[haberman]

> that you cant install without voiding warranties

So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty?

How does that make sense?

Is this people's expectation of Google, that if they don't give you whatever you want (at their own expense) then they are like 90s Microsoft?

[moron4hire]

It makes complete sense because it shouldn't be possible to brick the phone just from trying to install a different OS, and installing software shouldn't make it possible to void the warranty. Hardware and software should be separate.

[veemjeem]

Hm, at what point is hardware separate from software? When you write some C code that gets loaded on the Attiny85 chip, is that still considered software? Many SoCs come with the firmware already loaded so it just looks like a normal cpu when in actuality it contains a mini OS, graphics, networking, etc, all on a single QFN-72 package.

[moron4hire]

The point at which hardware is separate from software is when hardware is transistors and software is instructions. This isn't a difficult concept. And even if you want to get super pedantic in true insufferable-nerd fashion and argue about microcode, it doesn't apply to the operating system level, which is well, well into software level.

[makomk]

Most of the phones that have been "bricked" by the CyanogenMod installer aren't actually permanently bricked, they're just not fixable by anyone who'd actually need the CyanogenMod installer to help them install it.

[fnordfnordfnord]

Any user action that is completely reversible, like installing software, should not render the warranty void.

[victorhooi]

Hi,

Yes - but why don't you think what you said through a bit...

I flash my motherboard with a custom BIOS image I've hex-edited together.

Now, it won't boot correctly.

Yes, it's reversible - I can probably figure out a way to flash the original image back on.

However, the motherboard manufacturer is hardly going to tolerate me taking it back going, you need to fix this. That's hardly reasonable.

They're going to be...err...you did something stupid and unsupported. You fix it. They might give me advice, but the onus is certainly not on them.

Or say I flash my car's ECU to give me another 5 HP of output. Then my car stops starting up reliably. I can't exactly take it back to Honda and say, fix it. They'll be like, we sold you a working car - you did something out of spec, and overrode the ECU software - we aren't fixing it.

Yes, it's reversible - I can flash the right ECU image back on and it will start up correctly - but the onus isn't on them to hand hold me through that process.

Cheers, Victor

[fnordfnordfnord]

>...why don't you think what you said through a bit...

I have.

>I flash my motherboard with a custom BIOS image I've hex-edited together.

Congratulations.

>Now, it won't boot correctly.

woops

>Yes, it's reversible - I can probably figure out a way to flash the original image back on.

In most cases. It is possible to brick some hardware, but easily-brickable hardware is probably not something that OEM's should ship; that's just asking for trouble.

>However, the motherboard manufacturer is hardly going to tolerate me taking it back going, you need to fix this. That's hardly reasonable.

They might if they like selling things. AMD tolerated and even encouraged overclocking, finding that it won them more sales than problems that it may have created.

>They're going to be...err...you did something stupid and unsupported. You fix it. They might give me advice, but the onus is certainly not on them.

Well, yes and no. They ought to either publish a spec that would tell you how to fix it, or let you ship it to them and re-flash it for a reasonable fee. People do send motherboards back all the time claiming that it "broke" or was "DOA" when they may know full well what broke it. Right or wrong, a company will have to do a postmortem engineering analysis on a part to prove it was tampered with, and they will need to be able to prove tampering if they don't want bad press from consumers. I'm not saying that makes lying right, but that is probably the reality for a lot of cases.

>Or say I flash my car's ECU to give me another 5 HP of output. Then my car stops starting up reliably.

>I can't exactly take it back to Honda and say, fix it. They'll be like, we sold you a working car - you did something out of spec, and overrode the ECU software - we aren't fixing it.

Again, the consumer can say "I didn't do anything, I'll sue you. I'll tell the local TV station." Now the dealer has to risk a lawsuit, bad press, in which case they will need a professional engineering analysis; or the Dealer could just re-flash the firmware. I'm not sure how it is handled these days, but the customer can create a lot of doubt about the origin of the problem, and make it difficult for the dealer/carmaker to prove malfeasance on the customer's part.

>Yes, it's reversible - I can flash the right ECU image back on and it will start up correctly - but the onus isn't on them to hand hold me through that process.

If markets worked the way I was taught they ought to, then customers would never tolerate that. Then you could expect to take your car to the dealer, and for a reasonable fee they'd re-flash your ECU firmware or whatever, and then try to sell you some new floor-mats and an oil change. Unfortunately in many cases you're right; you can expect to be treated like a chump at the car dealership's service dep't. which is why "Right to Repair" laws are important. I think it is interesting now that Toyota has tried the "Cosmic Ray Defense" for exploding firmware how a car-maker (especially Toyota) might react to a customer with a bricked ECU who offers no explanation as to why his ECU is bricked.

>Cheers, Victor

Cheers indeed, and happy Thanksgiving, unless you are Native American, in which case, my apologies. (If you're not in the US be thankful Columbus didn't find your country instead.)

[crdoconnor]

>So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty? > >How does that make sense?

Because software shouldn't brick the phone. It should ALWAYS be possible to download and restore the pre-installed operating system and factory settings (it definitely was on my last android phone - an xperia - which I 'bricked' multiple times trying to get cyanogen to work).

This really does remind me of the bundle/don't bundle internet explorer wars. "Oh, but you can just download netscape if you really want it!"

[joenathan]

>Because software shouldn't brick the phone.

It's not software, it's a damn operating system.

[babesh]

Isn't it because the apps aren't completely customizable/removable without rooting? So if a carrier includes apps that you don't like and that you want uninstalled but can't. The same probably goes for google play services. What if you don't want that to auto update?

[gcb1]

it only has the possibility to brick the phone because they went the extra mile to try to deny access to doing it.

[shooper]

>So you think that a user should be able install an OS that bricks their phone and still have the phone still covered by warranty?

Yes

>How does that make sense?

It makes sense the same way that installing Linux and/or wiping Windows doesn't void a PCs warranty.

Should users be allowed to install any programs including keylogging malware on Windows computers? Shouldn't Microsoft protect them by locking it down so that only approved apps from their app store can be installed? Like mobile app stores?

[veemjeem]

It is rare to "brick" your PC by installing linux/windows. Phones are different because their input/output interfaces are limited to a single usb port, and in many cases that usb port doesn't even support host mode. Technically the phone isn't really bricked, but there's no way for a normal user to fix it without cracking open the phone to attach a jtag.

If PCs in the 1980's could be destroyed simply by improperly installing an OS, you bet manufacturers would void warranty for software misuse.

[giovannibajo1]

Sounds like bad design though. It's normal for embedded devices to have a non upgradable bootloader that can always be triggered at boot and is able to reflash a pristine copy of the original firmware wiping whatever was later written. iOS does that (see DFU mode), and all embedded devices I design at work do the same. Why an Android device shouldn't? Apple devices are nominally warranty voided when you jailbreak them, but since you can always reflash an original firmware leaving no traces behind, it's basically moot.

NOTE: no sarcasm here, I'm genuinely interested on why android phones can be software bricked and can't have a boot loader like anything else.

[fpgeek]

Android devices have similar failsafes (e.g. recovery, fastboot mode), but since they're part of the infrastructure that validates that you're only flashing authorized changes, you are often working around them when you modify your device.

[cdash]

Which is exactly the problem, the fact that you have to work around them to begin with.

[hrjet]

Which means that the barrier placed by Android manufacturers is artificial.

[fpgeek]

> It makes sense the same way that installing Linux and/or wiping Windows > doesn't void a PCs warranty.

Have you ever actually tried getting warranty support for a Windows PC you installed Linux on? The last time I tried even just mentioning the word "Linux" was enough to get many support departments to drop you like a hot potato. In my experience, the minimum bar for support is keeping around a Windows partition and any diagnostic/recovery partitions they have, whether or not you want them otherwise. If you're unlucky, you'll have to blow away your Linux install even if it's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Modded Windows PCs are easier to deal with because you can usually erase all traces of Linux/other OSes if you need to for support (no eFuses and similar nonsense), but the on-the-ground support policies aren't all that different from modded phones.

[DanBC]

> It makes sense the same way that installing Linux and/or wiping Windows doesn't void a PCs warranty.

You need to take another look at user grade warranties for PCs. Many of them are void if the users installs a different OS. Especially if they break the HPA partition where the OS reinstall stuff is kept.