phones to replace v30 - LG V30 Questions & Answers

So what is everyone looking at to replace the v30 for 5g and beyond. Thx...

---

Maybe LG V60?
Wysłane z mojego LG-H930 przy użyciu Tapatalka

---

skretch said:
Maybe LG V60?
Wysłane z mojego LG-H930 przy użyciu Tapatalka
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except LG V60 (allegedly flagship phone!) only has 1080p vs the QHD 1440p all LG flagship phones have had for years. I've had 1440p since 2014 Moto Quark and I'm NOT downgrading.
They did that for the stupid dual display gimmick, so resolution would match on both screens. Give me ONE good screen. I don't want two.

---

I use the HDMI out & MiraCast (not ChromeCast) on my V30 frequently. So I'd be looking for phones that could do both of those.

---

ChazzMatt said:
Except LG V60 (allegedly flagship phone!) only has 1080p vs the QHD 1440p all LG flagship phones have had for years. I've had 1440p since 2014 Moto Quark and I'm NOT downgrading.
They did that for the stupid dual display gimmick, so resolution would match on both screens. Give me ONE good screen. I don't want two.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see the 60Hz being a bigger fail. I got a Realme X2 Pro after my LG V30 and I'd take 1080p 90Hz over a 1440p 60Hz any day. Not to mention that this panel looks better than what my LG looked like with a grainy display (that honestly didn't bother me at all at the time, but this one looks much clearer).

---

adsubzero said:
I see the 60Hz being a bigger fail.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that too. In 2020 for flagship phone you need 1440p and more than 60Hz. Even the OnePlus Pro (which has so much stuff removed -- like headset jack, no microSD card) has 1440p and more than 60Hz.
I make fun of OnePlus for their misleading lies but in this one case they are giving better display than LG.

---

newbe1droidx said:
So what is everyone looking at to replace the v30 for 5g and beyond. Thx...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It depends on what aspects of LG V30 you liked and stuff that you didn't like.
For example if you liked wired audio, your choices are very limited.

---

Anyone hear about motorola one fusion plus?

---

Well, I'm a Verizon customer. The two I have been looking at on their website are the one plus 8 (they don't offer the pro) and the LG v60. Pluses and cons for both. The LG is about $50 more, so in the end, that might be the deciding factor. But, I'm not looking too seriously right now. It will still probably be awhile before I get a new one.
These are the two "flag ship" phones I have been looking at. Not really looking at the Motorola razor or the Samsung ones as they are both quite a bit more costly.

---

gimpy1 said:
Well, I'm a Verizon customer. The two I have been looking at on their website are the one plus 8 (they don't offer the pro) and the LG v60. Pluses and cons for both. The LG is about $50 more, so in the end, that might be the deciding factor. But, I'm not looking too seriously right now. It will still probably be awhile before I get a new one.
These are the two "flag ship" phones I have been looking at. Not really looking at the Motorola razor or the Samsung ones as they are both quite a bit more costly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you wait until next year -- after December 31, 2020 -- Verizon will drop CDMA and be LTE only. At that point, it might not matter so much if it's a "Verizon" phone or just a carrier unlocked phone.
For instance, the 2020 VERIZON Galaxy Galaxy S20 doesn't have a microSD card while all other variants (including Samsung's official carrier unlocked) does have microSD card. Why doesn't Verizon's? Allegedly because Verizon's 5G antennas are too bulky -- so they had to save space somewhere. But you STILL need a special case for the Verizon Galaxy S20, as it's not the same size as other carrier S20, even without microSD slot! Verizon also dropped RAM from 12GB to 8GB Did AT&T drop the microSD card and reduce RAM? They use the exact same flavor 5G as Verizon... Or is it because (for now) Verizon has CDMA, LTE, and G5 antennas? Well, next year they won't.
What’s likely happening here is that Samsung needed to figure out a way to bring mmWave support to the Verizon Galaxy S20 without increasing manufacturing costs too much. For whatever reason, it decided dropping the RAM amount by 4GB and ditching the microSD card slot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also don't be swayed by 5G claims. "mmWave" with higher frequencies -- the variant Verizon and AT&T are building out -- is aptly named. It basically can't even pass through a mm of glass window. T-mobile is building out lower frequency 5G which travels for longer distances but is like 200mbps instead of 500mbps. Still fast enough!
Point is, I don't care about 5G since it is going to drain battery life.

---

ChazzMatt said:
For instance, the 2020 VERIZON Galaxy Galaxy S20 doesn't have a microSD card while all other variants (including Samsung's official carrier unlocked) does have microSD card. Why doesn't Verizon's? Allegedly because Verizon's G5 antennas are too bulky -- so they had to save space somewhere. But you STILL need a special case for the Verizon Galaxy S20, as it's not the same size as other carrier S20, even without microSD slot! Verizon also dropped RAM from 12GB to 8GB Did AT&T drop the microSD card and reduce RAM? They use the exact same flavor G5 as Verizon... Or is it because (for now) Verizon has CDMA, LTE, and G5 antennas? Well, next year they won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Verizon has a long storied history of procuring nerfed versions of smartphones, unfortunately. It's one of the many reasons I walked away from them. Great signal; horrible everything else.

---

Caffination said:
Verizon has a long storied history of procuring nerfed versions of smartphones, unfortunately. It's one of the many reasons I walked away from them. Great signal; horrible everything else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ditto. And they're also well known for lying and saying a phone won't work or isn't allowed on their network, even though you can take an activated SIM and drop it in with no problem (eg, my V30 H931 (originally) which runs fine with VS996 installed).
This is why I switched to Total Wireless. They don't play the dumb IMEI game that VZ does, you save money, and you still get VZ towers.

---

Caffination said:
Verizon has a long storied history of procuring nerfed versions of smartphones, unfortunately. It's one of the many reasons I walked away from them. Great signal; horrible everything else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, long storied history. Here's my Verizon story which covers 2014 - 2016 involving lying and nerfing...
1) Verizon lied about the 2014 Droid Turbo being global exclusive. It wasn't even exclusive device to Verizon in the U.S. and I proved it to the dismay of XDA Verizon fanbois.
2) In 2016, Verizon delayed giving Marshmallow update for six months while all other worldwide versions had that update, because 2014 Droid Turbo with Marshmallow was equal or better to all their other 2016 NEW phones Verizon were trying to sell. So, they nerfed the Droid Turbo until after the 2016 Q3/Q4 back-to-school and holiday sales had finished.
Here's the full story:
MOTO QUARK
I bought three of the 2014 Moto "Quark", which was the best phone of 2014, the smaller sibling of the Moto Nexus 6. Both designed by Google when they owned Motorola -- with almost identical specs except for size. Remember these were awesome specs in 2014: 3GB RAM, 5.2" 1440p OLED, Qi wireless charging, 21MP camera, 3900 mAh battery (Quark). Yes, Quark had 5.2" display, but back then phones were smaller and until that year, the Nexus model number had NOTHING to do with screen size. It was merely the generation number. 2011 Nexus 3 (4.65"), 2012 Nexus 4 (4.75") 2013 and Nexus 5 (4.95") were all almost 5". The 4.95" Nexus 5 (2013) was merely the 5TH Nexus -- had nothing to do with screen size. But for some reason, Google decided the 2014 Nexus 6 should be 6" because their Nexus 7 tablet was 7"...
Until August 2014, Google was testing TWO different versions for the 2014 Nexus -- the 5.2" and the 6". They ended up going with the 6" and the 5.2" was re-purposed to be the Moto Quark. Ironically, the smaller Moto Quark had a larger battery (3900 mAh) than the larger Moto Nexus 6.
But about that time, Google was selling Motorola to Lenovo. So, to blunt the the competition from a FANTASTIC phone to compete with Moto Nexus 6, Google/Lenovo decided to sell the Moto Quark under different model names in different regions, different carriers. Stupidity, personified. "Quark" is the series code name, like "Joan" is for the V30. We all started calling it that because it was the SAME phone series, just like for V30, a US998 is same phone as EU H930. Just different firmware and (maybe) bands.
DROID TURBO/MOTO TURBO/MOTO MAXX
However, not only were they all the same series (like our V30 US998 and H930), but TWO of Quark models were exact clones of each other. Even same FCC ID.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Verizon's version was called Droid Turbo (XT1254). And it was identical in every way -- including same FCC number to the Moto Maxx (XT1250) sold by other U.S. (regional) carriers. Well identical in every way, except the Moto Maxx had Motorola sanctioned bootloader unlock, while the Verizon Droid Turbo did not. The Moto Maxx XT1250 even ran on Verizon with Verizon SIM card, because guess why? It had the exact same FCC number, and thus had identical bands, etc. To Verizon's network, it was indeed a "Droid Turbo". (I predicted this was possible, then users proved it.)
In Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare said, "That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet."
So, the Moto Maxx XT1250 was basically the "Dev" version of the the Droid Turbo XT1254. Buy it, unlock bootloader, install TWRP, put in Verizon SIM card. You could even flash Verizon firmware if you wished. Much like our V30 US998 to VS996 Frankenstein. But remember this was back in 2014... Cross flashing Verizon FIRMWARE over XT1250 worked because it was ALREADY the same phone.
There was a 3rd Moto Quark (or 2nd if you count the XT1254/XT1250 clones as the same phone), called the XT1225. In India, this variant was sold as the "Moto Turbo (XT1225)." In Latin America, it was sold as Moto Maxx (XT1225). Yes, it had different bands from the Droid Turbo XT1254/Moto Maxx XT1250, but in a good way for me. It had no CDMA, but had extra LTE and HSPA bands, and had ALL the AT&T bands, including the new (at the time) LTE band 5. However, you could not buy this one in the U.S.
So, I bought three -- importing them from Puerto Rico and Mexico. Bootloader unlocked, rooted, ran CM 12.1 and LOS Revolution Remix ROMs. (No you couldn't cross flash XT1225 firwmare over XT1254/XT1250 or vice versa.)
XDA DRAMA
With these specs in 2014 (3GB RAM, 5.2" 1440p OLED, Qi wireless charging, 21MP camera, 3900 mAh battery) and the too huge size at the time of the Moto Nexus 6, I decided the Moto Quark was my best bet to upgrade from the 4.95" 1080p LG Nexus 5 with too-small battery.
With me, so far? OK.
Back then, XDA tended to segregate all models according to carriers. The T-mobile Galaxy Widget would be separate from the Sprint Galaxy Widget, which would be separate from the AT&T Galaxy Widget. SO, people would coming in to a forum would automatically assume THEIR carrier version was what people were talking about. (Back in 2017, also had this trouble initially with T-mobile H932 users even in this V30 forum. Coming from older phones, some users don't understand changes.) But in late 2014, XDA started lumping all the models together -- like this V30 forum is now. Except XDA mistakenly called it the "Droid Turbo" forum and wouldn't re-name it "Quark" forum -- even though ALL the variants were being discussed there.
Adding fuel to fire, Verizon LIED in all their release hype and claimed their Droid Turbo (XT1254) was a GLOBAL EXCLUSIVE. The device wasn't even exclusive to them in the U.S. much less the entire world. (U.S. XT1250 was identical device, ran on Verizon with Verizon SIM card and had easy bootloader unlock.)
"Droid" is a trademark owned by Verizon. They can call any phone a "Droid". So, technically yes the Droid Turbo was exclusive to Verizon. But the exact same phone (same FCC ID) was being sold by a dozen regional LTE/CDMA carriers under the "Moto Maxx" (XT1250) model name. I even provided links to those carriers where people could buy these Moto Maxx XT1250.
Once I pointed out this fact -- Verizon was LYING through their teeth, the XT1250 was not only the same phone as the Verizon Droid Turbo but in fact a better phone due to easy bootloader unlock, PAGES of heated arguments ensued. Ignorant Verizon fanbois didn't want to believe it. They wanted to believe Verizon had cornered the market on this FANTASTIC phone. They were grudgingly willing to believe perhaps other variants like Moto Turbo XT1225 (with different bands, different FCC ID) existed for OTHER countries, but BY GOLLY, ONLY Verizon had this phone in the U.S.! (How can you love a carrier that much, like they are God? Or believe carrier PR hype that much?)
If you know anything about electronics, same FCC ID number carries weight of law due to the ADA law for handicaps/disabilities. Your company can fined by the U.S Government and be sued in class action lawsuit for millions of dollars if you mis-identify the characteristics of an electronic communication device, which is identified by the FCC number. You can call it whatever you like (Droid Turbo, Moto Maxx) but the FCC ID number is the unique identifier in the U.S. There's no way deep pockets Verizon nor Motorola/Lenovo would open themselves up to that kind of liability.
Plus, the Verizon fanbois didn't like that other Quark variants being discussed in THEIR forum. But this XT1254/XT1250 clone proof REALLY got under their skin. They called me a liar and worse -- even though I had FCC documentation. One of the FCC documents is attached, but I had whole chain of evidence, that not only was Moto Maxx/Moto Turbo XT1225 same specs as Droid Turbo XT1254 (so all were Quarks in spite of different model names), but furthermore that Moto Maxx XT1250 = Droid Turbo XT1254 to 100th decimal point.
______
Mods got involved, thread was cleaned, people got warned and even banned. Months later, I ended up an XDA Recognized Contributor. Because of my extensive knowledge of the cell phone industry, I'm the one who figured all this out. I went looking through the FCC records and searching regional telephone carriers. Most people only know about the Big 4 (now Big 3) -- but there are many other carriers with their own towers and licences serving remote areas like in Appalachia, Alaska, parts of Michigan, etc. I'm not talking about MVNOs but actual carriers. Cricket and MetroPCS used to be regional standalone carriers before being bought by AT&T and T-mobile. Back then, LTE/CDMA carrier MetroPCS in particular would get the EXACT same phones as Verizon, but under a different model name. For instance, the Verizon LG Revolution = MetroPCS LG Esteem -- and LG didn't even bother removing the Revolution boot up animation from the media folder. It had both animations in the media folder. But it allowed Verizon to claim (fake) "exclusive" for LG Revolution. All that kind of stuff flies under the radar to people who only know about the major carriers.
As a result of all this conflict, XDA did open a separate Moto Maxx forum and moved all non Droid Turbo content over there. But the ironic thing is all Development (kernels, CM and later LOS ROMs) were posted there. So, Verizon "Droid Turbo" owners had to go over THERE (Moto Maxx forum) to get stuff, once Sunshine Dev team found an exploit to unlock the Verizon Droid Turbo variant bootloader about a year after release. Whereas, the Moto Turbo and Moto Maxx variants always had bootloader unlock, TWRP and ROMs. Droid Turbo was late to the party.
So, point is, Verizon lies about phones.
VERZION DELAYED OS UPDATE
Then, in July 2016 when Marshmallow update pushed from Motorola servers for ALL Moto Quark variants, the Verizon Droid Turbo did not get their update. Motorola confirmed they sent it to Verizon and it would be released by Verizon. When? Only Verizon knew. Maybe they were testing it? NO, they weren't. They were just sitting on it. Why? Because all the back-to-school new phone sales were starting, then the holiday new phone sales after that and the Droid Turbo specs were still too good. 3GB RAM, 5.2" 1440p OLED, Qi wireless charging, 21MP camera, 3900 mAh battery. THAT 2-year old phone with new OS would still be as good as or better than any new phone Verizon was selling! So, if they didn't update the OS, then people will have to buy new phone to get Marshmallow. Only end of December 2016 did Verizon finally release the Marshmallow update for their Quark -- and it immediately bricked the phones which had encrypted storage. So, Verizon had to pull the update for a couple of weeks, then release a revised version. That shows Verizon was NOT extensively testing it for six months, they were just sitting on it to nerf the Droid Turbo from being too good a phone so people with "old" phones would buy new ones.
Point is, Verizon will purposefully degrade (or delay updates) to an older phone to increase sales of newer phones.
They were also the first to insist upon bootloaders which could not be unlocked -- even for Google Nexus/Pixel phones.

---

ChazzMatt said:
Yes, long storied history. Here's my Verizon story which covers 2014 - 2016 involving lying and nerfing...
1) Verizon lied about the 2014 Droid Turbo being global exclusive. It wasn't even exclusive device to Verizon in the U.S. and I proved it to the dismay of XDA Verizon fanbois.
2) In 2016, Verizon delayed giving Marshmallow update for six months while all other worldwide versions had that update, because 2014 Droid Turbo with Marshmallow was equal or better to all their other 2016 NEW phones Verizon were trying to sell. So, they nerfed the Droid Turbo until after the 2016 Q3/Q4 back-to-school and holiday sales had finished.
Here's the full story:
MOTO QUARK
I bought three of the 2014 Moto "Quark", which was the best phone of 2014, the smaller sibling of the Moto Nexus 6. Both designed by Google when they owned Motorola -- with almost identical specs except for size. Remember these were awesome specs in 2014: 3GB RAM, 5.2" 1440p OLED, Qi wireless charging, 21MP camera, 3900 mAh battery (Quark). Yes, Quark had 5.2" display, but back then phones were smaller and until that year, the Nexus model number had NOTHING to do with screen size. It was merely the generation number. 2011 Nexus 3 (4.65"), 2012 Nexus 4 (4.75") 2013 and Nexus 5 (4.95") were all almost 5". The 4.95" Nexus 5 (2013) was merely the 5TH Nexus -- had nothing to do with screen size. But for some reason, Google decided the 2014 Nexus 6 should be 6" because their Nexus 7 tablet was 7"...
Until August 2014, Google was testing TWO different versions for the 2014 Nexus -- the 5.2" and the 6". They ended up going with the 6" and the 5.2" was re-purposed to be the Moto Quark. Ironically, the smaller Moto Quark had a larger battery (3900 mAh) than the larger Moto Nexus 6.
But about that time, Google was selling Motorola to Lenovo. So, to blunt the the competition from a FANTASTIC phone to compete with Moto Nexus 6, Google/Lenovo decided to sell the Moto Quark under different model names in different regions, different carriers. Stupidity, personified. "Quark" is the series code name, like "Joan" is for the V30. We all started calling it that because it was the SAME phone series, just like for V30, a US998 is same phone as EU H930. Just different firmware and (maybe) bands.
DROID TURBO/MOTO TURBO/MOTO MAXX
However, not only were they all the same series (like our V30 US998 and H930), but TWO of Quark models were exact clones of each other. Even same FCC ID.
Verizon's version was called Droid Turbo (XT1254). And it was identical in every way -- including same FCC number to the Moto Maxx (XT1250) sold by other U.S. (regional) carriers. Well identical in every way, except the Moto Maxx had Motorola sanctioned bootloader unlock, while the Verizon Droid Turbo did not. The Moto Maxx XT1250 even ran on Verizon with Verizon SIM card, because guess why? It had the exact same FCC number, and thus had identical bands, etc. To Verizon's network, it was indeed a "Droid Turbo". (I predicted this was possible, then users proved it.)
In Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare said, "That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet."
So, the Moto Maxx XT1250 was basically the "Dev" version of the the Droid Turbo XT1254. Buy it, unlock bootloader, install TWRP, put in Verizon SIM card. You could even flash Verizon firmware if you wished. Much like our V30 US998 to VS996 Frankenstein. But remember this was back in 2014... Cross flashing Verizon FIRMWARE over XT1250 worked because it was ALREADY the same phone.
There was a 3rd Moto Quark (or 2nd if you count the XT1254/XT1250 clones as the same phone), called the XT1225. In India, this variant was sold as the "Moto Turbo (XT1225)." In Latin America, it was sold as Moto Maxx (XT1225). Yes, it had different bands from the Droid Turbo XT1254/Moto Maxx XT1250, but in a good way for me. It had no CDMA, but had extra LTE and HSPA bands, and had ALL the AT&T bands, including the new (at the time) LTE band 5. However, you could not buy this one in the U.S.
So, I bought three -- importing them from Puerto Rico and Mexico. Bootloader unlocked, rooted, ran CM 12.1 and LOS Revolution Remix ROMs. (No you couldn't cross flash XT1225 firwmare over XT1254/XT1250 or vice versa.)
XDA DRAMA
With these specs in 2014 (3GB RAM, 5.2" 1440p OLED, Qi wireless charging, 21MP camera, 3900 mAh battery) and the too huge size at the time of the Moto Nexus 6, I decided the Moto Quark was my best bet to upgrade from the 4.95" 1080p LG Nexus 5 with too-small battery.
With me, so far? OK.
Back then, XDA tended to segregate all models according to carriers. The T-mobile Galaxy Widget would be separate from the Sprint Galaxy Widget, which would be separate from the AT&T Galaxy Widget. SO, people would coming in to a forum would automatically assume THEIR carrier version was what people were talking about. (Back in 2017, also had this trouble initially with T-mobile H932 users even in this V30 forum. Coming from older phones, some users don't understand changes.) But in late 2014, XDA started lumping all the models together -- like this V30 forum is now. Except XDA mistakenly called it the "Droid Turbo" forum and wouldn't re-name it "Quark" forum -- even though ALL the variants were being discussed there.
Adding fuel to fire, Verizon LIED in all their release hype and claimed their Droid Turbo (XT1254) was a GLOBAL EXCLUSIVE. The device wasn't even exclusive to them in the U.S. much less the entire world. (U.S. XT1250 was identical device, ran on Verizon with Verizon SIM card and had easy bootloader unlock.)
"Droid" is a trademark owned by Verizon. They can call any phone a "Droid". So, technically yes the Droid Turbo was exclusive to Verizon. But the exact same phone (same FCC ID) was being sold by a dozen regional LTE/CDMA carriers under the "Moto Maxx" (XT1250) model name. I even provided links to those carriers where people could buy these Moto Maxx XT1250.
Once I pointed out this fact -- Verizon was LYING through their teeth, the XT1250 was not only the same phone as the Verizon Droid Turbo but in fact a better phone due to easy bootloader unlock, PAGES of heated arguments ensued. Ignorant Verizon fanbois didn't want to believe it. They wanted to believe Verizon had cornered the market on this FANTASTIC phone. They were grudgingly willing to believe perhaps other variants like Moto Turbo XT1225 (with different bands, different FCC ID) existed for OTHER countries, but BY GOLLY, ONLY Verizon had this phone in the U.S.! (How can you love a carrier that much, like they are God? Or believe carrier PR hype that much?)
If you know anything about electronics, same FCC ID number carries weight of law due to the ADA law for handicaps/disabilities. Your company can fined by the U.S Government and be sued in class action lawsuit for millions of dollars if you mis-identify the characteristics of an electronic communication device, which is identified by the FCC number. You can call it whatever you like (Droid Turbo, Moto Maxx) but the FCC ID number is the unique identifier in the U.S. There's no way deep pockets Verizon nor Motorola/Lenovo would open themselves up to that kind of liability.
Plus, the Verizon fanbois didn't like that other Quark variants being discussed in THEIR forum. But this XT1254/XT1250 clone proof REALLY got under their skin. They called me a liar and worse -- even though I had FCC documentation. One of the FCC documents is attached, but I had whole chain of evidence, that not only was Moto Maxx/Moto Turbo XT1225 same specs as Droid Turbo XT1254 (so all were Quarks in spite of different model names), but furthermore that Moto Maxx XT1250 = Droid Turbo XT1254 to 100th decimal point.
______
Mods got involved, thread was cleaned, people got warned and even banned. Months later, I ended up an XDA Recognized Contributor. Because of my extensive knowledge of the cell phone industry, I'm the one who figured all this out. I went looking through the FCC records and searching regional telephone carriers. Most people only know about the Big 4 (now Big 3) -- but there are many other carriers with their own towers and licences serving remote areas like in Appalachia, Alaska, parts of Michigan, etc. I'm not talking about MVNOs but actual carriers. Cricket and MetroPCS used to be regional standalone carriers before being bought by AT&T and T-mobile. Back then, LTE/CDMA carrier MetroPCS in particular would get the EXACT same phones as Verizon, but under a different model name. For instance, the Verizon LG Revolution = MetroPCS LG Esteem -- and LG didn't even bother removing the Revolution boot up animation from the media folder. It had both animations in the media folder. But it allowed Verizon to claim (fake) "exclusive" for LG Revolution. All that kind of stuff flies under the radar to people who only know about the major carriers.
As a result of all this conflict, XDA did open a separate Moto Maxx forum and moved all non Droid Turbo content over there. But the ironic thing is all Development (kernels, CM and later LOS ROMs) were posted there. So, Verizon "Droid Turbo" owners had to go over THERE (Moto Maxx forum) to get stuff, once Sunshine Dev team found an exploit to unlock the Verizon Droid Turbo variant bootloader about a year after release. Whereas, the Moto Turbo and Moto Maxx variants always had bootloader unlock, TWRP and ROMs. Droid Turbo was late to the party.
So, point is, Verizon lies about phones.
VERZION DELAYED OS UPDATE
Then, in July 2016 when Marshmallow update pushed from Motorola servers for ALL Moto Quark variants, the Verizon Droid Turbo did not get their update. Motorola confirmed they sent it to Verizon and it would be released by Verizon. When? Only Verizon knew. Maybe they were testing it? NO, they weren't. They were just sitting on it. Why? Because all the back-to-school new phone sales were starting, then the holiday new phone sales after that and the Droid Turbo specs were still too good. 3GB RAM, 5.2" 1440p OLED, Qi wireless charging, 21MP camera, 3900 mAh battery. THAT 2-year old phone with new OS would still be as good as or better than any new phone Verizon was selling! So, if they didn't update the OS, then people will have to buy new phone to get Marshmallow. Only end of December 2016 did Verizon finally release the Marshmallow update for their Quark -- and it immediately bricked the phones which had encrypted storage. So, Verizon had to pull the update for a couple of weeks, then release a revised version. That shows Verizon was NOT extensively testing it for six months, they were just sitting on it to nerf the Droid Turbo from being too good a phone so people with "old" phones would buy new ones.
Point is, Verizon will purposefully degrade (or delay updates) to an older phone to increase sales of newer phones.
They were also the first to insist upon bootloaders which could not be unlocked -- even for Google Nexus/Pixel phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I totally agree and hate when carriers play games with updates . Android Manufacturers allowed carriers to rename and modify their smartphones and software, which was a mistake from the beginning. I dislike Apple, but i have to hand it to them when it came to their devices. None of the carriers could modify the software or hardware in any way. This meant that their devices performed exactly the way they were intended to, and software development was only under their direct control.

---

ibnturab said:
I totally agree and hate when carriers play games with updates . Android Manufacturers allowed carriers to rename and modify their smartphones and software, which was a mistake from the beginning. I dislike Apple, but i have to hand it to them when it came to their devices. None of the carriers could modify the software or hardware in any way. This meant that their devices performed exactly the way they were intended to, and software development was only under their direct control.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is what Treble GSI images were supposed to fix, but don't. Because GSI images don't have the drivers and proprietary features major OEM (LG and Samsung) stock firmware have.

---

Wow great info chazz, opened my eyes for sure. So then which phones should we get then, unlocked and or international? Then which network for area of us we are in?