As someone who roots single-purpose Android devices, this is one of those things that sucks big-time but makes total sense.
The only reason one would unlock a bootloader is to root the system partition. It is impossible to protect data on rooted phones and makes data exfiltration attacks significantly easier to do.
This is a huge problem for banking and music apps that absolutely rely on this capability. Samsung is, by far, the biggest seller of Android phones in the US. (I think Xiaomi is the biggest globally), so they are under much more pressure to clamp down on this.
That said, rooting Samsung devices has been a worthless pursuit for a long time. Doing so irreversibly (via eFuse) disables KNOX, which prevents DeX and Samsung Health from working. It also trips SafetyNet, which disables a whole suite of key apps (banking apps and Apple Music don't work; not sure about Spotify). There's a Magisk module that uses well-known device IDs to work around these, but these only work temporaily. Many people have also reported issues with the camera (a popular reason for buying Samsungs in the first place), and you no longer get OTA updates. I believe you also get degraded camera performance if you flash another ROM since the device module is closed-source and relies on One UI to work. This is before considering that stock ROMs have gotten really good over the years (especially Samsung's), and many of the reasons why we had to root have mostly gone away.
You can work around this by buying a Pixel for now, but I think we're a few years away from bootloader unlocking going away entirely.
That said, I stll root Android devices that will only serve a single-purpose, like my BOOX eBook readers that I use Firefox on. This lets me run AFWall so that I can block network traffic for everything except Firefox (and a few other apps). However, I won't be logging into my Google account on them, and they aren't ever going to run banking apps or anything like that.
Xiaomi apparently have also stopped unlocking their bootloaders, so the "workaround" was to go to an official store and ask them perform a downgrade, and before the staff can relock the bootloader, grab the phone and run:
As others have said they have some security concerns (I don't know enough about that stuff to know how justified or surmountable those concerns are). However with the big manufacturers all locking down their devices more than ever I wonder will they have much of a choice in the end. We're going to need a manufacturer (or preferably several) to actively stand behind the possibility to use custom ROMs, and at the moment Fairphone seem like the only one who might do that.
As someone else mentioned, GOS requires that the bootloader properly support relocking with a custom key. Additionally, GOS has a rule that any device supported must keep up with all security and quarterly patches in a timely manner, and none of the Fairphone devices do.
No secure element, no memory tagging support, no proper cellular baseband isolation, no verified boot, taking months to ship security updates .. the list is long.
From a security/privacy perspective the fairphone is on the worse side of options unfortunately.
I can't find the link, but a couple days ago, they said in a thread here it was due to their lack of support of some important security features, and remarked that it didn't look like they were even interested in supporting them.
Yeah, otherwise the bad guys can just wait till you're not looking at your phone, reflash your it with a backdoored version, and wait for you to unlock it (evil maid attack).
The curious thing is that being GrapheneOS open source, I would think that somebody could potentially create a ROM for them, even if it is not as secure as GrapheneOS would like. However, absolutely nobody has done it yet...
It is really a pity, as this means Android OS is closing down.
Without supported Consumer Hardware available on the market in sufficient volume, even less end-users will use an alternative OS, which will affect quality and size of the alternative OS-market and fragment the remaining users even more.
This will put the future of the entire alternative-OS ecosystem firmly back into the hands of Google. If they start further restricting BL-unlock on the Pixel-series to e.g. only Google Developer Account-Holders, the whole ecosystem will finally close down.
I’ve always said that it’s been “Google’s Android”, and wellp —- Welcome to Google’s Android, where the garden walls have been turned into a razorwire fence and you’re not welcome to leave.
It’s really funny that Apple’s finally allowing carefully controlled access outside of their own fences and slowly adding more APIs and expansion (hell, Apple are the only platform now with third party APIs for RCS in the EU) while Google’s spun an about face and will get away with it.
Of course it's been Google's Android, I don't think anyone ever questioned that. The whole reason why the OS still lives as a single entity and the app-ecosystem is not completely fragmented is due to Google's governance to keep it in check.
All the stuff Apple now slowly starts to allow on iOS due to EU's Digital Markets Act is still just scratching the surface of what Android already supports.
> hell, Apple are the only platform now with third party APIs for RCS in the EU
They provide third party API's to use APPLE's RCS-Service. The alternative would have been to support registering alternative RCS-services as default on the OS (and then, allow the user to choose a service).
> while Google’s spun an about face and will get away with it
Android already allows to install and configure alternative applications for RCS, in fact Samsung uses their own RCS Messaging service on its devices.
> Samsung uses their own RCS Messaging service on its devices
No? They’ve switched to Google Messages, and most/all carriers have switched to Google Jibe RCS (again, Google forcing its services into operator hands), which basically forces SafetyNet attestation to use.
Google is first and foremost an advertising company. They're going to do whatever makes them the most profit. It always had razor wire fences unfortunately.
The writing's been on the wall for custom ROMs in general for a while, so I've been starting to think about a mobile phone vendor I could actually have a decent business relationship with. I.e. use their stock ROM and be fairly happy with it.
Any opinions? Samsung was a candidate for their somewhat unified ecosystem. Maybe even apple.
I decided to part with my Huawei Mate 20 X after about 7 years of ownership not because it was a bad phone - on the contrary, it has a nice big screen, decent enough camera, is still plenty fast enough etc - but because the OS hadn't received any updates in a long time.
Rather than see it go to landfill I donated it to a friend who's happy to use it but what an absolute waste.
Bought a Pixel purely because they are committed to updating their phones for a long time.
I've been using Xiaomi phones but I had to buy a new phone every year or two just because they get so sluggish. My other Android phones kind of had the same, except my Nothing 2 has been going strong.
Has this been your experience as well, or have your phones been OK with responsiveness? Seven years is a long time, I imagine the phone must have been unusable by then.
I've used a xiaomi redmi note 4 (mediakek) for many years before i got it stolen. I've purchased a xiaomi redmi note 10 after that (i am supposing there were six years in between). I was still using it but then I needed one of these big folding phones and bought a samsung z fold 5. It broke down in 2 years, i am back to my redmi note 10. Still going strong. I will never buy an expensive phone again it was a dumb move. Just the cheapest android on aliexpress.
This is already in place in the EU via the WEEE directive (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment), but the costs have apparently been absorbed just fine already by this industry, so it doesn't seem to hurt them sufficiently to be incentivized for longevity.
As much as I hate it, the strongest incentive would maybe be to legally define vendors who supply hardware with a non-interchangable OS-ecosystem as service-providers and put restrictions on the price they can charge for the hardware to render the service (like i.e. a cable-modem from an ISP).
This could force the large players to decide between high-margin hardware or high-margin OS-ecosystem instead of aiming for both.
Come to think of it, these market-dynamics would be interesting to observe...
Is any other product forced to do such a thing? Considering a phone lasts for years and is very small, it produces very little garbage over time compared to disposable product people use. Think how big a garbage can is compared to a phone.
You still own the device even if the bootloader is locked. It's like saying you don't own a CPU because you can't add your own instructions. There are always going to be limits to what you can easily customize for a device.
Adding cpu instructions is something that you can't physically do, however unlocking the bootloader is something you can do via software, and if a vendor chooses to lock it down they're basically taking away your ability to do anything you would want to do with a device. Sadly this is has been the case for a while and it's probably going to continue being the case.
You can physically do it with a microcode update. Nothing is being taken away since this change is for new products. They just are not providing an additional feature to these products.
> > Adding cpu instructions is something that you can't physically do
> You can physically do it with a microcode update.
Do these ARM CPUs even have microcode? Unlike on x86 CPUs where there are some very complex instructions which have to be microcoded, on ARM all instructions are simple enough that their decoding into micro-operations can be completely hard-coded in the decoder logic.
> You can physically do it with a microcode update.
It's also anti-consumer that CPU vendors don't let customers who own the CPU perform whatever updates they want because they don't give out signing keys.
If malware could install microcode it could break the security of the system. There is more consumer benefit than harm by locking it down to trusted updates.
The security model could allow the end user to install keys for the root of trust for the CPU, much like how UEFI Secure Boot allows you to install your own keys. That CPUs don't have this functionality may not be purposefully anti-consumer (and just laziness), but the net effect is anti-consumer.
As it stands, besides preventing the user from making modifications to CPU functionality, the user is also forced to "trust" updates that might be created for specific anti-consumer purposes (say, compelled by government security services).
> As it stands, besides preventing the user from making modifications to CPU functionality, the user is also forced to "trust" updates that might be created for specific anti-consumer purposes (say, compelled by government security services).
That would be less of an issue if the updates were auditable (that is, security researchers could read and study them), even if users weren't able to modify them. Unfortunately, other than some early CPU designs, AFAIK microcode updates are always encrypted. I suspect that their reason is to protect "trade secrets" on details of their CPU design.
It being your own device and removing a feature being anticonsumer can both be true. Every feature comes with trademarks off from the company providing them. It's up to consumers to validate products by buying them if they think the features offered is worth the price. If removing this feature doesn't hurt the sales of the device this feature may be more trouble than it's worth for them to provide.
I don't believe a user lacking the ability to perform a microcode update impacts their freedom in any meaningful way. The CPU still executes whatever instructions it's given unless the user is deprived of that freedom.
samsung is the only smartphone manufacturer that still makes phones (though not many) with all the features I want: microSD slot, dual physical sim, side-mounted fingerprint reader, headphone jack, nfc, and regular (long-lasting) security updates
they also have service centers pretty much everywhere in the world, so I can always get my phone fixed (for a reasonable price, as a result of their ubiquity) if and when I inevitably break it
would I also prefer the option to unlock my bootloader? yes. if I'm honest with myself, is it a deal-breaker? sadly, no, I no longer use custom ROMs
> samsung is the only smartphone manufacturer that still makes phones (though not many) with all the features I want
Not to mention the built-in EMR stylus. That makes such a difference in using the device, I cannot believe they are not more common. And they are a terrific backup for the not unusual case of a broken screen being unresponsive.
Yep. Everyone I know who bought a Samsung anything (TV/Phone/Washer/Dryer) last time said it's their last Samsung product. Samsung sure know how to piss off customers.
Is the alternative really better overall. We upgraded to a samsung fridge last year from two consecutive cheapo-chinese-local walmart-brands and it was worth every penny. It will pay itself in energy savings in less than two years.
Well, I dunno. I've seen it as a lesser evil compared to many others.
In ye olden times I had such a horrible time with my cheapo Samsung when trying to upgrade it from Android 1.5 to 2.1 that I swore it'd be my last Samsung, and it was, for well over a decade. During that time I went through some iPhones and a handful of the most popular alternative Android brands.
Since the thread is about Android I'll focus on that. Every manufacturer was hamstrung by one or more of the following issues:
- Subpar hardware
- Difficult and slow RMA process where your device flies around the globe for repairs
- Software bloat, just like Samsung, but from a country I trust even less (China vs SK)
- Very infrequent updates (if you are lucky enough to get them at all), especially once a newer model is out
Now since this thread is about bootloaders this is probably a hot take, but I spend enough of my time troubleshooting stuff at work, so when I use my phone I want it to "just work" and not have to play some stupid anti integrity protection cat and mouse game to access my bank's app. So the last two are not solved with an open bootloader.
Samsung on the other hand has in recent years given me the "just works" experience on decent hardware, paired with frequent updates. And while their authorized repair shop might not be in my city, it is at least in my country and just a train ride away.
That being said, the nerd in me is disappointed in this move, and the recent EU ruling that forces manufacturers to actually support the stuff they sell for a reasonable time even after it's off the shelves might change things for the better w.r.t. other manufacturers.
I've got a Samsung dryer and when it had a fault with the door sensor they got it fixed pretty quickly. I had better service from them than Bosch or Miele - I replaced a Bosch dryer when I was totally fed up of trying to organise Bosch to fix it and being told it was at least a 6 week wait - Samsung half the price, and surprised us that it is a better dryer (faster, easier to use etc).
I don't love their phones, though my wife has one. However, again on the service front, when my samsung S7 had a problem they fixed it pretty quickly. When my iPhone 5 came with the wifi not working it took weeks to convince Apple that it was actually broken and get a replacement.
All anecdotal of course, and probably varies a lot by location and over time.
It’s amazing how nothing goes wrong with my 20+ year old Maytags, Whirlpools, or Estates by Whirlpool (their budget subbrand). No logic board failures, drain pump failures.
Acquired from yard sales and then subject to duty cycles of 5-10 loads a day.
Somewhat relevant, I have 3 relatives/colleagues still sporting iPhone 8’s/8 Pluses. The only issue is that some newer apps are slow. Told them to grab iPhone SE 3rd gens before they’re discontinued; one of them has it sitting unopened in the box, waiting for their 8 to die.
This is also anecdotal; but I heard it from someone who works in Home Appliance repair, but Samsung has been getting their act together in the last couple of years because they know their reputation has been horrible. Making their appliances more reliable and easier to repair. They worked with the home assistant recently to get their appliances (smart things) to be able to properly with it.
It's actually incredible how consistent they are with it. I'm hesitant to buy a foldable or a display from them for this very reason, even though I'd be otherwise interested.
Same here. I got so tired of fighting "the system" that wanted to manage everything, and post-updates meant mire wasted time switching off bloat/features I didn't need.
I have to wonder what Samsung's motivation is here. Of course they probably have some bloatware they profit from, but someone who plans to unlock the bootloader just won't buy their device now. Samsung only benefits if they lose money on device sales (do they?) and make it up on "services".
Google's own Pixel devices have easy unlocking, so this would surprise me. Google's strategy to keep devices users actually control from being too mainstream is remote attestation.
I just unlocked the bootloader on my Xiaomi Mi Pad 5 today (which was a nightmare to do btw.). Why did I unlock it? The device has nice hardware, but is stuck with Android 13 and does not get any security updates either, so flashing a custom ROM is my only chance of having an up-to-date device.
Next step will be to try PostmarketOS and see how that goes
No I'm talking about what you said about someone not buying their phone because of bootloader locking. Majority of the majority don't care about the bootloader, so is Samsung.
Exactly. This is why I won't buy from these companies even when conditions look good. It'll be bait and switch every sigle time. Fairphone all the way.
Unlikely, bootloader unlock is a controlled process and state of the OS for many years now.
The procedure explicitly hands over the responsibility of OS-integrity to the end-user, it's not Samsung's responsibility after that and the user needs to confirm that.
It's much more likely that the cost/benefit profile to develop/maintain/support that feature and its related unlock-process is simply not sufficient, all while several of the biggest customers explicitly require unlock to NOT be supported.
What's the cost to develop/maintain/support the feature?
It's a simple switch, and since it's probably in AOSP there's cost in removing it, not in leaving it there
As someone who roots single-purpose Android devices, this is one of those things that sucks big-time but makes total sense.
The only reason one would unlock a bootloader is to root the system partition. It is impossible to protect data on rooted phones and makes data exfiltration attacks significantly easier to do.
This is a huge problem for banking and music apps that absolutely rely on this capability. Samsung is, by far, the biggest seller of Android phones in the US. (I think Xiaomi is the biggest globally), so they are under much more pressure to clamp down on this.
That said, rooting Samsung devices has been a worthless pursuit for a long time. Doing so irreversibly (via eFuse) disables KNOX, which prevents DeX and Samsung Health from working. It also trips SafetyNet, which disables a whole suite of key apps (banking apps and Apple Music don't work; not sure about Spotify). There's a Magisk module that uses well-known device IDs to work around these, but these only work temporaily. Many people have also reported issues with the camera (a popular reason for buying Samsungs in the first place), and you no longer get OTA updates. I believe you also get degraded camera performance if you flash another ROM since the device module is closed-source and relies on One UI to work. This is before considering that stock ROMs have gotten really good over the years (especially Samsung's), and many of the reasons why we had to root have mostly gone away.
You can work around this by buying a Pixel for now, but I think we're a few years away from bootloader unlocking going away entirely.
That said, I stll root Android devices that will only serve a single-purpose, like my BOOX eBook readers that I use Firefox on. This lets me run AFWall so that I can block network traffic for everything except Firefox (and a few other apps). However, I won't be logging into my Google account on them, and they aren't ever going to run banking apps or anything like that.
Samsung also removed my flashlight recently. The whole pull-down that contained it is gone. Not sure what they're thinking over there.
Xiaomi apparently have also stopped unlocking their bootloaders, so the "workaround" was to go to an official store and ask them perform a downgrade, and before the staff can relock the bootloader, grab the phone and run:
https://x.com/kobe_koto/status/1949154478298456531
Absolutely hilarious.
Pixel stopped providing device trees, kernel history,
Samsung has been doing this for a while now.
Which are the devices/vendors that still allow / encourage this?
Even Graphene OS reported that they're in talks with some vendor... Have there been any updates towards that?
The main reason i used to root devices are:
* Get longer support/OS updates than what the vendor provided
* System level adblock using adaway
* Titanium backup
These days firefox/brave browser gets me half way through adblocking and i lost interest in the ad filled apps..
Syncing gets me good level of syncing for backup on my NAS etc .
Here's an updated list of relatively popular phone manufactures and their bootloader unlocking potential.
https://github.com/melontini/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame...
Fairphone does!
https://www.fairphone.com/en/bootloader-unlocking-code-for-f...
Do anyone know why GrapheneOS doesn't support fairphone?
As others have said they have some security concerns (I don't know enough about that stuff to know how justified or surmountable those concerns are). However with the big manufacturers all locking down their devices more than ever I wonder will they have much of a choice in the end. We're going to need a manufacturer (or preferably several) to actively stand behind the possibility to use custom ROMs, and at the moment Fairphone seem like the only one who might do that.
As someone else mentioned, GOS requires that the bootloader properly support relocking with a custom key. Additionally, GOS has a rule that any device supported must keep up with all security and quarterly patches in a timely manner, and none of the Fairphone devices do.
No secure element, no memory tagging support, no proper cellular baseband isolation, no verified boot, taking months to ship security updates .. the list is long.
From a security/privacy perspective the fairphone is on the worse side of options unfortunately.
I can't find the link, but a couple days ago, they said in a thread here it was due to their lack of support of some important security features, and remarked that it didn't look like they were even interested in supporting them.
You cant re-lock the bootloader with a custom key which grapheneos considers a cornerstone of their security model.
Yeah, otherwise the bad guys can just wait till you're not looking at your phone, reflash your it with a backdoored version, and wait for you to unlock it (evil maid attack).
https://www.androidauthority.com/fairphone-gen-6-us-graphene...
The curious thing is that being GrapheneOS open source, I would think that somebody could potentially create a ROM for them, even if it is not as secure as GrapheneOS would like. However, absolutely nobody has done it yet...
You can use AdGuard to block in-app ads on Android as an FYI
It is really a pity, as this means Android OS is closing down.
Without supported Consumer Hardware available on the market in sufficient volume, even less end-users will use an alternative OS, which will affect quality and size of the alternative OS-market and fragment the remaining users even more.
This will put the future of the entire alternative-OS ecosystem firmly back into the hands of Google. If they start further restricting BL-unlock on the Pixel-series to e.g. only Google Developer Account-Holders, the whole ecosystem will finally close down.
I’ve always said that it’s been “Google’s Android”, and wellp —- Welcome to Google’s Android, where the garden walls have been turned into a razorwire fence and you’re not welcome to leave.
It’s really funny that Apple’s finally allowing carefully controlled access outside of their own fences and slowly adding more APIs and expansion (hell, Apple are the only platform now with third party APIs for RCS in the EU) while Google’s spun an about face and will get away with it.
Of course it's been Google's Android, I don't think anyone ever questioned that. The whole reason why the OS still lives as a single entity and the app-ecosystem is not completely fragmented is due to Google's governance to keep it in check.
All the stuff Apple now slowly starts to allow on iOS due to EU's Digital Markets Act is still just scratching the surface of what Android already supports.
> hell, Apple are the only platform now with third party APIs for RCS in the EU
They provide third party API's to use APPLE's RCS-Service. The alternative would have been to support registering alternative RCS-services as default on the OS (and then, allow the user to choose a service).
> while Google’s spun an about face and will get away with it
Android already allows to install and configure alternative applications for RCS, in fact Samsung uses their own RCS Messaging service on its devices.
> Samsung uses their own RCS Messaging service on its devices
No? They’ve switched to Google Messages, and most/all carriers have switched to Google Jibe RCS (again, Google forcing its services into operator hands), which basically forces SafetyNet attestation to use.
Google is first and foremost an advertising company. They're going to do whatever makes them the most profit. It always had razor wire fences unfortunately.
It's a datamining company, and there are many ways to profit off of that...
The writing's been on the wall for custom ROMs in general for a while, so I've been starting to think about a mobile phone vendor I could actually have a decent business relationship with. I.e. use their stock ROM and be fairly happy with it.
Any opinions? Samsung was a candidate for their somewhat unified ecosystem. Maybe even apple.
Whatever floats your boat. I'll remain with the latest vendor making custom OS possible.
FYI Pixels still allow flashing custom ROMs, they've just slightly inconvenienced developers.
It's not necessarily about it being possible, but the level of support and refinement.
The future I'm seeing is one in which custom ROMs still exist as hobby projects, but aren't suitable for use in "production".
Apple is good out of the box, and has a strong ecosystem.
Check Nothing
More devices we no longer own and that are bound to become trash in a few years, and for what reason? So companies can make more profits?
I decided to part with my Huawei Mate 20 X after about 7 years of ownership not because it was a bad phone - on the contrary, it has a nice big screen, decent enough camera, is still plenty fast enough etc - but because the OS hadn't received any updates in a long time.
Rather than see it go to landfill I donated it to a friend who's happy to use it but what an absolute waste.
Bought a Pixel purely because they are committed to updating their phones for a long time.
I've been using Xiaomi phones but I had to buy a new phone every year or two just because they get so sluggish. My other Android phones kind of had the same, except my Nothing 2 has been going strong.
Has this been your experience as well, or have your phones been OK with responsiveness? Seven years is a long time, I imagine the phone must have been unusable by then.
I've used a xiaomi redmi note 4 (mediakek) for many years before i got it stolen. I've purchased a xiaomi redmi note 10 after that (i am supposing there were six years in between). I was still using it but then I needed one of these big folding phones and bought a samsung z fold 5. It broke down in 2 years, i am back to my redmi note 10. Still going strong. I will never buy an expensive phone again it was a dumb move. Just the cheapest android on aliexpress.
unlock the bootloader and flash Lineage OS.
They should be economically incentivized to pick up their trash.
This is already in place in the EU via the WEEE directive (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment), but the costs have apparently been absorbed just fine already by this industry, so it doesn't seem to hurt them sufficiently to be incentivized for longevity.
As much as I hate it, the strongest incentive would maybe be to legally define vendors who supply hardware with a non-interchangable OS-ecosystem as service-providers and put restrictions on the price they can charge for the hardware to render the service (like i.e. a cable-modem from an ISP).
This could force the large players to decide between high-margin hardware or high-margin OS-ecosystem instead of aiming for both.
Come to think of it, these market-dynamics would be interesting to observe...
Is any other product forced to do such a thing? Considering a phone lasts for years and is very small, it produces very little garbage over time compared to disposable product people use. Think how big a garbage can is compared to a phone.
You still own the device even if the bootloader is locked. It's like saying you don't own a CPU because you can't add your own instructions. There are always going to be limits to what you can easily customize for a device.
Adding cpu instructions is something that you can't physically do, however unlocking the bootloader is something you can do via software, and if a vendor chooses to lock it down they're basically taking away your ability to do anything you would want to do with a device. Sadly this is has been the case for a while and it's probably going to continue being the case.
You can physically do it with a microcode update. Nothing is being taken away since this change is for new products. They just are not providing an additional feature to these products.
> > Adding cpu instructions is something that you can't physically do
> You can physically do it with a microcode update.
Do these ARM CPUs even have microcode? Unlike on x86 CPUs where there are some very complex instructions which have to be microcoded, on ARM all instructions are simple enough that their decoding into micro-operations can be completely hard-coded in the decoder logic.
> You can physically do it with a microcode update.
It's also anti-consumer that CPU vendors don't let customers who own the CPU perform whatever updates they want because they don't give out signing keys.
If malware could install microcode it could break the security of the system. There is more consumer benefit than harm by locking it down to trusted updates.
The security model could allow the end user to install keys for the root of trust for the CPU, much like how UEFI Secure Boot allows you to install your own keys. That CPUs don't have this functionality may not be purposefully anti-consumer (and just laziness), but the net effect is anti-consumer.
As it stands, besides preventing the user from making modifications to CPU functionality, the user is also forced to "trust" updates that might be created for specific anti-consumer purposes (say, compelled by government security services).
> As it stands, besides preventing the user from making modifications to CPU functionality, the user is also forced to "trust" updates that might be created for specific anti-consumer purposes (say, compelled by government security services).
That would be less of an issue if the updates were auditable (that is, security researchers could read and study them), even if users weren't able to modify them. Unfortunately, other than some early CPU designs, AFAIK microcode updates are always encrypted. I suspect that their reason is to protect "trade secrets" on details of their CPU design.
Trusted, sure
I disagree. If they have to go out of their way to remove functionality the previous phones had, that's anti-consumer.
It being your own device and removing a feature being anticonsumer can both be true. Every feature comes with trademarks off from the company providing them. It's up to consumers to validate products by buying them if they think the features offered is worth the price. If removing this feature doesn't hurt the sales of the device this feature may be more trouble than it's worth for them to provide.
> they're basically taking away your ability to do anything....
... with your property, with is a violation of your rights in most western jurisdictions.
I don't believe a user lacking the ability to perform a microcode update impacts their freedom in any meaningful way. The CPU still executes whatever instructions it's given unless the user is deprived of that freedom.
dont worry, samsung knows only 300 people will actually care.
As for me, I already swore off Samdung for their whole Samsung account bs and apps they bundle and won't let me remove (or disable).
samsung is the only smartphone manufacturer that still makes phones (though not many) with all the features I want: microSD slot, dual physical sim, side-mounted fingerprint reader, headphone jack, nfc, and regular (long-lasting) security updates
they also have service centers pretty much everywhere in the world, so I can always get my phone fixed (for a reasonable price, as a result of their ubiquity) if and when I inevitably break it
would I also prefer the option to unlock my bootloader? yes. if I'm honest with myself, is it a deal-breaker? sadly, no, I no longer use custom ROMs
Which of their phones have all of these?
Other than the side mounted fingerprint meter, I replaced my Note 10 Lite with another Note 10 Lite because it had all the other features.
https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_a06-13265.php This year, no NFC.
https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_a15-12637.php Last year, but they removed 3.5mm this year
That I know, in Latin America, they don't have all that anymore. And there is only one left with 3.5mm.
Yep. Everyone I know who bought a Samsung anything (TV/Phone/Washer/Dryer) last time said it's their last Samsung product. Samsung sure know how to piss off customers.
Is the alternative really better overall. We upgraded to a samsung fridge last year from two consecutive cheapo-chinese-local walmart-brands and it was worth every penny. It will pay itself in energy savings in less than two years.
Well, I dunno. I've seen it as a lesser evil compared to many others.
In ye olden times I had such a horrible time with my cheapo Samsung when trying to upgrade it from Android 1.5 to 2.1 that I swore it'd be my last Samsung, and it was, for well over a decade. During that time I went through some iPhones and a handful of the most popular alternative Android brands.
Since the thread is about Android I'll focus on that. Every manufacturer was hamstrung by one or more of the following issues:
- Subpar hardware
- Difficult and slow RMA process where your device flies around the globe for repairs
- Software bloat, just like Samsung, but from a country I trust even less (China vs SK)
- Very infrequent updates (if you are lucky enough to get them at all), especially once a newer model is out
Now since this thread is about bootloaders this is probably a hot take, but I spend enough of my time troubleshooting stuff at work, so when I use my phone I want it to "just work" and not have to play some stupid anti integrity protection cat and mouse game to access my bank's app. So the last two are not solved with an open bootloader.
Samsung on the other hand has in recent years given me the "just works" experience on decent hardware, paired with frequent updates. And while their authorized repair shop might not be in my city, it is at least in my country and just a train ride away.
That being said, the nerd in me is disappointed in this move, and the recent EU ruling that forces manufacturers to actually support the stuff they sell for a reasonable time even after it's off the shelves might change things for the better w.r.t. other manufacturers.
I've got a Samsung dryer and when it had a fault with the door sensor they got it fixed pretty quickly. I had better service from them than Bosch or Miele - I replaced a Bosch dryer when I was totally fed up of trying to organise Bosch to fix it and being told it was at least a 6 week wait - Samsung half the price, and surprised us that it is a better dryer (faster, easier to use etc).
I don't love their phones, though my wife has one. However, again on the service front, when my samsung S7 had a problem they fixed it pretty quickly. When my iPhone 5 came with the wifi not working it took weeks to convince Apple that it was actually broken and get a replacement.
All anecdotal of course, and probably varies a lot by location and over time.
It’s amazing how nothing goes wrong with my 20+ year old Maytags, Whirlpools, or Estates by Whirlpool (their budget subbrand). No logic board failures, drain pump failures.
Acquired from yard sales and then subject to duty cycles of 5-10 loads a day.
Somewhat relevant, I have 3 relatives/colleagues still sporting iPhone 8’s/8 Pluses. The only issue is that some newer apps are slow. Told them to grab iPhone SE 3rd gens before they’re discontinued; one of them has it sitting unopened in the box, waiting for their 8 to die.
This is also anecdotal; but I heard it from someone who works in Home Appliance repair, but Samsung has been getting their act together in the last couple of years because they know their reputation has been horrible. Making their appliances more reliable and easier to repair. They worked with the home assistant recently to get their appliances (smart things) to be able to properly with it.
It's actually incredible how consistent they are with it. I'm hesitant to buy a foldable or a display from them for this very reason, even though I'd be otherwise interested.
Same here. I got so tired of fighting "the system" that wanted to manage everything, and post-updates meant mire wasted time switching off bloat/features I didn't need.
I have to wonder what Samsung's motivation is here. Of course they probably have some bloatware they profit from, but someone who plans to unlock the bootloader just won't buy their device now. Samsung only benefits if they lose money on device sales (do they?) and make it up on "services".
Samsung botched UI 7.0.[1] Their approach to UI 8.0 is more of the same. Removing features is one thing, this is something worse.
[1] https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-S22/One-UI-7-0-Up...
I’ve got five bucks on this being a new requirement from Google to Tier 1 OEMs to eliminate bootloader locking.
Google's own Pixel devices have easy unlocking, so this would surprise me. Google's strategy to keep devices users actually control from being too mainstream is remote attestation.
How many people are there that unlock their bootloader?
I just unlocked the bootloader on my Xiaomi Mi Pad 5 today (which was a nightmare to do btw.). Why did I unlock it? The device has nice hardware, but is stuck with Android 13 and does not get any security updates either, so flashing a custom ROM is my only chance of having an up-to-date device.
Next step will be to try PostmarketOS and see how that goes
Few, and far fewer than in the early days of Android. It's odd that a company Samsung's size would care about this.
No I'm talking about what you said about someone not buying their phone because of bootloader locking. Majority of the majority don't care about the bootloader, so is Samsung.
Been compiling and running lineageos for nigh on five years now. Attention corporate tyrants: I will never give up.
Seems you may have to start getting good at SMD rework soon.
Exactly. This is why I won't buy from these companies even when conditions look good. It'll be bait and switch every sigle time. Fairphone all the way.
And fuck you over with data mining everything all the time without you having any means to cut it out
Doesn’t seem to be any vendor option to avoid this other than Apple, or the niche guys like Fairphone.
Given the timing, it’s likely related to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705240
Unlikely, bootloader unlock is a controlled process and state of the OS for many years now.
The procedure explicitly hands over the responsibility of OS-integrity to the end-user, it's not Samsung's responsibility after that and the user needs to confirm that.
It's much more likely that the cost/benefit profile to develop/maintain/support that feature and its related unlock-process is simply not sufficient, all while several of the biggest customers explicitly require unlock to NOT be supported.
What's the cost to develop/maintain/support the feature? It's a simple switch, and since it's probably in AOSP there's cost in removing it, not in leaving it there