Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

https://www.fitzsim.org/blog/?p=545

by pabs3 • 3 years ago

565 343 3 years ago

plorg• 3 years ago

The title of the article is misleading. The author says the phone cannot be bootloader unlocked without first connecting to the Internet. Once they have connected they are able to unlock the bootloader.

jkaplowitz• 3 years ago

Possibly misleading indeed, but not wrong: the state that the phone is in at the moment ownership of the phone changes from Google to the customer has bootloader unlocking disabled.

sundvor2• 3 years ago

I didn't find it misleading at all. In my mind, it implied that there's a solution - albeit not an ideal one.

quadrangle• 3 years ago

The title is precisely correct, but it is easy to infer wrongly "and you can't enable it".

Johnny555• 3 years ago

Which is what makes it misleading.

p1mrx• 3 years ago

The title actually is accurate for the Pixel 2. There are a bunch of those that nobody ever figured out how to unlock:

https://jacobhall.net/2022/01/29/000177/

https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/14920605/google...

BLKNSLVR• 3 years ago

I understood the title, but only because I already knew that Pixel phones were able to have their bootloaders unlocked, so I assumed there was some kind of bar that had to be jumped.

Support for LineageOS is a key issue for me in the purchase of a phone, so Pixels are desirable as a known quantity. I'm not too bothered about having to "do the thing" because so many other phone brands / models either can't be unlocked easily or aren't supported by LineageOS.

Other comments about Pocophone F1 being compatible with PostmarketOS puts that on my watch list.

nelblu• 3 years ago

Yup, I am quite annoyed too with this practice. I have had 3 pixel phones and first thing i do is to unlock and flash calyxos or graphene. Since I always purchase used phones only, I just make it a practice to buy them in cash and unlock at a public WiFi.

glenstein• 3 years ago

I just got myself an old used Pixel phone as a daily driver, and I intend someday to flash it with a lineageOS. It already was somewhat tricky for me, at my skill level, to successfully do this on "ordinary" devices (Nexus 7 and Pixel C tablet), and it seems like getting the Pixel to truly unlock is going to be an added layer of complexity.

ewoodrich• 3 years ago

Not sure if there is an equivalent for LineageOS but GrapheneOS offers an almost completely automated flashing process in Chrome via WebUSB and gives instructions for the actions you need to take on the phone itself when necessary throughout the process (on my Pixel 4a I just needed to press volume up and power to unlock the bootloader when prompted by the installer).

The whole process was amazingly easy when I did it and took less than 15 minutes.

joecool10295• 3 years ago

Request to Google: ungrey the “OEM unlocking” toggle in the factory, before shipping store.google.com devices to customers. Do not make your customers connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want.

That won't happen. I can think of two big reasons off the top of my head:

1. Supply-chain attacks, someone gets a hold of the phone before it gets to you and unlocks the bootloader and then proceeds to modify or install another OS.

2. Warranty reasons, very likely they want to have it phone back and send a record that it was unlocked so they can deny warranty in cases where user damaged the device through software.

wldcordeiro• 3 years ago

I swear it's been a clause in their phones since they were called Nexus instead of Pixel where you breach the warranty when you unlock the bootloader. I never bother anymore but when I used to swap the Android versions myself I recall running into something saying as much.

andrepew• 3 years ago

I don’t think that clause would be enforceable because of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

They can’t deny warranty coverage because of a user modification unless they can prove the modification caused the damage?

pbasista6• 3 years ago

breach the warranty when you unlock the bootloader

Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in the USA, activities such as unlocking the bootloader, launching a service menu, removing a sticker or opening a case cannot by themselves void a device's warranty.

If I understand correctly, in order for the warranty to be voided, it is the manufacturer who has to prove that what you did to the device has indeed damaged it or made it otherwise unsuitable for further warranty service.

Unlocking the bootloader is a reversible action. The phone might implement some one-way unlocking mechanisms though. For example, a fuse which needs to be blown. Or some encryption chip whose private key needs to be erased while a new valid private key can only be generated by the manufacturer. Then it would be a process that is irreversible for a regular customer.

That being said, undertaking such activity would only result in some control mechanism being triggered and some software flag being set. It might be permanent, similar to you scratching the case of your phone. But that does not mean it makes the phone unfit for warranty service.

The phone's functionality would remain unaffected.

It would be on the manufacturer to prove that the presence of a flag indicating an open bootloader is in some way detrimental to the device's functionality.

There might be similar laws elsewhere.

gruez• 3 years ago

3. anti-theft. AFAIK the way that anti-theft features are implemented in android is that the owner's google account information is stored on a partition that survives a wipe, but the actual enforcement of the anti-theft feature is done by the OS itself. If you flash a third party os (eg. grapheneos), you can bypass it. Having phones being "unlocked" in the warehouse or during shipment increases their value to thieves, because they can easily bypass any anti-theft features.

flangola73• 3 years ago

2 is probably not legal. The onus is on a manufacturer to prove that the customer's changes caused damage sufficient to negate their warranty responsibilities.

joecool10295• 3 years ago

When you buy a new car they have the VIN of the car and log any recall repairs done. So not sure how you think the same wouldn't be legal on a phone?

Having a device in their database as NEVER_UNLOCKED takes away any onus from having to look for this in the first place for a large % of users.

Additionally this is kind of important for a company that's had a history of selling devices with hardware defects. It'd be very useful for them to know the RMA rate and whether damage was caused by such a defect or whether it was from a 3rd party software issue.

Squeeze2664• 3 years ago

You don't have access to the data that's sent to Google when you connect the phone to the internet, so how does that help you mitigate or at least be aware of a supply-chain attack? Conversely, if you got a brand new phone, the bootloader is supposed to be locked, so wouldn't you immediately be aware of tampering if it wasn't?

Bran_son2• 3 years ago

As usual, security is used as an excuse to lock down more than is necessary. To prevent the supply chain attack you mention, the boot lock just has to be tamper evident, such as showing a "Bootloader unlocked" message during boot. As is already the case in some phones. Additionally, a way to reset to a factory-verified state could undo such an attack.

Warranty could also easily be achieved by flipping a non-reversible bit that the phone was unlocked at least once. Though even if it couldn't, warranty troubles are not a justification for user-hostile behavior. If it were, they'd use it for all sorts of invasive logging/spying with the excuse they have to know if you used your phone in a way not covered by warranty.

jvanderbot4• 3 years ago

Pixel's are locked down a very tiny bit, and I don't think this is some kind of dystopian over-reach with security as an excuse. For all the security listed in this thread the whole "I must connect to the internet once" problem is a very fair tradeoff from the user's perspective.

rezonant• 3 years ago

It is already the case with Pixel as others have described. https://www.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/...

And the warranty thing is moot, unlock does not void Pixel's warranty

rfoo3• 3 years ago

The two reasons are invalid for Pixel phones:

1. Pixel phones display an "unlocked bootloader" warning (which can't be disabled) during boot. In case it is re-locked with an additional signing key installed (Pixel-s are literally the only phones which you can do this currently in the market), a similar screen with the SHA256 hash of the public key is displayed.

2. Unlocking does not void warranty.

The only reason Google is doing this is they do not want to have two separate SKUs and pay extra cost to configure each phone physically as unlockable or not in the factory.

AaronFriel2• 3 years ago

I don't think the average user would understand what "unlocked bootloader" means, and may even mistake it for a feature or enhancement.

It is a supply chain risk. The Android & Pixel teams walk a fine line here: they risk upsetting an important (but small) user group if they change the language and defaults to "THE BOOTLOADER IS UNLOCKED: USE AT YOUR OWN RISK" or even stronger language and shipping these devices to end users.

joecool10295• 3 years ago

1. Pixel phones display an "unlocked bootloader" warning (which can't be disabled)

Yet. Other manufacturers have the same warning and have had them disabled. (I did it to one of my older moto phones a few years back)

2. Unlocking does not void warranty.

Not by itself, but having a signal in place that it was unlocked lets the manufacturer look for common problems caused by doing things like flashing the wrong device images to critical partitions (go search around a bit for people corrupting EFS on their phones).

Critically Pixel devices do not have a debrick tool that's leaked, at least not for the Qualcomm-based Pixel devices. This means that a brick on any of those partitions means the phone needs a trip back to the depot or a service center that has these tools. Can't be fixed by end-user. Maybe this situation has changed for the Tensor/Samsung pixels but the point is screwing up your device due to flashing incorrect images shouldn't be something the manufacturer needs to foot the bill on.

solarkraft3• 3 years ago

someone gets a hold of the phone before it gets to you and unlocks the bootloader and then proceeds to modify or install another OS

Doesn't the splash screen clearly show some scary warning when the phone was unkocked?

very likely they want to have it phone back and send a record that it was unlocked so they can deny warranty in cases where user damaged the device through software

So burn an e-fuse like Samsung does.

metiscus• 3 years ago

It definitely does. Anytime you reboot under graphene you see what looks like an error message with a web address to visit for several seconds from the phone, before the OS loads.

rkagerer3• 3 years ago

where user damaged the device through software

The fact this is even possible means the device is already broken straight out of the factory.

smnrchrds2• 3 years ago

I bought a Pixel 7 Pro from store.google.com (Canada) ... being sold “unlocked” by Google

Carrier-locking is not permitted in Canada, so all the discussions about where the phone was bought and that the full price was paid are immaterial.

abeyer• 3 years ago

But carrier locking is irrelevant, as the article is about bootloader locking.

public_defender• 3 years ago

It is relevant because the excuse made for disabling bootloader unlocking is that unlocking the bootloader can defeat a carrier lock. They are interrelated.

lern_too_spel• 3 years ago

I thought so too, but in order to show that the device was sold as unlocked, the article has a footnote (#7) about carrier unlocking.

Keep in mind that I bought this phone full price6 from store.google.com, where it was advertised right in the FAQ as an “unlocked smartphone”7

rchaud2• 3 years ago

Is that correct? Phones purchased via carrier are locked to the carrier. The customer has the right to unlock it after the purchase, but the default state of the phone is locked, is it not?

smnrchrds2• 3 years ago

(CRTC) today announced that as of December 1, 2017, all individual and small business wireless service customers will have the right to have their cellphones and other mobile devices unlocked free of charge upon request. In addition, all newly purchased devices must be provided unlocked from that day forward.

https://www.canada.ca/en/radio-television-telecommunications...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-wireless-code-cellphon...

quaintdev2• 3 years ago

This does not make any sense. GrapheneOS supports all pixel phones. In fact, they support pixel phones only.

I am thinking of buying pixel just for this.

Georgelemental• 3 years ago

Bootloader unlocking is disabled until you connect to the internet.

theK• 3 years ago

Just out of curiosity, is it "just" the Internet or "connect to the internet, log in to a foogle account"?

Fire-Dragon-DoL• 3 years ago

What's special about GraphenrOS? It's the first time I'm hearing about it

quaintdev2• 3 years ago

Make phone Google free. More features here https://grapheneos.org/features

Sierra73• 3 years ago

Thats not 100% accurate, if you get the phone directly from certain carriers, they may keep the phone locked. iirc verizon is the worst at it but you can contact them and waste an hour and a half of your life over phone support to get it changed.

Why we have this system in place for phones is just... beyond me.

lopkeny12ko• 3 years ago

This behavior is not new. This has been the case since at least Pixel 3.

damisanet2• 3 years ago

"Magic hostname" mentioned in article (afwprovisioning-pa.googleapis.com) makes me believe this may be related to zero-touch enrollment of Android Enterprise/Android for Work (https://support.google.com/work/android/answer/7514005). I'm sure devices sold to regular customers and enterprises are identical and nobody is going to unbox and pre-provision them before shipment, so unboxed phone needs to contact provisioning server at least once to verify that there is no pending zero-touch enrollment configuration prepared for it (which may prevent bootloader unlocking if device is enterprise-owned).

dingledork698• 3 years ago

That just sounds like "you don't get to own your device"

mlyle• 3 years ago

You get to "own your device" after you connect it to the internet once, to make sure it's not pre-provisioned for enterprise use.

LiamPowell• 3 years ago

This is correct, people generally don't get to own a device provided by their employer. Not allowing the bootloader to be unlocked on company-owned devices seems like a very desirable feature.

Wowfunhappy• 3 years ago

Do you need to actively be connected to the internet while enabling bootloader unlocking, or does the phone merely need to have connected to the internet once at some point?

The latter seems reasonable to me in light of your point about enterprise enrollment. However, I'm confused by nelblu's post downthread[1], which describes using wifi to unlock used phones.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35853135

damisanet2• 3 years ago

According to "Locking/Unlocking the Bootloader" docs (https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/bootloader...), "(...) the user needs to boot to the home screen, open the Settings > System > Developer options menu and enable the OEM unlocking option (...). After setting, this mode persists across reboots and factory data resets.".

My guess would be that if OEM unlocking stays disabled, phone reverts to "greyed-out" setting after each factory reset (yeah, that would be an issue if Google suddenly decides to send Android to graveyard...). I believe actual bootloader unlocking happens inside fastboot mode, outside regular OS and without access to WiFi/cellular data - enabling OEM unlocking is only a prerequisite to actual unlock.

IshKebab• 3 years ago

Yes this is obviously the reason they do it. They don't want to have to flash different firmware for carriers, consumers, enterprises, etc. I think it's kind of reasonable.

teaearlgraycold• 3 years ago

As an Android engineer I can confirm we are lazy just like software engineers in other companies.

devjab• 3 years ago

I wonder how this will work for Google. I can only speak for the Danish market, but when we (both private and public Enterprise) buy devices for business we tend to want the supplier to roll them for us. Apple and many Android manufactures does this. At one point we had a bunch of iPads stolen, likely from someone on the inside since they were delivered and then promptly “lifted” from where they had been delivered by someone who had a key and knew where the cameras were. But since Apple has enrolled them for us, they are essentially dead devices. It’s been some time since I worked for the organisation, but when I was still there we frequently got calls from people who had bought the iPad “legitimately” calling us to get it unlocked.

Google might not care, since it’s not likely to consider the EU it’s primary market for these things, but I think they risk finding out that their being “lazy” is going to bite them in the ass.

Or maybe I don’t understand the bootlicking enough, and what I described above of having a Pixel turn on as “owned by organisation” is entirely possible with it.

pbasista6• 3 years ago

connect the device to the Internet before they are allowed to install the operating system they want

Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them.

The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them. With a promise that it will be given to them on request. Unless, of course, the manufacturer changes their mind.

Unfortunately, there are cases when the manufacturer did not even make such a promise and disabled bootloader unlocking permanently with no way of enabling it again. On Pixel phones.

This used to happen (and perhaps still happens) to some Pixel phones purchased in the USA from Verizon. They have been known [0] for disabling the bootloader unlocking and for giving their customers no way to enable it. Not even after phoning home.

Some people claim [1] that they paid someone from China to unlock their Pixel 1 phone remotely using some shady approach. I assume that someone with inside information from Google has leaked some software and instructions for doing so. It is unclear whether later Pixel phones sold by Verizon with locked bootloaders could be unlocked in a similar way.

As a result, it seems like the only way to have a chance at unlocking such Pixel phones, which have been made by a US company and purchased from a US carrier, is to pay someone in China and hope for the best. It has gotten that far.

[0] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-... [1] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/how-to-unlock-bootloader-...

ls65536• 3 years ago

With a promise that it will be given to them on request. Unless, of course, the manufacturer changes their mind.

Or if the manufacturer decides to simply shut down those servers after some time, at which point the effective default situation will almost certainly be a denied request. In this case, they may not necessarily even be actively changing their mind, but rather just trying to reduce some overhead for those devices they deem to be "no longer supported" but which are nevertheless still out there being used.

j1elo• 3 years ago

Xiaomi does the same (or at least did until my latest phone change i.e. around 3 years ago). You must unlock the bootloader before being able to install a custom recovery image such as TWRP, which itself is used to install custom ROMs.

This unlock involves: creating a user account in the Xiaomi services website, logging into that account from your phone's system, then having the phone logged in for at least 7 days, then using a Windows software which sends a request for unlocking, which they will grant (at least in my experience).

The most outrageous part of all this process (apart from the fact that it exists at all) is the 7 days of usage with the phone logged in. If you attempt an unlock earlier than that, the software will say: "You have to wait X days and Y hours before you can unlock this device."

EDIT: This Reddit wiki page explains the process. I'm flabbergasted that it actually takes 720 hours aka 30 days:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Xiaomi/wiki/bootloader/

mschuster91• 3 years ago

Samsung does the same fwiw for their newest phones. Pretty annoying.

solarkraft3• 3 years ago

The wait time differs based on the device. I had to wait a week until I could use my Pocophone F1.

WeylandYutani• 3 years ago

Xiaomi heavily subsidizes their phones. The idea is that they make it back with people using their apps.

tpm• 3 years ago

Luckily there are reputable companies (warranty and all that) that do this as a part of the purchase process.

RicoElectrico• 3 years ago

The rationale for the hoops and waiting period is IIRC that shady sellers were tampering with phones sold through AliExpress etc.

hbs18• 3 years ago

then having the phone logged in for at least 7 days

I unlocked the bootloader with the unlock tool less than 12 hours after purchasing my Xiaomi Mi 8. How come everybody has to wait that long?

totetsu• 3 years ago

I once had to follow a similar process to get the key to sign apps to install on my nokia symbian phone.

preisschild2• 3 years ago

Yeah, I bought a Pocophone F1 when it came out, expecting to instantly install LineageOS, but then I found out that I have to wait a full week and set up a Windows VM.

The phone per-se wasn't bad, but that was my last purchase from Xiaomi.

Replaced the Pocophone with a Google Pixel 5A and I will stick to Google Pixel because GrapheneOS is great.

nottorp• 3 years ago

Xiaomi requires a google account, a xiaomi account and a sim card inserted just so you can enable developer mode.

That's what returns are for, I guess.

footlose_3815• 3 years ago

I went through this on my POCO F3. I couldn't help but think they were running all kinds of shitty chinese malware on my PII during this time.

pessimizer2• 3 years ago

If laws let companies do this, they will. Eventually unlocking your phone will look like a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test. At 30 days, it has already passed the level of cancelling your subscription to The Economist and reached the obfuscation level of cancelling the average gym membership.

They'll just keep testing the limits until their analytics tell them that only 23 people made it through the process in the last year, then they'll shut it down for lack of use. Legally obligated, they'll replace the process with a promise that if you mail a newly purchased device to the company, they'll send you an unlocked version within about 3 months. Then, a year later, mail to that P.O. Box starts getting returned, and customer service claims that they're not aware of any mail-in program. The representative claims, honestly, that "we don't sell unlocked phones." You get escalated to a supervisor, and insist that they're legally required to unlock your phone. The supervisor apologizes to you, promises to get to the bottom of the training oversight that led to the escalation, and insists that you mail the device directly to his office and he will take care of you personally.

Only three people made it to the supervisor last year. Two of them never ended up sending in their phones, and for the one that did, the company accidentally sent another locked phone back and the customer failed to follow up.

userbinator2• 3 years ago

That reminds me of the right-to-repair article about patched John Deere firmware created by Ukrainian hackers.

It wouldn't surprise me that China has the same skills. I remember coming across a lot of products made to unlock/unbrick Apple's products too, although that was many years ago and I'm not sure if they've gotten through Apple's security for the newer models yet --- and it wouldn't surprise me if they knew but won't easily disclose.

dingledork698• 3 years ago

So google is going through all this effort and some guy in China will just bypass the bootloader lock for $30.

There is absolutely no way that the intelligence agencies don't have this same capability, which makes all of this security posturing utterly pointless, other than to prevent regular users from owning their devices.

shmichael• 3 years ago

That's exactly the purpose of this measure - to prevent consumers from fully owning their device. Presumably the carriers are selling you the device at some discount for longer term loyalty (through constraining the phone). This is not a security measure and government agencies being able to bypass it seems irrelevant.

bentcorner• 3 years ago

some guy in China will just bypass the bootloader lock for $30.

I've seen this kind of thing before but I have no idea how this works. Is it an insider employee at google or a mobile provider that is doing this on the side? Is it a 0-day exploit? Is it something that anyone can do but someone is productizing it for $30?

saagarjha5• 3 years ago

Intelligence agencies probably do have these capabilities. There’s a massive difference between them having it and “some guy in China”. These kinds of things are pretty expensive and nobody is going to sell you the capability for $30, unless it’s just meant to be a carrier lock rather than a security feature.

rerdavies2• 3 years ago

Pretty sure that if there's a guy in China who is bypassing the bootloader lock for $30, he's just going to connect your device to the internet, and do what you wouldn't. Why wouldn't he?

HWR_143• 3 years ago

There are a wide range of threat models in between "no effort" and "state-level intelligence agencies".

xg15• 3 years ago

Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them.

Is this just philosophically speaking or were there some actual rights granted by law being violated?

pbasista6• 3 years ago

I am unaware of any current law that would require devices which can run software to be able to run arbitrary software.

That being said, Google's Pixel phones have widely been known for their ability to unlock the bootloader and install an Android software of the user's choice. It was one of their selling points for a long time.

If this ability is turned into a "possibility" that can be taken away at any time and if it has not been properly communicated to the customers, then it might qualify as false advertising.

bombcar• 3 years ago

Some people claim [1] that they paid someone from China to unlock their Pixel 1 phone remotely using some shady approach. I assume that someone with inside information from Google has leaked some software and instructions for doing so. It is unclear whether later Pixel phones sold by Verizon with locked bootloaders could be unlocked in a similar way.

This usually involves someone who has bribed a Verizon support rep or otherwise obtained access to their internal systems so they can "unlock" you.

bitL2• 3 years ago

Can Pi Hole block these "phoning home" attempts?

bdcravens• 3 years ago

I assume the device isn't just phoning home, but is expecting some sort of response, and likely isn't static.

musicale• 3 years ago

Phoning home before undertaking such an activity takes away the ownership rights from the customers. They do not actually own these devices even after they have purchased them.

Smartphones have become pocket game consoles, with the same business model.

There may be other Android app stores, but Google Play still owns the Android app store market (except in China where Google is blocked/unavailable) - in spite of charging hefty platform fees comparable to those charged by Apple or Nintendo.

hatsune• 3 years ago

It's not rocket science that some carrier and manufacturer lock the goat out of their phone like Samsung and Verizon, but I think this thread is dealing with a much more different problem and everyone who bought carrier does not belong.

Ruq• 3 years ago

I don't think carriers should be allowed to hard-lock phones either, but that's another thread for another day.

barbariangrunge3• 3 years ago

The major innovation of Silicon Valley isn’t tech. It’s eroding out the concept of private property

uneekname2• 3 years ago

Yep, my Pixel 2 is as good as dead because the bootloader can't be unlocked, Google refuses to do anything about it, and software updates stopped a long time ago. Great way to lose me as a customer.

hef198982• 3 years ago

Just upgraded from a, I think, 6 year old Pixel 2 to a carrier discounted Pixel 7. Being in Germany, I am fairly certain tue bootloader is unlocked (-able), I might try it during the weekend. Reason forbthe switch was that a) even CalyxOS stopped supporting it b) the phone lost the mobile network evervso often c) the screen was held together by clue and proteczive glass. Otherwise, it isbstill working and will stay as my backup phone.

Now I kust try to make up my mind regarding CalyxOS on the Pixel 7. The pure Google andrpid looks good, I think I turned most of the tracking off (unique add ID to improve persobal adds, WTF?). But there are still some annoying things, e.g this crappy, unremovable, Google search bar. If Ibread correctly, one can go back from CalyxOS to stock android now, right? Not that I would really mind so, I didn't miss anything the last couple of years except maybe Google maps at some occassions, and I could have installed that using microG and Aurora store.

kristopolous2• 3 years ago

It's crazy how much Google has become just another dickish proprietary corporation.

If they could have somehow stayed ~2003 Google...

HWR_143• 3 years ago

This is pretty much where Google was obviously going in 2003.

phpisthebest3• 3 years ago

I am not sure why people are shocked by this, as any company gains market share in a given market the more hostile to their customers / users they become.

This is not new to tech companies, I suspect though many people believed they would somehow be different than other corporations. Maybe because the people heading those corporation seemingly were aligned politically when in the past they were not?

Regardless Google is following the same script that many many many other companies, tech and not, follow

Etrnl_President• 3 years ago

Verizon usually unlocks the bootloader for you after the phone's real cost has been covered by your monthly bills.

pbasista6• 3 years ago

Do you have some references supporting that claim?

If unlocking the bootloader on e.g. Pixel phones sold by Verizon would be as simple as asking Verizon to do it, I do not understand why there would be multiple long threads on XDA developers forum where people try to circumvent this restriction in various shady ways.

7e• 3 years ago

Isn't the bootloader software, so it's licensed, not sold? Are these "ownership rights" over the bootloader codified in law or a court decision?

jgerrish• 3 years ago

The reason is that an important part of their ownership rights, i.e. the freedom to use the software of their choice, has been withheld from them.

Thank you for your comment and info. But be careful, this is the wrong argument here. They are still letting you use the software you choose.

We can look at this move conceptually, keeping in mind the future. Here's one possible outcome.

You need to phone in first. Imagine the phone is just an IMEI number or a serial number, or one part of a key pair. In a future regime, phoning in marks that phone as no longer "trustworthy". It's now in the digital quarantine or isolation pile. And future network services will isolate the device appropriately.

Phoning in doesn't change what software you can install. It possibly changes who you can interact with.

I don't know if the argument can be won.

We could come up with examples where people were isolated wrongly with other technologies. But there's a subtle psychological trick there about solitary confinement and forcing a family of networks and social interactions. Using that argument reinforces the network that limited us. I don't want to hurt that network. But it also limits us.

And the alternative, hidden network lockouts, is also troubling. So, lose lose I guess?

I don't think I have the power to change the story.

pbasista6• 3 years ago

They are still letting you use the software you choose.

At the moment, yes.

My point was primarily about the fact that giving the customer an option to use Android software of their choice on recent Pixel phones is currently fully up to the manufacturer. Phoning in is merely a tool to achieve it.

possibly changes who you can interact with

I am aware that identifying customers who have requested to have this option can potentially be used to mistreat them. Many mobile apps today are already trying to perform a similar form of identification. They check for non-OEM software or root access. If they detect something they do not like, they show warnings or refuse to provide some functionality. But that is, I think, another topic.

jesprenj2• 3 years ago

I got a Samsung S21 FE 5G as an award on a programming competition.

OEM unlocking wasn't even an option in the developer settings until I connected the phone to the internet and set the date to one month in the past (I assume this has something to do with the warranty -- you can't even unlock the bootloader right away).

An internet connection was required before even using the phone on the Android initial setup screen.

Apart from that, developer settings can't even be enabled before agreeing with Samsung EULA. Initial setup screen can be weirdly manipulated into opening settings (Accessibility, Additional apps, Live transcribe, Connectivity settings (only shows if there's no inet connection), back), but spamming the Build number does not enable developer settings.

Granted that I did not buy the phone, but it's still disgusting that such devices are being sold.

m_kos• 3 years ago

One thing I find very annoying about Samsung is that it tries to get people to use Bixby (Samsung's "Google Assistant") by remapping their phone's power button to Bixby. Due to the nature of my current project, I talked to many Samsung owners in their 50s and 60s who don't know how to turn Bixby off and, consequently, don't know how to, e.g., shut down or reboot their phones.

Dylan168076• 3 years ago

Another way of looking at it is they had a bixby button and a power button, and decided to remove the power button.

Xeamek2• 3 years ago

You can remap it back. Not to defend them, just FYI

zeagle3• 3 years ago

I liked my Samsung phones but after the a couple of them went end of life despite being very usable I am never buying one of their devices again and sticking with Pixel. There should be an Android code of ethics or regulation to unlock bootloaders of these devices when discontinued to minimize eWaste.

KennyBlanken4• 3 years ago

Why on earth would Google institute a policy that runs completely contrary to the cell phone industry's business model, making their devices as useless as possible as fast as possible?

It always cracked me up that Apple gets bashed for planned obsolescence when they support their phones longer than anyone else in the industry.

Xeamek2• 3 years ago

At this point its simply not devices that are being sold, but the package device+software. There simply isn't a market for android-capable devices only

nimbius• 3 years ago

I got sick of this malarkey years ago with HTC.

Oneplus phones just unlock when told 'OEM unlock' over the adb. No big brother home to phone, no bullshit begging for the rights to my device. If I decide to unlock it the worst I get is a nagscreen at boot with a scary warning about security.

hexagonwin• 3 years ago

I have a much older Google phone, a Verizon sold Pixel 2 which is not unlockable even after connecting to the internet. I got the phone second hand hoping to run LineageOS but I couldn't, so I just left it on my drawer. They really need to put an end to this ewaste generating policy. I should be able to do what I want with my device.

distantsounds• 3 years ago

not only is the title misleading and click-baity (connecting to wifi is the only pre-requisite) the format of the blog doesn't format correctly (text and media is cut off on the right) . maybe spend less time writing misleading articles and more time fixing its viewability?

prettyStandard2• 3 years ago

Does this help prevent supply chain attacks... at all?

taco9999• 3 years ago

Probably not, since there will be a warning screen displayed on boot if the bootloader is unlocked.

prettyStandard2• 3 years ago

And wouldn't I see that warning?

jacooper• 3 years ago

Honestly be glad that google still allows bootloader unlocking. And the WiFi requirement is very small, and the article is overblowing it.

JeremyNT2• 3 years ago

Yeah, the state of affairs with Google is better than any other mainstream vendor.

It seems lame that you have to phone home to unlock a new device, but it's nothing compared to what they could be doing.

opan3• 3 years ago

OnePlus has no such restrictions that I've seen, from the One to the 8T. I haven't heard of them locking down newer ones either. You just run the usual command to unlock the bootloader, no funny business. I've run a custom ROM on all of them that I've owned.

ehsankia• 3 years ago

It seems lame that you have to phone home to unlock a new device, but it's nothing compared to what they could be doing.

My guess is that it's protection against stolen hardware? They can basically ban S/N of stolen phones, and the thieves can't unlock the bootloader and resell the device.

But yeah, it seems like a reasonable thing. Out of all the vendors, Pixel phones are by far the easiest to unlcok, seems like a weird thing to complain about.

Vogtinator2• 3 years ago

If Sony counts as mainstream vendor, the bootloader is unlockable and they even provide instructions on how to build and flash your own Android! https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices

Ch4otic• 3 years ago

For all we know it's just Google activating the device to ensure it wasn't stolen and reflashed with another OS. Apple requires a device to be activated before it's usable.

_heimdall4• 3 years ago

That likely is exactly what's going on. That raises the question though if you really bought a functional phone or not - you may have paid for it but even then it only works if the company is still supporting it and allows you to use it.

fomine3• 3 years ago

Agreed. It's fine for most cases and keep security and anti-fraud. If they are serious privacy phobia, I don't know why they want to buy Google products.

handity• 3 years ago

Counterintuitively, Pixels are great for "serious privacy phobia" people, as they are one of few phones that can be flashed with a custom OS and have the bootloader locked. GrapheneOS only supports Pixels for this reason.

PhasmaFelis2• 3 years ago

Yeah, I can see where this isn't ideal in principle, but in practice it's completely insignificant for 99.99% of users. I unlocked my Pixel phone first thing and I never even noticed this requirement. It's not like you were planning to buy a flagship smartphone and then not connect it to the internet.

If you're really worried about Google installing something sinister, it's already too late--the made they thing, they could have installed whatever they want at the factory. Anyway if you're installing a custom OS it's trivial to wipe on install.

r00tanon3• 3 years ago

ELI5 - everything about a phone only works when the carrier allows it to connect to the network.

So, the way this is done is to, well, connect to the network and allow the phone to be unlocked - which according to the article is what happened?

So the real complaint is that the Pixel can't be loaded with a customized Android OS (or Linux, etc.) without being connected to the internet first and this is bad because the vendor might put bloatware, spyware, etc. on the phone, which, once you install your OS will be gone anyway?

OK, well then other than the underlying hardware needing to still be recognized on the carrier's network, which pretty much means you still have to be connected. The point is you aren't going to be stealthy using the carrier network on a phone, so at the EOD you have a pretty expensive device you can really only use on WIFI using your own VPN without the Vendor's software.

So what's the advantage over a small tablet based on OTS SOC hardware that you have full control over? IOW why buy the phone in the first place?

justsomehnguy2• 3 years ago

this is bad because the vendor might

Because the vendor can anytime say 'fuck you' and disable/remove the process which allows unlocking the bootloader.

Edit: already happened with Pixel 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854552

r00tanon3• 3 years ago

So anyone who has already unlocked their Pixel 2 is good to go right? Getting the latest Pixel unlocked requires an internet connection, but once done it's done.

So the complaint is that in the far future the vendor might not support that on a six year old phone (by that time)? But, it is supported now, so what's the beef?

My old Pixel 2 only works now plugged into power and on WIFI because the battery is dead. I can get super-pissed off at Google for not supporting battery replacement on the Pixel 2, but it's a 6 year old phone. How long should I expect them to support it knowing at the time about the sealed battery. I can't get that pissed seeing as I bought it knowing the facts at the time :)

chaxor3• 3 years ago

One issue for this process that I have seen when talking about the Pixel is:

    -  ***You can't actually back up your Pixel***

It's enormously frustrating, because this is the typical advice before moving to a different OS. But apparently, actually mounting the device or seeing it via `lsblk` is from what I can tell impossible. I tried for a while to simply make a direct image with `dd` to try out other OSes etc but I couldn't even figure out a way to mount it, or in the cases it could be mounted it was using some insanely stupid fuse fs that was specifically made to be difficult to use. They want you to use some ridiculously complex and idiotic idea that revolves around using the cloud for backups, which I couldn't figure out precisely what was done because it isn't open source, so I refuse to use it. It's insane that you can't just `dd if=/dev/sdX of=phone.img` or something simple.

r00tanon3• 3 years ago

Yep. It was fun while it lasted, but I expect none of the manufacturers will support hacking or mods on these devices in the future because there's too few people doing that compared to the masses they want to sell to, and they have zero time or money to train technical support staff. They want to sell you an appliance that can't be repaired, has planned obsolescence and locks you into the platform by (effectively) keeping your data hostage.

fsflover3• 3 years ago

If you actually care about FLOSS on your phone, you might be interested in trying a GNU/Linux phone (Librem 5 or Pinephone). Those have no restrictions on mounting or alternative operating systems.

_heimdall4• 3 years ago

I believe the real complaint here is that you can't buy and use a Pixel at all without ending up as a row in Google's database that may include hardware identifiers, network details, you're location, your phone number, etc.

When buying a phone directly from Google you are indeed buying the hardware but you don't actually own the software. The OS will work only if Google still supports it and allows you to use it. The article is raising the point that even if you don't want to use Google's software and instead want to jump straight to your own OS installation you can't avoid their OS initialization steps and any network traffic sent back to Google first

ShadowBanThis012• 3 years ago

Disgusting. Google has taken the fraud of Android to a new level. The great "open-source" OS that was supposed to free us all from vendor and telco tyranny has spectacularly failed to do so, and to cripple fully-owned hardware in this manner just adds further insult.

Say what you want about "socialist" countries in Europe, but I don't think this kind of bullshit would stand in France. Based on laws they've passed over the last decade or two, Europeans seem to protect consumers; while the U.S. government abets corporations in ripping them off.

Google apologists busily downvoting...

flexagoon5• 3 years ago

I don't think this kind of bullshit would stand in France

France allows carrier locking, just like every other European country.

ShadowBanThis012• 3 years ago

Indeed, but from Wikipedia:

"In France, SIM locks are not prohibited. However, the mobile operator must inform the consumer of the existence of a SIM lock, and the subscriber has the right to request that the lock be removed at any time. No later than three months after the subscription of the contract, the mobile operator must "systematically and free of charge" provide the subscriber with a procedure to deactivate the SIM lock. Proposal to shorten the time that operators may charge a fee for removing the SIM lock prior from six-month to the three-month deadline."

The stupid thing, at least in the U.S. is that carriers lock phones if the user is UNDER CONTRACT. This is backward; who cares if the user takes the phone to another network, when he has to continue paying the contract? This actually benefits the original carrier.

williamDafoe4• 3 years ago

Google has a console called panopticon where they can see every Chromebook in the world. This monitoring facility is used to measure bug / crash prevalence in e.g. 802.11 driver software and to determine how much of each fleet is running the latest ChromeOS security patches.

They can do this because Unlike Microsoft Google ports ChromeOS onto new laptops and tests the crap out of them (including the verification that the manufacturer meets about 25 min performance requirement standards for Chrome hardware like LCD viewing angles and speaker volume). They also test the laptops by giving them to employees and then demand hardware improvements of the manufacturers to get the Chrome branding logo.

I bet the have a similar system for for their HTC phones. So your Pixel is probably registering with a panopticon type system because 99.9% of customers are gonna use the stock OS. They do this so their users perceive and experience higher hardware reliability. So it may sound creepy but the goal (100% fleet registration) is hard to meet without forcing 1 internet connection at the 1st boot. It will be hard to meet your freedom goals and google's reliability goals at the same time ..

martius• 3 years ago

Source for this?

There is a well known tool named Panopticon (abbreviated pcon) internally and this is not at all what you describe.

(I work at Google)

williamDafoe4• 3 years ago

I was in the chrome dogfooding program at Google, testing pre release hardware and I used panopticon. They locked it down a short while later. I could see all the acer Chromebooks in the wild before the lockdown. I imagine they renamed it and/or came up with a new tool named panopticon since it's a common term for a special type of prison where from one location you can observe every prisoner at once.

delfinom2• 3 years ago

They can do this because Unlike Microsoft

You'll be SHOCKED that Microsoft has been aggregating global crash data for more than a decade. Lmao. Google isn't breaking any new ground here. All Windows BSODs and even app crashes get uploaded to Microsoft as far back as XP. Microsoft has even written a blog post on them fixing a 0day before it even got deployed because it got errantly caught as a crash from an attacker's development machine.

amf12• 3 years ago

Google has a console called panopticon where they can see every Chromebook in the world.

I bet Apple has this for iPhones, as does Microsoft for Windows 10 internet connected devices. It would be important to have for "Find My Device", disabling stolen devices, etc.

azalemeth2• 3 years ago

If I wanted to buy a new phone that I could root, install a custom ROM on, and use without voiding the warranty, what's the current best bet? One Plus used to be pretty good, but they've gone down in freedoms and up in price. Samsung are an obvious no. The entire design of the iPhone is specifically aimed at keeping the user out of it. Linux phones aren't usable yet. The shop on the /e/ foundation website seems to be selling flashed Samsung devices.

Is there an alternative?

dleslie• 3 years ago

Pinephone Plus is a decent option, but you will be underwhelmed by the camera.

seti0Cha• 3 years ago

Are you using it as a daily driver? Seems like every time I look into Linux phones, there's always been some fundamental bit of functionality that wasn't working yet, like waking from sleep for phone calls. Are we beyond that now?

userbinator2• 3 years ago

Generic Chinese Androids might fit. There's still many with features that mainstream manufacturers have started removing like expandable storage, removable battery, and a headphone jack. Of course there's no voiding the warranty, because there isn't one to begin with.

opan3• 3 years ago

Can you elaborate on your OnePlus comment about less freedom? Last I checked you could still unlock the bootloader and flash LineageOS right away.

stkdump• 3 years ago

I bought the 9 Pro instead of the 10 Pro, because there is no (even unofficial) Lineage build yet. Apparently they stopped supporting a tool that was needed for ROM development.

ThePowerOfFuet3• 3 years ago

Pixel with GrapheneOS — you can reflash it back to PixelOS the same way, no harm done.

nfriedly4• 3 years ago

Motorola has an automated process where you send them the phone serial number or something like that and they'll send you back a code that can be used to unlock the bootloader.

I'm on a Moto g100 that I bought last year, originally intending for it to be a temporary phone while I found a flagship that I actually liked, but it's really grown on me. It has most of the features I was looking for, in particular official LineageOS support, and a microSD slot. I think I might just stick with it.

The other one I had been seriously looking at is Sony's Xperia lineup, but the current and previous generation have had overheating issues. I think their bootloader unlocking process is similar, though.

saagarjha5• 3 years ago

Is this better than Pixel’s process? Seems like it’s basically the same thing since you need to send them your device details over the internet?

Vogtinator2• 3 years ago

Any Sony Xperia: https://developer.sony.com/develop/open-devices

azalemeth2• 3 years ago

The next level page on "unlock the bootloader" immediately states (a) they'll charge you a significant fee if you make a warranty claim – even if it's for a hardware defect; and (b) the following "gem" of shitty DRM:

Certain pre-loaded content on your device may also be inaccessible due to the removal of DRM security keys. For devices running recent software versions, for instance Xperia Z3, the removal of DRM security keys may affect advanced camera functionality. For example, noise reduction algorithms might be removed, and performance when taking photos in low-light conditions might be affected. The secure user data partition may also become inaccessible, and you will not be able to get any more official software upgrades if you unlock the bootloader.

Thanks for the thought though. I like that they have a page at least.

chenxiaolong• 3 years ago

In case anyone is curious which Android components are responsible for this:

* There are 3 boolean states:

    1. whether the bootloader is unlocked
    2. whether the bootloader unlocking ability is enabled by the user ("OEM unlocking" toggle)
    3. whether the bootloader unlocking ability is allowed to be enabled (carrier restriction)

* The Android Settings app grays out the "OEM unlocking" toggle if `isOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` returns false [1].

* The state of `isOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` is changed by a call to `setOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier(boolean allowed, @Nullable byte[] signature)`, which is done by the `android.apps.work.oobconfig` package (/product/priv-app/OTAConfigNoZeroTouchPrebuilt/OTAConfigNoZeroTouchPrebuilt.apk) on the Pixel's stock firmware. This is the same package that handles the Android Enterprise zero-touch provisioning. It's not obfuscated and can be trivially reverse engineered. Prior to the December 2022 update, it was actually possible to bypass the check just by disabling this package via `pm` [2]. This is now blocked both by [3] and also the bootloader's requirement of a signed blob to lift the carrier restriction. This package is also responsible for preventing the removal of the carrier restriction (for the bootloader) when the SIM is locked.

* The Android framework talks to `android.apps.work.oobconfig` at all because the stock firmware ships an overlay (/product/overlay/framework-res__auto_generated_rro_product.apk) that contains `<string name="config_deviceProvisioningPackage">com.google.android.apps.work.oobconfig</string>`.

* The communication with the bootloader is done via the `oemlock` HAL: /vendor/lib64/android.hardware.oemlock@1.0-impl.nos.so. Its implementation of `setOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` seems to require a signed blob from Google (passed in from `android.apps.work.oobconfig`) before the state of the setting can be changed (see: `carrierUnlockFromSignature()`). Once unlocking is allowed, the setting is persisted by the bootloader unless something calls `setOemUnlockAllowedByCarrier()` again to disable it. Without the carrier restriction, the bootloader allows the user to freely toggle the "OEM unlocking" state.

I don't know for sure since I haven't tested, but I believe even SIM-unlocked Pixels purchased from the Google Store use this "carrier" restriction mechanism. It's just that when the device asks Google's servers for the signed blob to lift the carrier restriction, it's always granted. (EDIT: Though there are reports that refurbished devices from warranty claims for bootloader-unlockable devices may sometimes have a carrier restriction that Google's servers don't allow removing.)

[1] https://cs.android.com/android/platform/superproject/+/andro...

[2] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20611

[3] https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+/...

nfriedly4• 3 years ago

Though there are reports that refurbished devices from warranty claims for bootloader-unlockable devices may sometimes have a carrier restriction that Google's servers don't allow removing.

Yep, this happened with my Pixel 2: Bought it directly from google, the usb-c port stopped working after a while, so I sent it in for a repair. I cannot unlock the bootloader on the phone they sent me back, so it's basically just e-waste now.

1vuio0pswjnm72• 3 years ago

"Here is the rest of the network activity, all of which is TLS-encrypted by keys buried in the stock Google operating system, and thus not controlled by the device purchaser:

   Hostname Downloaded to phone Uploaded from phone
   storage.googleapis.com 383 MiB 8 MiB
   fonts.gstatic.com 137 MiB 3 MiB
   afwprovisioning-pa.googleapis.com 18 MiB 1 MiB
   www.gstatic.com 8 MiB 287 kiB
   googlehosted.l.googleusercontent.com 8 MiB 345 kiB
   ota-cache1.googlezip.net 3 MiB 175 kiB
   dl.google.com 3 MiB 86 kiB
   instantmessaging-pa.googleapis.com 1 MiB 300 kiB
   www.google.com 46 kiB 24 kiB
   ssl.gstatic.com 25 kiB 3 kiB
   ota.googlezip.net 17 kiB 6 kiB
   digitalassetlinks.googleapis.com 17 kiB 4 kiB
   clients.l.google.com 14 kiB 7 kiB
   gstatic.com 13 kiB 3 kiB
   mobile-gtalk.l.google.com 8 kiB 1 kiB
   mobile.l.google.com 5 kiB 1 kiB
   lpa.ds.gsma.com 5 kiB 4 kiB
   connectivitycheck.gstatic.com 3 kiB 3 kiB
   app-measurement.com 1 kiB 0 bytes
   time.android.com 180 bytes 180 bytes

Only Google knows precisely what all that data is and what it is used for."

Why should the owner of the computer be allowed to see what is being sent to Google? (Maybe the strange folks at Google cannot think of any reasons.)

Who pays for transport of the data to Google? (Is there any reason Google should not pay?)

Putting the data sent aside, there is the question of whether the computer owner should have a choice in whether they want to send it, and there is the fact that these unauthorised connections are all pings to the mothership.

Using NetGuard, it's possible to block all these connections without rooting or installing GrapheneOS. It's also possible to log all the DNS lookups and attempted connections, without rooting or installing GrapheneOS. The log will indicate which software is making the connection attempts. One can also create PCAP files showing the patterns of network activity, again without rooting or installing GrapheneOS. It's relatively easy to determine what connections are actually necessary for the computer to work as desired.

After installing GrapheneOS, I wonder if it is possible to selectively stop connections to GrapheneOS servers. There are probably some connections to Graphene servers enabled by default.

Would be fun to compare PCAP files from a device running NetGuard versus one running GrapheneOS.

cubesnooper• 3 years ago

After installing GrapheneOS, I wonder if it is possible to selectively stop connections to GrapheneOS servers. There are probably some connections to Graphene servers enabled by default.

This is actually extensively covered in the GrapheneOS FAQ:

https://grapheneos.org/faq#default-connections

rkagerer3• 3 years ago

I'm generally not a fan of bigger government, but we need to legislate to death the practice of companies sending your data off without transparency and consent.

ThePowerOfFuet3• 3 years ago

Who gives a shit? If it's a new phone it has none of your data on it, and you're just about to wipe the OS and install one which respects you much more. No harm done.

1vuio0pswjnm72• 3 years ago

"Who gives a shit?"

Google does. That's why the Google's code is forcing a computer owner to connect the internet using a Google OS before installing an OS that the owner chooses. The customer has paid, title has been transferred, the computer is no longer Google's or the carrier's property. If Google or a carrier does not get to collect some data after purchase, then no harm done.

neximo642• 3 years ago

I im honest I don't see the big deal with this practice.

a) You can unlock the device

b) You can connect via WiFi, why is the device 'phoning home' such a big deal when its brand new and has no data on it?

stefncb• 3 years ago

But what if I live somewhere remote without internet access? Such a simple thing as using the phone shouldn't be impossible.

neximo642• 3 years ago

How does a phone work in a place without any reception/internet?

india_usa• 3 years ago

on a pure Pixel bought firectly from store and in Google Fi plan, I can toggle OEM unlocking, so this may be a ATT or verizon thing

BaculumMeumEst• 3 years ago

i was just considering switching to android after hitting “you’ve created too many apps in the last 7 days” and couldn’t build a project in xcode. glad to see that would be a waste of time and that everything sucks.

marcosdumay• 3 years ago

Everything sucks, but not in the same amount.

flexagoon5• 3 years ago

"everything sucks" as in "you have to connect your phone to the internet once"?

bhelkey3• 3 years ago

So you are using an iOS device with a completely locked bootloader but a device phoning home before it unlocks the bootloader is unacceptable?

You have an odd definition of "everything sucks" in android land.

Sierra73• 3 years ago

Basically this is done to ensure that the phone isn't locked by the carrier, meaning if you buy the device directly from google you can still unlock the device by connecting to the internet. Yeah, it sucks, yeah, you own your device less in a way, but im happy they still let you do it.

I sent a support message a while back asking about it on the google store thing - and they said it was unlocked. I installed grapheneOS today on the pixel 7 actually, and was surprised to read that you had to connect it to the internet just to unlock it. Its strange.

I enjoy grapheneOS so far though.

Edit: if you get the phone through an upgrade with your providers plan it will most likely be locked. There are some threads on grapheneOS' forum about which ones do or dont lock the phone.

rkagerer3• 3 years ago

So my choices are locked or locked?

This is why I ordered my last phone from Hong Kong (and convinced the seller to take Bitcoin for it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598831).

Sierra73• 3 years ago

So my choices are locked or locked?

Not really. Your choices are:

- Locked by your carrier if they lock it, annoy support to get them to take it off

- Bought directly from google, can be unlocked.

ThePowerOfFuet3• 3 years ago

No, buy it from Google or at retail and it will be unlocked. Buy it from Verizon and it won't be.

thescriptkiddie3• 3 years ago

carrier locking is a separate thing from bootloader locking

tortoise_in• 3 years ago

Atleast here we are getting option. What about Chinese oppo and Vivo and huawei? They give nothing.

zzzeek2• 3 years ago

Shrugs I have a pixel 7, have never used this option, I put the phone in airplane mode and was able to flip the "enable OEM unlocking " switch without issue. Granted this phone has had intenet access for months so not sure if it already has decided it's "not a carrier-locked phone ".

sundvor2• 3 years ago

The whole point about the article was the ability to unlock without ever having been online.

zzzeek2• 3 years ago

As I noted in my second sentence.

nfriedly4• 3 years ago

This isn't great, but what they did with the Pixel 2 was far more egregious - they permanently looked the bootloaders of any phone that came back from a warranty repair.

It really soured me on the Pixel line, I'm not sure I'll ever buy another one.

11010100102• 3 years ago

How else do you expect they get your device on a surveillance list? Or do people honestly believe that the 0.001% of mobile phone users that unlock their bootloader for custom operating systems are not subject to additional scrutiny by big brother? NSA flagged Linux Journal as an "extremist forum" and flagged readers for extra surveillance - and that was a decade ago.

PhasmaFelis2• 3 years ago

I think at this point Big Brother has the processing power to scrutinize everyone all the time anyway. It's naive to think that you were in any way off their radar before you unlocked your phone.

11010100102• 3 years ago

Perhaps, but deviating from social norms and ubiquitous technologies multiplies scrutiny. Most efforts made to boost privacy actually often have the opposite effect, but this is a subtle nuance few will understand.

acyou• 3 years ago

I'm a little confused that people think they are free to use the software of their choice and that there is some built in right to use the software of your preference on a given hardware.

Sure, if you're so smart, you can do it and it's up to you to try to dance around whatever the manufacturer wants to throw your way. Don't like it, don't buy it.

Nothing says that any manufacturer is required to sell general purpose hardware. They can restrict it however they want, no?

stolen_biscuit• 3 years ago

I'm a little confused that people think they are free to use the software of their choice and that there is some built in right to use the software of your preference on a given hardware

I'm a little confused as to how you're confused? I bought it, I should be free to set up whatever software I please with it. It's mine.

tga_d• 3 years ago

Nobody is claiming there currently exists some inherent legal right to have general purpose hardware, they're complaining that they're being sold something intentionally designed to not behave the way a consumer would want. It's the same way people complain about any poorly designed product. If I bought some furniture and it used a custom screw head to incentivize repairs from the manufacturer, I would complain about that too, not because they did something illegal, but because it's a bad product.

ketralnis• 3 years ago

I mean, clearly it's the case that there is_ no legal right to use your own hardware as you see fit. The argument is that there is a moral right to use your own hardware as you see fit. It'd be nice if legalities and moralities were the same thing, and in the mean time we're allowed to be upset about it? I don't know what you're confused by.

thescriptkiddie3• 3 years ago

The Free Software Foundation has been advocating for such a right for decades.

funman7• 3 years ago

macOS installs now lean towards forcing you to connect to internet. Heh

dirtyid• 3 years ago

I remember Xiaomi had their 7-30 day wait to request boot unlock to prevent resellers from installing suspicious ROMs.

NKosmatos• 3 years ago

Oh come on now, it’s common knowledge that Pixel phones need to contact fonts.gstatic.com and download 137 MB of fonts in order for the bootloader unlocking option to be made available :-)

shultays2• 3 years ago

  Only Google knows precisely what all that data is and what it is used for.

What data? It is a new phone, you don't have any data on it yet. Whatever data google is collecting is the data they put in it

preisschild2• 3 years ago

Location data, Wi-Fi (B)SSIDs passwords, information about other devices in your LAN.

The Wi-Fi BSSID alone is enough to pinpoint someone's exact location.

shultays2• 3 years ago

Sounds like something a public wifi or a vpn can solve. Then you can wrap your phone in a tinfoil if you wish.

I am being a bit unfair to author. Is this a problem? yes. But then author is also stretching the definition of personal data

flangola73• 3 years ago

What is the physical mechanism that prevents the bootloader from being unlocked, and how does an internet connection have anything to do with it?

I would hope there isn't a direct path for internet traffic to interact with the boot firmware...

Sophistifunk• 3 years ago

Seems likely they simply don't sell enough full-cost unsubsidised phones direct to consumers to warrant a separate firmware for that stream. Not surprising, phones are expensive these days, and almost everybody is on a contract for their SIM anyway, so why not get it from the carrier?

I don't, but I know I'm the weirdo. The only other people I know who buy phones outright are my brother because he keeps dropping them and smashing them, and a mate who buys my old iPhones when I upgrade every 2 years or so because he knows I look after them.

EchoReflection• 3 years ago

i bought my pixel 7 pro direct from Google store and i have the option to unlock the bootloader...

Pixel phones are sold with bootloader unlocking disabled

Related Stories