The most charitable thing I can think of is anti-tampering, potentially some sort of exploit in the prior version to install undetectable malware then upgrading back to the latest where it could still be retained but not newly installed?
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.
The most charitable thing I can think of is anti-tampering, potentially some sort of exploit in the prior version to install undetectable malware then upgrading back to the latest where it could still be retained but not newly installed?
Idk tho seems just anti-consumer “Never settle”
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.
I don’t disagree at all, this is my most charitable take, definitely just ends up being anti-consumer.