a company to take less risk? At the end, thats what your asking them to do.. less risk means less innovation which has effects throughout our economy. If they can secure their platform and feel confident their IP and profit interest will be protected.. they'll continue to develop android phones.. if not, they'll just develop their own thing and thats one less manufacturer (we all loose, as they do.. and so does our economy).

1. To my knowledge there has never been a bricked Droid. The posts that say bricked in fact are not bricked and a simple wipe or .SBF away from full function.

2. It is moot. If someone removes it OR if the same person NEVER uses it because it is "trialware/vendor spam" there is no difference. NONE, Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

3. Sense UI, MotoBlur, Widget Blur, whateverBlur will become null and moot come Gingerbread as stated by Google. As for stealing IP by porting it to another phone there is a defense for that. Cyanogen can no longer include Google apps in his ROMs and the package has to be downloaded separately. Same can be done with the Blur/Sense components.

Lastly how is this less risk? If anything by offering a more open environment is will spur innovation and creativity. What Motorola is doing is stifling it. Last I checked when looking at the Nexus One and the Droid and what the devs have done for them. Whether it be Pete, Cyanogen, Koush, XDA, etc.. is far more innovative because they were ALLOWED to. Now that is being taken away.

"It is moot. If someone removes it OR if the same person NEVER uses it because it is "trialware/vendor spam" there is no difference. NONE, Zero, zip, zilch, nada."

How can you look into the future to determine if someone will use it or not? The mere fact that it is able to be deleted may cause potential partners to be disinterested.

"Last I checked when looking at the Nexus One and the Droid and what the devs have done for them. Whether it be Pete, Cyanogen, Koush, XDA, etc.. is far more innovative because they were ALLOWED to. Now that is being taken away"

Yes theyhave all done great things for people interested in those things. However dont forget who made it possible for them to even get going on this phone.. MOTOROLA.. and if its becomes less lucrative, we just wont see that many other devices come out. Thats what i mean by less innovation.. meaning less products.

"As for stealing IP by porting it to another phone there is a defense for that. Cyanogen can no longer include Google apps in his ROMs and the package has to be downloaded separately. Same can be done with the Blur/Sense components"

And who can assure this? Who in this community can assure that no porting will take place? No one.. and so a company has to protect themselves.

 

[sin vicious]

Yes Android uses the Apache license but it also has code, being in the linux kernel patches themselves, that are GPL V2 and because of this anything that relies on these patches is by default covered under the GPL V2 as stated in the excerpt from the article I posted. So regardless of the licensing being touted by Google, et al. the GPL V2 comes into play in this instance. Which is why I contacted the FSF for further clarification as to whether or not there is a legal issue. IF there is I will then request that this issue be pursued and rectified. Either by removing the GPL'd code which would essentially cripple Android OR by forcing the hardware manufacturers whether it be Motorola, Samsung, etc... to open their bootloaders and allow root access easily and have a safe backup and restore method similar to that used on the Droid with a .SBF file. Richard Stallman is coming to visit my workplace in a few weeks to talk with some friends and I am going to ask his opinion on this as well to see if there is any merit.

I'm not a lawyer and I'll be the first to admit that quite a bit of the "legalese" of the licenses go over my head. You may be right, I don't know if such a case is fruitful but you could be right.

However, the portions of the linux kernel that fall under GPL v2 are mentioned on the page I linked and explicitly states "with system exceptions". Regardless of what those exceptions are, I believe that when Google states their reasoning for choosing the licensing they did for Android is to allow manufactures to lock down their devices (paraphrased of course), they probably looked into it.

I understand your reasons for being upset. It's a testament to the device that it is desirable enough to cause such frustration. I don't agree with your approach to the problem, but this is the internet, no need to always agree.

Unfortunately because Motorola is a corporation this is the only way to approach the situation. Motorola will not listen to the consumer unless the vast majority of them forgo the purchase of a Droid X for a competing manufacturers device.

Then this should be the goal..

 

[Hiroller173]

As soon as I heard that Verizon wanted to charge for tethering, I figured the end was near... When mods can offer something for free that the carriers want to charge for, the carriers are going to insist on control. Their purchasing power and/or partnership agreements are much more directly and personally important than the customer relationship - unless enough customers make a big enough stink. I personally just stunk up Motorola's email with my complaint and promise to go elsewhere for my next phone.

 

[Darkseider]

I'm not a lawyer and I'll be the first to admit that quite a bit of the "legalese" of the licenses go over my head. You may be right, I don't know if such a case is fruitful but you could be right.

However, the portions of the linux kernel that fall under GPL v2 are mentioned on the page I linked and explicitly states "with system exceptions". Regardless of what those exceptions are, I believe that when Google states their reasoning for choosing the licensing they did for Android is to allow manufactures to lock down their devices (paraphrased of course), they probably looked into it.

I understand your reasons for being upset. It's a testament to the device that it is desirable enough to cause such frustration. I don't agree with your approach to the problem, but this is the internet, no need to always agree.

Unfortunately because Motorola is a corporation this is the only way to approach the situation. Motorola will not listen to the consumer unless the vast majority of them forgo the purchase of a Droid X for a competing manufacturers device.

Then this should be the goal..

It is one of the goals. The other is to approach it from a legal standpoint to see if there is a licensing violation. If so either Android in general is in violation if so the software issues will have to be rectified to remove the offending code. If the offending code cannot be removed without stopping Android in its' tracks then the licensing has to change or Android ceases as we know it. If the licensing changes that means that the hardware manufacturers will be in violation and will have to open bootloaders and offer an easy root method as well as restore method OR they stop making Android phones. Any of these outcomes works for me. Regardless of the "Do no evil" mantra of Google if there is a problem it needs to be fixed. Period. Innovation at the cost of Freedom isn't worth a damned thing.

 

[Jmart922]

If all future moto phones will be affected then that's too bad, I was looking forward to the 2ghz phone they were talking about, and seeing custom themes/Over clocking on that baby

 

[sin vicious]

Unfortunately because Motorola is a corporation this is the only way to approach the situation. Motorola will not listen to the consumer unless the vast majority of them forgo the purchase of a Droid X for a competing manufacturers device.

Then this should be the goal..

It is one of the goals. The other is to approach it from a legal standpoint to see if there is a licensing violation. If so either Android in general is in violation if so the software issues will have to be rectified to remove the offending code. If the offending code cannot be removed without stopping Android in its' tracks then the licensing has to change or Android ceases as we know it. If the licensing changes that means that the hardware manufacturers will be in violation and will have to open bootloaders and offer an easy root method as well as restore method OR they stop making Android phones. Any of these outcomes works for me. Regardless of the "Do no evil" mantra of Google if there is a problem it needs to be fixed. Period. Innovation at the cost of Freedom isn't worth a damned thing.

We shall see, but from the looks of it your wrong. The market is proving that consumers still want this phone. This phone sold out in 2 hours from every best buy and verizon store i know in my county.