As part of my pledge not to buy devices that aren't unlockable, I returned my phone today. Even though I was one of the lucky ones who managed to unlock it, on principle, I won't pay for devices that I can't take ownership of the software on. I did get half of my restocking fee waived; here's how I did it.
First off, before you even begin trying to convince someone else that you're right, you have to convince yourself. After all, if you don't think you're right, how do you expect anyone else to take your point of view? Luckily, if you choose to return this device because it isn't what was advertised, you are right. The reason why I expect to be able to return the phone is that it simply isn't the same device that I bought. When I bought the device, on day 1, it was an HTC One -- like every other HTC One, it was factory-unlockable. Any device that anybody calls an HTC One, until then, was an unlockable phone. And, indeed, on day 1, it was -- up until Verizon removed the feature that I purchased on, around 24 hours later.
So, just like it would be if you bought an HTC One, and instead it was made out of cheap polycarbonate (sorry, SGS4 fanboys!) instead of aluminum, you bought something that was different than you were expecting to buy. (When someone sells you something that's not what you got in a way that affects its value or utility, that means that it's "materially different"; that is to say, it's different in a way that caused you to do something different than you otherwise would have.) In that case, you're right to return the device, and obviously you shouldn't pay fees to someone who sold you something materially different than what you thought you were buying.
Now that you're convinced that you shouldn't pay a restocking fee, how do you do it?
I walked into a Verizon Wireless store (in my case, the one on San Tomas Expy., in Santa Clara, CA), and clearly told the man at the door -- the manager -- what my problem is, and what I'd like. I told him that I'd like to return the device, and why I felt that I should be refunded, without going into much detail. He agreed, and said that I'd have to call customer service to have the fee waived and applied as a credit, but that he'd be happy to help in any way he could. He suggested that I call *611 first to make sure that I'd get it waived, and then he'd process it; so, I did.
It got somewhat more hairy there. The person who initially answered my call to *611 said that she wouldn't be able to do anything, and under no circumstances would she be able to refund my restocking fee. I expected this, and you should too: the first-level drones can't do anything for you (but you should be polite to them anyway). She offered to transfer me to a "customer satisfaction representative", which I happily accepted.
We went back and forth a few times. One of the things that they will tell you is that once you return the phone, they can't sell it as new anymore; you can respond by saying that you understand that it doesn't have as much value to them, but that it simply doesn't work for your purposes, and that they have an obligation to refund you for something that's materially different from what they advertised. They may have to speak to the store manager; that's okay, let them. Be patient and polite, but firm.
They may begin offering compromises. At this point, it's up to you. For instance, I was offered a $10 credit; I decided that wasn't good enough. You can remind the person on the phone of how long you've been a customer, if you have that sort of status -- again, be polite, but firm. I was eventually offered a refund of half of the restocking fee, which I took (applied as a credit to my account).
But, if that's not good enough for you, you don't have to take it. Depending on how much you value your time, you have other opportunities. You can talk to your credit card issuer; again, be patient and polite. (If you're talking to an issuer, don't use the word "unlock", since they can very easily confuse it with a SIM unlock. Be perfectly clear -- refer to the feature as "the HTCDev feature", or "custom software support".) They may be willing to refund your money, and then they'll work it out with Verizon Wireless later.
If you have *way* too much free time, you could even use small claims court. Again, remember that phrase, "materially different" -- it is! You don't need a lawyer to go to small claims court (and, indeed, in many small claims courts, lawyers aren't allowed!).
tl;dr: Yes, it's possible to return your One with either no restocking fee or a reduced restocking fee. You shouldn't settle for a phone that you don't control -- as the EFF says, 'you own it, you pwn it'. If it bothers you, you should put your money where your mouth is, and return it -- then, but a phone that's unlockable.
joshua_ said:
As part of my pledge not to buy devices that aren't unlockable, I returned my phone today. Even though I was one of the lucky ones who managed to unlock it, on principle, I won't pay for devices that I can't take ownership of the software on. I did get half of my restocking fee waived; here's how I did it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait, are you saying that you were able to return your bootloader unlocked/tampered phone? How did you get them to do that? I'm only asking because I am in the exact same situation as you and potentially thinking about getting the Moto X coming out this week. *flamesuit for that phone* lol
They let you unlock it via the HTC site, for a day at least. I feel that would still allow you to return it. The warranty is voided but there is nothing that stated you cannot return it. I'd think based on that you'd have a great argument too return it.
sent from my blue police box flying through time.....
Syn Ack said:
Wait, are you saying that you were able to return your bootloader unlocked/tampered phone? How did you get them to do that? I'm only asking because I am in the exact same situation as you and potentially thinking about getting the Moto X coming out this week. *flamesuit for that phone* lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They don't check.
I exchanged my unlocked One for another and then unlocked that one as well.
Well you weren't really "duped" per say. Its not like Verizon's like "Hey come check out the HTC One!!! Its boot loader unlocked!!!"
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
karn101 said:
They don't check.
I exchanged my unlocked One for another and then unlocked that one as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you managed to get and unlock two phones in less than the 24 hours we had to unlock the phone?
Sent from my locked Verizon HTC One
crazyg0od33 said:
So you managed to get and unlock two phones in less than the 24 hours we had to unlock the phone?
Sent from my locked Verizon HTC One
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes. First one had a dead pixel. Jumped on the train and went through the rain to the store because I knew HTCDEV would be locked down. Exhanged it, double and triple checked the new one. Ran home and unlocked it again.
karn101 said:
Yes. First one had a dead pixel. Jumped on the train and went through the rain to the store because I knew HTCDEV would be locked down. Exhanged it, double and triple checked the new one. Ran home and unlocked it again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow thats fast AND lucky haha
Syn Ack said:
Wait, are you saying that you were able to return your bootloader unlocked/tampered phone? How did you get them to do that? I'm only asking because I am in the exact same situation as you and potentially thinking about getting the Moto X coming out this week. *flamesuit for that phone* lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All I did was put a stock recovery on it, put it in the box, and bring it back to the store. (I sure didn't relock it first, since it would still say tampered, and then if they rejected it, I'd have a phone that both said "tampered" *and* was locked. ****ty situation!)
Usually I would feel bad about bringing a phone back to the store that said "tampered", or otherwise that I had modified in such a way that they couldn't do their normal reconditioning process on it. In this case, they screwed me; it's on them.
antp121 said:
Well you weren't really "duped" per say. Its not like Verizon's like "Hey come check out the HTC One!!! Its boot loader unlocked!!!"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, but they did say "Come check out the HTC One" -- not, "the HTC One Minus", or "the HTC One, Almost", or "the HTC One-like". Different people look for different features; again, think about what it would be if the Verizon HTC One was made out of polycarb, instead of aluminum. I don't care, as long as the fit and finish is still as good, but I can imagine that someone out there would -- and it wouldn't be an HTC One.
You make a good point that I should clarify, though. They don't have to explicitly advertise something -- the important bit is what a reasonable person would be lead to believe.
joshua_ said:
All I did was put a stock recovery on it, put it in the box, and bring it back to the store. (I sure didn't relock it first, since it would still say tampered, and then if they rejected it, I'd have a phone that both said "tampered" *and* was locked. ****ty situation!)
Usually I would feel bad about bringing a phone back to the store that said "tampered", or otherwise that I had modified in such a way that they couldn't do their normal reconditioning process on it. In this case, they screwed me; it's on them.
No, but they did say "Come check out the HTC One" -- not, "the HTC One Minus", or "the HTC One, Almost", or "the HTC One-like". Different people look for different features; again, think about what it would be if the Verizon HTC One was made out of polycarb, instead of aluminum. I don't care, as long as the fit and finish is still as good, but I can imagine that someone out there would -- and it wouldn't be an HTC One.
You make a good point that I should clarify, though. They don't have to explicitly advertise something -- the important bit is what a reasonable person would be lead to believe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes but an unlocked bootloader is not a feature and is definitely not promised. Its like someone saying that vzw One is not the same because of the logos on the back. Tbh I don't think you should've gotten a discounted restocking fee because of the bootloader. I think the fee is bs to begin with but this does not count as legitimate reason. You say a reasonable person would be lead to believe but that's basically assuming and making inferences with data going against your claims. Have any Verizon devices been unlockable in the past? Very few with less and less with the passing time. Not trying to flame you I just don't like people complaining about buying a locked device with expectations higher than they should be lol
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
antp121 said:
Yes but an unlocked bootloader is not a feature and is definitely not promised. Its like someone saying that vzw One is not the same because of the logos on the back. Tbh I don't think you should've gotten a discounted restocking fee because of the bootloader. I think the fee is bs to begin with but this does not count as legitimate reason. You say a reasonable person would be lead to believe but that's basically assuming and making inferences with data going against your claims. Have any Verizon devices been unlockable in the past? Very few with less and less with the passing time. Not trying to flame you I just don't like people complaining about buying a locked device with expectations higher than they should be lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good points.
I'd argue that it *is* a real feature -- it's something that you care about, and that I care about, and that most of us care about, to be sure! Being able to control and verify the software running on my device is very valuable to me.
This is not just a hypothetical -- I *did* buy the device because when I bought it, it was unlockable. I checked XDA, and it was unlockable on HTCDev; there exist other Verizon devices (like my Thunderbolt!) that are unlockable on HTCDev, and my current phone -- the Galaxy Nexus -- is also an unlockable device. So it's not unheardof to have an unlockable Verizon phone, though I will grant you that it is getting more rare with time.
I don't think I would have complained if it were not unlockable on day 1. Everybody checks before they buy; I think your argument was that "if you don't check, you're not a reasonable person" -- and that sure is true. What idiot *doesn't* go on XDA first before they buy a phone? The thing that got me is that I bought it with the ultimately reasonable expectation that it'd stay an unlockable device. Even though my device was unlocked, an unlocked device without a community is basically as good as a locked device.
So you're totally right. If I had bought a locked device, and expected it to be unlockable, then I'd be an idiot. But for those of you who got screwed on day 1 -- or bought the device with the reasonable expectation that it'd be unlockable, and then it wasn't -- you probably have a real case.
Whistle whistle whistle...
joshua_ said:
Good points.
I'd argue that it *is* a real feature -- it's something that you care about, and that I care about, and that most of us care about, to be sure! Being able to control and verify the software running on my device is very valuable to me.
This is not just a hypothetical -- I *did* buy the device because when I bought it, it was unlockable. I checked XDA, and it was unlockable on HTCDev; there exist other Verizon devices (like my Thunderbolt!) that are unlockable on HTCDev, and my current phone -- the Galaxy Nexus -- is also an unlockable device. So it's not unheardof to have an unlockable Verizon phone, though I will grant you that it is getting more rare with time.
I don't think I would have complained if it were not unlockable on day 1. Everybody checks before they buy; I think your argument was that "if you don't check, you're not a reasonable person" -- and that sure is true. What idiot *doesn't* go on XDA first before they buy a phone? The thing that got me is that I bought it with the ultimately reasonable expectation that it'd stay an unlockable device. Even though my device was unlocked, an unlocked device without a community is basically as good as a locked device.
So you're totally right. If I had bought a locked device, and expected it to be unlockable, then I'd be an idiot. But for those of you who got screwed on day 1 -- or bought the device with the reasonable expectation that it'd be unlockable, and then it wasn't -- you probably have a real case.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree almost 100% however, I still wouldn't consider an unlockable bootloader as a "feature". It was pretty dumb vzw locking it up day 1, but once again, that happened with the Rezound, inc 4g lte and the Droid DNA iirc. They all were unlockable for a short amount of time before Verizon pulled the plug. Its just a matter of time before either:
A) HTC finds it in their hearts to reopen htcdev for vzw skus (highly unlikey)
B) some genius finds an exploit.
The unlocking of the bootloader is very important to me but I've learned to have VERY low expectations with anything verizon gets their hands on haha
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
antp121 said:
I agree almost 100% however, I still wouldn't consider an unlockable bootloader as a "feature". It was pretty dumb vzw locking it up day 1, but once again, that happened with the Rezound, inc 4g lte and the Droid DNA iirc. They all were unlockable for a short amount of time before Verizon pulled the plug. Its just a matter of time before either:
A) HTC finds it in their hearts to reopen htcdev for vzw skus (highly unlikey)
B) some genius finds an exploit.
The unlocking of the bootloader is very important to me but I've learned to have VERY low expectations with anything verizon gets their hands on haha
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
#blameant
At what point did they promise "you'd own the software" or an unlocked bootloader... I know I'm going to get a lot of **** for this but seriously get off your high-horse and stop trying to manipulate the system. When you get screwed over that's one thing. Nowhere does it say that you can root, rom, or unlock a device. It's assumed risk...
---------- Post added at 05:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:43 AM ----------
joshua_ said:
Good points.
I'd argue that it *is* a real feature -- it's something that you care about, and that I care about, and that most of us care about, to be sure! Being able to control and verify the software running on my device is very valuable to me.
This is not just a hypothetical -- I *did* buy the device because when I bought it, it was unlockable. I checked XDA, and it was unlockable on HTCDev; there exist other Verizon devices (like my Thunderbolt!) that are unlockable on HTCDev, and my current phone -- the Galaxy Nexus -- is also an unlockable device. So it's not unheardof to have an unlockable Verizon phone, though I will grant you that it is getting more rare with time.
I don't think I would have complained if it were not unlockable on day 1. Everybody checks before they buy; I think your argument was that "if you don't check, you're not a reasonable person" -- and that sure is true. What idiot *doesn't* go on XDA first before they buy a phone? The thing that got me is that I bought it with the ultimately reasonable expectation that it'd stay an unlockable device. Even though my device was unlocked, an unlocked device without a community is basically as good as a locked device.
So you're totally right. If I had bought a locked device, and expected it to be unlockable, then I'd be an idiot. But for those of you who got screwed on day 1 -- or bought the device with the reasonable expectation that it'd be unlockable, and then it wasn't -- you probably have a real case.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so based on you "PERSONAL' preferences you are mad cause they didn't meet them. You knew there was a risk of this... If not you seriously need to rethink what to expect. Saying that I could argue that fact that I wish my phone could kill people cause it's important to me...
---------- Post added at 05:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 AM ----------
antp121 said:
I agree almost 100% however, I still wouldn't consider an unlockable bootloader as a "feature". It was pretty dumb vzw locking it up day 1, but once again, that happened with the Rezound, inc 4g lte and the Droid DNA iirc. They all were unlockable for a short amount of time before Verizon pulled the plug. Its just a matter of time before either:
A) HTC finds it in their hearts to reopen htcdev for vzw skus (highly unlikey)
B) some genius finds an exploit.
The unlocking of the bootloader is very important to me but I've learned to have VERY low expectations with anything verizon gets their hands on haha
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This post right here is 100% accurate. And obviously someone who understands the truth behind this.
A "reasonable" person knows that Verizon loves to lock their boot loaders up tight.
You got lucky to get the fee waived or partially waived. Nobody should expect to get theirs waived for this reason.
I'm keeping my One. I have faith in our devs and know that I'll soon be able to unlock.
Sent from my HTC One.
Bottom line is that in retail you can get what you want if you are willing to be their fly in the ointment (or PITA). As illustrated by the OP, you can be a nuisance, even without being rude, and get your way.
I personally would pay the restocking fee instead of dealing with the hastle of haggling over it. Not worth my time and stress. But hats off to those that can stick to their guns and get a refund. I just hope I'm not behind you in line cause we'll be here forever
Sent using xda app-developers app
Wow, you got duped. I've never paid restocking. And they've never had to get permission from corporate to do it. The manager on site can waive your restocking fee and if they feel they will lose business if they don't waive it, they will.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4
Related
It suddenly occurred to me that the main reason HTC has locked our handsets is that they don't want to deal with bogus warranty claims and the labor costs thereof. You unlock your G2's NAND, you fry your handset by overclocking too high or doing something else stupid to brick it, and then say "HURR DURR I DUNNO HOW IT GOT THAT WAY." Then they have to expend resources to determine whether or not you screwed it up.
So, what if we paid them in advance for that labor? What if we sent in our handset to have it factory un-write-protected for, say, $20-$50? Would you agree to this kind of deal?
Hell no.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Hell no all phones that I pay full price for should come completely unlocked. Let's face it these new phones are full blown computers these days. You would expect to buy a computer and have to pay extra for the right to add or delete software would you? The only way I would expect this would be if you got special pricing with a contract stateing that you are not allowed to do such things.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
shortlived said:
Hell no all phones that I pay full price for should come completely unlocked. Let's face it these new phones are full blown computers these days. You would expect to buy a computer and have to pay extra for the right to add or delete software would you? The only way I would expect this would be if you got special pricing with a contract stateing that you are not allowed to do such things.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Should" and "will" are two very different things. HTC incurs much more risk with a handset than Toshiba or Dell do with a computer -- for one thing, you can't "brick" a computer. The recovery process with a computer is significantly more standardized and easy to perform than on a smartphone. Computers don't include cellular hardware that is a jealously guarded secret from the user, that has to be accessed with binary blob drivers, that can become irreversibly software-busted if you screw up a software update.
Should there be a standardized cell phone recovery/imaging system so that it's not possible to brick ANY cell phone that uses it? Absolutely. Go develop it. No manufacturer will use it. It's not in their financial interests to do so.
If, however, enough people were to make it clear to a company like HTC that we as hobbyists were willing to incur risk and sign away our right to demand that HTC fix our mistakes... something might start to get through the cracks.
This of course ignores the fact that manufacturers and carriers like to be able to put crapware on our phones that we can't remove... but it's a start.
I think it's a fair question because so many people tool around, brick their phones and try to get a free replacement somehow. So, I'm not mad at these companies for locking their stuff down. I would not pay extra, but I would jump ship to any company that offers an unlocked phone. I think that would send the best message.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
no i wouldnt pay but i would allow them to black list my imei in trade for them unlocking the nand.
Now for the people that dont understand what im saying. I am saying that HTC should make a software for unlocking the nand but before it unlocks it reads your imei and sends it to them so they know who unlocked and who didnt
I already paid them right? Why would I have to do it again. Maybe it should be the other way around and you can buy a nand locked phone for extra $$. But let say for a lower cost than insurance?
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Yes I agree however I blame the people who don't read instructions and try to turn in they're phone. Just pay for insurance and pay the full deductable or don't try changing anything. But that's just a pipe dream. Too many people just don't read enough before doing stuff.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Would you pay nike money so you could were your shoes after you bought them from the mall. Why would I pay you to give me acsess to my own phone it should come that way
xile6 said:
no i wouldnt pay but i would allow them to black list my imei in trade for them unlocking the nand.
Now for the people that dont understand what im saying. I am saying that HTC should make a software for unlocking the nand but before it unlocks it reads your imei and sends it to them so they know who unlocked and who didnt
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would rather have this as well. I already paid for the phone. It is mine. If they are worried about me making bogus warranty claims, then I should be able to opt-out and get full access to my device in return.
The imei number idea I kind of like. Instead of 'blacklisting', let me sign a release of liability where I register my serial number and by doing so waiver any liability from that point on
Sent from deep inside my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
hell no, we won't go! Hell no, we won't go!! Hell no, we won't go!!! Hell no, we won't go!!!!
So when your phone legitimately fails due to a hardware issue you can pay full price for a new one? Why would anyone opt for this? That's not even legally feasible. It would violate lemon laws all over the place.
I would be willing to up to $40 so long as there were guaranteed to be tons of ROMS, themes, recovery options, etc... I want my G1 development back!
Only because I'm inpatient however, and sick of waiting for full root and custom recovery. Basically anyone who pledged in the fun money for dev's thread would be saying yes.
gravis86 said:
I would rather have this as well. I already paid for the phone. It is mine. If they are worried about me making bogus warranty claims, then I should be able to opt-out and get full access to my device in return.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is precisely what we do when we agree to "root/unlock" our phones. Essentially voiding our warranty, people who do it accept and understand the risks. HTC, make a legal agreement and we'll all accept it in return you let us Nand unlock!!!
Thanks.
*HOPE A HTC REPRESENTATIVE READS THIS**
Ya, if I didn't pay full price for the phone. Nand locked=discounted price, nand unlocked=full price-- warranty includes movable parts only
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
shortlived said:
Hell no all phones that I pay full price for should come completely unlocked. Let's face it these new phones are full blown computers these days. You would expect to buy a computer and have to pay extra for the right to add or delete software would you? The only way I would expect this would be if you got special pricing with a contract stateing that you are not allowed to do such things.
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50-to-unlock-stuff-your-cpu-can-already-d/
*EDIT*
I forgot to add, this is completely ridiculous.. I want my G2 fully unlocked asap, including SIM unlocked.
My Bounty is already up. If HTC wants to take it to unlock our phones. They can
Simunlock i can do for you heheh
Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using XDA App
I'd bet fewer than 10% of users root their phones, figure a 10% brick rate among those people and that's 1%. Now ask yourself what percentage of people phisically break their phones? Having said that, one thing is controllable the other isn't .
BTW....HELL NO!!!
I've been long time iOS dev/user but I'm considering jumping ship and getting the Note 2. I'm a Verizon user though and I'm not really interested in switching carriers right now. My concern is that since I see that the S3 from Verizon had a locked bootloader, is it likely that the Note 2 will as well? I'm sure no one knows, because it's not been released yet, but maybe...just maybe...some nice Verizon tester might spill the beans before release :fingers-crossed:
I'm no dev but I have a vzw gs3 that shipped with a locked bootloader and thanks to an African Canadian sock monkey its unlocked now! with as popular as the note was and the fact that it'll finally be coming to big red I would imagine another sock monkey would grace us *fingers crossed*
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
If it comes locked, I have confidence that someone at XDA will get it unlocked or work around it.
mcsenerd said:
I've been long time iOS dev/user but I'm considering jumping ship and getting the Note 2. I'm a Verizon user though and I'm not really interested in switching carriers right now. My concern is that since I see that the S3 from Verizon had a locked bootloader, is it likely that the Note 2 will as well? I'm sure no one knows, because it's not been released yet, but maybe...just maybe...some nice Verizon tester might spill the beans before release :fingers-crossed:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
verizon likes to use the locked bootloader, i dont think they do this just to be difficult, i think it more effectively separates the people who want to try stuff but have zero clue what they are doing from ruining their phone (sometimes) by hozing a rom load.
i am no expert, but i anyone can google a rom, and anyone can load cwm or twrp (usually) and root a phone... by adding an extra step before you can load roms it forces people to either a: read long post with step by step instructions to do it properely, or dl a tool to do it for them, at which point they will also usually find tools and instructions not to hose their phone when loading roms...
is it annoying? sure... but its not the end of the world...
With Verizon, they don't really want you to own your phone. They want to make it difficult to remove all the crap they load onto it so that they can make extra money from selling devices. That's why they fought so hard against selling the Galaxy Nexus and pushed everyone to the Droid Razr.
lnxbz said:
With Verizon, they don't really want you to own your phone. They want to make it difficult to remove all the crap they load onto it so that they can make extra money from selling devices. That's why they fought so hard against selling the Galaxy Nexus and pushed everyone to the Droid Razr.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Didn't Verizon lost a case against a customer on installing wifi ethering app? That was a good day for consumers.
yes the bootloader will be locked
http://briefmobile.com/exclusive-verizon-samsung-galaxy-note-2-bootloader-locked
littleguevara said:
yes the bootloader will be locked
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's disappointing even if not entirely unexpected. I'm sure that it will be worked around in due time, but I do wish it wasn't an unnecessary roadblock there in the first place. Although, I will say that Apple's been pretty successful in squashing the jailbreakers on the A5 and up devices thus far. Done right...it's not always so easy to break through against crap like this.
someone0 said:
Didn't Verizon lost a case against a customer on installing wifi ethering app? That was a good day for consumers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that the FCC ruled that blocking tethering on the LTE bands is a violation of the requirements for them. Not sure how likely that will stop Verizon though.
ronaldheld said:
If it comes locked, I have confidence that someone at XDA will get it unlocked or work around it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this is the wrong way around it IMHO. vote with your money: don't buy, do switch carriers.
sometimes i wish hackers stopped hacking locked bootloaders and iphones. people should start taking responsibility for their purchase decisions. awww u bought that locked phone?? well, throw it out the window when u r finished paying for it and next time around try choosing better! if people stopped buying they would stop locking.
Lanchon said:
this is the wrong way around it IMHO. vote with your money: don't buy, do switch carriers.
sometimes i wish hackers stopped hacking locked bootloaders and iphones. people should start taking responsibility for their purchase decisions. awww u bought that locked phone?? well, throw it out the window when u r finished paying for it and next time around try choosing better! if people stopped buying they would stop locking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, if you buy something you should own it, right. At least that's the idea. To me, at least locking the bootloader on open platform is wrong. If the carrier want to lock it, do it on iPhone and Windows phone. But I do agree that you should vote with your money AND VOICE. Let other people know about it too. Company like Verizon not gonna change if you aren't being vocal about it. But seriously, don't hope that XDA will just can unlock anything. If you go look for Motorola Photon 4G and you unlock the bootloader, you will break 4G. It have been out for over a year now and have still have no complete unlock.
someone0 said:
Well, if you buy something you should own it, right. At least that's the idea. To me, at least locking the bootloader on open platform is wrong. If the carrier want to lock it, do it on iPhone and Windows phone. But I do agree that you should vote with your money AND VOICE. Let other people know about it too. Company like Verizon not gonna change if you aren't being vocal about it. But seriously, don't hope that XDA will just can unlock anything. If you go look for Motorola Photon 4G and you unlock the bootloader, you will break 4G. It have been out for over a year now and have still have no complete unlock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the thing. Most people buy it under contract, and the court ruling in 1998 treats this subsidization like a loan. You don't own the device until the contractual agreement is met whether by termination fee or by completing the contract. They also said there has to be a diminishing return on the termination fee which we have now on all carriers.
Sometimes theres not much choice, if i want the note 2 and don't want to be stuck on 2g or no service than I HAVE to pick verizon or buy a new home somewhere else... Ill pick verizon and xda to unlock instead of moving my family
Sent from my MB870 using xda app-developers app
You don't have to choose Verizon. You can just not have service which affects Verizon's bottom line which in turn affects their choices. This will affect all carriers. Make them work harder for your money.
By percentage those of use who will "strike" until we get an unlocked bootloader are too small economically to make a difference, IMO.
Which is why there are so few choices to begin with for decent service, in almost every city you have choices, out in the boonies we just don't have providers.
Sent from my MB870 using xda app-developers app
What is this crap. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105...king-of-smartphones-becomes-illegal-saturday/
Not a fan of this
Heres my thoughts. Everybody will ***** and complain about this, but nobody will do anything about it. They will not tell us what we can and cant do with OUR own property. Sure, its now illegal to unlock our phones. The solution is simple, stop buying phones from all the carriers! Everybody stop buying phones and watch them all crumble without us. If everybody is not willing to stick together and make a stand....then dont ***** about the problem.
Sent from my SGH-I747M
While this still does suck you guys do realize this just means carrier unlocking right? Like unlocking so you can use an att phone in tmobile and vice versa. Plus it doesn't sound like it applies if you buy an unlocked phone or get the code from your carrier.
Sent via carrier pigeon...
Already a thread on this.... http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2116859
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda premium
So much for America " the land of the free"
"Free," as in market and due rights. No one said anything about manufacturers property.
Am I the only person in America who never goes to the AT&T store besides when I initially buy my phone? If it breaks, I fix it. It there's cellular issues or internal problems I go online and send it in. People are too dependent on the actual carriers. This is why they enact such measures like this because they know a majority of Americans see no other choice but to be subjected to such laws. From home if I unlock my phone I guarantee AT&T can't detect it and since I never go in to the store, they can't deny insurance that I never buy or warranties I always break after flashing the my phones an hour after I receive them.
Sent from my SGH-I747 using xda app-developers app
Mr Patchy Patch said:
Heres my thoughts. Everybody will ***** and complain about this, but nobody will do anything about it. They will not tell us what we can and cant do with OUR own property. Sure, its now illegal to unlock our phones. The solution is simple, stop buying phones from all the carriers! Everybody stop buying phones and watch them all crumble without us. If everybody is not willing to stick together and make a stand....then dont ***** about the problem.
Sent from my SGH-I747M
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As soon as Google releases an LTE-compliant Nexus (or X Phone, or whatever else they may call it in the future), I will never purchase another carrier/OEM-branded phone again. In fact, I am seriously considering holding on to my S3 until such a phone comes out. LTE is becoming more and more ubiquitous, so it's only a matter of time until an unlocked, unbranded stock Android phone comes out that supports it. After all, the Nexus 4 has LTE capability (not an LTE antenna, though), and some crafty tinkerers managed to get it to connect to LTE.
There is a similar thread over on the TMo side (which is what I have), but I posted this in there.
It is NOT going to be illegal for you to unlock your phone. It WILL be if you do it without the permission of your carrier. That means that T-Mobile and AT&T will have to do it for you. For Verizon (and Maybe Sprint but not sure), there is an FCC requirement that any devices utilizing 700MHz for LTE cannot be locked.
Woody said:
There is a similar thread over on the TMo side (which is what I have), but I posted this in there.
It is NOT going to be illegal for you to unlock your phone. It WILL be if you do it without the permission of your carrier. That means that T-Mobile and AT&T will have to do it for you. For Verizon (and Maybe Sprint but not sure), there is an FCC requirement that any devices utilizing 700MHz for LTE cannot be locked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This fact alone doesn't make it any less BS. We, not the carriers, are the rightful owners of the phone. As such, the decision of what we want to do with our phone should be made by us, not the carriers. Why should we get permission from the carrier to unlock the phone? If, for instance, I buy a Chevrolet, should I be legally required to obtain permission from General Motors before using another manufacturer's parts?
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from and it is BS. But from what I have read on this, it is for phone that are purchased under contract (subsidies). In that case, most people do not own the phone. It is more of a lease until you pay it off at the end. Once the phone is paid off, then you can unlock at will.
As for your Chevy example, let me play devil's advocate. You buy a Chevy and while you don't specifically have to ask them for permission to use a Ford gear shifter, your warranty probably states that only factory supplied or authorized materials can be used, otherwise you void the warranty upon installation. You intall the Ford gear shifter and somehow that destroys your transmission and shreds the gears. Is this covered by GM? They will probably say no because you installed an after-market device that caused the problem.
Woody said:
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from and it is BS. But from what I have read on this, it is for phone that are purchased under contract (subsidies). In that case, most people do not own the phone. It is more of a lease until you pay it off at the end. Once the phone is paid off, then you can unlock at will.
As for your Chevy example, let me play devil's advocate. You buy a Chevy and while you don't specifically have to ask them for permission to use a Ford gear shifter, your warranty probably states that only factory supplied or authorized materials can be used, otherwise you void the warranty upon installation. You intall the Ford gear shifter and somehow that destroys your transmission and shreds the gears. Is this covered by GM? They will probably say no because you installed an after-market device that caused the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just found the article linked below, which states that only phones purchased after January 26, 2013 will be affected by the new law. In other words, we are not affected by this law.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/tech/mobile/smartphone-unlocking-illegal/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
I'd be interested in looking into the logistics behind ownership of subsidized phones. I was always under the impression that a phone subsidy was an incentive to entice customers to sign a two year contract; after all, we are charged an early termination fee if we break the contract early, yet the device is ours to keep. Moreover, there's no formal lease agreement.
I completely agree with your analogy, but it's more applicable to rooting, rather than unlocking. From what I understand, rooting a phone automatically voids its warranty, regardless of manufacturer. Unlocking a phone, on the other hand, never voided the warranty. After all, no additional software is installed as part of the unlock process.
Woody said:
Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from and it is BS. But from what I have read on this, it is for phone that are purchased under contract (subsidies). In that case, most people do not own the phone. It is more of a lease until you pay it off at the end. Once the phone is paid off, then you can unlock at will.
As for your Chevy example, let me play devil's advocate. You buy a Chevy and while you don't specifically have to ask them for permission to use a Ford gear shifter, your warranty probably states that only factory supplied or authorized materials can be used, otherwise you void the warranty upon installation. You intall the Ford gear shifter and somehow that destroys your transmission and shreds the gears. Is this covered by GM? They will probably say no because you installed an after-market device that caused the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've heard even if you buy a phone outright from a provider the law is still upheld even though you bought it out of contract.
---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------
kgbkny said:
I just found the article linked below, which states that only phones purchased after January 26, 2013 will be affected by the new law. In other words, we are not affected by this law.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/tech/mobile/smartphone-unlocking-illegal/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
I'd be interested in looking into the logistics behind ownership of subsidized phones. I was always under the impression that a phone subsidy was an incentive to entice customers to sign a two year contract; after all, we are charged an early termination fee if we break the contract early, yet the device is ours to keep. Moreover, there's no formal lease agreement.
I completely agree with your analogy, but it's more applicable to rooting, rather than unlocking. From what I understand, rooting a phone automatically voids its warranty, regardless of manufacturer. Unlocking a phone, on the other hand, never voided the warranty. After all, no additional software is installed as part of the unlock process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am also curious of they will void the warranty now if a phone is unlocked...
there is no way to relock it either so you'd be screwed
Well I feel like if you buy a phone out right and pay full retail or whatever not the 199.999 2yr contract price then you should be able to do what ever you want to it.
Its like nike saying ok you bought our air max's you can only wear nike socks with them don't let us catch you wear reebok or adidas socks.
dligon said:
Well I feel like if you buy a phone out right and pay full retail or whatever not the 199.999 2yr contract price then you should be able to do what ever you want to it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And you can. If you buy it outright from ATT then they can unlock it for you. You just can't take it down to Unlock City and have them do it.
Now if ATT refuses to unlock it, then there is just cause for you to file a non-compliance complaint against them.
Woody said:
And you can. If you buy it outright from ATT then they can unlock it for you. You just can't take it down to Unlock City and have them do it.
Now if ATT refuses to unlock it, then there is just cause for you to file a non-compliance complaint against them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
do they actually have to by law if you buy it outright?
Probably not by law but it is your property (once paid off) and if you don't have a contract then there should be no ties that bind. Now if you are using THEIR service/bandwidth they can enforce certain criteria based on services rendered.
Anyone can file a complaint, it is just hard to determine where and to whom it would be most effective.
Edit: I think I might get a copy of this law in the morning and read it on the pooper. I have a legal background so I can decipher some legalese. Anyone got a link? Not to another news source, but the actual law.
Woody said:
Probably not by law but it is your property (once paid off) and if you don't have a contract then there should be no ties that bind. Now if you are using THEIR service/bandwidth they can enforce certain criteria based on services rendered.
Anyone can file a complaint, it is just hard to determine where and to whom it would be most effective.
Edit: I think I might get a copy of this law in the morning and read it on the pooper. I have a legal background so I can decipher some legalese. Anyone got a link? Not to another news source, but the actual law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wonder if they could charge you a fee to unlock after you buying it outright
Woody said:
And you can. If you buy it outright from ATT then they can unlock it for you. You just can't take it down to Unlock City and have them do it.
Now if ATT refuses to unlock it, then there is just cause for you to file a non-compliance complaint against them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well att, tmo, probably would honor unlocking the phones. Verizon you may have trouble with as always
Ill never buy a carrier branded phone again
Has anyone tried getting unlock keys by contacting htcdev, i know its a long shot but someone over there might not care and give us what we want.
hood.racer said:
Has anyone tried getting unlock keys by contacting htcdev, i know its a long shot but someone over there might not care and give us what we want.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hahahahahahhahahahahahah......................hahahahahahahahahaha..........
OR....HTC will continue to take it dry and sideways from VZW because they basically have to..... Verizon has absolutely no interest in having unlocked devices on their network. They made it clear they would rather lose the subscribers over it. And HTC won't give in to you because VZW would basically block their devices on their network / not carry HTC in the future.....
Either way, lose lose...
Ultimately, irritating HTC won't do a damn thing for any of us.
You have to be willing to put your money where your mouth is. If you can't tolerate a phone that isn't unlockable, go back to the Verizon store and return it. If you can't tolerate a carrier that thinks that "customer service" is best expressed through the middle finger, then you have to be willing to switch carriers.
I'm not willing to switch carriers yet, but the time may soon come. In the mean time, I believe that I was sold something materially different from what was promised, so when I head back over there Tuesday afternoon, I intend to make sure that there is no restocking fee applied -- and if they push the issue, I'll just issue a chargeback and let my credit card issuer deal with it. (I'll report back with my results afterwards.)
It's sad that I'll end up with an SGS4 dev edition instead, because that phone feels like a cheap plastic toy compared to the One. But at the end of the day, it's like I said -- you have to put your money where your mouth is.
joshua_ said:
I'm not willing to switch carriers yet, but the time may soon come. In the mean time, I believe that I was sold something materially different from what was promised, so when I head back over there Tuesday afternoon, I intend to make sure that there is no restocking fee applied -- and if they push the issue, I'll just issue a chargeback and let my credit card issuer deal with it. (I'll report back with my results afterwards.)
It's sad that I'll end up with an SGS4 dev edition instead, because that phone feels like a cheap plastic toy compared to the One. But at the end of the day, it's like I said -- you have to put your money where your mouth is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You were promised an unlocked phone? Please, show me where...
So you're going to buy a phone for Verizon anyway? That'll show them!
And good luck with the fraudulent chargeback! Let us know how it works out for you.
Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk 4
karn101 said:
You were promised an unlocked phone? Please, show me where...
So you're going to buy a phone for Verizon anyway? That'll show them!
And good luck with the fraudulent chargeback! Let us know how it works out for you.
Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure where I said "I was promised an unlocked phone", specifically.
I was offered an HTC One. The same HTC One as every other carrier -- the same HTC One that was unlockable when I purchased it. There are two things wrong here: that the device isn't the same as every other carrier (and nowhere was it written "come get the HTC One, minus the differentiating flagship feature"); and that the unlocking feature was disabled after I had purchased the device. (Both of these are classified as a "bait & switch".)
You're right that fraud is involved here, but it's not on my part. I'll keep you posted with the results; I'm curious to see whether my issuer will side with me. (I anticipate that they will; this is a pretty clear-cut case of an unethical business practice. Outside of the wireless industry, such a thing is unheardof.)
You are also right that it is sad that I'm stuck on one carrier. I don't believe that other carriers are much better right now, but that is a discussion for another thread. At the same time, there is a direct cost to Verizon when I return this device. Each person who returns their phone without a restocking fee is a small voice, but still speaks. The message is unlikely to be received in time for a turn-around on this phone, but your voices are heard.
I hope you'll consider returning your phone, too. At the least, there is nothing to take pride of in a sig: the only thing that it shows is that you're willing to accept being stepped on.
Good Luck
Honestly, you'd be surprised what you can get when bringing in an outside party. I wrote a letter to my AG during the Sprint / Evo / Fee ordeal, involved the BBB, and MULTIPLE (read over 10) calls to the Sprint retention line. Didn't win, but didn't have to pay my ETF either so it's a mixed bag. I have faith in the dev community to fix this issue, but until then I'll deal with the locked One.
We need to bring it to Verizon, not HTC, but I agree.
andybones said:
We need to bring it to Verizon, not HTC, but I agree.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its funny, usually the response to this is that we are such a small percentage of users Verizon doesn't care. But yet that care so much about this small percentage to block the unlock. Verizon likes to have it both ways. And they go out of their way to stop the unlock, so its something they are actively monitoring and addressing.
joshua_ said:
I'm not sure where I said "I was promised an unlocked phone", specifically.
I was offered an HTC One. The same HTC One as every other carrier -- the same HTC One that was unlockable when I purchased it. There are two things wrong here: that the device isn't the same as every other carrier (and nowhere was it written "come get the HTC One, minus the differentiating flagship feature"); and that the unlocking feature was disabled after I had purchased the device. (Both of these are classified as a "bait & switch".)
You're right that fraud is involved here, but it's not on my part. I'll keep you posted with the results; I'm curious to see whether my issuer will side with me. (I anticipate that they will; this is a pretty clear-cut case of an unethical business practice. Outside of the wireless industry, such a thing is unheardof.)
You are also right that it is sad that I'm stuck on one carrier. I don't believe that other carriers are much better right now, but that is a discussion for another thread. At the same time, there is a direct cost to Verizon when I return this device. Each person who returns their phone without a restocking fee is a small voice, but still speaks. The message is unlikely to be received in time for a turn-around on this phone, but your voices are heard.
I hope you'll consider returning your phone, too. At the least, there is nothing to take pride of in a sig: the only thing that it shows is that you're willing to accept being stepped on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You assumed, you were not promised anything, as you stated. Assuming and being promised are 2 different things. Just because it's unlockable elsewhere doesn't automatically make VZWs version unlockable.
I won't be returning my phone. We have people working on this phone and I have confidence in them that they'll get it done.
Even without unlock, this is the best damn phone I have ever owned.
Sent from my HTC One.
There are still phones on Verizon that have native unlocking. Developer edition phones work on Verizon, and on HTC dev the Thunderbolt and I believe some other Verizon phones are natively unlockable with that tool. They're willing to do it with some phones, just not the majority.
PapaSmurf6768 said:
There are still phones on Verizon that have native unlocking. Developer edition phones work on Verizon, and on HTC dev the Thunderbolt and I believe some other Verizon phones are natively unlockable with that tool. They're willing to do it with some phones, just not the majority.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Such a strange policy though. IIRC, the RAZR HD developer edition didn't just come with an unlocked bootloader, you had to use a Moto tool to do it (like HTCdev). So why is Verizon ok with that but not with a phone they sell in their store?
joshua_ said:
I'm not sure where I said "I was promised an unlocked phone", specifically.
I was offered an HTC One. The same HTC One as every other carrier -- the same HTC One that was unlockable when I purchased it. There are two things wrong here: that the device isn't the same as every other carrier (and nowhere was it written "come get the HTC One, minus the differentiating flagship feature"); and that the unlocking feature was disabled after I had purchased the device. (Both of these are classified as a "bait & switch".)
You're right that fraud is involved here, but it's not on my part. I'll keep you posted with the results; I'm curious to see whether my issuer will side with me. (I anticipate that they will; this is a pretty clear-cut case of an unethical business practice. Outside of the wireless industry, such a thing is unheardof.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm interested to see how this works out for you. I had a full day of meetings on Thursday, then headed straight to the airport with literally no time to go to the VZW store, so I ordered online thinking surely they wouldn't be quick enough to lock it down before it arrives at my house (later today). Massive regret, stupid wishful thinking. I've been searching for places where VZW noted in writing the phone would be the same as on every other carrier, and for legal precedent of features disabled after purchase being included in bait-and-switch. Seems like, logically, that should be the case, but I haven't (in the past hour since I started looking into it...) found anything exactly like this. A car dealer can't exactly change your car's features after you leave the lot, so this is probably sort of a new issue. I'm not an attorney, but I have some experience with legal writing. I can post back if I find anything relevant, or I'd be interested in any info you plan to take with you to support your request, as I would consider doing the same.
(Phew...first post! Sort of nerve-wracking.)
hcage said:
I'm interested to see how this works out for you. I had a full day of meetings on Thursday, then headed straight to the airport with literally no time to go to the VZW store, so I ordered online thinking surely they wouldn't be quick enough to lock it down before it arrives at my house (later today). Massive regret, stupid wishful thinking. I've been searching for places where VZW noted in writing the phone would be the same as on every other carrier, and for legal precedent of features disabled after purchase being included in bait-and-switch. Seems like, logically, that should be the case, but I haven't (in the past hour since I started looking into it...) found anything exactly like this. A car dealer can't exactly change your car's features after you leave the lot, so this is probably sort of a new issue. I'm not an attorney, but I have some experience with legal writing. I can post back if I find anything relevant, or I'd be interested in any info you plan to take with you to support your request, as I would consider doing the same.
(Phew...first post! Sort of nerve-wracking.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well technically it can't be the same as the other carriers because of the LTE bands. Also the software is different due to the pre-loaded Verizon apps. Also I think AT&T has a locked bootloader. I don't think any carrier that you could unlock the bootloader on (T-Mobile and who else?) listed that as a feature.
No harm in trying, I've already started an email thread with support from htcdev. I'll just simply argue that other have gotten unlocked bootloaders so why can't the rest of us. And its also not like its impossible to do or htcdev can't support it, because we have physical proof that it works.
hcage said:
I'm interested to see how this works out for you. I had a full day of meetings on Thursday, then headed straight to the airport with literally no time to go to the VZW store, so I ordered online thinking surely they wouldn't be quick enough to lock it down before it arrives at my house (later today). Massive regret, stupid wishful thinking. I've been searching for places where VZW noted in writing the phone would be the same as on every other carrier, and for legal precedent of features disabled after purchase being included in bait-and-switch. Seems like, logically, that should be the case, but I haven't (in the past hour since I started looking into it...) found anything exactly like this. A car dealer can't exactly change your car's features after you leave the lot, so this is probably sort of a new issue. I'm not an attorney, but I have some experience with legal writing. I can post back if I find anything relevant, or I'd be interested in any info you plan to take with you to support your request, as I would consider doing the same.
(Phew...first post! Sort of nerve-wracking.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't 'bait and switch'. You weren't baited with a unlockable bootloader.
joshua_ said:
I'm not sure where I said "I was promised an unlocked phone", specifically.
I was offered an HTC One. The same HTC One as every other carrier -- the same HTC One that was unlockable when I purchased it. There are two things wrong here: that the device isn't the same as every other carrier (and nowhere was it written "come get the HTC One, minus the differentiating flagship feature"); and that the unlocking feature was disabled after I had purchased the device. (Both of these are classified as a "bait & switch".)
You're right that fraud is involved here, but it's not on my part. I'll keep you posted with the results; I'm curious to see whether my issuer will side with me. (I anticipate that they will; this is a pretty clear-cut case of an unethical business practice. Outside of the wireless industry, such a thing is unheardof.)
You are also right that it is sad that I'm stuck on one carrier. I don't believe that other carriers are much better right now, but that is a discussion for another thread. At the same time, there is a direct cost to Verizon when I return this device. Each person who returns their phone without a restocking fee is a small voice, but still speaks. The message is unlikely to be received in time for a turn-around on this phone, but your voices are heard.
I hope you'll consider returning your phone, too. At the least, there is nothing to take pride of in a sig: the only thing that it shows is that you're willing to accept being stepped on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You were not offered the same HTC One as every other carrier. Sprint's HTC One is different from AT&T's HTC One, which is different from the International Version which is different than the Verizon version. I'm sorry, but your logic is so flawed. You should return it because it has 4.2.2 and AT&T has 4.1.2, according to your logic!
I'm wondering if I'm being trolled.
I probably am. I'll stop feeding now...
Not that its binding, but for what its worth htcdev.com does say: "Devices launched after 9/2011 will be shipped with the unlock capability"
By that logic, the fact that the unlock codes no longer work for the Verizon HTC One is an issue with the HTCdev site. If I am not mistaken, the idea that Verizon was behind the change is technically an assumption (albeit a logical one) on our part.
notitatall said:
Not that its binding, but for what its worth htcdev.com does say: "Devices launched after 9/2011 will be shipped with the unlock capability"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The One is capable of being unlocked via HTC dev, Verizon is just restricting that capability.
karn101 said:
It isn't 'bait and switch'. You weren't baited with a unlockable bootloader.
You were not offered the same HTC One as every other carrier. Sprint's HTC One is different from AT&T's HTC One, which is different from the International Version which is different than the Verizon version. I'm sorry, but your logic is so flawed. You should return it because it has 4.2.2 and AT&T has 4.1.2, according to your logic!
I'm wondering if I'm being trolled.
I probably am. I'll stop feeding now...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, but the fact that it was more functional when you bought it might have some legs. It's like buying a car, and then having the dealership install a padlock on the engine bay a few days later without your consent so only they can service it.
notitatall said:
Not that its binding, but for what its worth htcdev.com does say: "Devices launched after 9/2011 will be shipped with the unlock capability"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cryptyk said:
Yea, but the fact that it was more functional when you bought it might have some legs. It's like buying a car, and then having the dealership install a padlock on the engine bay a few days later without your consent so only they can service it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You didn't buy the phone from HTC. We bought it from Verizon (or its authorized retailers). That unlock capability applies to international versions.
hood.racer said:
Has anyone tried getting unlock keys by contacting htcdev, i know its a long shot but someone over there might not care and give us what we want.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are the definition of optimism.
Just wondering. Why are so many of you buying from Verizon & BestBuy instead of Google?
You do realize the phones not purchased from Google will have a locked bootloader. So why would you buy from Verizon or BestBuy instead of Google, who has the same price and you can use either phones on Verizon if you so choose to do so.
I don't want to say ya'll are dumb, but I kind of feel this way.
I'm sure there is something I'm missing though, so help me understand please.
Are the payment plan options the same? If so that might be one reason. I have Verizon because that's what my employer (who pays for the phone and the bill) uses.
Sent from my SM-N930V using Tapatalk
Believe it or not, not everyone needs a bootloader unlocked these days. My days of tinkering with Android are over as I feel Android is better than ever. It is unfortunate the OP feels that I am dumb because everyone doesn't agree with his way of thinking...
It was also cheaper to purchase from Verizon for a new 2 year cobtract
Sent from my Pixel using XDA-Developers mobile app
I personally ordered mine from Verizon due to my work account, and also don't care about root or unlocked boot loaders since I haven't needed either in several years. That being said I also believe many people have not been buying directly from Google because Google hasn't been able to keep them in stock. Which of course also implies that many people are buying them from Google, lol.
Best Buy is cheaper with a 2 year agreement ($299.99) as well as a 24 month installment ($31 a month), for 32GB version.
Also, best buy is giving a $100 gift card, which you can do whatever you want with. (resell it, use it, etc).
If you are only keeping the phone for two years, and don't care about updates after that, then its probably a better route. After two years, you are SOL for getting an up to date OS.
I had the note 7....the last return I just upgraded to the pixel xl. In exchange So....through Verizon it was.
Its an economic decision for me. In Germany I'll get the Device from T-Mobile Germany for 179€ (around 197 US$) for the renewal of my contract - I think this ist much better than the 1097€ direct from Google. The only downside is that it will have a locked bootloader...I'm still hoping someone finds a way to unlock the bootloaders of the Devices wich doesnt come directly from Google.
I ordered mine from Verizon. I haven't rooted a phone in a long time so locked or unlocked bootloader doesn't really matter for me.
Sent from my SM-N930V using Tapatalk
CZ Eddie said:
You do realize the phones not purchased from Google will have a locked bootloader.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have my phone rooted for Tasker and Xposed, but the Verizon phone can effectively be considerably cheaper right now.
So why would you buy from Verizon or BestBuy instead of Google, who has the same price and you can use either phones on Verizon if you so choose to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best Buy will currently give a $100 gift card if you don't want a new line, a $200 gift card for a new line, another $25 for a sign-up will be available after the pre-order is over, and it can be done with monthly payments to allow porting out or cancelling the line. Verizon has phone trades that total $200-$300, which is done through reduced monthly payments, and my Razr M qualified for $200. Some people have other options on Verizon. Google does not offer similar sort of ways to essentially reduce the phone's cost at this time.
I don't want to say ya'll are dumb, but I kind of feel this way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Personally I question the idea of paying iPhone 7 prices, and since I'm not interested in the VR headset, that's basically what initial Google store customers are doing. As much as I like what Tasker can do with root, I'm not sure it's worth giving up automatic updates and effectively spending another $175 that I could have with $225 in Best Buy gift cards. If it turns out that there are limitations on the Verizon phones for anything other than the bootloader unlock, I'll probably change my opinion, but at this time it looks like Google's bottom-line price is considerably higher than what is possible at Verizon.
Purely inventory for me. Google shipments are a month or more out. They won't even take my money to pre-order it. VZW device I can have in 3 days.
Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
Buying it as a contract renewal over Deutsche Telekom is way cheaper for me, especially because I work there and get a monthly discount on the main contract.
I have to 29,95€ monthly instead of 64,95€ and get the Pixel XL 128 GB for 279,95€ on time fee.
But even the phone for my wife is way cheaper. I paid 19,95€ for here family card without a phone before, now we upgraded it to a contract with phone to 29,95€ a month and also 279,95€ for the small Pixel 32 GB.
Yes, I would also love to have a unlockable bootloader and instant updates from Google but after not rooting phones for a couple of years I will get along with it.
I wanted the one from the google store but didn't feel like waiting for it. I would like to have the bootloader unlocked just for the option but i haven't had time or need to mess with rooting and custom roms, so just having pure android is perfect for me. So for me it made sense to just order from Verizon, everyone has different needs or reasons and i would say for 90% of the people buying this phone has no need to ever unlock the bootloader or even know much about that world of roms and rooting. I thinks its a stretch to insinuate people are dumb for having a choice and choosing one over the other
dbrohrer said:
Troll. Glad you like your OP3. I'm sure there are plenty people on the OP3 threads that agree with you and would love to hear your comments.
I ordered from Verizon because I was able to trade in an old phone for monthly device credit. It should save me $100-200 depending on how long I stay on Verizon DPP. I preordered one from the Google Play Store as well. I don't plan on opening the box from the play store unless the Verizon model upsets me and needs to be returned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whats the point of buying two then? Everything about the Verizon version is the same except for boot loader.....
Buying it directly from Verizon because
1) My job will be paying for it
2) I feel once I have stock Android I don't really need to have root or an unlocked bootloader.
3) Don't have to wait until it comes back in stock via the playstore.
Major discount through employee. 419 vs 869 for xl 128gb and plus availability. Still waiting though as I want to see if anyone cracks that Verizon bootloader within the first month.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
IkeBiker said:
Whats the point of buying two then? Everything about the Verizon version is the same except for boot loader.....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am planning on keeping the Verizon Pixel because it is cheaper for me. As more reviews and info come out that is ACTUALLY reputable, I want to be able to return it to Verizon within the first 2 weeks if I decide there are significant differences between the Verizon version and the Google Play version. If I do that, I want to have the Google Play store Pixel in a box ready for me to switch over. This way I also get to take advantage of the Daydream VR, no matter which device I return.
Since the announcement on October 4th, there has not been any real credible information about the Pixel. Everything has been "so and so said this... Don't buy the Verizon version... etc." Then every Android blog site just blindly regurgitates what was said as if it was real news. NO ONE fact checks. Some CSR at Verizon who doesn't know what a freaking bootloader even is said something, then everyone freaks out and android headlines and forums go crazy. Then someone at Google says something else and everyone takes that as the truth. Does anyone even look at where the info came from? The only group I believe at all at this time is Google Pixel team. If they didn't say it or someone cannot show me in a video with their phone in their hand, I'm not going to believe it.
As long as I am confident that the Verizon pixel will get updates straight from Google when Google promises (just like what I'm used to with Nexus), I don't see a convincing reason not to go with Verizon. I would like the ability to unlock the bootloader so that I can flash the factory images if that promise is not kept. With every new version of Android, I find less need to try custom roms. With what I have seen from 7.1, I don't think I will even have the urge.
destes37 said:
It is unfortunate the OP feels that I am dumb because everyone doesn't agree with his way of thinking...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I regret saying it the way I did.
I don't think you're dumb at all.
XDA is all about development, I guess I'm still surprised when there are people here who don't care about flashing ROM's or backing up in TWRP and even some who apparently don't care about root any longer.
If I didn't care about flashing ROM's (or root), I'd be on a S7 Edge right now.
dbrohrer said:
I am planning on keeping the Verizon Pixel because it is cheaper for me. As more reviews and info come out that is ACTUALLY reputable, I want to be able to return it to Verizon within the first 2 weeks if I decide there are significant differences between the Verizon version and the Google Play version. If I do that, I want to have the Google Play store Pixel in a box ready for me to switch over. This way I also get to take advantage of the Daydream VR, no matter which device I return.
Since the announcement on October 4th, there has not been any real credible information about the Pixel. Everything has been "so and so said this... Don't buy the Verizon version... etc." Then every Android blog site just blindly regurgitates what was said as if it was real news. NO ONE fact checks. Some CSR at Verizon who doesn't know what a freaking bootloader even is said something, then everyone freaks out and android headlines and forums go crazy. Then someone at Google says something else and everyone takes that as the truth. Does anyone even look at where the info came from? The only group I believe at all at this time is Google Pixel team. If they didn't say it or someone cannot show me in a video with their phone in their hand, I'm not going to believe it.
As long as I am confident that the Verizon pixel will get updates straight from Google when Google promises (just like what I'm used to with Nexus), I don't see a convincing reason not to go with Verizon. I would like the ability to unlock the bootloader so that I can flash the factory images if that promise is not kept. With every new version of Android, I find less need to try custom roms. With what I have seen from 7.1, I don't think I will even have the urge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So much this right here. They said this about the Verizon N6 also. That everything would be locked down and look what happened. Nothing was locked down at all. I ordered the Verizon Pixel XL because of this also and i dont really need root anymore. If i am able to root its a plus but not a deal breaker for me.
arcanexvi said:
Purely inventory for me. Google shipments are a month or more out. They won't even take my money to pre-order it. VZW device I can have in 3 days.
Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
.
Yes, I also am grumpy and pissed at google for messing up the "orders / pre-orders". Year after year, they keep screwing up on the first step. They "could" have manufactured an extra 50, 000 and it would not have hurt their economics and it would have greatly helped their public image. Did the 'Note 7' burn put a snag in things ?
.
What if the "big and detailed" reviews start coming in and it shows a narley wart about the phone ? ? ? My biggest, desired attribute is the big leap in the camera ( camcorder ? ) area . . .