[Update] Xiaomi mobiles coming with locked bootloaders

[GizBot]

Xiaomi mobiles coming with locked bootloaders

For a long time, Xiaomi was beloved by developers and fans for their ease of modding. While not necessarily encouraging it, they allowed full instructions on how to flash, root and mod Xiaomi phones. While they still allow [...]

Continue reading Xiaomi mobiles coming with locked bootloaders.

http://www.chinaphonearena.com/4210/xiao...mi-note-3/

[edcoolio]

... and (drum roll please), Xiaomi gets crossed off a lot of lists, including mine.

[Master Infinity]

There was a time when this would have mattered to me, but not so much anymore. The stock ROM are so good these days that there's more downsides to flashing a custom ROM than upsides. You can look at any CM ROM and they all have "this not working" "that not working".

TWRP, eh... I just used that to put Google apps on phones that don't come with it, but Xiaomi has their own Google installer that works great.

We still can get the bootloader unlocked, it just seems a tedious process. The link is here for anyone who needs it

http://en.miui.com/unlock/

[edcoolio]

There was a time when this would have mattered to me, but not so much anymore. The stock ROM are so good these days that there's more downsides to flashing a custom ROM than upsides. You can look at any CM ROM and they all have "this not working" "that not working".

TWRP, eh... I just used that to put Google apps on phones that don't come with it, but Xiaomi has their own Google installer that works great.

We still can get the bootloader unlocked, it just seems a tedious process. The link is here for anyone who needs it

http://en.miui.com/unlock/

Well, I'm sure it doesn't matter to you, but there is still no reason to do so - which I guess was my point.

There should never be any reason whatsoever to lock a bootloader from a consumer point of view. I call BS on Xiaomi.

[cookiedough]

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.

[edcoolio]

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.

[cookiedough]

Yes, you own the device, but the company also has a right to know if somebody messed with it when it comes back bricked on warranty claims. The easiest way to do that is by locking the bootloader. Once it's been unlocked, the device is registered as unlocked and any shop or the manufacturer can easily check. Nothing wrong with locking the bootloader as long as they provide an easy way to unlock.

I'm fairly sure Xiaomi is huge, and wouldn't be doing this for fun, or just to control you. That sounds a bit like paranoia.

I wouldn't be surprised if Xiaomi changes this situation though. There has been a huge backlash. Doesn't affect me either way, custom ROM IMO are generally a waste of time.

[edcoolio]

Yes, you own the device, but the company also has a right to know if somebody messed with it when it comes back bricked on warranty claims. The easiest way to do that is by locking the bootloader. Once it's been unlocked, the device is registered as unlocked and any shop or the manufacturer can easily check. Nothing wrong with locking the bootloader as long as they provide an easy way to unlock.

I'm fairly sure Xiaomi is huge, and wouldn't be doing this for fun, or just to control you. That sounds a bit like paranoia.

I wouldn't be surprised if Xiaomi changes this situation though. There has been a huge backlash. Doesn't affect me either way, custom ROM IMO are generally a waste of time.

I understand where you are coming from, but unfortunately, the easiest way to see if it's been messed with is arguably a "warranty bit ". Regardless, I don't care what is easiest for them, only what is easiest for me.

I was not suggesting they would do this for "fun" nor "to control" an individual in the literal sense. That's just silly. I probably was not clear enough with what I was trying to get across using examples.

They are exerting this level of device control in order to make larger contract based sales to provider corporations that demand bootloader locked branded devices.

I gave the examples of Motorola and Cricket, to try and drive home my point. Both also happen to be huge companies, but of course, that should not matter.

Using this partnership as one example of many cases, Motorola will not unlock a bootloader purchased from their partner Cricket, regardless of warranty validity or expiration... and that ain't cool.

In the end, to summarize, they have done this to maximize profit at the expense of the consumer.

Besides, some of us enjoy messing with our devices, regardless of where we purchased it and from whom.

If I wanted another IPhone, I would just buy one.

Screw Xiaomi.

[cookiedough]

That might make a sense if they were coming carrier locked, or if they weren't providing an unlock process.

I'm sure Xiaomi will do great without the tiny minority of people that want to flash buggy CM ROM and refuse to wait for the bootloader unlock process.

[edcoolio]

That might make a sense if they were coming carrier locked, or if they weren't providing an unlock process.

I'm sure Xiaomi will do great without the tiny minority of people that want to flash buggy CM ROM and refuse to wait for the bootloader unlock process.

Not yet, but they will. The only reason to sink cash and risk alienating a portion of their customer base is to make even more money through large carrier resale contracts which allows for brand expansion.

I agree that Xiaomi should do great, like Apple, but they run the risk of falling into Motorola territory also. Fortunately, I don't work for them so I really don't care about their long term success either way.

The question is really about a hypothetical future in which they will not allow an unlock process under many circumstances due to large contractual obligations through third party stipulations.

When Motorola did this, it was the exact same situation so if given the opportunity, I'm sure they will end up exactly the same, as there is no other reason make this large capital investment.

The Apple (and other) model of consumer products is very lucrative. From the viewpoint of a large multinational corporation, it's a good gamble.

You make some very good points and I have enjoyed this discussion!!