Didn't the Pandora XML specification contain a specific property indicating the clock speed at which an application should be run? I imagine this will not allow a clock speed higher than 600mhz, but I wouldn't mind a warning along the lines of "This application works best at 700mhz, however overclocking may damage your device and this will not be covered under warrantee . Would you like to use 700mhz mode?"
I don't think it's really possible to offer a warrantee for overclocked units, it doesn't make sense if you think about it. Where do they draw the line? Is it covered at 601mhz, 720mhz, 800mhz? If it could be confidently covered at any of these speeds, then why even market the device as 600mhz. Think of it in terms of pre-overclocked CPUs which are sold by outlets such as the aptly named overclockers. They can warrantee the overclocked CPUs because they are confident that they are safely overclocked and will not fail. Therefore they can confidently sell them at a higher clock and a higher price.
If Pandora, a smaller company with fewer assets taking a much larger financial risk could confidently guarantee overclocking the Pandora to 720mhz, then that is, in effect, the same as marketing the device as a 720mhz console. Everyone then WILL overclock (perhaps not even of their own volition, but due to an emulator with built-in soft clocking), and any Pandora CPU that can fail under such conditions WILL fail. A Warrantee on overclocking is effectively *asking* for trouble.
From the other perspective, however, anyone who encounters a hardware failure following overclocking is probably going to lie and say they've not overclocked the unit, and who is ever going to know? Unless it's entirely evident from analysis of the hardware that overclocking caused the issue then it's difficult NOT to cover it under Warrantee. Whilst it makes sense, therefore, to cover overclocking under the Warrantee simply because it'll be claimed either way, again we hit the issue of covering it causing a greater number of people to attempt it, and yielding (if any at all) a greater number of failures.
You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't! But clearly the logical choice is NOT to provide a Warrantee for overclocking, as any official encouragement or endorsement of overclocking without absolutely 100% confidence that it is safe, or at least a sufficiently high level of confidence that it becomes financially viable to offer it as a value-added feature (perhaps promoting more sales), is one big can of worms to open.
Anyone who was reading the other thread will get a big grin out that.
