Say you buy a phone online, it’s comes in DOA/bricked due to being tampered with in-transit.
Seems better then unknowingly getting a tampered with phone with spyware hooked in, and like my oneplus 6t just gives a generic “bootloader unlocked” that most end-users wouldn’t really understand by comparison.
Idk still seems too destructive to me as well but I can see some possible rationale.
Pixels have a pretty strong warning on boot for unlocked bootloaders and an easily-typed URL with a detailed explanation.
That seems like enough to me from the manufacturer side. Of course I can imagine someone ignoring the warning; people sometimes climb into tiger enclosures with predictable results, but it shouldn’t be on device manufacturers (or zoo management) to prevent all possible negative outcomes.
A design that results in a hard brick on “tampering” is unusually destructive.
Say you buy a phone online, it’s comes in DOA/bricked due to being tampered with in-transit.
Seems better then unknowingly getting a tampered with phone with spyware hooked in, and like my oneplus 6t just gives a generic “bootloader unlocked” that most end-users wouldn’t really understand by comparison.
Idk still seems too destructive to me as well but I can see some possible rationale.
Pixels have a pretty strong warning on boot for unlocked bootloaders and an easily-typed URL with a detailed explanation.
That seems like enough to me from the manufacturer side. Of course I can imagine someone ignoring the warning; people sometimes climb into tiger enclosures with predictable results, but it shouldn’t be on device manufacturers (or zoo management) to prevent all possible negative outcomes.
Pixels also have this anti rollback protection, IIRC. I’m unable to flash LineageOS based on Android 15 since I’m on Android 16.
I hadn’t heard of Pixels doing that, but I’m guessing the attempt does not hard-brick the device.
I don’t disagree at all, this is my most charitable take, definitely just ends up being anti-consumer.