Hacker News Reader

Comment by thought_alarm | Hacker News Reader

Samsung: Here's our new line of cell phones we would love for you to carry.

AT&T: Looks nice. We'd like this one to look more iPhone-like.

Samsung: No problem. Our designers are very talented. One new feature of these devices is root access for any advanced users who want to customize their phones.

AT&T: We don't think that's a good idea.

Samsung: You got it. Root access is gone.

View on HN

That's a very america-centric view of things. Europeans who buy phones for a couple of 100 euros instead of investing in a life long relationship with a provider sees things differently.

Cell phone manufacturers make the exact same concessions to European carriers as they do for American carriers.

I mostly agree with your larger point, but a nice new Android phone is more like 500 euros, no?

I think far fewer Americans would own smartphones if they had to pay the full, unsubsidized cost up front.

And for those not in the know, this is literally how the conversation takes place. Which is why there isn't a default option to root.

Change will require a (major) disruption.

Apple already did this disruption. I don't understand why other companies can't either.

Is it just because Apple is the only company ballsy enough to walk away when a carrier says no? (And they bring the iPhone to the table, but 5 years ago that wasn't necessarily such a good thing)

I would imagine that Verizon regrets walking away from being the original exclusive iPhone carrier. AT&T surely made a lot of money on that deal, despite Apple's unprecedented demands.

Not a great example. Samsung phones all (AFAIK, though I'm sure exceptions must exist) have a bootloader that allows unauthenticated booting and reflashing to arbitrary code. "Rooting" a phone with Odin/Heimdall is generally straightforward. They're easily the most open of the Android hardware vendors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com