Drawmonster
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,300
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Samsung Galaxy SIII "Developer Edition"
- Thread starter Drawmonster
- Start date
I'm really not so sure this will be worth it when it looks fairly promising for the bootloader thing to get a successful workaround as is. I guess if you honestly cannot wait... Actually what happens if you flash the bootloader from this to the a locked one?
And why are they even releasing this? Why don't they just make an unlocker instead? Same effect and infinitely more convenient.
And why are they even releasing this? Why don't they just make an unlocker instead? Same effect and infinitely more convenient.
Last edited:
Drawmonster
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,300
If you're a no contract person, then this is a good deal. It would cost you the same to get the locked or unlocked, so might as well go unlocked.
This is either a money grab by Samsung, or Verizon was lying and they did force Samsung to lock the bootloader. And this is Samsung's way of helping the dev community. So either Samsung is great for this, or they suck for it.
This is either a money grab by Samsung, or Verizon was lying and they did force Samsung to lock the bootloader. And this is Samsung's way of helping the dev community. So either Samsung is great for this, or they suck for it.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Messages
- 8,229
I just hope this makes it easier for the awesome group at XDA once they get a hold of one.
Drawmonster
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,300
Keep my Gnex with the cracked glass or Buy the Dev Edition GSIII or wait until later this year when a new Nexus phone will most likely come out...
Decisions, Decisions.
Decisions, Decisions.
Silent.Sin
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 969
Samsung probably makes about the same per phone no matter what. Only reason the phone is cheaper on contract for Verizon is because it's on contract and subsidized, Verizon is still paying Samsung whatever "full" price they negotiated per unit, the lucky customer makes up that difference with service fees.
Verizon definitely lied about Samsung forcing them to lock it down, that quote was obviously from a person who had no idea what they were talking about. If Samsung could expose some secret sauce (encryption key or some other work around) in the dev edition that could unlock the normal S3 that would be a godsend. I cannot stand TouchWiz after only a day and can't wait to get all of its bloated useless features off my phone. Guess I was spoiled by having a completely unlocked phone for so long.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 21,233
I'm amazed Verizon let Samsung sell this phone outside of their store. This is the first time I've seen that happen that I can remember. But the fact that Verizon is letting them sell it and activate it on their carrier defeats the point of them selling the locked GS3 in the first place! I mean; 90%+ of GS3 users aren't even going to know what a bootloader is, let alone attempt to unlock it, so why fucking make them lock it in the first place and then make a second version available for "developers" that is unlockable?! Shit makes no sense at all. I really want to find the dumb shit exec responsible for this and hear their absurd thought process for locking down the subsidized GS3. On top of that; WTF is it a problem now when just 7 months ago they released the Galaxy Nexus with an unlockable bootloader and is completely dev/root friendly.
It just pisses me off that Verizon is completely overstepping their bounds on everything here lately. They really are doing some shitty things to their customers; price hikes with less service, fighting against net neutrality, controlling what phones run what software on top of which ones even work on their carrier (which has always been the case with CDMA carriers). They shouldn't be regulating all of that, they should be no more than a connection for our mobile devices to connect to, nothing more. But that will never happen as long as they're CDMA based, they would much rather (over)charge you for every type of service and device you plan on using on their network even though it all uses the same damn connection and data as everything else on your account. Fucking $40 extra per smart phone and $30 for a crappy flip phone (on top of the already absurdly priced shared data plans)?! Lolwut??
/rant
Anyways, I don't think it will matter much soon anyways. An exploit has to be discovered to unlock the normal GS3 on Verizon and it will be blown open just like the Rezound was. It's not encrypted like Moto's phones are, so it's just a matter of time (probably less than a week or two).
It just pisses me off that Verizon is completely overstepping their bounds on everything here lately. They really are doing some shitty things to their customers; price hikes with less service, fighting against net neutrality, controlling what phones run what software on top of which ones even work on their carrier (which has always been the case with CDMA carriers). They shouldn't be regulating all of that, they should be no more than a connection for our mobile devices to connect to, nothing more. But that will never happen as long as they're CDMA based, they would much rather (over)charge you for every type of service and device you plan on using on their network even though it all uses the same damn connection and data as everything else on your account. Fucking $40 extra per smart phone and $30 for a crappy flip phone (on top of the already absurdly priced shared data plans)?! Lolwut??
/rant
Anyways, I don't think it will matter much soon anyways. An exploit has to be discovered to unlock the normal GS3 on Verizon and it will be blown open just like the Rezound was. It's not encrypted like Moto's phones are, so it's just a matter of time (probably less than a week or two).
Drawmonster
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,300
I'm willing to bet they make quite a bit more by cutting Verizon out of the loop. You know Verizon isn't going to pay any more than they have to to Samsung. Not to mention that Verizon is buying in bulk, and surely getting a large discount. By selling individual phones directly to consumers, they are probably making double the profit or so.
Silent.Sin
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 969
On an extremely low volume part like this I don't think it makes much of a difference in Samsung's books, if it's a money grab it's a really shitty one. Thousands if not millions more phones will be sold via Verizon than Samsung's store. Even if the margin is smaller the total revenue will be far larger.
Motorola did this same thing with the RAZR to circumvent Verizon's idiocy. It's more to appease the vocal development community to try and save face rather than have Verizon tarnish their name completely. It just saddens me that they agreed to do it in the first place for Verizon and nobody else.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 21,233
You know, that's a great point. If OEMs put their foot down on this BS and refused to sell on Verizon if they want to lock down their phones, Verizon would have no choice but to give in if they wanted new phones. I can't imagine Verizon saying "no" to the GS3 if Samsung refused to lock their bootloader on it. This would especially be true with Moto, who makes their flagship "Droid" line. I know Verizon is the largest carrier in the US, but they're still small compared to the rest of the worlds GSM market, so OEMs could afford to do that if they wanted.
But I know that wouldn't happen, because just like Verizon, OEMs are not going to turn down an opportunity to make money. I just wish they would be a little more stern on these policies so carriers don't have a choice to lock down phones. It's a two-way street; Verizon is essentially turning down money too if they refuse to let an unlocked phone on their carrier.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,591
Current belief is that unless the unlocked bootloader uses the same key as the Verizon bootloader flashing it with either fail or brick the device. Time will tell.
The better option would be make an unlocker like you said.
I think what happened is Verizon were assclowns (go figure). They caught backlash from being the only carrier to lock the SGS3 bootloader. They tried to blame it on Samsung with that cheesy ass excuse. Samsung caught shit for that even though most of us realize that it wasn't Samsung. Samsung is now playing damage control. So they sell a "developer device" that can be used on Verizon's network but no warranty through Verizon.
I don't think Samsung did this as a money grab for two reasons.
1. No other carrier is locked.
2. By doing this Verizon is now publicly caught in a lie. They claim open bootloaders, which allow custom ROM's, can harm their network and that Samsung is responsible for the lockdown. However, now the SGS3 will be on their network, open and free. Let's ask Verizon how they feel about that locked bootloader now?
So in the end Samsung has a win-win. They get more money directly for whatever "dev" phones they sell and they publicly trout slapped Verizon. My bet is SGS4, if on Verizon, isn't locked or a developer version will be announced at the same time in order to avoid another pile of a horseshit like the last week.
My only thinking is it's much more profitable for verizon if you buy your own phone elsewhere then just carry verizon service on it because you are paying the same amount monthly as someone who got a subsidized phone but verizon never lost hundreds of dollars on the subsidy. Perhaps they know some people want an unlocked one so bad they'll pay full retail for it and verizon wins in the end?
Am I crazy or could this possibly be the reason?
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 14,055
Verizon wouldn't be doing subsidies if they were losing money.
They do subsidies to guarantee revenue from your account for 24 months. Having the kind of certainty that you will be a customer for two years is a powerful piece of knowledge for any company. If you terminate, they still get their money.
Honestly, I think Samsung completely sidestepped VZW on this and gave them the finger. If not, then VZW's PR department is SERIOUSLY out of sync. (they claimed unlocked phones affect their "network integrity" HAH)
The method of buying cell phones is seriously outdated. It worked fine for cheap flip phones that had similar features but does not work with smartphones that can vary so widely. I think the reason why OEMs dance for the carriers is that they want their phones to be pushed and sold in the carrier stores. Think about it - if a phone is not pushed or recommended by sales associates, do you think it has any chance of survival?
I think Steve Jobs was onto something by opening his own retail stores. He built a great product image with Apple products and because of that, people are willing to go out of their way to buy an iPhone at a Apple store. The survival of the iPhone is in no way tied to success at carrier retail stores.
I think Google is trying the same thing with the Play store minus the retail locations. What's unique about Google's model is that they can sell their phones close to 2-year contract subsidy price at a loss because they expect to make that money back through mobile search revenue and revenue from all of their services.
What I don't understand is why carriers can't release a set of standards for phones operating on their networks, just like the cable companies do with internet. You can pretty much use any cable modem on any network and as long as you authorize the MAC address, you're good to go. It should be the same with carriers and SIM cards. They can cut the overhead of retail stores and leave it up to the OEMs to pool resources or do whatever they can to put phones out there. VZW can handle credits/subsidies for 2 year deals separately.
Why couldn't the FCC force carriers to do this? They are using public spectrum after all...