[Galaxy Note 3 General] frostmore:
i wouldn't say samdung is giving out free updates to users.i mean if they have found a security flaw in their version of android and choose not to address it,then they would probably lose more business and reputation.but of course they do issue updates for improvements and other enhancements but for free is hardly the case,i believe there is always something profit driven behind it,(i.e good reputation,timely support of products which is an intangible asset that can be cashed in on)i could be wrong but whose to confirm i am not right?

glad we can agree on the pc warranty view.this is essentially what mobile phones warranty should adhere to.and users should understand that some things might not work if you put in software which a particular hardware isn't designed for.

on the point that samdung should honor warranty when a phone is spoiled because of OC and other risky uses(other than root access).i believe,to be fair to both parties,that if you choose to overclock,you jolly well know what u are getting into,dun come crying for warranty when the processor is fried.that is wat OC does.and the OCer should not try and get a free lunch from samdung jus coz they are a mega corporation.you fried the phone,u be responsible on it.

however,samdung is denying warranty unilaterally based on knox bit.it really does not matter if it was tripped with kies via an attempted recovery for a bad update or some random acts of god(power outtages,samdung kies failure,murphy's law in general),they lay the blame on the user.this i find very hard to accept,since the terms and conditions of the warranty is one sided and disadvantages to the consumer.and under contract law(english law),this can be argued against.

when it comes to the bootloader,i believe its the same as getting the license to use samdung's bootloader.same with microsoft win7,consumers should have full admin rights to it.since the software is in their phones,physically modifying their phones without due approval.

warranty is one part of the legally binding contract(invitation to treat) which was formed between the consumer and samdung.samdung is legally bound to honor their warranties,it does not belong to any one party but rather forms part of the terms and conditions of a contract.but the argument on honoring warranty does not come in until we can come to an agreement on which terms and conditions was broken, when it come to knox warranty void in bootloader.

that leads to what many have pointed out in other threads,it is up to the manufacturer to prove rooting actually does what samdung claims it does and not unilaterally deny warranty.

samdung may have announced knox on their website but that does not constitute a legal contract with consumers.it jus merely announced a new feature of their phones.they will still need to make known to each and every consumer who buys their phones as it is entering a legal contract with them.therefore,if that aspect is not observed,then the whole contract falls apart and consumer can claim compensation.but we arent arguing on that point here.what we are concerned about is samdung trying to pull the wool over consumers and getting a free meal out of consumers by concealing knox crap and not coming clean.

it would have been better if samdung had offer an option to enterprise and consumer users.i.e produce a phone for the consumer market,offer an option to opt into the enterprise security solution with no roll back.this way,knox integrity is protected and consumers can go about having full access rights to their phones.win-win.

i suppose with the success of samdung's phones in the android market(having the giant share),it has made samdung cocky enough to think they can act the way crapple did when iphone was the hottest phone to have.and if history does repeat itself,it will not be long before samding falls right back to where it belongs,if it continues to do things the way they are doing.