Why do carriers continue to lock bootloaders?

[6tr6tr]

I understand why originally the carriers locked the bootloaders on their phones:

1. Fear of "hacking" problems

2. Ensure their own apps are on the phone

However, there's well over a million 2.5 million people running cyanogenmod and probably somewhere around 3.5-4.5 million total running all variants of custom ROMs and likely a total of 7.5-9 million who are at least rooted. Since there's been absolutely ZERO reports about problems for the carriers with these rooted phones and custom ROMs, #1 should no longer be a problem.

So what about #2?

Well, the reason they want their own apps on the phone has to be to make money. They're in business for one reason: money. Yet, I have not found one single report, article or forum post of someone saying they use the carrier's apps for anything. Easily 95% of all posts about the carrier-supplied apps are about how to remove or hide them. So it actually seems as though the carrier apps are simply costing the carriers money (to design, develop and maintain them) yet not making them any money. They'd likely be better off without them.

So why do they keep locking bootloaders?

It would seem the easy answer is still FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and it may well be except every carrier has at least one phone on their network with an unlocked bootloader! And those phones (Nexus phones) are not causing any problems - otherwise they'd stop selling them. So...why?

EDIT: I had too few Cyanogenmod installs. It's 2.5 million, not 1 million, so I updated all the numbers

 

[Slender Troll]

Re: Why do carriers continue to loack bootloaders?

Something I would like to know as well.

Motorola Photon 4G

 

[Shadowriver]

Re: Why do carriers continue to loack bootloaders?

on 2: It's about potentials not statistics how many people use apps, if someone has app installed they might use it, if it dont it won't for sure

I think the main reason is to lock you up, make you dependend on them so you won't leave so esily and feed them with your money, other reason is to not deal with support for newbie rooters, as i know XDA have problems on that too

In general i got grab my head when i hear what US carriers do, so i feel lucky in not in US it's crazy for me how they so dependent on hardware level

 

[6tr6tr]

Re: Why do carriers continue to loack bootloaders?

on 2: It's about potentials not statistics how many people use apps, if someone has app installed they might use it, if it dont it won't for sure

I think the main reason is to lock you up, make you dependend on them so you won't leave so esily

Except that doesn't make sense with Verizon, since you're locked in by the phone anyway - it's CDMA.

As for potentials, even if there's "potential" it still needs to be weighed against how much money you spend to build and maintain those apps/tweaks versus how much you get back. I'd bet they have 0 ROI and are actually losing money on those apps.

 

[Shadowriver]

Re: Why do carriers continue to loack bootloaders?

Except that doesn't make sense with Verizon, since you're locked in by the phone anyway - it's CDMA.

As for potentials, even if there's "potential" it still needs to be weighed against how much money you spend to build and maintain those apps/tweaks versus how much you get back. I'd bet they have 0 ROI and are actually losing money on those apps.

If they losing on those apps they would give up on them already

 

[sting7k]

I understand why originally the carriers locked the bootloaders on their phones:

1. Fear of "hacking" problems

2. Ensure their own apps are on the phone

However, there's well over a million 2.5 million people running cyanogenmod and probably somewhere around 3.5-4.5 million total running all variants of custom ROMs and likely a total of 7.5-9 million who are at least rooted. Since there's been absolutely ZERO reports about problems for the carriers with these rooted phones and custom ROMs, #1 should no longer be a problem.

So what about #2?

Well, the reason they want their own apps on the phone has to be to make money. They're in business for one reason: money. Yet, I have not found one single report, article or forum post of someone saying they use the carrier's apps for anything. Easily 95% of all posts about the carrier-supplied apps are about how to remove or hide them. So it actually seems as though the carrier apps are simply costing the carriers money (to design, develop and maintain them) yet not making them any money. They'd likely be better off without them.

So why do they keep locking bootloaders?

It would seem the easy answer is still FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and it may well be except every carrier has at least one phone on their network with an unlocked bootloader! And those phones (Nexus phones) are not causing any problems - otherwise they'd stop selling them. So...why?

EDIT: I had too few Cyanogenmod installs. It's 2.5 million, not 1 million, so I updated all the numbers

They do it because they can. Which will continue until Google decides there would be terms to using Android. But that would go against Google's vision that Android be free to anyone to put on any device they want. So it's going to keep happening.

A very small percentage of Android users actually post on forums like this or even visit website like AC. You know who uses those carrier apps? My cousins, mom, grandma, coworker, friends who just buy their phone and then use it. They don't even know anything else is out there. They likely never will even look.

 

[Ry]

And I'll also add, if having an unlockable bootloader ranks high on your list of requirements for a smartphone, you have options.

 

[Shadowriver]

They do it because they can. Which will continue until Google decides there would be terms to using Android. But that would go against Google's vision that Android be free to anyone to put on any device they want. So it's going to keep happening.

A very small percentage of Android users actually post on forums like this or even visit website like AC. You know who uses those carrier apps? My cousins, mom, grandma, coworker, friends who just buy their phone and then use it. They don't even know anything else is out there. They likely never will even look.

Well i think thats depends on point of view and how you interpate word "free", in Linux community there lot people who see "free" as everything to being unlocked for the user and there some that have really fan boyish behavior on that topic

Take Canonical for example (the company that created Ubuntu), they do some kernel development and it might be suppricing for some people but they don't contribute back to mainline Linux kernel development, there was some flame war with Red Heat about it since they use some there software (People thent to think distribution are sperate OS but in reality it's same software with different management and configuration system and usually different profile, not to mention Ubuntu it self is a fork of Debian) but they not giving contribute back on there own development or contribute to kernel, so if you look at that:

Canonical is not interested in the Linux Kernel > Comments

There people who think that "free" means they can do what they want, but there people who think that "free" means open to anyone