Samsung Removes Bootloader Unlocking with One UI 8

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Device ownership, longevity, and e‑waste

  • Many see removal of bootloader unlocking as direct erosion of ownership: if you can’t replace the OS, you effectively rent the device.
  • Locked devices are expected to become e‑waste once vendor updates stop, instead of running custom ROMs for years.
  • Some argue producers should bear more of the waste cost; existing EU rules are seen as too weak to incentivize longevity.
  • Others note they replace phones primarily due to lack of updates, not hardware limits, and cite long-lived devices that would still be usable with continued software support.

Security, DRM, and “trusted” hardware

  • One camp says blocking unlocking is justified: root breaks the trust chain, makes data exfiltration easier, and undermines banking/DRM requirements and major customers’ policies.
  • Critics counter that this mainly “secures” DRM, app-store revenue, and data mining against the user; truly secure designs could allow owner keys (as with PC Secure Boot).
  • There’s concern about opaque TEEs/microcode: users can’t audit or override them yet must trust firmware that could be modified for anti-consumer or government purposes.
  • Debate continues over how much extra real-world risk rooted phones introduce versus security theater and liability management.

Motivations and Google’s role

  • Some think Samsung is dropping unlocking because supporting an “untrusted” device state is ongoing engineering and support cost with little commercial upside and carrier pressure to forbid it.
  • Others suspect ecosystem-level pressure from Google; counterpoint: Pixels still support unlocking, with remote attestation used instead to gate sensitive apps.

Alternatives and ecosystem options

  • Pixels + GrapheneOS are widely described as the best remaining option for a reasonably secure, owner-controlled Android device.
  • Fairphone is praised for openness but criticized for weaker security posture (update lag, missing hardware features) and thus rejected by some security-focused users and GrapheneOS.
  • Sony Xperia, niche GNU/Linux phones, and smaller Android vendors are discussed, but each has trade-offs in availability, radios, support, or polish.
  • On tablets, many feel Android options are weak; some reluctantly recommend iPad despite Apple’s own lock-in.

Custom ROMs: shrinking but not dead

  • Users report unlocking mainly for longer support, system-wide adblocking, full backups, firewalls, debloating, and privacy (e.g., GPS spoofing).
  • Others argue modern stock ROMs and security features already cover most needs, and rooting on brands like Samsung cripples key features (KNOX, DeX, camera, OTA).
  • Several foresee custom ROMs surviving as hobby projects, but increasingly impractical for “production” daily phones.

Consumer reaction

  • Some commenters say this is a hard line: they will no longer buy Samsung (or any phone) they can’t unlock, on principle of ownership.
  • Others reluctantly stay with Samsung for hardware (stylus, SD, jacks, service networks) despite disliking the lock-down.
  • Overall tone: frustration that true user control over smartphones is rapidly disappearing across the industry.