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.
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
eks391|2 years ago
Unless you mean as a right, without needing to root? I'd disagree (from a corporate/warranty perspective), but I'll bite
yjftsjthsd-h|2 years ago
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.
BHSPitMonkey|2 years ago