Right to Root Access
Right to Root Access
medhir.com
right to root access
You're viewing a single thread.
37 comments
-
Locked bootloader for warranty coverage: totally fine
Refusal for owner to unlock and void warranty: not fine.
-
I must disagree. For example, the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act entitles you to use aftermarket parts in your product without invalidating your warranty, as long as the aftermarket parts don't cause damage. I agree with the spirit of this law, and I believe software should be considered a "part" in this context.
-
This is my first time reading about this. I'm very curious to hear a lawyer's thoughts on this.
If you change the bootloader to some other software, how could the company be expected to provide support for something they may have no knowledge of? Suppose I develop some theoretical SnowsuitOS and then complain to Samsung support when it doesnt run on my smartphone? It seems very likely that some conflict in my code could be causing problems, as opposed to an issue with my hardware.
I feel like to require this, you'd have to prove that the software is functionally equivalent to their software, right? (Side note, isn't this problem undecidable? Program equivalence?)
If you replace a wheel on a tractor you can pretty easily define what it should and should not do. Determining equivalence seems simpler with a physical situation. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure program equivalence is not a solved problem.
My point here is that I don't think it's reasonable to legally require a software company to offer support without limits, because they cannot be sure that there is not an issue with the (unsupported) software you are using.
-
If you change the bootloader to some other software, how could the software company be expected to provide support for something they may have no knowledge of?
like xiaomi did, in the past at least. if you can reinstall the official software, you can receive service under warranty
My point here is that I don't think it's reasonable to legally require a software company to
phone manufacturers are hardware companies first and foremost
-
Nobody is asking 'software' companies to support software they didn't write.
We are asking hardware companies to support their hardware and not use different software as an excuse not to replace faulty hardware.
They can reflash their own software to test if needed.
Of course hardware vendors could be legally mandated to adhere to standards to make things easier.
-
-
-
In most situations, even that is giving too much power to the manufacturer. It's fair for them to flash the original software as part of any diagnostic or service process, but not fair to refuse to repair or replace a product that actually has a hardware defect just because the owner put different software on it.
-
It's fair for them to flash the original software as part of any diagnostic or service process
only fair if it does not come with any data loss. so basically not actually fair
-
Backups are, first and foremost, your responsibility. It's unfortunately not realistic to expect someone to diagnose whether an issue is software-related or a hardware failure on any obscure DIY OS you might have installed. But as long as it's possible to flash back the original firmware, warranty should still apply
-
But as long as it's possible to flash back the original firmware, warranty should still apply
and because of that, that's the responsibility of the device owner.
Backups are, first and foremost, your responsibility
I'm looking forward to your advice on how to backup a device with encrypted storage, that rolls a new key when you factory reset it.
-
-
Software can easily harm the actual device, so locking it to prevent that from happening in a warranty situation doesn't seem super off-base to me.
-
So can installing a faulty third-party cooling fan, but in the USA, the law requires the warranty provider to prove the fault was caused by improper maintenance or defects in third-party components.
-
-
-
-
37 comments