(2016-02-18, 16:49)cookiedough Wrote: [ -> ]Many manufacturers lock the bootloader. All this is is a control, to keep you using the ROM that was meant for the phone and to void the warranty if you do want it unlocked.
If you want to mess with the phone, okay they will allow the unlock, but then the warranty is voided, whereas previously it was impossible to know who messed with their phone and who didn't. It's usually the customer that's the dishonest one after they've hard bricked their phone.
I see no problem with this *****if**** they make the unlock easier. That's the only thing in question here for myself. It should not be some 1 month process, that's bull. Anyways, the custom ROM all have some problems with them, so I have no interest in unlocking it anyways, but they still should make the process simple and painless for those who do want to tinker.
Fortunately, I don't care about making things easier for the manufacturer. I, and many consumers, do not want to be "controlled". Let them put a hardcoded on/off flag that gets tripped the moment you bypass the ROM (with a nice big warning about the warranty in flashing neon colors) if they are concerned about honoring their warranty.
I am the consumer, purchaser, and ultimate owner of the device. It is mine. I paid for it 100%. Period.
Lets be honest here. The reason the manufacturer typically locks a bootloader is to sell in large quantities to service providers (ATT, Cricket, Sprint, ChinaTelecom, etc). Many want to sell these devices at a mild discount and force customers to stay with them for a minimum time period. After, lets say, your year is up - they will allow the phone to be "unlocked". However, as we all know, an unlocked device is not an unlocked bootloader.
The history of this little trick is nothing new. A perfect example would be Motorola phones on Cricket. If you bought them through cricket, Motorola will NOT unlock the bootloader. Never. Sure, they have an online service to unlock the bootloader (just like Xiaomi is beginning to do now), but it makes no difference because they have a contract with Cricket which means you are SOL. Their contract with Cricket/ATT has more value to them than end user needs. Why do you think they built this out in the first place? Not to give you access, as you already had that when the bootloader came unlocked. It is done to deny you access to your device.
You paid for it, you paid for a service for a year, it is your phone... but only kinda. If you bought from another source, they may unlock the bootloader. The choice is now theirs. The seller of the device has power over it even after it is sold. Maybe you have a phone with plenty of power to run Android 6.0, but since the bootloader is locked, you will be stuck on 4.4.4 where corporate development ended. Time to buy another phone, whether you like it or not.
There is no technical reason whatsoever to lock a bootloader. The exact same thing can be accomplished through other non-intrusive means, but this also assumes that these companies are telling the truth that the reason is the "warranty" or for "our protection against evil ROMs", which it clearly is not.
In other-words, the only true functional reason a company would spend development dollars, hassle, back-end unlocking databases, and time to lock the bootloader on a device, is to have the ability to enforce control of the device at the whims of service provider contractual requirements.
I still call BS on it.