Contrarian take: you bought the device, that you knew already did not provide that, from a company who has priced in not having to support rooted devices, and who had priced in your future revenue from extras. The company can't complain if you find a way to root it (and they don't), but they're under no obligation to add in this extra feature you're asking for. If you want a mostly-open handheld device, they're for sale, you should buy one of those.
I agree. The gist of the main arguments I see in this thread are that average people should be trusted to choose whether or not they will unlock their device. Yet, a group of (presumably) some of the most technically savvy people on the internet can’t figure out how to buy open products? If you don’t want a locked-down computer, don’t buy a Mac. Clearly, many, many people do, so why should they have that taken away from them because of someone else’s ideals?
It is possible for something to still be very good despite restrictions (e.g. m series MacBooks). It’s also reasonable to “complain” if the device you purchased isn’t truly in “your” control (eg forced OTA updates).
Also a minor nit:
> Yet, a group of (presumably) some of the most technically savvy people on the internet can’t figure out how to buy open products?
This isn’t necessarily fair. When I bought my iPad (my first apple device) I could try it at an Apple store where there’s only so much you can realise. How are the speakers? Is the screen bright? How quickly does YouTube/websites open?
What I did not realise until much later was that even something as “basic” as downloading a couple of MP3 and playing them is bizarrely hard on iOS. Or that alarms have no option to gently rise, and are designed to give you a heart attack. Or that you can’t even set your own song/music as an alarm (unless you’ve paid apple money for their music services, very conveniently).
Would I have still bought an iPad if I knew all these? Maybe. But maybe I’d have gotten a basic model. Or maybe I’d just use an android tablet - the details are irrelevant here. But there’s a lot of things about an OS that are obscure.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the base AOSP android rom allows bootloader unlocking by default. OEMs need to go out of their way to restrict it.
Also, most manufacturers consider the warranty void of the bootloader has been unlocked. There’s definitely no service (costs) for them on that front, and I’d be amazed if even 0.1% of all customers unlocked the bootloader (for it to be big enough to notice for any company).
> you bought the device, that you knew already did not provide that, from a company who has priced in not having to support rooted devices, and who had priced in your future revenue from extras.
This argument falls apart when 99% of the desirable devices do not have this option. It's not even about compromising on optional-but-important features, like having access to your bank - the "1%" devices usually do not even have a secure hardware element that handles full-disk encryption, leaving your most-personal data (that you carry with you everywhere you go, thus exposing it to additional risk) vulnerable.
> If you want a mostly-open handheld device, they're for sale, you should buy one of those.
Yeah, almost none of those are actually compelling. There's the Pixel series and GrapheneOS, but these devices are huuuge (they simply don't fit in my single hand!), and I don't want to give even more money to Google :S
In an ideal world, you should be able to simply root any of your devices on demand, in exchange for wiping the storage clean, losing your warranty, and any expectation of protection/privacy/extra features. Then it's up to you (and/or a third-party OS provider) to take care of that yourself.
The problem with that route is that only a tiny fraction of users are actually interested in that, there's value to lose in accidental rooting (users get angry about lost features), and there's no value to gain.
