Remember when mobile hardware manufacturers like HTC and Motorola promised to help customers unlock the bootloaders on their Android devices, paving the way to the promised land of rooting, mods, and custom firmware? Here’s a quick update: it's not going so well.
In the past year, we’ve seen HTC, Motorola, Sony, and others come out in support of unlocking, setting up special websites dedicated to safely open devices for custom ROMs and other “unofficial” uses. But those efforts have been sabotaged at nearly every turn as one flagship phone after another is sealed shut under the mandates of major carriers like Verizon and AT&T.
For the Android development community, the situation has been vexing, to say the least: major devices like the Samsung Galaxy S III and HTC One X are still being put under lock and key while carrier PR offers vague objections painted with misleading terminology like “customer experience.” But while we may never know what’s really behind the decision to keep everyone in the sandbox, the need for hackable mobile hardware is becoming clearer than ever before. With Android 4.2 and Google’s Nexus 4 just around the bend, users are now left to ponder what the future of the platform holds if shadowy carrier politics continue to compromise the ability of OEMs — and thereby, customers — to fully control their own hardware.
Everybody's Problem
Some readers may be thinking, “this doesn’t affect me; bootloaders are the playthings of hackers and tinkerers, hardly among the concerns of the average user.” But with the rise of professional-grade aftermarket firmware like CyanogenMod and the failure of OEMs to provide long-term device support, rooting and unlocking — as Doctor Strangelove would say — “is not only possible, it is essential.”
It’s a situation you’re probably familiar with by now: hardware makers, many of them lacking the brand power to stand against the carriers’ agendas, have fallen tragically short of their promises to push out software updates on reasonable timescales, as originally proposed last May with Google’s ill-fated Android Update Alliance. With Android 4.2 on the way, the Ice Cream Sandwich update (which turned a full year old this month) still only accounts for just over a quarter of currently activated Android devices. And thanks to carrier rules and the incessant need of manufacturers to re-skin the OS to their specifications, Android users have repeatedly found that even devices that have been promised updates won’t be getting them after all.
Perhaps in response, custom firmware has seen a spike in popularity. In May, the team behind CyanogenMod reported that their firmware had been installed 2 million times across more than 750 different devices. “It seems that aftermarket firmware is used mainly for extension of the life of a phone,” members of CyanogenMod’s dev team told The Verge when asked about the recent trends. “Second to that, it appears to be a feature thing.”
It’s not hard to understand why: for consumers, more options for keeping older devices “fresh” means less need to buy newer ones. A 2011 study found that a vast majority of Americans replace their phones every two years, very much consistent with what carrier contracts offer. Keeping phones longer than that, in addition to being easier on the wallet, could also mean a significant reduction in e-waste — in 2010 alone, mobile devices turned into 19,500 tons of waste, only 11 percent of which was recycled.
Considering their success with the two-year contract model, it’s not surprising that major carriers are still fighting manufacturers tooth-and-nail to keep them from putting unlocked devices in customers’ hands. Samsung's Galaxy S III was one recent victim of the complex and infuriating relationship: back in July, the device was confirmed locked by Verizon, which echoed an incredibly vague statement that claimed unlocked bootloaders “could prevent Verizon Wireless from providing the same level of customer experience and support.”
A Verizon spokesperson told The Verge that the company’s statement refers specifically to issues of “customer service.” But the objection then makes even less sense considering that manufacturers already void warranties as a condition of merely sending unlock tokens — not to mention warn in apocalyptic cadence about the potential risks of opening device bootloaders in the first place.
Let’s not forget that like many others, the Verizon Galaxy S III was promptly unlocked and rooted by the Android dev community after a bounty was posted to the XDA Developers forum. This is what makes the carrier's objection to "official" unlocking so bizarre: in the exchange, the manufacturer, and by extension the carrier, would get a list of devices that have voided their warranties, making it easy to see who qualifies for service and who doesn't.
But by blocking the manufacturer unlocks, carriers limit developers to using their own methods, and determining which devices are eligible for service becomes anybody's guess. A Verizon spokesperson would not comment on why the company insists on this arrangement when the manufacturer’s warranty would effectively guarantee them a means of denying service to unlocked devices.
Arrested Development
But for all the resistance, there have been some odd instances of compromise. One trend that seems to be gaining traction among OEMs involves releasing a separate, unsubsidized "Developer Edition" featuring an unlockable bootloader and no difference in hardware. Motorola has been especially noted for embracing this strategy — its new RAZR line offers Developer Editions for every device in the series. Samsung has also followed suit with its Galaxy S III.
Some developers see it as a step in the right direction. “Developer phones are actually a very good target to develop for,” members of the CyanogenMod team said in an email. “It gives us insight into technology and hardware being used in other phones, allowing for us to develop for those phones as well.”
But in the immediate sense, a separate developer phone doesn’t seem to solve the problem for the average user, since the audience they're ostensibly targeting — other people willing to shell out $600 on an unsubsidized device — virtually doesn't exist, at least not in the US. To wit, any custom firmware that might be developed for these devices will be useless to the masses, most of whom will buy the plain-jane locked version from their respective carriers.
This won’t necessarily repel developers, however. In the end, given an unlocked bootloader, “the willingness of a developer to work on a device is really the only driving factor” in whether or not custom firmware is built, CyanogenMod’s developers say. “Each maintainer has their own reasoning for working on a certain device.”
A Tale of Two Androids
Android’s promise of “openness” has always been a precarious one. As it stands, getting an Android device is almost always a gamble — apart from gauging the interest of the developer community, there is virtually no telling whether the device you buy will ever get unlocked, either officially or unofficially. With its Nexus program, Google seems to be fighting for a better platform where carriers and OEMs dance to the tune of truly open, longer-lasting hardware. But that song is still a quiet one compared to the overwhelming cacophony of devices being sold locked up and loaded with bloatware. Even Motorola, despite being owned by Google, admits it is powerless to offer alternatives — and to make matters worse, seals its bootloaders with strong encryption that hackers have found to be virtually impenetrable.
Going forward, the division between Android’s “open” ideal and the carriers’ authoritarian prospects will be more pronounced than ever before. To say it’s an uphill battle would be an understatement: Google has clearly defied the latter strategy with the $300 off-contract Nexus 4, and it paid the price. But the balance will ultimately depend on whether or not regular customers — not just power users — demand more from their devices.
Comments
If a person buys a phone they should be able to do whatever they damn well please with it. Network providers should be dumb pipes and nothing more.
By Psycros on 11.20.12 11:09am
That’s pretty easy to say but who’s going to make them? They have all the Power (in the US especially)
By Good_ole_Pinocchio on 11.20.12 11:10am
This is the problem I have with the article’s title. It’s not Android’s fault. It’s the manufacturers/carriers, with mostly carriers to blame.
By Bob1976 on 11.20.12 11:45am
It doesn’t matter where the fault lies. It doesn’t diminish the problem at all.
By Scannall on 11.20.12 11:56am
His point
Your head
Android never “broke any promises”
By cantcurecancer on 11.20.12 12:09pm
Thank you for understanding my point.
By Bob1976 on 11.20.12 12:23pm
The point is that Google really needs to figure out a way to fix this update situation:
1. Updates NEED to have a way to be executed via non-OTA methods for ALL phones. Wasn’t there a Panasonic phone that recently got updated by downloading an app in the Play Store? If the carriers are holding back updates, there needs to be a way to cut them out to distribute updates.
2. The drastic option: make updates or unlocks paid. That way A) carriers and manufacturers WANT to do these because they have CLEAR financial benefit and B) people that care can pay and people who don’t give a flip, won’t.
I always found it weird: Why are new OS versions for iOS and Android free, but not Windows and Mac?
By JohnnyRockets on 11.20.12 3:08pm
well mac updates have been getting cheaper and more frequent – pretty soon they probably will be free. However developing software costs money which is fine if u sell hardware with good margins, but if u don’t like microsoft (except for surface) then of course u’ll charge for an upgrade
By Sapan on 11.20.12 3:16pm
There is a completely untapped market for paid updates, which would appear to be a “win” for all parties involved. Carriers and manufacturers have an economic incentive to push updates, while people who want updates have a clear, reliable method to get them. This seems like the most sensible solution that carriers and manufacturers are unwilling to try.
By Essex on 11.20.12 4:41pm
Except that it is completely unsustainable. The fact remains that the people that are so worried about major Android updates delays are ones that will take the time to root and update it themselves. I doubt you’d feel the same if you were the one who would have to shell out the cash. Google is handling it without spending a dime more than they need to. Nexus devices and soon a Google carrier.
By cantcurecancer on 11.20.12 4:59pm
This is why the article should be pointing the finger at OEMs and not Android itself.
By ExDementia on 11.20.12 5:20pm
This might make sense in some ways, but then you’d have to convince people why they should buy an android phone with paid updates vs an iPhone with free updates.
It’s a little ironic when you’re also promoting the open nature of your software too.
By VoxMediaUser859221 on 11.20.12 5:43pm
As long as Carriers and different device manufacturers continue to skin these phones then the updates will always be held up at the Carriers door steps. Google has zerro to do with the holdups.
By mmanut on 11.20.12 5:49pm
I’m curious what android will look like in two years. The uptake of ICS has been so slow that unless Google slows down they’re gonna have the OS too far spread out among versions to keep the platform viable for devs.
I find the concept of quad core phone laughable right now because little to no apps available tax the system enough to warrant such a powerful processor. I’d feel different if I could match a monitor and keyboard up to it and run some full scale apps..
By jbrandonf on 11.20.12 9:33pm
I don’t think Google moving fast is a problem at all. Sure, older non-Nexus devices don’t get the latest and greatest features, but it’s, for the most part, easy for developers to support both the newest and the most common Android versions in most apps.
By jathak on 11.20.12 10:45pm
You should qualify that. The reason being is the world is 4 versions behind Google then it does become a serious problem. Developers have finite resources, especially when it comes to QA. You can’t easily test for four versions of an OS across multiple devices.
By Lomifeh on 11.21.12 7:15am
Well for one Android is open source and any barrier of entry whether price or otherwise goes against the ideas of the OHSA
By LustyLamprey on 11.21.12 12:43am
Remember when the iPod touch needed to pay for an update to firmware 2 or 3?
By JimRamK on 11.21.12 3:05am
Promise as potential, not agreement.
By endejas on 11.20.12 1:48pm
What’s the problem if you really don’t like the bloatware just buy an unlocked verion in the first place & stick your old sim in.
By Gmotagi on 11.20.12 2:30pm
That’s what was confusing me as I read the article. I’m in the UK. Can you simply not buy unlocked phones in the USA? In the Europe you can either pay full price for a phone which you then own, or you can buy a subsidized one and it will arrive locked until you have paid off the contract. At which point EU law says they have to provide you with a way to unlock the phone. The article reads as though you can’t buy unlocked phones in the USA, but your post suggests that you can.
By h4rm0ny on 11.20.12 4:03pm
“The article reads as though you can’t buy unlocked phones in the USA, but your post suggests that you can.”
That’s because most Americans are so bought into their own carrier that they see the low subsidized cost of phones vs. the unlocked cost and don’t add in the fact that they’re paying for it in their contract.
By Bob1976 on 11.20.12 4:11pm
So there’s two carriers you can take an unlocked phone to. Both are stacked against you – T-Mobile has goofy frequencies that many phones don’t support. AT&T will let you do so, but you will pay the same price as if you used their subsidy, so it’s silly not to – even if you want to use something else, at least use your subsidy that you’re stuck paying for anyway.
By MrGlitch on 11.20.12 4:57pm
Luckily, T-Mobile is working on rolling out more common frequencies and phones like the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 4 support both the AT&T and T-Mobile frequencies.
By jathak on 11.20.12 10:46pm
We’re really not though. After our contract ends the monthly bill doesn’t go down even though the phone has been ‘paid off’.
By jbrandonf on 11.20.12 9:37pm