The most common locks in America are all of the pin-tumbler type, which essentially provides "security theater"-level protection. They are very easy to pick with very little skill or specialized tools required, and most of them can be even be bumped in 5 seconds. [1] When people got concerned about the security of pin-tumbler locks, American lock manufacturers generally did not move to more secure lock types (or, if some did, they were probably outcompeted by other companies), they just added various extra "security features" on top of the fundamentally broken mechanism. Some of those "security features" are able to stop a curious 12-year old who spent 4 hours learning lockpicking on youtube, none of them will actually do much to deter a professional. On the positive side, pin-tumbler locks are really cheap and easy to use.
My native Finland has mostly standardized on Abloy's (now part of Assa Abloy) disc-detainer style locks. [2] They are somewhat more expensive than pin-tumbler style locks, but are dramatically more secure. This is because they typically have many orders of magnitude larger key spaces, and are designed in such a way that it is very hard to get feedback by manipulating the lock. They, too, can be picked, but this generally requires hard-to-acquire specialized tools, a very high skill level and a lot more time than weaker locks. They are hard enough to pick that if you lock yourself out, and don't have the coding of the lock stored somewhere, you basically cannot hire a locksmith to pick the lock for you -- you just have to break into your house some other way.
Why have Abloy locks not been a runaway success in America, replacing all the insecure locks? It turns out that the security of a lock really does not matter. Almost all American home locks are comically weak, yet almost no criminals ever pick or bump locks. So the additional security doesn't actually buy you much, if anything. However, Abloy locks have real disadvantages. For one, they require much more fine machining, which makes them more expensive. On top of that, they are somewhat more complex to use, as the locks have no internal springs (which is part of what makes them secure), so the lock has some persistent state or "memory". If the lock has last been normally locked or unlocked, you can just insert the key, turn, and pull it out. However, if I insert the key fully, and then extract it slightly, turn a little, and then fully pull it out, you can only insert the key up to that same point, and you then have to turn it straight before you can insert it further. If I do this individually to every disc with different rotations, it's going to take you a while. This can happen on it's own for, say, a padlock on a container that jostles as it's being transported. Everyone in Finland learns how to open a scrambled Abloy lock with the key right about at the time they get their first key, and most of us probably don't actually think of this as a skill, but do you want to try selling these locks to people who were not just taught how this works by their parents?
So why did Finland standardize on such an expensive, idiosynchratic lock type? It was invented by a Finnish company, their manufacture was domestic, and there were periods when Finland was really starved for foreign currency. It's all network effects from there.
But yeah, every now and then there is a news story or a paper of how you can open an American door lock by 3d-printing a key or by sound or by whatever exotic method. These news are always stupid because you can already open the lock by gently tapping it, so why waste your time with the tech?
[1]: A video of an 11-year-old kid at defcon learning to bump a lock after a few minutes of teaching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5fLgxqWvJQ