Remove the factory installed screen protector (protective lens) to remove the front logo

[dpham00]

It should be noted that Matt over on motorola support forums states that using the phone without the shattershield lens voids the warranty:

https://forums.motorola.com/posts/6ec695482f

Consider yourselves warned...

I vote this post be removed as a sticky...

The warranty including the terms of the shatter shield guarantee can be found here:
https://motorola-global-portal.cust...45878694/redirect/1/filename/68018077001A.pdf

I have thoroughly read it and could not find the "tie-in sales" provision (read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for details), requiring the use of ONLY the Motorola protective lens to maintain warranty. Of course, if you damage the interior lens when removing the consumer replaceable protective lens or do not replace it with a comparable protective lens, then that wouldn't be covered. However, removing the lens AND replacing it with a comparable non-Motorola protective lens DOES NOT void warranty. In fact, even if you just removed the protective lens but didn't put anything back, should the power button stop functioning, then Motorola would still be legally required to repair the power button under warranty. This is like if you replace the oil filter in your car with a quality filter not from the manufacturer...the manufacturer would still be legally obligated to provide warranty service on your car.

 

[YAYTech]

The warranty including the terms of the shatter shield guarantee can be found here:
https://motorola-global-portal.cust...45878694/redirect/1/filename/68018077001A.pdf

I have thoroughly read it and could not find the "tie-in sales" provision (read the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for details), requiring the use of ONLY the Motorola protective lens to maintain warranty. Of course, if you damage the interior lens when removing the consumer replaceable protective lens or do not replace it with a comparable protective lens, then that wouldn't be covered. However, removing the lens AND replacing it with a comparable non-Motorola protective lens DOES NOT void warranty. In fact, even if you just removed the protective lens but didn't put anything back, should the power button stop functioning, then Motorola would still be legally required to repair the power button under warranty. This is like if you replace the oil filter in your car with a quality filter not from the manufacturer...the manufacturer would still be legally obligated to provide warranty service on your car.

Yeah, the only way this would have any effect on the warranty is if damage to the phone was caused by the non-OEM part. For example, if you put a tempered glass screen protector on in place of the OEM one, drop the phone, and the tempered glass breaks and damages the lens behind it, it's likely that won't be covered by the warranty. But if the touch-responsiveness stops working, that's on another layer that the screen protector isn't in contact with, and so shouldn't have been affected by the protector, and should still be covered by the warranty. Legally they would need to prove that the non-OEM part caused or contributed to the damage to get out of warranty coverage. Of course, they can still argue about it, and I'd still try to swap back to an OEM protector before returning the phone for warranty repair/replacement, just to avoid an argument, because it's easier than going to court over a smartphone repair.

This is the same thing that protects car owners who modify their vehicles. If you put a performance intake on the car, they can't claim the warranty is void to get out of fixing a broken heated seat, which clearly has nothing to do with the intake. However, if a piece comes off your aftermarket intake, goes into the engine, and screws something up... that's on you.

 

[doogald]

A quick read of that warranty, under what is not covered, says any damage that occurred when protective elements are damaged or missing. It also curiously says that it's not covered if the phone is dropped.

Here's my thinking, though: Motorola is going to be very liberal about this. They're not going to nit pick the warranty agreement if the display breaks whether you have the lens on or not, though I'm going to bet that 99% of the people will keep it on. It's only the very few who will even know about this.

 

[viper8315]

A quick read of that warranty, under what is not covered, says any damage that occurred when protective elements are damaged or missing. It also curiously says that it's not covered if the phone is dropped.

Here's my thinking, though: Motorola is going to be very liberal about this. They're not going to nit pick the warranty agreement if the display breaks whether you have the lens on or not, though I'm going to bet that 99% of the people will keep it on. It's only the very few who will even know about this.

Ok, you guys do whatever you want, but a representative of Motorola stated your warranty is void if you use the phone without the shattershield in place. You can voice your opinion any way you want to, but you have two official sources saying the warranty is void without it in place. Why defeat part of the great design work that Motorola did to make a "shatterproof" display over a stupid logo that barely stands out in the first place?

 

[dpham00]

A quick read of that warranty, under what is not covered, says any damage that occurred when protective elements are damaged or missing. It also curiously says that it's not covered if the phone is dropped.

Here's my thinking, though: Motorola is going to be very liberal about this. They're not going to nit pick the warranty agreement if the display breaks whether you have the lens on or not, though I'm going to bet that 99% of the people will keep it on. It's only the very few who will even know about this.

That isn't my take but I could have missed something. Please provide the exact clause from the Motorola warranty that you are referring to

 

[cbironman24]

Got in my replacement lens from Motorola today just to have a backup if the original gets scratched up. Happy to report it has no logo on it.

 

[doogald]

That isn't my take but I could have missed something. Please provide the exact clause from the Motorola warranty that you are referring to

Page 13, under "What is not covered":

(d) Damage caused beyond the reasonable control of Motorola, including
damage caused by (i) accident, abuse, misuse; (ii) operating a Product outside
its permitted or intended uses as defined in the Products’ User Manual, Quick
Start Guide, Online Tutorials, and other documentation provided to you,
including use of the Products for commercial purposes; (iii) improper care and
handling (e.g. subjecting the Product to extreme temperatures), abuse or
neglect (e.g. broken or bent connectors, ports, or SIM/SD card slots); impact
damage (e.g. dropping the Product); (iv) contact with liquids, water, rain,
extreme humidity, unusually heavy perspiration or other moisture; sand, food,
dirt or similar substances (except for Products sold as resistant to such
substances), but then only to the extent the damage was not caused by
incorrectly securing the phone’s protective elements (e.g. failing to properly
close a seal), or such protective elements are damaged or missing (e.g. a
cracked back cover), or subjecting a Product to conditions beyond its stated
specifications or limits (e.g. IPx7, 30 minutes in 1 meter of fresh water); or
(v) flood, fire, earthquake, tornado or other acts of God not within Motorola’s
reasonable control.

 

[Aibo1990]

Did you get the replacement lens on the Motorola site for that $29.99? (Can't post links with my post count)

Want to make sure there's no logo even though the pictures on the moto site show it on the replacement lens.

 

[cbironman24]

Did you get the replacement lens on the Motorola site for that $29.99? (Can't post links with my post count)

Want to make sure there's no logo even though the pictures on the moto site show it on the replacement lens.

Yes, I got the one from the Motorola site. No logo.

 

[viper8315]

I also ordered mine directly from the Motorola site and no logo. This is the second time I'll say this. This thread should be removed as a sticky. It promotes voiding the warranty unnecessarily.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[DaveTraveler]

This. Some go nuts over a logo.

Nope, sorry to disappoint you, the camera is mid-range and cannot capture movement without blurriness.

 

[ibcop]

Nope, sorry to disappoint you, the camera is mid-range and cannot capture movement without blurriness.

What are you talking about?

 

[Masheen]

Whatever screen protector they shipped with the phone is horrible. It scratches very easily. I have hairline scratches on mine and it hasn't even been in contact with metal.

 

[RichardJTesla]

To be honest removing it makes me nervous, and much as I would like to see the logo gone.

 

[doogald]

Whatever screen protector they shipped with the phone is horrible. It scratches very easily. I have hairline scratches on mine and it hasn't even been in contact with metal.

It wouldn't be just metal that scratches a phone. Sand in your pocket is pretty high on the hardness scale, for example.

 

[RichardJTesla]

It wouldn't be just metal that scratches a phone. Sand in your pocket is pretty high on the hardness scale, for example.

Ya most people never even think if this.

 

[Toes Up]

For those who care, I had Motorola replace the top lens and the VZW logo is nowhere to be seen.

 

[Soundtallica]

All this hullabaloo about the stupid logo! I figured that the empty space vacated by the logo would look almost as bad, so I made a sticker with a custom design to paste over it. Bam, no more Fugly checkmark and I didn't have to go through the hassle of taking the original lens off!

 

[anon(1733)]

The logo doesn't bother me one bit. It's better than most Verizon phones where the logo is in 75 places. One check mark on the phone is nothing to me. I can live with it.

 

[kmf1]

I've had the T2 since release day morning. Can't say that the Verizon logo has bothered me one bit. I have the black model and hardly notice it.