Hey everyone. I'm an Android newb and would appreciate it if you could help me to make sure my understanding is correct before I do anything. I've spent a dozen plus hours reading forums and am no stranger to the Linux CLI, so please be as detailed as you like.

I bought a Samsung Galaxy S3 [SPH-L710] from Virgin Mobile to see if I liked the Android platform as a test before buying a top model. It hasn't been activated yet, but Kies tells me the firmware is L710VPUBMK5. My understanding is that this is 4.3 JB, which means it already has the Knox bootloader and software. It also gives me the option to update to NDC for the PDA, Phone, and CSC. My understanding is that this would correspond to 4.4.2 Kit Kat. Since Knox is already present, is there any reason not to upgrade?

I would like to be able to install different ROMs. Am I correct in my assumption that if I want to install a custom recovery, like Phil's Touch, CWRM, or TWRP, there is no way to avoid tripping the Knox warranty flag?

Part of my confusion comes seemingly conflicting information. In this guide http://galaxys3root.com/galaxy-s3-root/how-to-root-galaxy-s3-on-android-4-34-4-2-new/ to root the phone, it uses a custom recovery to install SuperSU, which then roots the phone and disables Knox. Am I correct in that he means it disables the Knox software, but that the Knox bootloader has still been tripped?

On the other hand, I also came across "saferoot". http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2565758 This says that the phone can be rooted *without tripping the Knox warranty flag*. Does this refer to the bootloader and is this actually correct? If it is, would I still need to install a custom recovery in order to try out different ROMs (and thereby trip the Knox flag anyway)? If saferoot does not trip the Knox flag when rooting the phone, is there a way to install custom ROMs without a custom recovery?

Sorry for the barrage of questions, but I RTFM and couldn't get the clear answers I need. Thanks for reading all this, and I greatly appreciate any help you can offer.

 

Thanks for helping me make sure my understanding was correct. I always tend to do a great deal of research before I do anything that can cost me money. The idea that I bricked my phone or voided my warranty unnecessarily because I didn't do my homework would eat me alive. I can't really understand the mentality of those who jump in without knowing how to deal with all the possible outcomes.

I'm not particularly worried about voiding my warranty. But, like I mentioned, if it were possible not to I would prefer that route. In reality, I probably won't have this phone long enough to worry about warranty issues. I'm just using this to get a feel for the Android platform. And, if I like it, I'll get a more current phone. So, if you have any recommendations (techniques, ROMs, apps, etc.) for a complete Android newb as how best to get "the Android experience" I'd love to hear it. The only thing I really hate is that everything seems to involve Google. The idea of my phone constantly listening for "Okay, Google" really creeps me the hell out. Anyway, thanks again for your help. I'm going to go activate it, upgrade to KK, Towelroot, and then install Phil's.

 

Also, I suspect that much of it is an excuse just to deny warranty coverage for legitimate defects. You know those stickers on products that state something to the effect of "Removal of this sticker voids the warranty"? They're essentially meaningless, other than to trick the owner. Federal law (such as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act) makes it clear that the warranty may be void only if the user actually modified or tampered with the device such that it caused the problem they're seeking to have fixed under the warranty. So even if the Knox flag has been tripped, if a user wanted warranty work for a physical defect unrelated to Knox, Samsung would legally be obliged to honor the terms of the warranty. However, they use the Knox flag as an excuse not to, even though it is completely unrelated to the actual problem.

Of course, your average individual doesn't know anything about federal warranty law, so it sounds reasonable. Plus, Samsung knows that it isn't financially feasible for an individual to sue for enforcement of the warranty. Only a class action suit could make financial sense to change their behaviour, and even then I would be surprised if they didn't have provisions in the license agreement mandating arbitration and denying class action.