[OneofLittleHarmony]

It was suggested to me to turn off the mobile network connection, which is a temporary fix at best.

My bitchin' BlackBerry Z30

I was forced to download even on a Verizon device with only Wi-Fi and no Verizon sim in.

Posted via CB10

[Carjackd]

What??? An OS update by a US carrier???? Damn Verizon!!

I know if I was in the US...I would love to live back in 2014

Posted via my Canadian Passport

[Xaiux]

I thought the X00 were beta test units. I had one and could not use it on Verizon because their system thinks it's a tablet or something.

Posted Via CB10 on my BlackBerry Passport

Mine seems very very close to final hardware, if it didn't say X00 on the back I wouldn't be able to tell. I suspect it was used for testing drop impacts on the screen, so it had to have been near final for that.

[Originalloverman]

After 3 hrs I was up to 99% downloaded. Came back 30 minutes later and it's starting all over again. Ugh!

My bitchin' BlackBerry Z30

Your Internet speed is very slow maybe that's why go somewhere that as faster wifi

Send from the amazing powers of the  Z30

[Originalloverman]

What??? An OS update by a US carrier???? Damn Verizon!!

I know if I was in the US...I would love to live back in 2014

Posted via my Canadian Passport

How dare them push an update already! an I am here on 10. 3.1.1784. Geese luise

Send from the amazing powers of the  Z30

[lady of the lake]

Your Internet speed is very slow maybe that's why go somewhere that as faster wifi

Send from the amazing powers of the  Z30

I was using my home broadband WiFi and since I'm in a rural area the speed varies greatly. The second time it took just a little over an hour to download and it installed no problems.

My bitchin' BlackBerry Z30

[EchoesFX]

Did you read the law? If so, how are you interpreting the January 1st requirement? I read that part as phones manufactured before January 1st are exempt only if it's not possible to put the kill switch update on them. And it clearly is possible, given the AT&T, Verizon, and ShopBB examples--not to mention all the unofficial ways people have put 10.3.2 on their older BB10 phones.



I have a TMO SIM in a factory unlocked Q10 with 10.3.2.2226 sitting for weeks waiting to be installed. It's Verizon forcing the update. Just like it was AT&T.





This may be true, but AT&T and Verizon are in CYA mode over, this when the argument "We did our job by providing the update. The user's choice not to install the update is an exercising of their opt-out option" would probably cover them.



Yes. Z30 updates through Sachesi are STA-ambivalent.

Actually I did read the law. It applies to phones that are sold for use in California, and I am interpreting it NOT to include phones *already in the hands of consumers or sold on the secondhand market*. The former, because the law says nothing at all regarding phones already sold prior to July. The latter, see pic below.

Because I don't live in CA (I was raised there, my father is still managing director of a law firm there as well), the law doesn't even apply to phones here. This approach is just covering all VZW devices period, whether the user wants it or not. Frankly if they hadn't broken compatibility with the MOGA pad, I wouldn't care.

I'll agree it's CYA mode. It's whatever. Like I posted earlier I ran the command "cfp resetqnxosregion" once the download was complete, and while the downloaded update IS still taking up space on the phone, it doesn't install when I reboot my Q10 or Z10. I can still use the OS of my choice, so for now I win.



Posted via CB10

[EchoesFX]

Double post, please remove

[raino]

Actually I did read the law. It applies to phones that are sold for use in California, and I am interpreting it NOT to include phones *already in the hands of consumers or sold on the secondhand market*. The former, because the law says nothing at all regarding phones already sold prior to July. The latter, see pic below.

I agree on the latter but I don't agree with the former because the law (here is where I'm reading it) does talk about phones sold before July:

The bill would additionally except from these requirements a smartphone model that was first introduced prior to January 1, 2015, that cannot reasonably be reengineered to support the manufacturer�s or operating system provider�s technological solution, including if the hardware or software cannot support a retroactive update.

I believe this above is what compelled AT&T and Verizon to push the update out to their older phones. We are talking about the same Verizon that, IIRC, didn't even release 10.3.1. I am not sure if AT&T did either.

[EchoesFX]

I agree on the latter but I don't agree with the former because the law (here is where I'm reading it) does talk about phones sold before July:



I believe this above is what compelled AT&T and Verizon to push the update out to their older phones. We are talking about the same Verizon that, IIRC, didn't even release 10.3.1. I am not sure if AT&T did either.

We are reading the bill from the same site. The entire section you are quoting is shown below. Read closely.




I'm sorry but I'm certain that the correct interpretation is:

If it is sold in California after July 1st, it must have a kill switch feature *at time of sale*, unless it was both introduced prior to January 1st 2015 AND a solution cannot be implemented. This means if they want to keep selling their current lineup, they must update NEW units.

It says nothing whatsoever about forcing a mandatory update on phones people already own. They just decided to use a chainsaw instead of a scalpel on the patient here.

Posted via CB10

[raino]

I'm sorry but I'm certain that the correct interpretation is:

If it is sold in California after July 1st, it must have a kill switch feature *at time of sale*, unless it was both introduced prior to January 1st 2015 AND a solution cannot be implemented. This means if they want to keep selling their current lineup, they must update NEW units.

It says nothing whatsoever about forcing a mandatory update on phones people already own. They just decided to use a chainsaw instead of a scalpel on the patient here.

Hmm. I see what you're saying: phones that were manufactured before 1/1/15 but are still being sold is what the exemption is talking about. But don't you think "still being sold" is key phrasing that the carriers/sellers would have lobbied to have put right next to the exception part--especially after they sought the removal of tablets as devices this law would apply to?
Anyway...I have an in with one of the co-authors of this bill so I'm going to try to get a final word on this.

How do you explain Verizon and AT&T pushing the update to older devices, though? That testing time and effort they would have had to expend on the Z10s and Q10s to make sure 10.3.2 works on these phones it was retroactively applied to?

[EchoesFX]

Hmm. I see what you're saying: phones that were manufactured before 1/1/15 but are still being sold is what the exemption is talking about. But don't you think "still being sold" is key phrasing that the carriers/sellers would have lobbied to have put right next to the exception part--especially after they sought the removal of tablets as devices this law would apply to?
Anyway...I have an in with one of the co-authors of this bill so I'm going to try to get a final word on this.

How do you explain Verizon and AT&T pushing the update to older devices, though? That testing time and effort they would have had to expend on the Z10s and Q10s to make sure 10.3.2 works on these phones it was retroactively applied to?

Because the bill only addresses retail sales and there is no mention of phones people already have (and don't want to update), I'm confident that it doesn't apply to a phone that *was in the hands of it's first Californian owner before July*. I will say that there is nothing to prohibit forced updating of said handsets. Regardless, California's laws don't apply here in Arizona. None of the text applies to ANY of the four BB10 phones in my home.

"Existing law regulates various business activities and practices, including the sale of telephones.

This bill would require that any smartphone, as defined, that is *manufactured on or after July 1, 2015*, *and sold in California after that date*, include a technological solution at the time of sale" (Emphasis added)

To me, the text above is crystal clear as to what the intent of the bill is. It is aimed specifically at regulating businesses. Not the feature set of a device that has already been the owner's personal property as of June 30, 2015.

"The bill would make these requirements inapplicable when the smartphone is resold in California on the secondhand market or is consigned and held as collateral on a loan."

If the bill required handsets customers already own to have the software update forcibly installed on them, why would this section really be necessary? Wouldn't legally requiring the forced updating of handsets customers already owned make it a moot point? It would not end up on the secondhand market without an update unless it was owned by someone extremely stubborn and resourceful who took the time to actively block the update from installing.

So why is there a January 1, 2015 date even mentioned? Because manufacturers would like to be able to continue selling phones that are still on the market. They spent R&D resources on making these devices and probably lobbied for this so they don't get screwed. The exemption is there for the phones that can't be secured correctly to prevent things like rolling back to an earlier OS. It allows manufacturers and carriers to continue offering those handsets to Californians, rather than being unable to offer them based on the customer's address. If you read the verbiage carefully:

"Any smartphone model that was first introduced prior to January 1, 2015, that cannot reasonably be reengineered to support the manufacturer�s or operating system provider�s technological solution, including if the hardware or software cannot support a retroactive update, is not subject to the requirements of this section."

Key words: "First introduced prior to."

I interpret this to mean: "If this device was first introduced in 2014, you can keep selling it no matter what. However, if it can be brought into compliance, any units manufactured after July 1st must ship with the update pre-installed to comply, or if that wasn't possible, your employee must update it for the customer at the time of sale. If what you have in stock was manufactured prior to that date, you don't have to make your employees open up those boxes in inventory and update those devices prior to sale. If it's an older device and you can't update it, you can still sell it. If the manufacturer introduced it knowing it wouldn't be able to meet this law's requirements after January 1, 2015 then sorry, but this law bans the sale of the product In California if it was manufactured after July 1. The manufacturer had time to fix the design prior to launch."

As for how I would explain the update being sent to everyone? Well, we can't really credit the law here either. Z10 and Q10 aren't being sold by Verizon at this point anyway. They got the official update because for whatever reason, someone in charge wanted them to. The customers aren't stupid, and a lot of them know that newer OS versions exist. Some install them on their own, some whine about it on CrackBerry and Twitter, and other people call to complain. This shuts everybody up and gets people on a version they know works with their network's features.

Also 10.3.1 removed AIR. The old escreen BAR that let you bypass the entitlement check for tethering was AIR based. Oops. This keeps people from turning on the hotspot feature for free, so I'm sure Verizon is happy to see that closed off.

Overall it's good for MOST Verizon customers. Just not those on a BES who depend on Flash, or those who bought a $50-$80 gamepad based on BlackBerry claiming it was compatible in several places (Developer documentation, developer blogs, etc), only to have them break support for it and then refuse to admit there was a problem at all until I filed a JIRA about it instead of trying to talk to brain-dead customer service people who would endlessly say "Go ask MOGA why Cascades apps and the hub stop accepting touch input when you pair your controller on any device running any variant of 10.3.1. Your controller must have magically changed somehow!"

If you recall, I stated in another thread that I felt US carriers would skip a 10.3.1 rollout in favor of 10.3.2 because of California's law forcing them to have an update with a kill-switch feature to continue selling existing models of BB10 phones and carrier policies that require them to spend time testing an OS on their network before letting it out there. I said "they won't want to spend the time testing 10.3.1 this close to 10.3.2 coming out with the new law in a market like California." Looks like I was correct, but I didn't expect it to be forced.

Posted via CB10

[not_addicted77]

This thread is still about the official update correct?

[OneofLittleHarmony]

Wait.

@superlongtextwall

Does this mean that Verizon plans on having z30s manufactured after July 1, 2015?

Does it define manufacturering in a corollary statute?

Posted via CB10

[Khurshid Marwat]

Hey guys I hav Verizon STL100-4 Z10 running on OS 10.2.0.1157, I'm not in the US and today i got the update to 10.3.2.556 which is 1.7Gb, in the step of installation at about 99% it says "update was interrupted please try again" I've tried it 2 times but same message appears.
I want to know if this happens because I am not in the US and not on verizon or is it some other reason?
Please Guide
PS: I put the phone on airplane mode and turned off the location services but all in vain

[mehofmann]

Anyone having a problem with the volume up working properly during playback of audio or video in the browser or while connected to Bluetooth? The volume down works without a problem but if you turn the volume down you can't turn it up unless you exit from the application. Otherwise it works fine. My guess is that it is a bug in the update that might be fixed with a factory reset and reload of the software. Anyone with any suggestions? I'm on a Verizon Z10 running 10.3.2.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

Hey guys I hav Verizon STL100-4 Z10 running on OS 10.2.0.1157, I'm not in the US and today i got the update to 10.3.2.556 which is 1.7Gb, in the step of installation at about 99% it says "update was interrupted please try again" I've tried it 2 times but same message appears.
I want to know if this happens because I am not in the US and not on verizon or is it some other reason?
Please Guide
PS: I put the phone on airplane mode and turned off the location services but all in vain

Sounds like you've run out of space on your device. Try erasing stuff and using Link to update (if you haven't already).

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2339

[Khurshid Marwat]

Sounds like you've run out of space on your device. Try erasing stuff and using Link to update (if you haven't already).

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2339

No i got plenty of free space
I installed this developer os 10.2.0.1157 with radio version 10.2.1.3182 after i bricked my z10 and not it wont connect to link and i keep getting this interruption error while updating ota, really frustrated i am.
Can you guide me how can i install official OS without bricking my device.
Thanks

[conite]

No i got plenty of free space
I installed this developer os 10.2.0.1157 with radio version 10.2.1.3182 after i bricked my z10 and not it wont connect to link and i keep getting this interruption error while updating ota, really frustrated i am.
Can you guide me how can i install official OS without bricking my device.
Thanks

Sometimes you need more than 4gb free to update OTA.

You can always use an autoloader, but it will wipe your device.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2339

[thurask]

Or BlackBerry Link.

Posted via CB10

[Khurshid Marwat]

Sometimes you need more than 4gb free to update OTA.

You can always use an autoloader, but it will wipe your device.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2339

So I am updating z10 via sachesi and downloaded the following files, should it do the trick and do these files match?

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

I've been running the 10.3.2.2339 leak for about a week...

Got back from lunch and had a box saying I'd just been updated. Not really sure what they updated as it's still on 10.3.2.2339, but apparently there was something that even this OS needed.

[DaFoxGrey]

I've been running the 10.3.2.2339 leak for about a week...

Got back from lunch and had a box saying I'd just been updated. Not really sure what they updated as it's still on 10.3.2.2339, but apparently there was something that even this OS needed.

Probably this:
http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe...pdate-1028779/

[conite]

So I am updating z10 via sachesi and downloaded the following files, should it do the trick and do these files match?

Not if you have a STL100-1.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2339

[Khurshid Marwat]

Not if you have a STL100-1.

Z30STA100-5/10.3.2.2339

Nah i got stl100-4
the debrick i downloaded, while extracting the .signed file from it sacheshi( bboth versions 2.0.0 and 2.0.2) stuck on 99% anyone know where th problem might be or any other link to this quoted debrick