Does Sailfish OS can be flashed to SONY XPERIA 10 iii SOG04?

Hardware Adaptation
#1

I have SONY XPERIA 10 iii SOG04 . It is a single SIM device.
Will I be able to use Sailfish OS on this device?

#2

Maybe, probably not:

See also:

1 Like
#3

hmm, i say: probably YES, but MAYBE not.
two challenges:

  1. qUnlockBootloader - getting it from Bootloader Unlock Allowed: No => Yes. the person in that post was able to do this with that device. i have done this with two japanese locked sony xperia phones. e.g.: XZ2Compact, model SO-05K.
  2. flashing - changing flash.sh from XQBT52 or whatever to SOG04 is easy to do. i also had to do this when flashing the docomo-branded japanese phones.
    however, it is possible (though unlikely in my opinion), the japanese X10III actually has a real difference and that it wont work.
#4

I recently acquired a “sim-free” 10iii which turned out to have an unlockable bootloader. I thought I’d use qUnlocker but it seems it is “out of stock” and there are no prospects of it coming back soon, according to the dealer. There are other outlets that sell credits for the Unlock tool but as it’s not even guaranteed to open the bootloader I gave up, I can sell the device to an android user.

#5

If your device is unlock bootloader allowed = yes
You can try

I could flash sailfish os for dual SIM device on single SIM device, (global dual SIM Xperia 1 to Docomo Xperia 1). I must modified some sh script .
It work and my phone running sailfishos as I expected

#6

You may manage to flash SailfishOS on it when editing the flash script, with some luck it will boot SailfishOS, but I doubt all the hardware features which SailfishOS supports on the regular Xperia 10 III variants (XQ-…) will work.

#7

why would you doubt that all hardware would work after flashing was successful? do you have some reason to believe the hardware is different in these variants? it hasn’t been for other models SFOS supports (X, XA2, XZc, XZc2)

IMO, it is quite likely flashing will work, and all hardware will work, because for other sony xperia devices that are docomo-locked, this has been the case.

however, if it is true, it is sad that the qUnlockTool backend service is unavailable (can anyone else confirm?). without that or a similar service, if your phone says Bootloader Unlock Allowed: No, then there is no way to flash it.

#8

Flashing, by definition, does no checks. The partition layout needs to be similar enough for it tho fit, but that’s it. Thus the script doing additional sanity checks beforehand.

Do you have reason to believe it is the same? Ensuring you have a recovery path and then testing seems a very sensible suggestion (if you already happen to have one). Buying one and expecting it to work, not so much.

And it has been different for others: GitHub - g7/sailfishx-patcher-f5321: Patcher script that applies the f5321 (Xperia X Compact) compatibility layer on top of official Sailfish X f5121 images

If nothing else, single vs dual sim is a very common cause for different images.

1 Like
#9

yea, i wasn’t implying that a successful flash meant a non-bricked device. i was asking if anyone had ever heard of specific hardware not working after a successfully installing SFOS.

yes, because it was the same for a docomo locked Xperia X Compact, Xperia XA2, and Xperia XZ2c (with unofficial tama port). this is not proof it will be the same, but it is pretty good evidence.

i used Xperia X Compact for a long time. i had SEVEN xperia X compacts, and used g7’s image on all of them. i am a contributor to that repo.
and two of my seven Xc’s were docomo-locked SO-02J models, with Bootloader Unlock Allowed: No.

i’m not looking to be combative or argumentative, but i do have good evidence from personal experience, especially regarding the exact device you are using as an argument against it.

to state an obvious fact, single-sim and dual-sim devices have different hardware, by definition. it makes sense for them to have different images, and this is true even of official ports on the global unlocked variants. this fact is unrelated to the idea that network-locked devices have different hardware.

yes, good advice. this is ALWAYS true.

previously, i would have disagreed with you, because there is pretty solid evidence of docomo-branded devices to be hardware-identical to global devices…except if the qUnlockTool backend is really offline or unavailable, there is no way i know of to unlock the bootloader any more.

#10

Because there were minor differences in hardware (at least the supported frequency bands, but maybe more, e.g. firmware details / configuration) in the country / region specific variants of Xperia models. At worst there could be slightly diverging partition layouts, that is why I would not exclude the possibility of flashing to fail (or booting after flashing).

But I see that you have far more experience than I do specifically with the Xperia variants for NTT DoCoMo JP and that you experienced with the models you used that the only difference apparently was the provider lock. Still I wonder then, why other provider locked Xperias (e.g. by Vodafone) did not receive a different variant name? One may assume that there are additional differences. Besides the single SIM and dual SIM variants requiring different flashing images despite their > 99% similarity (as @attah already pointed out) Jolla also stated that the Xperia 10 IV and V regional variants 54 and 72 (i.e. XQ-CC54 / XQ-DC54 vs. XQ-CC72 / XQ-DC72) require different images.

1 Like
#11

I’d say that there isn’t any risk involved with trying to flash SFOS and seeing if it works, as nothing that gets flashed with SFOS can permanently brick the device. As long as the bootloader itself doesn’t get damaged (and SFOS doesn’t touch it), one can always go back to Android by re-flashing it with EMMA, XperiaCompanion, etc. So assuming that the bootloader is unlockable and you manage to do unlock it, I’d give SFOS a try.