Thoughts on HTC unlocking Verizon phones

[valorian]

ok, so I was glancing at the HTCDev.com website. I noticed this comment on the right side.

HTC is committed to assisting customers in unlocking bootloaders for HTC devices. However, certain models may not be unlockable due to operator restrictions. We continue to work with our partners on this, check back often for ongoing updates about unlockable devices.

So what do you think they mean by "operator restriction"? I'm wondering if they are referring to Verizon (or ther providers) as the operator putting the restriction on.

 

[Moscow Desire]

I would guess that's exactly what they are referring to.

 

[valorian]

Yeah, me to. Verizon loves their bloatware too much to allow HTC to add Verizon phones to this list.

 

[Moscow Desire]

Well, if you think about it, why would a carrier want to deal with a user that fubarrs the phone? Sure, they will give a stern warning that doing so voids all warranties, but still, it would generate tons of tech support. Then when the carrier voids the warranty, the user gets PO'd, and tries to switch to another carrier. An endless cycle. Returned phones and such, resulting in ever increasing costs to all end users.

And trust me, it would happen. Spend a little time at the Dev site forums, and you'll see what I'm talking about. A lot of these folks just want to get their phone to boot so they can return it after they fubarred it. Not to mention the plethora who can't follow simple instructions, and have no idea what they're getting into. You be surprised how many tried, and really didn't know why they were doing it or what the benefits were.

Contrary to popular belief, some people like the bloatware and find it useful. It also generates revenue for the carrier, and makes the phone unique against the competition.

Although, I agree that a user has the right to uninstall certain apps they find useless, without having to root the phone.

So in this case, I have to side with the carriers, and keep the bootloaders locked. If a person really wants to root and rom, then they will do it regardless.

 

[tropper]

Very true Moscow, just look at how many people come here asking questions that if they had simply googled they would have already found the answer.

 

[PvilleComp]

I understand protecting the masses from themselves, but I'm in favor of unlocking the bootloader with a permanent watermark. This way the nOOb's looking to "put one over" on the carrier are DOA.

In fairness though, rooting in and of itself should not be a warranty violation for a hardware issue. I had this argument with HP over a system that was shiped with Vista, and was reloaded with XP. There was eventually a Mobo issue that was hardware related and within Warranty. They tried to claim it was not covered because we put a different OS on it. I immediately called BS and read them their own Warranty agreement. Then transfered to a Supervisor and reamed that CSR a new one.

 

[Moscow Desire]

Very true Moscow, just look at how many people come here asking questions that if they had simply googled they would have already found the answer.

Agreed. I don't mind helping people out. But like you said, one should do some simple Google searches before raising a 10 alarm fire.

Also, reading the instructions would help also But then again, I would find myself getting bored too often

 

[Moscow Desire]

I'm in favor of unlocking the bootloader with a permanent watermark. This way the nOOb's looking to "put one over" on the carrier are DOA.

This would be the solution, but I suspect some smart folks would find a way around it. I would even think the carriers could have a log-in, whereas the user should register the phone using serial number, ESN, and IMEI number, before getting access to an individualized rooting solution based on device, and once the root is done, and the phone is online, it transmits data back confirming the unlocking. Something like that.

But I suppose the "really smart guys" will find a way around.

In fairness though, rooting in and of itself should not be a warranty violation for a hardware issue.

No, it shouldn't. But if for example, one overclocks the processor and it flakes out, does this justify replacement? Even when resetting it to orig specs, the heat damage has already been done, and the ph reboots before reaching max degrees.

In the old days, we were taught that software couldn't cause a hardware failure. In more recent years, this just isn't true anymore.

Where does one draw the line at a normal hardware failure, when one is running a custom ROM? Typically, 90% of hardware will fail within the first 24-48hrs. Which is why we stress tested the hardware before release. So maybe a time limit should be established, before a new user could get access to unlock the bootloader.

 

[PvilleComp]

True - Overclocking can cause hardware damage. Even the "Overclocker" Computer manufacturers understand this, and if a system goes in for a warranty repair it does not come out overclocked like it did on day one. (I had a neighbor all but sue Alienware because his "3ghz" PC was returned at 2.5ghz with no overclocking. He spent a ton on that POS rig too.)

I still like the watermark idea. It's what that do on the Nexus devices and it seems to work.

 

[tropper]

Even if they put a "watermark" in the OS, VZW doesnt want you to remove their garbagewares. So it seems to me if they were able to still maintain their package of crap that they force on you, and still give you root access then I feel they would. But VZW gets paid by Blockbuster, Amazon, Lets golf, Rhapsody, and Rock Band to put those apps on there.