Asus refunds Zenfone buyer for failing to provide bootloader unlock tools
Asus has refunded a UK Zenfone buyer after quietly withdrawing its bootloader unlock tool, raising questions about manufacturers reneging on advertised features and the legal leverage consumers still have via small claims courts. Commenters contrast Asus’s weak software update policy and locked-down devices with alternatives like Google’s Pixel line, which remains relatively friendly to custom ROMs such as GrapheneOS and CalyxOS. The exchange broadens into concerns over shrinking options for small, mod-friendly phones, the growing incompatibility between rooted or custom-ROM devices and banking/DRM apps, and calls for regulation mandating unlockable bootloaders or longer software support.
Why people bought Zenfones despite bad support
- Several commenters say they never understood HN’s enthusiasm for Zenfones given Asus’ weak Android update record and recent deletion of bootloader‑unlock posts.
- Others explain Zenfones’ appeal: one of the few small-ish, flagship‑tier Android phones, often with a headphone jack and non‑glass backs.
- Some argue that in size and price they’re comparable to Galaxy S-series, which now offer longer software support, so value is disputed.
Bootloader unlock, “promise” and refund
- Asus previously offered bootloader unlock tools and even had related options in system settings, which were later removed.
- Commenters say some Zenfone models listed unlock as a feature and Asus repeatedly promised the tool would return, then quietly backed off and scrubbed old statements (archive-only now).
- Many see the small-claims refund as a way to enforce “keep your promises,” even if the money isn’t worth the time.
Legal / precedent discussion
- In the UK small-claims track, companies often settle because sending a lawyer costs more than paying out.
- UK small claims do not create binding legal precedent; in this case there wasn’t even a ruling, just a settlement.
- Some speculate forced arbitration clauses might block similar actions in the US (unclear from thread).
State of custom ROMs and rooting
- One camp claims “the time of custom ROMs is over” due to apps blocking rooted/unlocked devices.
- Others strongly disagree: GrapheneOS, LineageOS, crDroid, etc. are described as excellent, with root + Magisk/Play Integrity workarounds making most apps (even many banking apps) usable.
- There are conflicting reports: some have no issues; others lose NFC payments or specific bank/DRM apps and consider that unacceptable.
Security, banking, and mobile payments
- Debate over whether using a rooted/unlocked phone is less secure than sticking with stock OS and Google/Apple Pay.
- Some argue custom ROMs without vendor bloat and with per‑app network controls (e.g., GrapheneOS) are more secure overall.
- Others emphasize that integrity checks exist for a reason and that a rooted device breaks formal security guarantees; banks often respond by blocking apps.
- Mobile payments are seen by some as a privacy or “opsec” nightmare, by others as safer than card use due to tokenization.
Which phones remain unlock‑friendly
- Pixels are widely recommended: easy unlock, factory images published, good for GrapheneOS/CalyxOS, and can be re‑locked with certain custom OSes.
- Mentioned alternatives: some Moto, Xiaomi, and Fairphone models, though experiences with Motorola’s unlock process are described as painful.
- Small, modern, unlockable phones with headphone jacks are said to be nearly extinct; Pixel 4a is cited as the last good example.
Regulation and broader concerns
- Some hope the EU will not only mandate 5 years of security updates (already discussed policy) but also require unlockable bootloaders.
- Motivations for locking down devices are debated: shorter upgrade cycles, data‑harvesting business models, and possibly surveillance interests are all suggested, with profit seen as the most plausible driver.