>I looked at all the screen defect reports and high price and decided not to risk it.

That concerned me a bit too. I got a deal ($499 IIRC) on the device and decided to risk it.

I've had no screen issues at all and like it a lot. Then again, I've only had it for four months, so I guess we'll see.

>More specifically, Samsung phones for the US with qualcomm chips cannot be unlocked. The nice little menu option in that article is just not there.

You are, of course, absolutely correct. I didn't catch that in my initial search.

That sucks. I'm glad I didn't purchase a Samsung.

I had similar goals as you did in a new device: fast processor, lots of RAM, large internal storage and large SDCard support, long battery life.

I considered another HTC device, but my experience with them dropping support almost immediately (~9 months after I bought it) for upgrades really pissed me off.

And since I'm not going to buy a new phone every year or two (there's no reason to replace a perfectly good phone just because the OEM drops support in an attempt to get you to buy a new one), especially when there are better Android implementations (e.g., LineageOS) without all the bloatware.

As such, rootable/bootloader unlockable was very important to me too.

Maybe I'm just old and crotchety, but I figure that if I purchase a physical product, I should be able to do with it as I choose, without restriction. This whole 'we decide what you can and can't do, and what software you can and can't run with the very expensive device you've "purchased"' schtick is unacceptable to me.

This is yet another area where we need legislation to address this in the US.

I am aware that there are specific FCC regulations that require specific ranges of transceiver power levels and related stuff, but since the baseband processor code is generally proprietary and requires binary blobs from the manufacturer, that really shouldn't be an issue.

Perhaps if we make enough noise, we can make that a reality.