some thoughts on warranty, custom roms and SDS

[odoto]

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

 

[blazevxi]

Unless you live in the EU, then you can argue your case.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app

 

[delsus]

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

 

[odoto]

EU "warranty" clarification

Unless you live in the EU, then you can argue your case.

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.

(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".

 

[Zylian91]

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.

 

[odoto]

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.

do they specifically say they cover phones that have been tampered with software-wise? Oo

 

[spamtrash]

do they specifically say they cover phones that have been tampered with software-wise? Oo

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.

 

[odoto]

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.

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...

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.

regarding the EU directive in question Samsung can do whatever they want, since it applies to _sellers_, not to manufacturers

 

[spamtrash]

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

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).

 

[odoto]

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).

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

 

[spamtrash]

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.

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:

 

[odoto]

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?

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?

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).

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.

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:

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.

 

[wshyang]

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?

 

[TheCraig]

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?

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.

 

[odoto]

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?

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)

 

[philgalaxs3]

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?

Try it ... and let us know :laugh:

More seriously : thanks to odoto for this thread and for information on EU "law" limitations ..

 

[odoto]

More seriously : thanks to odoto for this thread and EU "law" limitation ..

I know what you you meant, but that sounds almost like the EU law limitations are my fault

 

[philgalaxs3]

I know what you you meant, but that sounds almost like the EU law limitations are my fault

Corrected , hope that sounds better. Sorry for my poor english .... und danke sehr :good:

 

[odoto]

AW: some thoughts on warranty, custom roms and SDS

I just thought it was funny

And your English seems totally okay, no worries

 

[spamtrash]

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?

Very simple. Please write here procedure for overclocking without the root, and I will tell that you're right immediately.

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.

So what is the difference between the warranty?

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.

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.

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.

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.