[olug] [ot] not sure on the details

[Luke-Jr]

On Monday, December 06, 2010 09:25:32 am Benjamin Watson wrote:
> I'd be curious to see how far this goes.  Warranties are intended to
> protect the consumer against product defects but usually have a
> stipulation that the consumer use the device "as designed" or "in
> accordance with the user manual"; but usually stated in some cryptic
> legal-ese.

What separates "use" from "maintenance"? It's one thing if they can show you 
actually did something to damage your device, but short of that...

> By rooting my phone and overclocking, I am now using the device above
> and beyond its design and, as a result, can cause hardware damage.  I
> can understand why these types of actions void a warranty.

"Rooting" your phone and overclocking are two very different things. "Rooting" 
is, if not normal use, undeniably part of maintenance. Unless you use it to do 
damage, it cannot void a warranty. Overclocking, on the other hand, is running 
a hardware chip at a rate that is known to do damage. It is understandable 
that if you do something not only against the manuf.'s recommendations, but 
also known to cause damage, your warranty is forfeit. On the other hand, some 
devices (Nokia's N900 handhelds come to mind) are designed to overclock out of 
the box to an extent. I think it would be lunacy for Nokia to refuse to honour 
a warranty based on that factory-configured overclocking.