There are comments questioning whether this is a malicious practice or not, I remind you that we are talking about Microsoft, they have always taken the ‘Embrace, extend, and extinguish’ approach.
Argentina has been both badly treated by the international financial system AND completely failed to fix their own problems. After agricultural export collapsed mid-century they've failed to develop better export industries except a bit of tourism.
Rather, it's a benefit of an unlocked bootloader; you can root a device with a locked bootloader, and you can use an unlocked bootloader to install an unrooted OS (or, for that matter, you can unlock the bootloader without rooting, depending on the device).
> Unless you mean as a right, without needing to root? I'd disagree (from a corporate/warranty perspective), but I'll bite
Why? I mean, sure, if the manufacturer can show that damage resulted from the user modifying the device then fine, but otherwise there's no reason for modifying software to affect a warranty on hardware.
> otherwise there's no reason for modifying software to affect a warranty on hardware.
I think you bring up a really good point. Except for extreme cases, such as a software that is designed to be self destructive on the physical components in which it resides, the hardware should mostly be unaffected by the software. Mostly that some components get used more or less than they were before, changing efficiency of some functions. Then we get into the grey area of whether or not the unorthodox use of components caused damage.
> if the manufacturer can show that damage resulted from the user modifying the device then fine
Here you are putting the burden of proof on the manufacturer, which seems a little unfair. If anyone can make a complaint (make use of warranty), and you the manufacturer are guilty as charged automatically unless you can prove the software caused the damage, then there will be an insurmountable amount of work to thoroughly review all software not sourced from one of your already-vetted approved sources.
Then again, if burden of proof falls on the accuser (warranty holder), it is a catch-22 because you can't prove that a software is without any issues. Companies are constantly creating patches not because they intentionally want to have a fault until x day, but because they genuinely thought the software was good until y vulnerability was found/exploited.
I think this is why companies take the 'any usage outside these specific approved usages voids the warranty' approach. In application to this conversation, this means while you may change your OS, it doesn't shock me that a manufacturer wants to keep their hands away from those consumers
I think it's fundamentally more reasonable to demand proof that something did cause a problem, rather than that it didn't cause a problem, because you can't prove the negative. And yes, of course companies would like to never be liable, but keeping them honest is why we have laws around warranties.
Do you think the ability for the owner to root is not worthy of protections? It seems odd to draw that distinction when they are two sides of the same coin
I used Rails for over 5 years, and both Rails and Ruby were elements that I never had to struggle with to get things done. However, they did have their secrets, and mastering such complex tools can be challenging. I always appreciated DHH's critical attitude, and although I don't like many of Rails' design decisions (such as the use of AR vs. Repositories), I think it solves many typical web development problems out of the box. However, with JavaScript, Kotlin, or Python (to name a few), you have to do all of that manually or they don't measure up.
it's pretty sad to have such a powerful computers in our pockets and not being able to use as we want, even to be forced to discard them just because it wont get any updates.
