Related
I read the other posts about changing IMEI and people tell you that you have stolen the phone or bought from a person who have stolen but it is not my case.
Well my country just recently entered a new system where no cell phones that you bring to my country can be used only allowed importers or distributers can sell you and you can use..
I have a imate jam which is broken ant I know its IMEI number..if i can change the IMEI number of the new imate jamiIN from my broken jam IMEI then i can use jamin in Turkey because my broken jam is registered and you can buy it in Turkey but not jamin.
Please help me, if it is possible then i will buy it from UK when i visit there in a week.
No-Comment, as this board is not about teaching users to commit crimes or aid them in illicit acts.
Is there not a registration process you can go through to get your phone onto the database?
not yet there is no...
and the dumb distrubuter of imate has just brought kjam to turkey. and i talked with them they said we have no plans yet to bring jamin...
it might be illegal to change but if you ask to me the thing that i am doing is legit. i am not playing with anyones money or device.
please tell me if i am wrong
Hi, emreee!
You asked for opinions here is mine:
Even if some one on this forum has the information you requested, they are not likely to publish it here du to the potential damage it can cause.
Also posts about hacks (for TomTom) have been previously removed from this site by the administrator at the request of the company officials and I believe that the information you requested will suffer the same fate immediately.
So, I'm afraid you are wasting your time here, despite the name this is a legitimate forum and the only hacks here are to improve device operation or add functionality.
Finally, keep this in mind: even if you find a way to change the IMEI, you will never be able to get any support for the phone or its software, not even under warranty because if you are caught with the modifications you will be punished under your countries law (some one may correct me, but as I understand it, changing IMEI is illegal even if you own both devices).
thanks for your answer...it is logical...if you guys have a solition please pm me
IMEI Change??
The IMEI no is unique number assiged to each mobile GSM device. Like netork device mac address it in a read only register so chnaging will be difficult.
However it is the network operator not the device manufacturer that blocks IMEI numbers on their netowrk. I would advise to contact your carrier and ask for them to unblock/register the IMEI number. Providing the IMEI is legit and the device is compitable to thier network they should accomodate you after all you pay them for the telephone and data services.
i find it HUGELY ironic that folks would attempt to censor somebody asking about how to edit an IMEI # when there are all sorts of posts talking about hacking the device to sim unlock, etc. The defense that "we're" protecting some poor innocent guy who may have had his phone stolen is pretty stupid when you consider that the phones that are sim unlocked could be viewed as stolen from the carrier. Why? Suppose you buy a sim locked phone from Cingular for $300. Suppose it is the 8125. That phone would retail for $700+ if Cingular didn't sell it locked. They want your business and think they're gonna make up the difference in future service sales.
So it's ok to screw Cingular out of a few hundred dollars by sim unlocking the phone and moving to another carrier, but not ok to help somebody learn how to edit an IMEI?
Shoot - I'd send the guy directions in a flash if I knew how to do it...
The problem of your line of thinking is that
1st - Normaly you have a contract where you have to pay a fine during one or two years when you buy a locked phone (like in germany where you buy phones for 1 euro) so they get their money and you are locked
2nd - If you buy a locked phone for half the price with no contract the company who sold it to you has no lost money with the deal
3rd - For 99,9% of the worlds population its more important that when your mobile is stolen you can find it again or getting it blocked by the operator by the IMEI than a big company loosing some euros...
Yes, i am one of the poor innocent guys that works hard for his money, who had his phone stolen and found it by the IMEI
imei changing is illegal in most european countries, and others are considering it. a few months ago, there was a news item that the dutch government is looking into starting a test-trail to see if the current law can be used to prosecute imei-changing, ... we don't want to be their guineapig.
removing simlocks is not illegal in most countries.
willem
It's all a bit of a grey area when it concerns SIM locks. They SIM locks are based on a business model like game consoles; often they make a loss on the device which they expect to recuperate on kickbacks from games and accessories. You could make the same argument that anybody who would hack their game console to run Linux (for some ungodly reason) is 'stealing' from the console developers. However, it's a conscious business decision to take a loss on the console, knowing full well that there may be hacks to do so. Moreoever, they know full well that somebody might buy it, play a game that comes with it, decide they like a different console better, and trash their existing one. Now this person also hasn't provided the console developer with what they expected to recuperate from fringe sales. So are they stealing, too?
All in all, it is the phone carriers that choose to go with one of typically three plans...
1. prepaid; get the device for cheap, with sim lock, and they recuperate costs - with any luck - from selling top-ups / prepaid cards / etc.
This is a business model that has success only through numbers, much like the console business. There are, however, plenty of already unscrupulous people who will buy such a device to use once, and then discard it. Then there are those who might not call enough to full recuperate the actual cost of the device. Nevertheless, I do think that usually unlocking the SIM for these devices is a bit on the black end of the grey area.
2. contract plans; get the (typically more advanced than prepaid) device for relatively cheap, with sim lock, and they recuperate the costs on your plan.
Now this is where I think a SIM unlock is perfectly valid *if* and only if you can't terminate your contract early - which you usually can't. So if you're already stuck paying $20/month for 2 years, and paid $200 for the device itself, that's $200 + $480 = $680. Now I need to jump to the third one before concluding this 2nd plan.
3. SIM-lock-free; some carriers will sell devices SIM-lock free from the get-go. This means that you get the phone they offer, which may be exclusive to them, but you can use any carrier you want. No unlocking issues here, as there's no lock.
Now here's the kicker. A lot of carriers provide 2 & 3 for the same device. Contract plan works out to be $680, but if you get the simlock-free one, it'll cost you the lump sum of $500. So if you go with the contract plan (and, again, if you can't terminate it), you already paid for the device itself - and then some. So why SIM-lock it? To get even more money... more money than the device normally costs, and even more money than you're already paying them thanks to the contract. But what validation do the carriers have for this - as they recuperated the costs, they made no loss, etc? Just more profit. So I wouldn't consider that "stealing" - that's a void of potential revenue.
And if they really, really wanted to stop you from using an unlocked phone, they can have the IMEI blocked. Unless, of course, somebody changed it.
So let's compare the pros/cons of SIM-unlocking and IMEI changing...
SIM unlock:
- carrier loses money if it's a prepaid
- carrier has a void of potential revenue if it's a contract
- consumer gets free choice of carrier
IMEI change:
- carrier can't block phone if it is stolen
- carrier can't block phone if it is being used unjustly
- networks may go wacky over two the same IMEIs if they happen to be on the same cell
- police cannot track phone in case of crime (yes, I know that anybody with enough will can do it, 'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have gun', yaddayadda - any proper criminal uses a disposal-worthy prepaid anyway)
- consumer loses all hope of getting their phone back
- some consumers can use their device on a network where it would otherwise be blocked for some inane reason - such as emree over here. Though they can usually apply to have their IMEI entered into the carrier's database anyway, but that's something for emree to investigate.
So from both the consumer -and- the carrier's point of view, an IMEI change is vastly more damaging than a SIM-unlock. Almost the only people who win from an IMEI change procedure are those who have stolen a phone, or found it and have no intention of returning it to the rightful owner. The people who win from a SIM-unlock is mostly the consumers, as they get free choice. Though I do suggest consumers get the contract thing or just get the non-locked devices - prepaid unlocking to me is still kinda whack.
Emree: I hope you've inquired with your carrier by now, and that the outcome is good. I see that since you posted this, you were still looking into actually buying the phone (correct me if I'm wrong), so for all we know the phone you buy will work just fine where you're at. Good luck either way
I wonder how strict they are on this policy. Love the phone and really think it can do alot more like its younger cousins. But I wonder at what line a unlocked bootloader voids warranty. With the MyTouch 3G or g1 I really never worried about doing it because it I messed up or something went wrong I know I can convince T-Mobile to replace it but with HTC, say a volume button stops working do you think with an unlocked bootloader they won't do anything and charge you or is it probably just a scare tatic. Might hold off for root till a few months later to see if we get a img file to do a full restore or not but not ready to risk it just yet. Or atleast till there are some good roms yet. Just still in love with it since i just got it and maybe when that wares off I will root. But do you know of anywhere if anything HTC has stated anything about this.
You cant know for sure until you send it in. But the text is clear, it will void your warranty. which means ALL the warranty. Your warranty is not broken up into separate parts.
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
down8 said:
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
can you give a source to back this up? Im gonna unlock my bootloader right now if this is true!
Heck ya... this is what everyones real concern is, IMO. (Well I guess I can't talk for everyone but..) I take responsibility if I unlock and then some how brick, yes I'll be upset but it is my fault. However my real concern is if I unlock and then there is a real hardware problem.
yeah- the way i read the post in cyanogens bacon thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=5306428&postcount=54
"Obviously there's probably little to deter people from digging into this, but for whatever it's worth it was quite a lot of effort to get buy-in for shipping with the "unlock" feature, there remains concern about potential increases in RMAs as a result (and thus the warranty language in the unlock process)."
i read this as saying that they expect more warranty returns due to the easy unlock but not by much. Does this mean that we can return the phone if we have a hardware issue unrelated to the lock? i dont expect it and never have (rooted both my G1 and my magic the day i got them) but it'd be nice to know.....
dunno, insurance companies have been able to "void your warranty" (coverage of your health) if something totally unrelated was not announced when you got your insurance.
melterx12 said:
can you give a source to back this up? Im gonna unlock my bootloader right now if this is true!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did: the Magnusson-Moss Act.
Blueman101 said:
dunno, insurance companies have been able to "void your warranty" (coverage of your health) if something totally unrelated was not announced when you got your insurance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is a disclosure issue - hiding something is different.
-bZj
down8 said:
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's interesting. Now we just need to read the N1's warranty, and see if there is any similar thing to that(because they can always have some clause that says the bootloader being unlocked voids all parts of the warranty).
down8 said:
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong. Not to sound like an ass, but I'm a 3rd year law student and have studied contracts, their making, and causes for breach, extensively. The warranty is not "legally broken into separate parts". Please don't make such inane statements.
First, warranties are legally binding contracts and are considered "integrated agreements". That means that a court will automatically hold that the document and whatever provisions are included therein are the entire warranty, UNLESS you can prove that there were additional documents or forms that you relied on. That's not the case here.
Second, if you read the warranty, item 7 (on p. 3-4 of the booklet included in the N1 box) explicitly states that "THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL NOT APPLY IF:"... then lists several conditions, ending with 7(h) "the bootloader is unlocked by the Customer (allowing third party OS installation) using the fastboot program." This is an express term in the warranty, so the warranty is void. At this point, the only way you'd be able to get out of it, is if you were to argue to the courts that you never read the warranty and if you had, you either wouldn't have unlocked it, or you wouldn't have kept the phone! This is what's called an "unconscionability" argument. Even in this case though, most courts will side with the company due to the long-established doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware), and the court would first ask if you know how to read, and if you say yes, then it would hold that it was your responsibility to read the warranty and you have no excuse. Maybe some court would hold to the contrary. But that's why HTC was smart enough to include an express waiver...
Third, before unlocking the bootloader, you explicitly had to accept that your warranty was void if you unlocked it! No court anywhere would ever let you out of this.
As for Magnusson-Moss (we studied this as well), it's not at all related to this conversation! I don't know where the **** you come up with this information. All it does is create a federal mandate for companies to conspicuously state whether any warranty is "full" or "limited". Most warranties, including HTC's, are limited warranties. M-M further states that if there are any ambiguous terms in a warranty, that they will be interpreted in favor of the customer. However, this doesn't apply to this case either, because it is completely unambiguous in two different places!
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.... you don't understand the law, and probably have never really tried (it's not rocket science, I can assure you). Your improper claims can seriously screw someone over if they lose their warranty based on your incorrect assumptions then end up needing it for a defective phone!
uansari1 said:
Wrong. Not to sound like an ass, but I'm a 3rd year law student and have studied contracts, their making, and causes for breach, extensively. The warranty is not "legally broken into separate parts". Please don't make such inane statements.
First, warranties are legally binding contracts and are considered "integrated agreements". That means that a court will automatically hold that the document and whatever provisions are included therein are the entire warranty, UNLESS you can prove that there were additional documents or forms that you relied on. That's not the case here.
Second, if you read the warranty, item 7 (on p. 3-4 of the booklet included in the N1 box) explicitly states that "THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL NOT APPLY IF:"... then lists several conditions, ending with 7(h) "the bootloader is unlocked by the Customer (allowing third party OS installation) using the fastboot program." This is an express term in the warranty, so the warranty is void. At this point, the only way you'd be able to get out of it, is if you were to argue to the courts that you never read the warranty and if you had, you either wouldn't have unlocked it, or you wouldn't have kept the phone! This is what's called an "unconscionability" argument. Even in this case though, most courts will side with the company due to the long-established doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware), and the court would first ask if you know how to read, and if you say yes, then it would hold that it was your responsibility to read the warranty and you have no excuse. Maybe some court would hold to the contrary. But that's why HTC was smart enough to include an express waiver...
Third, before unlocking the bootloader, you explicitly had to accept that your warranty was void if you unlocked it! No court anywhere would ever let you out of this.
As for Magnusson-Moss (we studied this as well), it's not at all related to this conversation! I don't know where the **** you come up with this information. All it does is create a federal mandate for companies to conspicuously state whether any warranty is "full" or "limited". Most warranties, including HTC's, are limited warranties. M-M further states that if there are any ambiguous terms in a warranty, that they will be interpreted in favor of the customer. However, this doesn't apply to this case either, because it is completely unambiguous in two different places!
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.... you don't understand the law, and probably have never really tried (it's not rocket science, I can assure you). Your improper claims can seriously screw someone over if they lose their warranty based on your incorrect assumptions then end up needing it for a defective phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Ronaldo7 said:
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no point trying to skittle round the point. At the end of the day, if you interfere with the software they placed there which has been extensively tested; why would they support unlocked/modified software which they have no idea how it'll affect the device? That's quite simple to understand and I can see why Google have done this. It's to protect them.
Computer firmware/drivers is different. They test drivers and encourage you to upgrade them to keep the product working as best they can. When an end-user creates modified untested firmware/drivers, this is different.
I'm sure there's a comprehensive warranty on computer devices which stops you applying modified software not supported by them.
TunsterX2 said:
There's no point trying to skittle round the point. At the end of the day, if you interfere with the software they placed there which has been extensively tested; why would they support unlocked/modified software which they have no idea how it'll affect the device? That's quite simple to understand and I can see why Google have done this. It's to protect them.
Computer firmware/drivers is different. They test drivers and encourage you to upgrade them to keep the product working as best they can. When an end-user creates modified untested firmware/drivers, this is different.
I'm sure there's a comprehensive warranty on computer devices which stops you applying modified software not supported by them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I appreciate what you're saying, but as long as you can prove that any modification made cannot have caused a specific failure, then Id be interested to see how a blanket "warranty void" statement would hold up in court. For example, a button/ trackball wont fall off due to unauthorized software being on the device, whereas a chip failure could be attributed to modifying firmware etc.
Ronaldo7 said:
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know much about American law (I am a Trainee Solicitor, but in the UK) but I can tell you that this isn't going to come close to the legal definition of "unfair".
Warranties (at least over here) are entirely at the option of the manufacturer. If they want to have it fall away when you unlock the boot loader then it'll fall away when you unlock the bootloader. I've drafted one recently that does pretty much just that. They aren't required to provide one at all and what they put in it is thier choice. You are afforded most of your rights through sale of goods legislation and they are against the seller for things like goods not being of a satisfactory quality.
It may be that in US some minimum warranty is imposed by statute? With some set of minimum conditions? You'll need someone else to confirm that. However even if that is the case I'd bet any money that those minimum conditions basically equate to "you have to be able to use it as a PDA/Phone". At the end of the day you don't NEED to be able to unlock the boot loader to do that.
BigDamHero said:
I don't know much about American law (I am a Trainee Solicitor, but in the UK) but I can tell you that this isn't going to come close to the legal definition of "unfair".
Warranties (at least over here) are entirely at the option of the manufacturer. If they want to have it fall away when you unlock the boot loader then it'll fall away when you unlock the bootloader. I've drafted one recently that does pretty much just that. They aren't required to provide one at all and what they put in it is thier choice. You are afforded most of your rights through sale of goods legislation and they are against the seller for things like goods not being of a satisfactory quality.
It may be that in US some minimum warranty is imposed by statute? With some set of minimum conditions? You'll need someone else to confirm that. However even if that is the case I'd bet any money that those minimum conditions basically equate to "you have to be able to use it as a PDA/Phone". At the end of the day you don't NEED to be able to unlock the boot loader to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, the reason I didnt mention the sales of goods act is because I dont think this applies since the phone is being bought in the US. As you say, warranties in the UK are in addition to the sales of goods act. Are you saying that if the phone was purchased from , say, google.co.uk in the future, the sales of goods act could be invoked for any hardware failure (respecting the fact that the onus is on the retailer (ie. google) to prove that any software tampering of the device caused the defect within the first 6months of purchase)?
Ronaldo7 said:
Yeah, the reason I didnt mention the sales of goods act is because I dont think this applies since the phone is being bought in the US. As you say, warranties in the UK are in addition to the sales of goods act. Are you saying that if the phone was purchased from , say, google.co.uk in the future, the sales of goods act could be invoked for any hardware failure (respecting the fact that the onus is on the retailer (ie. google) to prove that any software tampering of the device caused the defect within the first 6months of purchase)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I believe this is correct. If you got a phone from Google UK, rooted it and then it fell to pieces the next day you would be able to go back and return it because it was not of satisfactory quality. As you rightly say it would of course have to be something other than your actions that caused the failure - some kind of inherent defect. But as long as that is the case the manufacturer’s warranty is irrelevant. A lot of people don’t realise this and once they see a warranty they forget that, at least in the short term after purchase, they have a valid action against the person who sold them the goods.
Good right? Well here’s the other shoe – The problem with the Sale of Goods Act (and a lot of consumer legislation) is that its all so vague. “Satisfactory Quality”, “Reasonable Length of Time”. It leaves most people wondering what the heck that all means! You mention 6 months but this is just a rule of thumb. It doesn’t actually say that anywhere in the act.
So in contrast to a warranty, where you have a definitive answer going in on whether you have a claim or not, the Sale of Goods Act is a bit more uncertain. You have to make your claim a bit more. If your screen falls off around the 5 months mark its possible Google would try and resist the claim, saying too much time has passed. If something goes wrong with your phone that could or could not have been something to do with you rooting it (with no way of determining it either way) – again Google may resist your claim.
I am ... 99% certain that there is NO applicability of any of the above to something sold in the US and shipped to the UK. However I'll have to look into that for a definitive answer.
http://www.google.com/support/android/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=166519
What kind of things can void the warranty coverage?
Here are a few examples of actions that void the warranty coverage:
* rough handling of the device
* exposure of the device to extreme conditions
* tampering with the device, including removal or defacing of the serial number, IMEI number, or water indicator
* unauthorized opening or repair of the device
* tampering with or short-circuiting the battery
* unlocking the bootloader using the fastboot program
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seeing as the warranty is so specific as in using "the fastboot program" instead of "a fastboot program" does using "fastboot-windows or fastboot-mac" fall outside of that. Cases are routinely decided upon by mere technicalities as this. I deal with warranties all the time (as a manufacturer) and have had to eat replacement costs due to technicalities in the warranty verbiage.
Unfortunately, this does not carry over to the big disclaimer that you see when unlocking, but was wondering if this technicality had any merit.
Ronaldo7 said:
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As another poster said, this wouldn't be "unfair". A court would only ever begin to consider a term unfair if the consumer had no choice whatsoever. However, here you had the choice of not unlocking the bootloader and keeping your warranty, or returning the phone and buying another product.
Another argument that I could make for the consumer is that by including the exploit, it was "reasonably foreseeable" to HTC that people would unlock the bootloader... but HTC the argument is very weak in favor of the consumers and HTC would likely counter that the exploit is meant only for developers, not for everyday consumers.
BigDamHero said:
I don't know much about American law (I am a Trainee Solicitor, but in the UK) but I can tell you that this isn't going to come close to the legal definition of "unfair".
Warranties (at least over here) are entirely at the option of the manufacturer. If they want to have it fall away when you unlock the boot loader then it'll fall away when you unlock the bootloader. I've drafted one recently that does pretty much just that. They aren't required to provide one at all and what they put in it is thier choice. You are afforded most of your rights through sale of goods legislation and they are against the seller for things like goods not being of a satisfactory quality.
It may be that in US some minimum warranty is imposed by statute? With some set of minimum conditions? You'll need someone else to confirm that. However even if that is the case I'd bet any money that those minimum conditions basically equate to "you have to be able to use it as a PDA/Phone". At the end of the day you don't NEED to be able to unlock the boot loader to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have many similarities... American law is based on British common law, my friend. (As is the law in most other countries that were part of the empire. ) Under American law, brand new items are required to have some sort of warranty...either limited or full (as per the Magnusson-Moss Act). Used items are not required to have any warranty, unless they fall under particular categories, which I can't recall at the moment. Anyway, as in British law, we do have a minimum statutory warranty for new items... the "implied warranty of merchantability". All that requires is that the product would pass without any objections to others in the trade, as being fit for the purpose for which it was manufactured. So in this case, the item was fit for use as a phone. Same as British law.
QMAN101 said:
Seeing as the warranty is so specific as in using "the fastboot program" instead of "a fastboot program" does using "fastboot-windows or fastboot-mac" fall outside of that. Cases are routinely decided upon by mere technicalities as this. I deal with warranties all the time (as a manufacturer) and have had to eat replacement costs due to technicalities in the warranty verbiage.
Unfortunately, this does not carry over to the big disclaimer that you see when unlocking, but was wondering if this technicality had any merit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can assure you that in 99% of the cases, the courts won't throw out a case for such a small detail... especially in a civil case. They would probably construe it as being a blanket statement... i.e. "fastboot program" is an umbrella term that covers fastboot-windows, fastboot-mac, etc.
I have also studied contract law in school, my friend. By "legally separated," I mean they cannot warranty only the entire unit, there are many parts of this phone: SDcard, screen, software, etc. If one is broken, and has no releation to the others, then it is "separate."
uansari1 said:
Wrong. Not to sound like an ass, but I'm a 3rd year law student and have studied contracts, their making, and causes for breach, extensively. The warranty is not "legally broken into separate parts". Please don't make such inane statements....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sweetie, law student (you do sound a bit like an ass, btw), did you read the Magnuson-Moss Act before coming to your conclusion? Obviously you're going into defense, and not the enforcement side of the law.
Full text: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C50.txt
To ask "where the ****" MM comes into play, is pretty silly, given it is about protecting consumers from deceptive warranty practices - it does more than just state full or limited warranties.
I wouldn't bring a copy of wikipedia to court, but it does break things down in an easier to understand language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act
Here is the section I referred to:
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A more detailed section might read like this:
(c) No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if (1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and (2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. (15 U.S.C.2302(C))
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd say that their exclusion of a "3rd party OS" runs right into this section of MM. The meaning is that GM can't force you to only use Mobil1 in your vehicle. You can use any oil you choose, so long as you use the correct viscosity & change it regularly - in fact, unless GM could prove the oil was the reason for failure (that's up to labs/lawyers), you could use canola oil & retain your warranty.
Thus, if you have a hardware problem, Google/HTC have to prove that the software/unlocking/etc. caused the damage to void your warranty. The argument would likely hinge on what is "unreasonable use," and if unlocking/rooting a piece of hardware you spent $500-600 on was reasonable. As for the bootloader issue being unambiguous, the same section also voids your warranty for normal wear-and-tear. I'd be far more concerned about a hardware issue, b/c connecting any unapproved accessory also voids your warranty.
All this being said, I am not a lawyer (an neither is Mr. Law Student), so if you're skerred, don't do it.
-bZj
Sprint Employees Fired For Chasing Down Shoplifter
http://cbs4denver.com/local/sprint.fired.shoplifter.2.1655804.html
knx2 said:
Sprint Employees Fired For Chasing Down Shoplifter
http://cbs4denver.com/local/sprint.fired.shoplifter.2.1655804.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not just sprint. that is a safety policy that cant be violated. BB has it and when i worked at lowes they had it. every job i had has. lowes actually told me that i will be terminated if i even attempt to touch a shoplifter. sooo im with sprint on this.
I think it is ... When i worked for Sprint it said do not chase a shoplifter from the store... not from another store... Im not sure if that is the same thing. I do not think you should lose your job from aiding a security guard while you are on break.
Plus the guys have been working for sprint for years... dumb move. IMO
The no chase policy is a good one. Many retailers have implemented an observe and report (to police) policy only. If you shoplift at a Target or a Walmart your picture, license plate and car description will all likely be captured and shared with law enforcement and every store in your state. If you aren't stopped while in the store, the police will likely be called the next time you step into one.
Allowing untrained or under trained personnel to pursue shoplifters has ended up with dead shoplifters and multimillion dollar lawsuit judgements.
Dead shoplifter:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=152402
Dead unborn baby inside shoplifter:
http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/224767-wal-mart-sued-by-pregnant-woman-apprehended-for-shoplifting
Shoplifter getting dislocated shoulder leads to lawsuit:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=130525112840
More policies to keep Americans from helping eachother and treat eachother like pieces of ****.
"I cant help you cause my company told me not to"
Avalaunchmods said:
not just sprint. that is a safety policy that cant be violated. BB has it and when i worked at lowes they had it. every job i had has. lowes actually told me that i will be terminated if i even attempt to touch a shoplifter. sooo im with sprint on this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They have those rules just to protect their own hides from being sued. Honestly, I think it sucks that those guys got fired for doing the right thing. It's a dumb but sadly necessary policy.
"I cant help you cause my company told me not to"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"I can't help you cause my company told me not to, cause the last time I helped someone we all got ourselves sued by the jerk, probably because they're plain greedy and looking for such opportunities."
No offense to anyone of course, but wouldn't this be another way of looking at these sort of policies? There's gotta be a reason we get dumbed-down instructions and paranoid policies from companies etc.
Urban Sprinters (baiting security to chase them) could likely be lawsuit seekers.
Technically this guy didn't steal anything, so once he is injured in a take down a law suit would probably be a slam dunk for the sprinter.
Video here of the Urban Cowboy in action>> http://www.jokeroo.com/videos/funny/the-urban-cowboy.html
With a crappy economy I could this happening in the future, if it hasn't already.
Any moderately sized company will have a policy that tells employees to allow shoplifters to take whatever they want, give them whatever they want. Observe only, talk to no one (to prevent gossiping), and report to police afterwords, after the shoplifters have left.
This is to prevent people attempting to be heroes and getting themselves and others killed in the process.
It also depends if the employees were on break and inside sprint, and then ran after them. I can understand.
If they were say, sitting in the food court and then chased after the guy. I would say a completely different story. But arguable.
It also depends if they were on a lunch break , and they werent on sprints time (not clocked in). And where they were exactly.
I think unless we have the full story of where they were and if they were clocked in. Then no one can really say anything of how the situation should of been treated.
Jus10o said:
It also depends if the employees were on break and inside sprint, and then ran after them. I can understand.
If they were say, sitting in the food court and then chased after the guy. I would say a completely different story. But arguable.
It also depends if they were on a lunch break , and they weren't on sprints time (not clocked in). And where they were exactly.
I think unless we have the full story of where they were and if they were clocked in. Then no one can really say anything of how the situation should of been treated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
However, if a lawyer could argue that they might have been under Sprint's hire at the time, then Sprint probably could get their butt sued.
Jus10o said:
It also depends if the employees were on break and inside sprint, and then ran after them. I can understand.
If they were say, sitting in the food court and then chased after the guy. I would say a completely different story. But arguable.
It also depends if they were on a lunch break , and they werent on sprints time (not clocked in). And where they were exactly.
I think unless we have the full story of where they were and if they were clocked in. Then no one can really say anything of how the situation should of been treated.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, I can see that point. If you are on company time (whether you are on a break), you need to follow company policy. However, I agree if you aren't on company time (not clocked in), then that becomes your business if you want to assist.
It's all about who gets liability. And, yes, it sucks.
Oh the land of the sued.
How about protecting the public? Do you want to be knocked over by an employee chasing a shoplifter? All for what? To prevent the theft of a set of headphones? I once saw a video on TruTV where this 15 year old kid tried to leave a gas station after pocketing a pack of gum. One of the clerks (this very hefty woman) pulled the kid back in the store and as he tried to escape she put him in a headlock and twisted and cranked on his neck. If that was my son I would be absolutely livid. Just because you steal something doesn't mean you have opted to have your head smashed in. People make bad decisions - it's a part of life.
And why try to stop them? Try to be the hero over a pack of gum or a cell phone charger and get yourself stabbed 4 times? How would you explain that as you recover in the hospital? If you told me that story I would not congratulate you. I would tell you that it wasn't your merchandise and that your company doesn't give a **** about the value of that product. Why would you risk your life like that? How much are you getting paid? If someone tried to rob me at a job I would offer no resistance whatsoever. It's not that I'm a push over, you have to try and apply some perspective on the whole thing.
Sounds like Sprint did exactly what they should have done. If you want to be a hero, become a police officer or a fire fighter.
Shoplifting with modern security systems is just plain stupid, but chasing down the shoplifter is even worse. If someone is willing to break one law and steal isn't it safe to assume they are willing to break more laws to escape?
It's all about lawsuits and personal safety (as already mentioned in other posts). You just don't know what a person has in their pocket or concealed under their jacket. Why would any employer want to keep around an employee who is going to take such risks?
Noble, YES! Smart? HELL NO! Even if they were not clocked in, they were still on the property where they are employed. They did nothing more then make themselves liabilities so Sprint did the right thing by terminating their employment.
I've heard for as long as I can remember from any business that shoplifting passes lost revenue on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. So simply allowing shoplifters get away with stolen goods screws me because these businesses might get sued. Fine, let them keep their policy, just make sure they start a new policy that ensures cost won't go up due to theft because you can't have it both ways.
Digitaltigre said:
How about protecting the public? Do you want to be knocked over by an employee chasing a shoplifter? All for what? To prevent the theft of a set of headphones? I once saw a video on TruTV where this 15 year old kid tried to leave a gas station after pocketing a pack of gum. One of the clerks (this very hefty woman) pulled the kid back in the store and as he tried to escape she put him in a headlock and twisted and cranked on his neck. If that was my son I would be absolutely livid. Just because you steal something doesn't mean you have opted to have your head smashed in. People make bad decisions - it's a part of life.
And why try to stop them? Try to be the hero over a pack of gum or a cell phone charger and get yourself stabbed 4 times? How would you explain that as you recover in the hospital? If you told me that story I would not congratulate you. I would tell you that it wasn't your merchandise and that your company doesn't give a **** about the value of that product. Why would you risk your life like that? How much are you getting paid? If someone tried to rob me at a job I would offer no resistance whatsoever. It's not that I'm a push over, you have to try and apply some perspective on the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where do you work? I need some new stuff for the house.
rank78 said:
I've heard for as long as I can remember from any business that shoplifting passes lost revenue on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. So simply allowing shoplifters get away with stolen goods screws me because these businesses might get sued. Fine, let them keep their policy, just make sure they start a new policy that ensures cost won't go up due to theft because you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which of these three scenarios do you think costs Sprint the most:
a) having a phone or two stolen
b) being sued by a wannabe hero who got stabbed trying to prevent a crime
c) being sued by a falsely accused shoplifter who was tackled by the wannabe hero in option b
Hint - it isn't 'a'.
navalynt said:
It's all about lawsuits and personal safety
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is all about and will always be about the $$$$$$ (ie lawsuits in this case). You are only kidding yourself if you think any large company gives two ****s about their hourly waged employees. The problem is what everyone has already said. The thief might sue, an innocent bystander might sue, the employee might even try to sue if they get hurt.
The only companies who allow employees to chase are ones with specially trained security. The guidelines for those employees are they must witness the shoplifter take an item(conceal is even better) and walk past the registers. The shoplifter must be 100% in their sight or on camera for the entire time they took the item until they attempt to leave the store(no exceptions). Even then, if the store does not own the property(they rent) then they must apprehend the suspect within the store. If they own the property then they can only give chase until the suspect is off their property.
These policies are not just to reduce shoplifters but because of other money related issues. The reality is that shoplifting accounts for a very small percentage of a stores shrinkage. The thing that accounts for the most shrinkage is employee theft. Their money is much better spent trying to prevent that.
Two quick questions about the insurance terms an conditions.
1. If you report it stolen or lost or whatever, do they send you a brand new phone after you pay the deductible or is it a refurbbed one?
2. If report it lost and order a new one, and you find the lost one(or you never actually lost it) do they deactivate the original one somehow?..or track it somehow?....or do they just accept your deductible and let you do whatever you want with them?
They send you what they have in stock at the moment. The longer a phone has been out the more likely you are to get a refurbished one.
The insurance company can't track it or do anything with it, you can do what you want with it and T-mobile won't care.
I advise reporting it lost, if you say it's stolen you have to submit to them a police report.
Good luck, let us know your results.
T-Fanatic said:
They send you what they have in stock at the moment. The longer a phone has been out the more likely you are to get a refurbished one.
The insurance company can't track it or do anything with it, you can do what you want with it and T-mobile won't care.
I advise reporting it lost, if you say it's stolen you have to submit to them a police report.
Good luck, let us know your results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you. Helpful information. Have you personally reported lost phone before?
T-Fanatic said:
They send you what they have in stock at the moment. The longer a phone has been out the more likely you are to get a refurbished one.
The insurance company can't track it or do anything with it, you can do what you want with it and T-mobile won't care.
I advise reporting it lost, if you say it's stolen you have to submit to them a police report.
Good luck, let us know your results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure but I'd be surprised if T-Mobile didn't blacklist lost /stolen phones.
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA App
Jaskwith said:
Thank you. Helpful information. Have you personally reported lost phone before?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have not personally, but I worked at T-mobile up until a couple of weeks ago.
Your insurance isn't through t-mobile, so they don't care if you now have another one all of the sudden. Your insurance will only allow two phone replacements in a year because they can't actually blacklist or stop the phones.
T-Fanatic said:
I have not personally, but I worked at T-mobile up until a couple of weeks ago.
Your insurance isn't through t-mobile, so they don't care if you now have another one all of the sudden. Your insurance will only allow two phone replacements in a year because they can't actually blacklist or stop the phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong! The phones can be blacklisted. Honestly if you do find its best to report it BC if you start using that old one or sell it then asurion can and will prosecute for insurance fraud.
sk337sk337 said:
Wrong! The phones can be blacklisted. Honestly if you do find its best to report it BC if you start using that old one or sell it then asurion can and will prosecute for insurance fraud.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just have a question, cause I'd like people to be clear about what they're saying.
How would Ausrion even know if you sold it?
I mean, I could understand you finding the phone and using it again..cause maybe that could be tracked. (Maybe.)
But what could be done about selling it? That makes no sense.
Unless you try to sell it by posting "Selling my supposedly lost phone" on the TMobile forums.
nguyendqh said:
I just have a question, cause I'd like people to be clear about what they're saying.
How would Ausrion even know if you sold it?
I mean, I could understand you finding the phone and using it again..cause maybe that could be tracked. (Maybe.)
But what could be done about selling it? That makes no sense.
Unless you try to sell it by posting "Selling my supposedly lost phone" on the TMobile forums.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not sure what they actually do, but in theory it's pretty easy.
You claim the phone is lost
TMobile blacklists the phone's IMEI
Someone tries to register the phone on the TMobile network
TMobile and/or Asurion go after the account holder for the associated SIM
They show they bought it from you
No profit
chrisjs81 said:
I am not sure what they actually do, but in theory it's pretty easy.
You claim the phone is lost
TMobile blacklists the phone's IMEI
Someone tries to register the phone on the TMobile network
TMobile and/or Asurion go after the account holder for the associated SIM
They show they bought it from you
No profit
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The phone can be unlocked to use on any provider.
So...wouldn't selling it as an unlocked phone give you a better chance?
And you could sell it to a friend and have them say they bought it from off the internet or at a pawn shop or anything.
I just don't think it's that precise. (Who knows maybe it is.)
Anyway. I'm not trying to prove there's ways around it. I just wanted to understand the statement better.
And is blacklisting a phone's IMEI a new thing? Cause I've had phones stolen in the past that ended being in use by other people. Nothing ever happened there. (And I know that because I found out who stole the phone.)
*Just curious by the way, not trying to start a heated conversation or anything.
Thank for the info!
The insurance companies are NOT as dumb as you think they are. Insurance fraud is a booming business and companies are always looking to minimize their losses against fraud.
I know this because one of my specialty fields includes loss prevention and fraud. They can and will blacklist your IMEI number and despite your noble efforts to sell to a friend who magically ends up buying that very same phone off craigslist [unbeknownst to you ] will get you in trouble.
Do the smart thing and heed the advice given here by people who know. Don't try to fool businesses or people who have been around the block way longer than your ingenious plan of trying to net an extra phone.
You're better off slipping in the Taco Bell parking lot and claiming an injury.
CBConsultation said:
The insurance companies are NOT as dumb as you think they are. Insurance fraud is a booming business and companies are always looking to minimize their losses against fraud.
I know this because one of my specialty fields includes loss prevention and fraud. They can and will blacklist your IMEI number and despite your noble efforts to sell to a friend who magically ends up buying that very same phone off craigslist [unbeknownst to you ] will get you in trouble.
Do the smart thing and heed the advice given here by people who know. Don't try to fool businesses or people who have been around the block way longer than your ingenious plan of trying to net an extra phone.
You're better off slipping in the Taco Bell parking lot and claiming an injury.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Think I could get some more detail about slipping in the parking lot of Taco Bell?
Asurion watches your account and tracks people down if they see someone you talk/text has the imei of your "lost" phone. Trust me don't lie to insurance companies
But if you sell it on Cl and report it lost at a bar...? What can they prove?
sk337sk337 said:
Asurion watches your account and tracks people down if they see someone you talk/text has the imei of your "lost" phone. Trust me don't lie to insurance companies
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my MT4G running Gingerbread
So they actually blacklist imei numbers?
Sent from my MT4G running Gingerbread
Jaskwith said:
So they actually blacklist imei numbers?
Sent from my MT4G running Gingerbread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes they do.
Sent over HSPA+ using XDA app.
Jaskwith said:
So they actually blacklist imei numbers?
Sent from my MT4G running Gingerbread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I also noticed your sig says your MT4G is running Gingerbread. Wanna explain?
Sent over HSPA+ using XDA app.
Well its cm7... basically gingerbread.
CBConsultation said:
I also noticed your sig says your MT4G is running Gingerbread. Wanna explain?
Sent over HSPA+ using XDA app.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my MT4G running Gingerbread
Better not do that. Just don't lie to insurance companies
I'm not advocating fraud, but last time I checked the two big US GSM providers (AT&T and T-Mobile) don't utilize an IMEI blacklist. I checked because I had a phone stolen from me and I asked T-Mobile to blacklist the IMEI and they told me that they can't (or won't) do that. They said the best they could do was deactivate the SIM card to prevent the thief from running up my bill. After doing some digging, I discovered reports of many AT&T customers with the same experience.
moto211 said:
I'm not advocating fraud, but last time I checked the two big US GSM providers (AT&T and T-Mobile) don't utilize an IMEI blacklist. I checked because I had a phone stolen from me and I asked T-Mobile to blacklist the IMEI and they told me that they can't (or won't) do that. They said the best they could do was deactivate the SIM card to prevent the thief from running up my bill. After doing some digging, I discovered reports of many AT&T customers with the same experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that is absolutely true. USA gsm carriers have 0 interest in blacklisting for obvious reasons = more money in their pocket. You get to buy a new phone for more money and whoever steals/find the phone gets to pay the company even more money.
I have no idea what insurance companies will do, though, but I've reported a lost phone, which I'm sure someone is still using, got a replacement and never heard word of it being tracked down or something.
Best advice I have is call assurion and ask if, in case your phone gets lost, if they'll do anything to retrieve it. My guess would be a resounding NO unless you have a police report, a subpoena and a lot of time to waste on this.
as you know most, if not all, phone manufactures void your warranty when you flash custom software... some, like htc, do it upfront, when unlocking your bootloader... others, like samsung, use flash counters to identify evil custom rom users when faced with warranty claims.
the reason given is always the same: they don't want to pay for (hardware) damage done by the custom software... and most of us would probably object and call bull****, our beloved custom roms aren't doing any damage, with the sole exception of people taking overclocking way too far...
what arguably could be prevented via hardware restrictions by the manufactures if they really wanted to... so if that really is all they fear, no problem here.
But I think the SDS issue adds a new point to the discussion. now we can quite easily construct a case where Samsung could legitimately say that custom software killed the phone: an S3 that would have lived a long and happy life running Samsungs fixed stock kernel, but died because an idiot or an unaware person flashed a kernel without the fix. In other words, the custom software wouldn't really kill the phone... but it would not be preventing it from killing itself
(of course the same applies to simply not updating your phone)
I still think warranty for hardware issues shouldn't be voided if one uses custom software (so please don't kill me), but I guess in this case the manufactures side is understandable as well...
PS: what the SDS issue also shows is the awesomeness of an open platform like android, so Samsung is forced to share their kernel code (hence the fix) with us
Unless you live in the EU, then you can argue your case.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
Unless Samsung engineer a problem if you flash custom ROMs then only problems that can be directly caused by a custom ROM or kernel is overheating from over clocking.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
EU "warranty" clarification
blazevxi said:
Unless you live in the EU, then you can argue your case.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know this EU "law" (1999/44/EC, to be specific) is referenced quite often around here, but I think it is way overrated and it does not offer as much protection as many people around here seem to think.
First of all, it is not an act you can point to when making your legal case, it is just a directive. A directive is the EUs way of telling its member states to adjust their national law according to the guidelines given by the directive. So national law is likely to be similar to the directive, but the details might vary. In other words, the directive dictates minimal standards for national law, but the specifics are up to the member states.
Also there is no guarantee that every state adapted the directive appropriately. There are some examples where member states refused to do it, were to incompetent to do it properly... or just to slow. Think about the telecommunication data preservation stuff, there are still member states who refuse to implement those directives.
Bottom line: EU directives are worthless, if your country hasn't implemented them yet.
Second point: the EU directive isn't as consumer friendly as many people seem to think.
For starters, it means nothing to manufactures. Samsung does not have to care about it, because it applies to _sellers_, not to manufactures. It says sellers have to provide fault-free products. If they fail to do so, and it gets discovered within two years, they have to refund you. Sounds good, right? Well, there are some drawbacks.
The before-mentioned only applies to faults that have been present at the time of purchase. The implication is, that the consumer will always say, the problem is due to production faults, the seller will always assume the contrary. The catch is, neither of them can prove their point without spending loads of money.
This problem is addressed by the directive in article 5, paragraph 3:
Unless proved otherwise, any lack of conformity which
becomes apparent within six months of delivery of the goods
shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery unless
this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods
or the nature of the lack of conformity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
(Source)
So for the first six month you are covered, because if you haven't obviously damaged your device yourself, the seller can't proof it is your fault.
But after that six month, you are pretty much screwed! The directive doesn't get specific on who has to prove what in that case, but because it specifically says the seller needs to provide proof in the first six month, it can be argued that the buyer got the burden of proof afterwards.
This is a perfect example of an issue that should be clarified by national law, when adapting an EU directive (doesn't mean it actually does).
In case of my country (Germany) it got clarified: reversal of the burden of proof after six month
And I think it is a reasonable assumption that it was done in a similar way in other countries, since the directive allows this interpretation and the seller lobbies sure did everything they can to make it that way.
So if your national law doesn't say otherwise, you should assume you only got six month of effective protection.
To sum up: if your government implemented the directive, you are most likely covered for six month, through your seller, not the manufacturer!
So everybody living in the EU (and everybody else who is jealous about this "magical EU law"), please understand: it means almost nothing compared to the warranty given by the manufacturer, which is usually longer and more extensive (around here we usually get 2 years for electronic devices, but that is voluntarily done by the manufactures, they are not forced to).
So the whole thing is pretty much only valuable for people living in EU states where manufactures would normally offer warranties shorter than six month. For everybody else, it is worthless.
Disclaimer: This is just my layman view on the topic, I'm no lawyer or something. Also I'm not too familiar with legal terms in English, so some stuff might be lost in translation. If somebody thinks I got it wrong, please correct me
PS: although the EU directive wouldn't help you legally, it might be worse a try to tell a seller, who is refusing refund, about it... apparently a lot of stores don't know about it... and some surrendered when threatened with "EU law".
Through my cellphone company I pay like 4 euros a month for an extended warranty that covers my broken phone even if it is rooted as long as the problem wasnt caused by the root. Not sure if you can get the same.
Zylian91 said:
Through my cellphone company I pay like 4 euros a month for an extended warranty that covers my broken phone even if it is rooted as long as the problem wasnt caused by the root. Not sure if you can get the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
do they specifically say they cover phones that have been tampered with software-wise? Oo
odoto said:
do they specifically say they cover phones that have been tampered with software-wise? Oo
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In my case the policy says: (between other funny wording): accidental damage, water damage etc.
Therefore, I personally will play same fair game as the sellers and/or manufacturers: if my I9300 would have SDS, semi-death (with download mode available only, showing perfectly that I'm on custom), then, I will "accidentally" will forget to remove the phone from driveaway while taking back with my JAG, or, alternatively, I will give my fishes brilliant opportunity to call Nemo.
First, there is nothing common with the warranty, they will just replace it or repair.
I have no idea about the lobbies in EU, and in my country, bu I always adjust my honesty to the second side of discussion.
O, did I mention that this is an add-on to my bank account, and I have the right to claim twice per year for the phone priced up to approx 1000EUR?
But, going back to the topic, EU law is binding in all EU countries. Furthermore, Samsung can put in the warranty the statement that: inserting the battery will void warranty. But - they HAVE to write as well: above does not affects your statutory rights.
And, they have to honor these rights. therefore if the country law states that the equipment is covered for 4 years - the seller will have to follow that.
spamtrash said:
In my case the policy says: (between other funny wording): accidental damage, water damage etc.
Therefore, I personally will play same fair game as the sellers and/or manufacturers: if my I9300 would have SDS, semi-death (with download mode available only, showing perfectly that I'm on custom), then, I will "accidentally" will forget to remove the phone from driveaway while taking back with my JAG, or, alternatively, I will give my fishes brilliant opportunity to call Nemo.
First, there is nothing common with the warranty, they will just replace it or repair.
I have no idea about the lobbies in EU, and in my country, bu I always adjust my honesty to the second side of discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well, I wouldn't call it "same fair game" or "adjusted honesty", I'd simply call it insurance fraud, payed for by honest customers. It has nothing to do with getting back at Samsung or the vendor...
spamtrash said:
But, going back to the topic, EU law is binding in all EU countries. Furthermore, Samsung can put in the warranty the statement that: inserting the battery will void warranty. But - they HAVE to write as well: above does not affects your statutory rights.
And, they have to honor these rights. therefore if the country law states that the equipment is covered for 4 years - the seller will have to follow that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
regarding the EU directive in question Samsung can do whatever they want, since it applies to _sellers_, not to manufacturers
odoto said:
well, I wouldn't call it "same fair game" or "adjusted honesty", I'd simply call it insurance fraud, payed for by honest customers. It has nothing to do with getting back at Samsung or the vendor...
regarding the EU directive in question Samsung can do whatever they want, since it applies to _sellers_, not to manufacturers
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK then, let's use same measure, and please explain to me what is the difference between (as you was keen to say) insurance fraud, and the warranty fraud by rooting the phone?
sorry, but in my insurance policy there is no such wording like: "except from intentional damage", where in the warranty it is clearly stated.
and of course this is contrary to your assumption from post #1, where you are mentioning custom roms, kernels etc. Wrong. If you have rooted the phone, your warranty is void, period.
If you're trying to hide it, it is a fraud, isn't it?
I definitely agree that Samsung have nothing to do with the phone. The purchase contract was made between the customer and the seller, therefore, seller is fully responsible for any equipment faults over the warranty period (which is much longer in UK, by the way).
spamtrash said:
OK then, let's use same measure, and please explain to me what is the difference between (as you was keen to say) insurance fraud, and the warranty fraud by rooting the phone?
sorry, but in my insurance policy there is no such wording like: "except from intentional damage", where in the warranty it is clearly stated.
and of course this is contrary to your assumption from post #1, where you are mentioning custom roms, kernels etc. Wrong. If you have rooted the phone, your warranty is void, period.
If you're trying to hide it, it is a fraud, isn't it?
I definitely agree that Samsung have nothing to do with the phone. The purchase contract was made between the customer and the seller, therefore, seller is fully responsible for any equipment faults over the warranty period (which is much longer in UK, by the way).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to say I partially agree. Handing in your phone for warranty, although you know you did something that definitely voided the warranty, could be named fraud as well. But I would argue that it is "more okay" than insurance fraud in some way. In case you knowingly killed your phone yourself (lets say you opened it up and intentionally damaged a component), you are a "bad person" if you try to get it repaired under warranty. BUT in case your rooted phone died because the manufacturer screwed up, like with the SDS, you are free to hand it in for warranty in my opinion.
The difference I see is, that in case of a rooted phone your warranty is voided by a technicality that is far from reality. IF the damage done isn't related to you installing custom software, you would be covered otherwise. The problem is that the warranty does not distinguished between cases where root/custom software was the problem and those where it wasn't. Arguably it just isn't possible do to that, or it is just to expensive to trace whether software was the problem or not.
So trying to get warranty despite that is okay in my eyes, because it is trying to "right" a "wrong".
Insurance on the other hand is not, you can't argue you are getting back at Samsung or the place where you bought the phone by getting money from the insurance company you don't deserve. It is not hurting Samsung or the vendors, but other people who need that insurance.
(And in case the vendor sold the insurance to you as well: still not hurting the vendor, they usually just sell insurance contracts of third-party insurance companies)
Damn, didn't mean to get into a lengthy discussion about insurance fraud
odoto said:
I have to say I partially agree. Handing in your phone for warranty, although you know you did something that definitely voided the warranty, could be named fraud as well. But I would argue that it is "more okay" than insurance fraud in some way. In case you knowingly killed your phone yourself (lets say you opened it up and intentionally damaged a component), you are a "bad person" if you try to get it repaired under warranty. BUT in case your rooted phone died because the manufacturer screwed up, like with the SDS, you are free to hand it in for warranty in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why? You shall NOT ROOT your phone, if you want to be honest. and, if anyone would have a residual amount of so-called honesty, after rooting - no one should even think about giving the phone to the service for warranty repair, period.
By the comparison: if you have used your TV set as the rain protection while on camp, I'd say that it would be not very honest to claim 3 dead pixels, huh?
And, you have presumably completely wrong info how the insurance works... read it, and then discuss (a tip: if I pay for the bank account which includes the insurance, if I put my moneys into the bank's account - guess who's paying for the insurance).
Contrary to above, it is sure that as Samsung's solely income is (in this case) by selling SGS's. Therefore, using your own argumentation, it is easily found that for any fraudulently rooted phone repair under the warranty - ALL buyers have to pay, because it is included in the purchase cost, which is paid by mass of the honest users, which even do not know about the phone's rooting possibility and consequences.
Of course, the above will be true unless you are not so naive to believe that Samsung did not included the repairs of some percentage of phones into this price.
Maybe are you thought that any warranty repair decreases the net Samsung's income? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
spamtrash said:
By the comparison: if you have used your TV set as the rain protection while on camp, I'd say that it would be not very honest to claim 3 dead pixels, huh?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course not, because the rain (which is your fault... well, not the rain itself, but the exposure) did kill the device, not the dead pixels. But in case of a rooted phone that died because of a hardware issue, the manufacturer is the one who screwed up, regardless of the software changes you did. If a device dies because of pre-existing hardware issues, what is the difference between custom rom and stock from the manufactures perspective?
spamtrash said:
And, you have presumably completely wrong info how the insurance works... read it, and then discuss (a tip: if I pay for the bank account which includes the insurance, if I put my moneys into the bank's account - guess who's paying for the insurance).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree I don't know for sure how your specific insurance works (how would I?), but I know how those normally work. It usually works like that: some company wants to offer their customers an additional insurance. But they don't have the knowledge to do it themselves, after all they are not an insurance company. So they delegate it to one. They pay the insurance company a fee for every device sold (or some sort of flat fee if it is not device-bound). In return the insurance company is liable for repair/replacement costs if the customer kills his phone. And if people are abusing that insurance, the insurance company has to increase the fees (obviously they don't wanna loose money). So the company who is paying that fee also has to increase prices for their consumers, because they don't wanna loose money as well.
So at the and all customers are paying for it. It always works like that, no company wants to loose money.
spamtrash said:
Contrary to above, it is sure that as Samsung's solely income is (in this case) by selling SGS's. Therefore, using your own argumentation, it is easily found that for any fraudulently rooted phone repair under the warranty - ALL buyers have to pay, because it is included in the purchase cost, which is paid by mass of the honest users, which even do not know about the phone's rooting possibility and consequences.
Of course, the above will be true unless you are not so naive to believe that Samsung did not included the repairs of some percentage of phones into this price.
Maybe are you thought that any warranty repair decreases the net Samsung's income? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, of course. Like I described above the customers are always paying in the end (or switching to a different company).
BUT Samsungs repair costs are not higher because of rooting/custom software. If nobody would modify the software, Samsung would even have higher repair costs, because in that case they would have to pay for all repairs. If a portion of the repairs can be denied for whatever reason, they save money.
So the fact that some people modify the software does not add to Samsungs repair costs (except for the really rare cases where people actually fry there phone by overclocking all the way to the moon and back), but they still void there warranties, thus saving money.
But they are only saving that money by discriminating against custom software users, for no reason.
So it is not like all customers have to pay more because of custom software users claiming warranty. The contrary is true: at the moment all "normal" users are saving money due to custom rom users, because those get there warranty voided for no factual reason.
Of course Samsung (and other manufactures) state that there is a reason, that they would have higher repair costs because of custom software users. But I think that is a groundless claim, just made to safe money or because of missing knowledge. (I'm talking _hardware_ warranty here! Of course they would have higher costs if they would fix phones where people messed up the software). So because of the unfounded fear of manufactures that custom software users will kill lots of their devices, we get denied rights that all other users have. I'd call that discrimination.
Just curious, now that we know what's causing the problem, is there a way to trigger a brick on my phone *immediately* and have them replace it with an updated motherboard while it is still in warranty… rather than to have a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off and can potentially still fail just outside of warranty?
Will a zero wipe on /emmc do?
wshyang said:
Just curious, now that we know what's causing the problem, is there a way to trigger a brick on my phone *immediately* and have them replace it with an updated motherboard while it is still in warranty… rather than to have a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off and can potentially still fail just outside of warranty?
Will a zero wipe on /emmc do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try hard bricking it, It can't be hard, purposely disconnect the cable when a PIT flash operation is in progress?
Off course I would rather take a chance that it may not break for MONTHS instead of it breaking and Samsung may not replace it.
wshyang said:
Just curious, now that we know what's causing the problem, is there a way to trigger a brick on my phone *immediately* and have them replace it with an updated motherboard while it is still in warranty… rather than to have a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off and can potentially still fail just outside of warranty?
Will a zero wipe on /emmc do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1. we have an idea what subsystem is likely causing the problem... that's all.
2. you _might_ be able to advance faster towards triggering the bug by doing a lot of write ops, but that is just a guess (and certainly not immediately)
3. chances are good your phone can live a long and happy life with a fixed firmware, even if it got the buggy chip
4. you would risk getting another mainboard with an affected chip...
5. there is always a risk of Samsung not accepting your claim (happened to some people here)
6. if your phone doesn't encounter SDS within a 2 year warranty period, it probably never will
7. don't do it! your would risk ending up without a phone now, to avoid a small risk of loosing your phone somewhere in the future. if you can't stand having a phone that might brick (what I understand), sell your phone (or get a refund if you still can)
wshyang said:
Just curious, now that we know what's causing the problem, is there a way to trigger a brick on my phone *immediately* and have them replace it with an updated motherboard while it is still in warranty… rather than to have a ticking time bomb that may or may not go off and can potentially still fail just outside of warranty?
Will a zero wipe on /emmc do?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try it ... and let us know :laugh:
More seriously : thanks to odoto for this thread and for information on EU "law" limitations ..
philgalaxs3 said:
More seriously : thanks to odoto for this thread and EU "law" limitation ..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know what you you meant, but that sounds almost like the EU law limitations are my fault
odoto said:
I know what you you meant, but that sounds almost like the EU law limitations are my fault
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Corrected , hope that sounds better. Sorry for my poor english .... und danke sehr :good:
AW: some thoughts on warranty, custom roms and SDS
I just thought it was funny
And your English seems totally okay, no worries
odoto said:
Of course not, because the rain (which is your fault... well, not the rain itself, but the exposure) did kill the device, not the dead pixels. But in case of a rooted phone that died because of a hardware issue, the manufacturer is the one who screwed up, regardless of the software changes you did. If a device dies because of pre-existing hardware issues, what is the difference between custom rom and stock from the manufactures perspective?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very simple. Please write here procedure for overclocking without the root, and I will tell that you're right immediately.
odoto said:
I agree I don't know for sure how your specific insurance works (how would I?), but I know how those normally work. It usually works like that: some company wants to offer their customers an additional insurance. But they don't have the knowledge to do it themselves, after all they are not an insurance company. So they delegate it to one. They pay the insurance company a fee for every device sold (or some sort of flat fee if it is not device-bound). In return the insurance company is liable for repair/replacement costs if the customer kills his phone. And if people are abusing that insurance, the insurance company has to increase the fees (obviously they don't wanna loose money). So the company who is paying that fee also has to increase prices for their consumers, because they don't wanna loose money as well.
So at the and all customers are paying for it. It always works like that, no company wants to loose money.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So what is the difference between the warranty?
odoto said:
True, of course. Like I described above the customers are always paying in the end (or switching to a different company).
BUT Samsungs repair costs are not higher because of rooting/custom software. If nobody would modify the software, Samsung would even have higher repair costs, because in that case they would have to pay for all repairs. If a portion of the repairs can be denied for whatever reason, they save money.
So the fact that some people modify the software does not add to Samsungs repair costs (except for the really rare cases where people actually fry there phone by overclocking all the way to the moon and back), but they still void there warranties, thus saving money.
But they are only saving that money by discriminating against custom software users, for no reason.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It seems that you did not understood the rules at all. Therefore, just short comparison:
INSURANCE: someone is paying additionally to the price of unit to be covered against unintentional, caused by lack of care, or ANY OTHER DAMAGES, unconditionally.
WARRANTY: You are purchasing the Unit for a price, in which the free repair is covered conditionally, if you are obeying the T&Cs of warranty. It is your choice if you will, but, INTENTIONAL void of the warranty by rooting and then trying to hide it is a fraud.
Comparing to the cars, you can have comprehensive insurance, yes? This is your free will to buy it. and, you have the car warranty. If you are honest, would you claim the corrosion caused by driving your car on a seaside on the background of warranty or insurance? Looking at your posts, you probably would call the insurer aproach a fraud, same time cleaning mud, alga and fishes and shouting that your car never has been contacted with salt water and this ugly dealer have to repair it under the warranty.
Once again, this is your choice: apply warranty T&C's and then claim on base of such, or buy the additional insurance and do whatever you want.
odoto said:
So it is not like all customers have to pay more because of custom software users claiming warranty. The contrary is true: at the moment all "normal" users are saving money due to custom rom users, because those get there warranty voided for no factual reason.
Of course Samsung (and other manufactures) state that there is a reason, that they would have higher repair costs because of custom software users. But I think that is a groundless claim, just made to safe money or because of missing knowledge. (I'm talking _hardware_ warranty here! Of course they would have higher costs if they would fix phones where people messed up the software). So because of the unfounded fear of manufactures that custom software users will kill lots of their devices, we get denied rights that all other users have. I'd call that discrimination.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once again: please give me an example of overclocking without the root, first.
Secondly, you have of course the right to disagree with the T&Cs of warranty. It is very simple: do not buy the product, which is related with unacceptable by you warranty terms. You have even wider choiche: you can buy it and you have the free will to ignore T&C's. The fraud starts when you're voiding knowingly these T&C's, and then you are trying to use (violated by you) warranty.
Third, of course you can call it discrimination, but the manufacturer and seller has right to set the purpose of the device. This is not discrimination, but the AGREEMENT between the customer and seller/manufacturer. Same way you will most likely call discrimination the fact that most of manufacturers are putting the water damage indicators to their devices. (Funny thing by the way, years ago it was no such things in phones. But amount of people like you, who submerged their units into water and then claimed it under the warranty - enforced the manufacturers to do it).
As I said above, your screams are like: I have bought a BMW, then I tried to reach my friend in a yacht in the middle of harbor in it, but it become rusty in result, therefore I need it repaired under warranty.
Finally, I think that you should read the Chainfire's statement related to it on his portal.