You can actually permabrick the hardware with a non-compatible or buggy flashed OS. It's an embedded device, so the Linux kernel has access to a lot of stuff that it wouldn't, e.g. on an ordinary PC.

Kind of ironic that said embedded device is supposed to have at least nontrivially-above-average security.

But flashing itself can also go horribly wrong due to poor bootloader quality etc.

> The fact that this is an accepted norm is another part of the problem. Why "naturally"? Some manufacturers (like Google, Fairphone, Motorola on a limited number of phones) don't void the warranty, but even if none did: why do you think this "naturally" an acceptable thing other than it being the norm?

Because I want to be allowed to install software that will damage the phone. Holding the phone manufacturer responsible for code I wrote is not in fact a natural thing to do.

> Holding the phone manufacturer responsible for code I wrote is not in fact a natural thing to do.

I'm sorry but I'm really struggling to understand what you mean by this. What hardware should I be running the code I write on without fear of voiding the warranty.

If it's the fact I wrote the code that constitutes voiding the warranty, exactly who's code should we be permitted to run on hardware we've purchased? Only code which has been written by/provided by the manufacturer themselves?

What's the precedent for this absurd restriction?

You shouldn't be running the code you write on any hardware without fear of voiding the warranty. The point of a general-purpose computer is that the code you write might do anything at all. There is no warranty to cover that, and there shouldn't be. You should get over your desire for a warranty.

Why is this acceptable for the computers that go in our pockets when its clearly not the case for those that go in our backpacks or datacenters?