[HN Gopher] Termination of LG Mobile Developer website service
___________________________________________________________________
Termination of LG Mobile Developer website service
Author : username190
Score : 78 points
Date : 2021-12-05 20:31 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (developer.lge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (developer.lge.com)
| puyoxyz wrote:
| Seriously uncool. Huawei did this too. It sucks
| corn13read2 wrote:
| This should absolutely be illegal
| _ink_ wrote:
| Sad. I like their phones, but will not buy another one from them.
| quink wrote:
| Well, of course, they got out of the smartphone business. The
| last new model was the W41 released in February, in the Indian
| market only.
| [deleted]
| hagbard_c wrote:
| Nobody will since they're closing up shop - that is why they're
| doing away with this program. That said it royally sucks that
| vendors have such control past the first sale and it is one of
| the reasons I either try to steer away from hardware which is
| encumbered with this type of restriction or, it that is not
| feasible, get rid of the restrictions before I ever use the
| device.
| [deleted]
| dang wrote:
| The submitted title ("After December 31, LG phones' bootloaders
| will no longer be able to be unlocked") seems badly
| editorialized, which is against the site guidelines: " _Please
| use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don
| 't editorialize._" We've reverted it now.
|
| Submitters: If you want to say what you think is important about
| an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the
| thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with
| everyone else's:
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
| username190 wrote:
| Apologies, I wasn't sure what to title the submission; I linked
| to this specific URL because it's served as a pop-up (and is
| automatically blocked by most browsers) on LG's bootloader
| unlocking page[0], which details that process specifically.
|
| I appreciate the heads up, and I'll keep in mind the "level
| playing field" next time I post.
|
| [0]
| https://developer.lge.com/resource/mobile/RetrieveBootloader...
| dang wrote:
| Appreciated!
| josteink wrote:
| I seriously don't get what companies think they gain by making
| moves like this.
|
| You'll catch a bad rep among power-users, and what do you _gain_
| which is good enough to counter-act that?
|
| Anyone got any explanation for this kind of behaviour and what
| kind of (commercial) motivations which are driving it?
| wincy wrote:
| They don't want to pay to upkeep a dev portal for phones they
| no longer make? They're probably laying off all the people who
| would maintain such a thing.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The solution to this is to open source the unlocking backend,
| or give the assets to a foundation that can maintain it.
| laurent92 wrote:
| The problem is recruitment, which capable engineer would
| agree to maintain a dead system?
| josteink wrote:
| If they open source it, that's no longer their problem,
| and the community can pick it up if/when there is a need.
| quink wrote:
| They got out of the smartphone business. That's enough of a
| motivation I guess.
| necovek wrote:
| They are closing phone business altogether: keeping the unlock
| service running in perpetuity would be an unneeded cost.
|
| Still, they should make a simple dump to allow all phones to be
| unlocked anytime in the future, but to get that, I think we'll
| need to get some legislation involved (basically, any product
| you stop supporting, you must provide unlock keys for any
| encryption).
| errcorrectcode wrote:
| I'll never buy an LG product if that's how they play things.
| kunagi7 wrote:
| Caring about reputation after closing down the whole division
| is a hard thing to do for them [1]. After all, they aren't
| manufacturing them anymore. The few ones still out there are >1
| year old stock.
|
| > From [1] source: "LG will provide service support and
| software updates for customers of existing mobile products for
| a period of time which will vary by region."
|
| It they had good will they would keep the service running for 2
| or 3 years instead of shutting it down after 7 months.
|
| I bought one appliance from them a few years ago, it's quite
| noisy and not as great as I supposed it was. With news like
| this one I'll just avoid buying things from their active
| divisions.
|
| [1] https://www.lg.com/us/press-release/lg-to-close-mobile-
| phone...
| laurent92 wrote:
| But LG still has smart TVs and fridges. It means when LG
| stops those, existing ones will get vulnerabilities and be
| hacked en masse.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| For people who didn't click through - this is because LG no
| longer make phones and are closing their dev portal.
|
| It's not that new phones will be locked - there will be no new
| phones.
| sam_lowry_ wrote:
| And no way to upgrade old phones. This is the point.
| morninglight wrote:
| This should make everyone reconsider purchasing a "smart" device
| from LG.
|
| If LG can do this to their existing phone customers, they won't
| hesitate to pull the plug on future customers. Buyer Beware!
| elkos wrote:
| If a person is on the market for an easy to unlock/root Android
| phone which you would suggest?
| izacus wrote:
| Pixel is pretty much the primary choice - you don't need to
| contact the OEM for unlock, the firmware sources are published
| and you can even relock the phone with your own firmware which
| others mostly don't allow.
| SXX wrote:
| Does cusrom re-locked firmware pass SafetyNet hardware
| attestation?
| bcraven wrote:
| Any Pixel phone. The 3a is nice and cheap second hand.
| phh wrote:
| Denied list: - Oppo - Vivo - Unisoc/Spreadtrum nonames/unknown
| brands - Huawei - Honor
|
| Annoying list: - Realme (supposedly ok, but needs to wait for
| "deep testing apk" for specific model which can take forver) -
| Xiaomi/POCO (needs to wait up to one month after first boot)
|
| Should be ok, but YMMV: - Asus/ROG - Nubia/ZTE/RedMagic -
| Mediatek nonames/unknown brands - Qualcomm nonames/unknown
| brands
|
| Ok: - OnePlus - Samsung (EXCEPT US MARKET) - Moto - Pixel
| compsciphd wrote:
| I feel like when companies withdraw support like this, they
| should provide a generic unlocked firmware that can be installed
| so that devices don't become ewaste.
| bmarquez wrote:
| Some commenters are wondering why LG would do this. LG announced
| they are quitting the smartphone business entirely, and therefore
| don't have to worry about their developer portal or any
| reputational damage.
|
| T-Mobile even gave away free LG 5G phones last Monday (probably
| because nobody would pay full price for a discontinued product).
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/05/lg-quitti...
| laurent92 wrote:
| Ok, who has an LG smart TV?
| lnxg33k1 wrote:
| i would reconsider the statement about reputational damage, LG
| still does many things and honestly if their approach when
| closing departments is leave me with an expensive paper holder,
| then it won't be at least my first choice, i mean all vendors
| do the same crap more or less, there is not really anything
| that gives one or the other a huge competitive advantage, so in
| this context I'm not sure why I should buy from a company with
| this track record
| bmarquez wrote:
| After they announced their exit from the smartphone business,
| LG promised 3 years of software updates. I don't know if
| they'll live up to that claim, but my LG Velvet phone
| recently got a software update dated November 30th, so at
| least their support team (different from the developer
| portal) hasn't been shut down yet.
|
| http://www.lgnewsroom.com/2021/04/lg-announces-three-year-
| pl...
| shrvtv wrote:
| Such a shame. So right now Google is the only phone manufacturer
| that allows unlocking the bootloader without losing any
| functionality or enrolling into some developer program
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Add Xiaomi too.
| SahAssar wrote:
| I thought multiple companies did that? Like Sony, Fairphone,
| Oneplus etc?
| izacus wrote:
| Not sure about others, but Sony deleted some camera firmware
| DRM keys on unlock which permanently crippled the quality
| even if you relocked.
| SXX wrote:
| > that allows unlocking the bootloader without losing any
| functionality
|
| Does Google Pay work with unlocked bootloader?
|
| Any bank apps that require SafetyNet attestation?
| fsflover wrote:
| How about GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone, which run
| desktop OS with root access?
| JackGreyhat wrote:
| OnePlus does so too...
| necovek wrote:
| They are closing entire phone business, but it does not make the
| point about leaving unsupported devices locked-up in perpetuity
| moot.
|
| We seriously need to start adding some legislation (in any
| sufficiently representative customer base country because mobile
| phones are easily transported between countries) to reduce
| e-waste and breathe second life into all the devices which run
| out of their "supported" lifecycle: if a company can't support a
| device anymore, it needs to allow it to be unlocked forever.
|
| I am sure all the manufacturers can set up a shared IMEI-to-
| unlock-code DB at a relatively small cost.
| chana_masala wrote:
| I'm lost, what is/was their developer portal for? What would
| you need to unlock the bootloader for?
| bmarquez wrote:
| Developer portal is used for unlocking the bootloader for LG
| phones, which would allow you to install your own custom
| Android software.
|
| LG has promised Android updates for 3 years after them
| exiting the smartphone business, but once those 3 years are
| up, third-party software would be the only way to get
| updates.
| teekert wrote:
| They stop giving you updates, you unlock the bootloader,
| flash LineageOS and use the device safely and in an up to
| date fashion for another couple of years.
| celsoazevedo wrote:
| 'fastboot oem unlock'
|
| That's what any modding friendly brand support. There's no need
| for codes, DBs, costs to OEMs, etc.
| kelnos wrote:
| Why are codes even required? Just allow customers to unlock the
| bootloader without jumping through hoops.
|
| If a code is for some reason required, print it on a sticker in
| the box it comes in or something.
| necovek wrote:
| Sure, that would be ideal. For some reason, phone
| manufacturers have started requiring registration to get an
| unlock code.
|
| So while I'd be ecstatic for us to get you-own-the-hardware-
| device-you-bought legislation, at this point in time, I'd be
| happy with your-device-needs-not-go-in-the-trash-once-we-
| stop-giving-you-security-updates at least.
|
| In a sense, we should push for both, but we don't have to
| push for both with the same initiative.
| necovek wrote:
| This post is a great way to establish how many people never read
| past the title of an HN submission: keep them coming all those
| "I'll never buy from you again" :)
| username190 wrote:
| I wasn't sure exactly what to title this submission, since
| there was no clear title on the page (which is just a link to a
| pop-up window); I think the more interesting discussion here is
| around property ownership, versus the "I'll never buy from you
| again" comments.
|
| Would we accept that we couldn't update to Windows 10, or
| switch to Ubuntu, on our laptops, because the Compaq brand was
| discontinued in 2013?
|
| IMO, the sales & service model of mobile devices has been
| focused on centralized top-down control, which can often serve
| to harm the user more than it helps them; especially in cases
| like this. There's a lot of variability in a statement like
| that though--why I thought it would be an interesting
| discussion topic.
| necovek wrote:
| I think "LG disables unlocking of phones on Dec 31 as it
| stops producing them" would have helped with this.
|
| This one about who read past the title is definitely
| orthogonal, but quite a simple to figure out if someone "did
| read"/"didn't read", so I'd really love to see someone
| collate the results: it is useful information to have, to at
| least compare HN users to the general public (which there
| already are studies on title-reading on, which drives all the
| tabloid out-of-context titles approach already).
| fsckboy wrote:
| well... i never will buy from them again.
| walteweiss wrote:
| What about Nexus 5X? Which is phone by Google made by LG.
| systemBuilder wrote:
| Nexus 5x has a pretty serious design flaw, I think it was boot
| looping but I can't remember precisely ...
| wffurr wrote:
| You could get the software update to complete by putting it
| in a fridge.
| errcorrectcode wrote:
| But only an LG fridge, amirite?
| agilob wrote:
| and LG G7 One which is Android One https://www.android.com/one/
| errcorrectcode wrote:
| I did client-facing tech consulting for mobile handset mfgrs.
| There is often a suite of servers that powers each type of phone
| too. Whenever they turn those off, large portions of the phone,
| or the whole phone, may stop working too. Motorola and Danger
| were particularly notorious for this.
| marcodiego wrote:
| They gave up on the phone business, but keeping the bootloader
| locked is also giving up on their reputation.
|
| The only good side on all this is that I have another good
| example why owning the device you paid for is so important.
| moonchrome wrote:
| >but keeping the bootloader locked is also giving up on their
| reputation.
|
| To a few dozen HN readers who probably don't even own an LG
| phone ? I'm a pretty tech savvy person but the last time I had
| the time to install a custom OS on my device cyanogenmod was
| still around and cheap Chinese phones with custom roms were the
| only thing available in the affordable phone segment. Modern
| phones are cheap enough to replace when the OS updates stop
| coming and you can find distros with minimal crapware
| preinstalled and functional UI in any price range.
|
| Trusting some internet rando not to inject spyware into a ROM
| build seems riskier than a first party distro. Ditto for OSS
| that doesn't really get vetted (I wonder how many people review
| the niche device support code in projects like these) and
| building from source would probably cost me more in hours spent
| on it than getting a new flagship.
| marcodiego wrote:
| I use a ROM from the e.foundation. It is definitely not
| comparable to trusting "some internet rando not to inject
| spyware into a ROM build".
| [deleted]
| didip wrote:
| So, why did LG exit the phone business? Isn't phone business
| lucrative and high profile?
| gruez wrote:
| >Isn't phone business lucrative and high profile?
|
| only for apple.
|
| eg. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-handset-
| market-o...
| systemBuilder wrote:
| Ever since the G2, every generation of phone sold less and
| less. Pretty soon there weren't enough economies of scale to
| pay the engineers to build the next generation of phone.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-05 23:01 UTC)