6 ms·

I can understand that Samsung's target market doesn't consist of users who may install Lineage or other ROMs, but what's their motivation for selling a phone wi

by QUFB 9y ago

I can understand that Samsung's target market doesn't consist of users who may install Lineage or other ROMs, but what's their motivation for selling a phone with a locked bootloader? Samsung sells excellent hardware, and as an S8 owner I've found their version of Android is acceptable. But why not allow users to unlock the bootloader: what's the risk to Samsung by allowing this?

leeoniya 9y ago
from what i've read it's not Samsung but the carriers that require it to be locked. outside the states you can get an unlockable bootloader on both Snapdragon and Exynos variants. it pisses me off because my wife purchased a Sprint flavor S8 (full price, no contract) because its radios are better for Sprint's bands but i cannot unlock it to install Lineage or TWRP >:( EDIT: i might be wrong, all Snapdragon variants are locked. the best that's been achieved is root with a bunch of caveats: https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s8+/development/root-g955u-g955u1-snapdragon-sampwnd-t3658911 https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s8+/development/root...
- ac29 9y ago
  Carriers don't seem to have an issue with any of Google's phones being unlocked, I don't see why they would only require it on other manufacturers. They might prefer locked bootloaders, but Samsung has enough sales volume that I imagine they could do whatever they wanted.
  - ThatPlayer 9y ago
    Carriers don't tend to sell Google's phone. Verizon seems to be the only carrier selling Google's Pixel, and they have a locked bootloader on that version.
- Vanav 9y ago
  You are right, some regions can be unlocked. For example, N9500 (Snapdragon, Note8), can be unlocked (https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-note-8/how-to/guide-n9500-unlocking-bl-twrp-t3696103 https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-note-8/how-to/guide-...).
pxeboot 9y ago
Carriers like Verizon demand locked bootloaders.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I think it's crazy to believe that Samsung of all companies can't stand up to Verizon. Every time I hear a company say "we have to do this because carriers demand it", unless that company is Essential or some small time player, I literally do not believe it. Verizon isn't going to be the only company that doesn't stock the latest Samsung phone, like they're not going to be the only company who doesn't stock the iPhone. Android fans would go nuts and would leave Verizon before they left their Samsung. I don't believe Verizon is to blame for one second. They may be a convenient scapegoat, but Verizon would lose over Samsung if they started a boycott against each other.
  - CodeWriter23 9y ago
    You’re right, Verizon wouldn’t be the only company not stocking the S9 because the boot loader is unlocked. AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint would join them. ALL the carriers have their pennies-per-user gains to be made with their unremovable crapware, and I’m quite sure they are all completely over the customer support drain from Android malware.
    - leetcrew 9y ago
      I find this argument hard to believe. google, htc, lg, and motorola all sell phones with unlockable bootloaders. the pixel 2 is locked if you buy from verizon, but you can easily get the unlockable one direct from google and use it on any carrier. I could believe that carriers require a locked version to sell in their own stores, but I can't believe samsung is uniquely unable to sell phones with unlockable bootloaders.
CJefferson 9y ago
I have a friend who googled for "How to update phone to KitKat", found a website that walked him through installing an unofficial build on his phone, and he promptly messed it up and broke his phone. Took it back to the phone shop, complained that is was broken, was given a replacement. The question is, is the gains from users like you or I worth the loss from those types of users, either from refusing them and upsetting them, or helping them and paying for fixes?
- userbinator 9y ago
  Alternatively they could make it dead-easy to recover from such situations. IMHO the MediaTek platforms have excelled at this --- all you need to do is find the right software (the harder part for unbranded/generic devices, but Samsung could certainly provide downloads) and you can do a reflash, even if the internal storage is completely wiped. It's the same process they use to put the original software on them at the factory.
  - sschueller 9y ago
    They could have a recovery partition (personaly not a fan of this) like all pc do these days. Would make it super simple to restore. They could also reactivate the warrenty if you restore the phone's OS like some router manufacturers do.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      If you damage your bootloader, no amount of recovery partitions is going to help you. ARM SoCs are slightly different in this regard compared to PCs. On PCs, it takes an extra effort to damage UEFI or BIOS.
      - userbinator 9y ago
        The MTK SoCs have an embedded boot ROM which is really read-only and can't be modified, short of physical damage; and it has enough code to act as a USB device that their flashtool can communicate with. It boots into this "download" mode if it can't find a valid partition on the eMMC or the power button is held down while being plugged into USB. It makes me wonder how the other popular smartphone SoC platforms handle this "initial format/install", because the internal storage is certainly going to have nothing on it, not even a bootloader, when first manufactured.

by QUFB 9y ago

leeoniya 9y ago

from what i've read it's not Samsung but the carriers that require it to be locked. outside the states you can get an unlockable bootloader on both Snapdragon and Exynos variants. it pisses me off because my wife purchased a Sprint flavor S8 (full price, no contract) because its radios are better for Sprint's bands but i cannot unlock it to install Lineage or TWRP >:( EDIT: i might be wrong, all Snapdragon variants are locked. the best that's been achieved is root with a bunch of caveats: https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s8+/development/root-g955u-g955u1-snapdragon-sampwnd-t3658911 https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s8+/development/root...

ac29 9y ago
Carriers don't seem to have an issue with any of Google's phones being unlocked, I don't see why they would only require it on other manufacturers. They might prefer locked bootloaders, but Samsung has enough sales volume that I imagine they could do whatever they wanted.
- ThatPlayer 9y ago
  Carriers don't tend to sell Google's phone. Verizon seems to be the only carrier selling Google's Pixel, and they have a locked bootloader on that version.
Vanav 9y ago
You are right, some regions can be unlocked. For example, N9500 (Snapdragon, Note8), can be unlocked (https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-note-8/how-to/guide-n9500-unlocking-bl-twrp-t3696103 https://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-note-8/how-to/guide-...).

pxeboot 9y ago

Carriers like Verizon demand locked bootloaders.

freehunter 9y ago
I think it's crazy to believe that Samsung of all companies can't stand up to Verizon. Every time I hear a company say "we have to do this because carriers demand it", unless that company is Essential or some small time player, I literally do not believe it. Verizon isn't going to be the only company that doesn't stock the latest Samsung phone, like they're not going to be the only company who doesn't stock the iPhone. Android fans would go nuts and would leave Verizon before they left their Samsung. I don't believe Verizon is to blame for one second. They may be a convenient scapegoat, but Verizon would lose over Samsung if they started a boycott against each other.
- CodeWriter23 9y ago
  You’re right, Verizon wouldn’t be the only company not stocking the S9 because the boot loader is unlocked. AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint would join them. ALL the carriers have their pennies-per-user gains to be made with their unremovable crapware, and I’m quite sure they are all completely over the customer support drain from Android malware.
  - leetcrew 9y ago
    I find this argument hard to believe. google, htc, lg, and motorola all sell phones with unlockable bootloaders. the pixel 2 is locked if you buy from verizon, but you can easily get the unlockable one direct from google and use it on any carrier. I could believe that carriers require a locked version to sell in their own stores, but I can't believe samsung is uniquely unable to sell phones with unlockable bootloaders.

CJefferson 9y ago

I have a friend who googled for "How to update phone to KitKat", found a website that walked him through installing an unofficial build on his phone, and he promptly messed it up and broke his phone. Took it back to the phone shop, complained that is was broken, was given a replacement. The question is, is the gains from users like you or I worth the loss from those types of users, either from refusing them and upsetting them, or helping them and paying for fixes?

userbinator 9y ago
Alternatively they could make it dead-easy to recover from such situations. IMHO the MediaTek platforms have excelled at this --- all you need to do is find the right software (the harder part for unbranded/generic devices, but Samsung could certainly provide downloads) and you can do a reflash, even if the internal storage is completely wiped. It's the same process they use to put the original software on them at the factory.
- sschueller 9y ago
  They could have a recovery partition (personaly not a fan of this) like all pc do these days. Would make it super simple to restore. They could also reactivate the warrenty if you restore the phone's OS like some router manufacturers do.
  - vetinari 9y ago
    If you damage your bootloader, no amount of recovery partitions is going to help you. ARM SoCs are slightly different in this regard compared to PCs. On PCs, it takes an extra effort to damage UEFI or BIOS.
    - userbinator 9y ago
      The MTK SoCs have an embedded boot ROM which is really read-only and can't be modified, short of physical damage; and it has enough code to act as a USB device that their flashtool can communicate with. It boots into this "download" mode if it can't find a valid partition on the eMMC or the power button is held down while being plugged into USB. It makes me wonder how the other popular smartphone SoC platforms handle this "initial format/install", because the internal storage is certainly going to have nothing on it, not even a bootloader, when first manufactured.