You’ll soon be able to sync app permissions between your phone and Wear OS watch
A new hidden setting has been spotted through the Pixel Watch companion app that will let you sync app permissions between your phone and your watch. Permissions...
- In the UK, a Zenfone buyer sued ASUS over the company’s broken promise to provide bootloader unlocking support for its phones.
- The buyer won, getting a full refund for the £770 (~$973) purchase.
- If you have similar issues, this case proves you have a shot at getting a refund, too.
Over the past few months, there’s been a growing controversy among buyers of ASUS phones. Although ASUS makes some of the best Android phones you can buy, the company has fallen short in making bootloader unlocking tools available to buyers. Previously, these tools were easy to operate and readily available, but in November last year, things took a turn. Now, unlocking the bootloader of a recent ASUS phone — including the Zenfone 9, Zenfone 10, and Zenfone 11 Ultra — is not possible.
One buyer in particular, who we’ll call Timothy (not their real name), was very upset about this. Timothy told us that they bought an ASUS Zenfone specifically for the ability to unlock its bootloader. Upset by this broken promise, Timothy — who lives in the United Kingdom — sued ASUS in the UK’s version of small claims court.
ASUS has faced controversy over its failure to provide bootloader unlocking tools for its phones. Buyers of Zenfone devices were left disappointed when the company reneged on its promise to offer these tools. However, a recent legal case in the UK has set a precedent: a Zenfone buyer sued ASUS and won a full refund of £770 (~$973) for their purchase.
Unlocking the bootloader of an Android phone grants full access to the system, allowing users to manipulate and modify the installed software. ASUS’s decision to disable unlocking tools sparked outrage among tech-savvy buyers who relied on this feature to extend the lifespan of their devices beyond ASUS’s limited software support window. The settlement in this case demonstrates that consumers have recourse when companies fail to fulfill promises regarding bootloader support.
