[LG V30 Guides, News, & Discussion] ChazzMatt:
You're probably referring to a security study either done by Qualcomm or sponsored by Qualcomm that suggested removing some functions -- removing "areas of attack" -- if bootloader was cracked by exploits like Dirty Santa. I saw a reference to that study back in September. Some people commented that with the T-mobile LG G6 that LG took those suggestions and went even further.

But with LG G6 and V30, it was LG's decision, not Qualcomm. Otherwise EVERY 2017 Android (especially with Snapdragon 835) wouldn't still have those commands. Even Samsung's Hong Kong Galaxy S8/S8+ with Snapdragon 835 has bootloader unlock, full flash commands, root and TWRP. < Read that again. A lot of people falsely think none of the Samsung Galaxy S8/S8+ Snapdragon 835 models have bootloader unlock. No, it's only the ones sold in North America. And I'm not talking about Exynos chipset S8/S8+ phones, I'm talking about actual Snapdragon 835.

The S8/S8+ in mainland China but also Hong Kong have Snapdragon 835, with easily unlocked bootloader (just simple OEM bootloader unlock) and even have TWRP

and root, of course.

TWRP is Now Available for the SNAPDRAGON 835 Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8+ (XDA News)

(Those models also had all U.S./Canada GSM/CDMA/HSPA/LTE frequencies. I commented in that article and gave the frequencies.)

The Galaxy S8/S7+ was the FIRST 2017 phone to have the new Snapdragon 835. Whereas, the LG G6 had the "old" Snapdragon 821. LG V30 has 835, of course. So when did Qualcomm start implementing this alleged policy? It never did.

Of course, there's

OnePlus

...

All the

2017 Motorola phones

and

HTC phones

, etc.

(Those are links to active XDA development, which needs flash commands.)

As well as the Google Play Store Pixels.

and all the other Androids out there with Snapdragon 835 and full flash commands, with development forums on XDA.

So, "Qualcomm" hasn't removed anything from anywhere, that I can see. Qualcomm wouldn't/couldn't arbitrarily remove flash commands from any LG phones and then not touch any other Androids.

XDA would be dead if Qualcomm removed all flash commands to all 2017 Android phones. :)

Either LG or T-Mobile made the decision to remove the flash commands from the 2017 T-Mobile LG flagship variants.

_________

ONLY REMOVED FROM T-MOBILE?

Now, here's where it gets interesting...

A few months ago, September to be precise, I was of the opinion LG had removed the flash commands from ALL their 2017 phones -- as evidenced by the LG T-mobile LG G6 which does have bootloader unlock but never obtained root, due to lack of those commands. I repeatedly told people that, so they would know NOT to buy carrier branded LG V30, but instead the "open market" carrier unlocked models, as those will be guaranteed bootloader unlock and root. Then the T-mobile LG V30 (and V30+) was released, and as predicted it was the same situation -- "easy" meaningless bootloader unlock with flash commands removed.

I still believe most of that -- that only the "open market" carrier unlocked models will be guaranteed bootloader unlock and root.

However, what I have doubts about now is that LG removed all the flash commands from ALL the carrier phones. I have new information since September that makes me wonder...

1) The only reason we think this is because no one has cracked the bootloader of a locked down carrier branded LG G6/LG V30 and published the results. Yet, in October, I learned a respected dev had rooted a Verizon LG G6 a few months prior. For him, apparently it was easy. But he's an expert in bootloader unlock. So... once he got past the bootloader, did he then have access to all the flash commands? (I have no direct proof, other than someone's word, and I have no desire to prove this. Knowing the person and their skills, if they said they did it, then they did it. For their own reasons, they declined to make this public.) But that would make sense, if all the people working on the "crippled" T-mobile bootloader unlocked variants haven't had success. He was successful because once he got past the Verizon bootloader, the rest was a piece of cake -- since perhaps he then had full flash commands?

2) One of the Europe phones placed on the LG Developer Bootloader Unlock list is the LG V30+ sold by TIM in Italy. It has full flash commands, but is a "carrier" phone. So, there's a documented example right there of LG V30 carrier branded phone having full flash commands. (A user was complaining about the TIM boot logo on his rooted phone.)

3) The U.S. Cellular US998 V30/V30+ seems every bit identical to the "open market" US998 V30/V30+, with the only difference being their IMEI numbers are not eligible for bootloader unlock. But if you had an exploit that cracked the bootloader, what would you find underneath? Here's why I'm asking. The Israeli V30+ has the exact same model number (and frequencies) as the Italy TIM V30+, and their IMEI numbers are not eligible. The TIM carrier model IS eligible, Israeli not. IF the Israeli model bootloader could be unlocked with an exploit, I would bet it's identical to the Italy TIM V30+, which is eligible. I would bet it has full flash commands.

So, that makes me wonder about the U.S. Cellular models, and the other carrier models like Verizon and AT&T.

_________

If then, this new theory is true -- that only the flash commands were removed from T-mobile (which inexplicably was given easy bootloader unlock) -- then why? I don't know. But if true, it does mean that bootloader unlock and root for other carrier LG V30/V30+ is not hopeless.

And I still think the LGUP trick would work on the T-Mobile variant, once we get the proper files.