This is my first time reading about this. I’m very curious to hear a lawyer’s thoughts on this.

If you change the bootloader to some other software, how could the company be expected to provide support for something they may have no knowledge of? Suppose I develop some theoretical SnowsuitOS and then complain to Samsung support when it doesnt run on my smartphone? It seems very likely that some conflict in my code could be causing problems, as opposed to an issue with my hardware.

I feel like to require this, you’d have to prove that the software is functionally equivalent to their software, right? (Side note, isn’t this problem undecidable? Program equivalence?)

If you replace a wheel on a tractor you can pretty easily define what it should and should not do. Determining equivalence seems simpler with a physical situation. On the other hand, I’m pretty sure program equivalence is not a solved problem.

My point here is that I don’t think it’s reasonable to legally require a software company to offer support without limits, because they cannot be sure that there is not an issue with the (unsupported) software you are using.

They’re part of Department of Homeland Security. NSA is part of Department of Defense. So they’re actually not, unless you meant this figuratively.

I’ve found on my android phone that the bitwarden prompt comes up more reliably if I tap on the password field instead of the username field.

Most people do not know who Satoshi is.

This is the integrated search on the home screen of my android (pixel). For a lot of mobile phone users, it’s the fastest way to search something. I can just Google search directly from the home screen instead of opening up a browser.