Why do mobile operators lock and prevent updates?

---

This is more of a general question and not really expecting a true answer from any mobile companies. But why do they insist in either locking their handsets, or preventing them from getting the latest firmware upgrades from the phone manufacturers?

Take the S3 on T-Mobile for example, why have they disabled he update feature? They have put on their own version of the firmware that does nothing different from the official except for disabled updates, no splash screen, no extra apps or other branding, just no official updates? Why?

Why prevent the phone from getting the latest updates from the actual people that made them?

To control content. When you control content, you control the all mighty dollar.

Plus, unless there is a bug that just flat out cripples the device, frequent updates are a bad thing for carriers. Risk of a bad flash, returned merchandise/warranty returns, all hits their bottom line. In other words, they have zero skin in the game to get you the latest/greatest/fastest/most stable ROM. Plus, it's not like they're in the mobile phone branding business, they could care less if your device is a bit slower than a competing carrier's.

For them, a "good enough," bloated/branded ROM with very little updates fits the bill.

Originally Posted by eon_designs

This is more of a general question and not really expecting a true answer from any mobile companies. But why do they insist in either locking their handsets, or preventing them from getting the latest firmware upgrades from the phone manufacturers?

Take the S3 on T-Mobile for example, why have they disabled he update feature? They have put on their own version of the firmware that does nothing different from the official except for disabled updates, no splash screen, no extra apps or other branding, just no official updates? Why?

Why prevent the phone from getting the latest updates from the actual people that made them?

Actually, branded handsets can receive their own official updates. Samsung will distribute them for the carrier. Much of the issue is that people just see a message and accept an OTA update without really thinking about it. I saw a lot of people have to get warranty repairs on HTC desires due to dodgy flashes etc. It probably cost the carriers loads of money with the logisitics of that issue.

Unbranded updates wouldnt work on branded software. Only the correct branded update, modified and created by the carrier would work on the device. Removing the option to check for updates is not stopping you get any updates. The fact that T-mobile aren't sending you any updates is stopping it. The missing option is pretty much a cosmetic issue.

Two seperate questions really.

As for locking the device, like CMD512 said, a lot of it is control. And while pushing their content vs. other or OEM choices is part of the reason, support is the biggest. Returns, exchanges, and contact center support (phone, e-mail, chat, tiered-escalations) eats up profits. The last stat I heard was about 5-7%. Locking the device so the user can't change it reduces returns and exchanges and simplifies support.

Carriers could care less about updates and what happens to a device after they sell it. You're locked in to a 2-year contract whether they update it or not. They all do eventually but it's not a priority. They also skip what they consider minor updates to avoid the hassle and expense all the support contacts updates create.

Well its a known fact that carrier branded phones are destined to get slow updates with added nuisance of preloaded junk along with alteration in FW just to make the phone more carrier obedient.However if someone is having issue with that then there is an alternative known as unlocked international version, buy it and receive prompt OTA's.

*Bites tongue* This is tricky.

.However if someone is having issue with that then there is an alternative known as unlocked international version, buy it and receive prompt OTA's.

The carrier-branded phones have the hardware-id i9300 too and often enough have no network lock. So by all definitions they are unlocked international versions but with carrier branding.
Since these are hardware-version including OTA updates.

Originally Posted by d4fseeker

The carrier-branded phones have the hardware-id i9300 too and often enough have no network lock. So by all definitions they are unlocked international versions but with carrier branding.
Since these are hardware-version including OTA updates.

Isn't it also possible to just call your carrier and get a code so that your device is no longer locked to that carrier? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Originally Posted by maggot_ff

Isn't it also possible to just call your carrier and get a code so that your device is no longer locked to that carrier? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

I'm thinking the OP is talking about locked bootloader preventing the flashing of custom ROMs and not carrier locking.

Afaik noone except Verizon (surprise, surprise) locks the S3's bootloader. And Verizon-devices got their own forum.
The only issue with the international S3 is that carriers often delay updates or refuse to deliver them which can be circumvented with Odin as described above.