US variants of Galaxy S4 ship with locked bootloaders

30 April, 2013
All models sold through carriers in the US will include a locked bootloader on the Galaxy S4.

Sort by:

  • Not Locked

The International S4 I9500 does not have a locked bootloader. Just bought one now and tested it and it is not locked.

  • Reply
  • 2013-05-08 14:05
  • frHZ
  • Anonymous

another reason I am not buying S4

  • Reply
  • 2013-05-02 06:17
  • IaHc
  • Boxden

This article is wrong. Sprint's Galaxy S4 variant ships with an unlocked bootloader.

  • Reply
  • 2013-05-02 03:08
  • I4ep
  • dasz

> In reply to PL2 @ 2013-04-30 15:25 from p%n8 - click to readbecause flashing your own kernals/roms which are incorrect or faulty can input incorrect voltages into the chipsets hence damaging the hardware ,lot of bricked devices is due to the touch or radio controllers being fried due to incorrect drivers

  • Reply
  • 2013-05-01 11:42
  • nxe@
  • dasz

> In reply to bestman @ 2013-04-30 20:32 from LKm1 - click to readjust to remind " buy the internation version of the s4 (i9500) "
international can be s600 or exynos variants ,still 70% of s4s are the s600 version regardless being out of USA or international

  • Reply
  • 2013-05-01 11:37
  • nxe@
  • Epstein

customers will insist on purchasing from providers even if they knew that because it is cheaper. They never thought that a portion of the monthly bill is actually for the cost of the phone.

  • Reply
  • 2013-05-01 06:14
  • PxcP
  • cahg

> In reply to Dad @ 2013-04-30 17:36 from nrGf - click to readYou are a 100% correct

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 22:07
  • 0YRA
  • bestman

Simple.........buy the internation version of the s4 (i9500). No need to show bias towards the htc one for having a version that comes with the boot loader unlocked because it's up for the consumer to do their research........ i.e. INTERNATIONAL MODELS ARE FAR BETTER.

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 20:32
  • LKm1
  • vampyren

Users have options , simply dont buy it and they will reconsider. Or if you really want it buy from someone who dont lock it.

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 19:34
  • mvxv
  • Apple rocks

What..............

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 18:19
  • FED4
  • Ar-Abe

> In reply to Droided @ 2013-04-30 11:52 from uBS6 - click to readlol man! I have no idea if that post was made for defining some sarcasm but I am a die hard WP fan...

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 17:38
  • bJ96
  • Dad

> In reply to nroets @ 2013-04-30 10:56 from fwja - click to readit's not sasmung who locks bootloaders but the American carriers who request it.
The international version has an unlocked bootloader and USA =/= world.

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 17:36
  • nrGf
  • gmt325gh

what's the point of having an android phone if i can't modify it ?!!!
if i didn't mind having no control of my device i would have bought an iphone or a lumia !!!
this is just stupid ..... :(

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 17:17
  • IAHd
  • PL2

> In reply to The Boy with Red Hat @ 2013-04-30 16:49 from Pr@c - click to readI would agree but for one thing. Apple who lock their phoned to the hilt get just as many problems. They have even been known to actually send out updates themsleves that cause major problems causing phones to need to be swapped out. So it is OK for vendors to screw up our phones but we must not customise them how we wish because we are all stupid. If the vendor can prove you did sommething stupid and damaged your phone as a result, then I am all for them charging you for the repair of it. After all when it gets to the factory that is what they do anyway.

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 17:04
  • p%n8
  • The Boy with Red Hat

> In reply to PL2 @ 2013-04-30 16:43 from p%n8 - click to readYou are plain wrong, here at AT&T denied 47 clients by that matter in just 1 week because of brick, and this was only in this place, they have number very different from people believe.

It will be interest indeed know the plain numbers in just USA, I can't imagine that at global levels of people that like brick their phones and want full warranty by that...just lurk around ebay and see how many bricked phones are in sale.

for my personal experience 5 friends of mine brick their phones and tried to make valid they warranties because they just mess their phones...just do the math.

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 16:49
  • Pr@c
  • PL2

> In reply to The Boy with Red Hat @ 2013-04-30 16:23 from Pr@c - click to readOnly 1 to 2% of users are even supposed to want this, so if even 10% of them try warranty abuse, it is a tiny %. So because 0.1% or users may abuse their warranty no one can have a free choice. So at the ballot box because 0.1% of voters may absue their ballot papers we will dispense with freedom of choice?

Incidentally, when the EMC bug was identified for certain Samsung phones, that could actually write them off totally from a Stock ROM doing perfectly legitimate actions, Samsung seemed in no great hurry to fix it. The custom ROM's that had a fix for it were well ahead of Samsung themselves.

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 16:43
  • p%n8
  • The Boy with Red Hat

Main reason here is beacuse warraty abuse.

Most people brick their phones and ask for an warranty since they argue the phone cames with software problems and Samsung among many others waste time and money honoring those users.

And believe me there are MANY of them...many users bricking phones just for the pleasure of doing things that they don't understand.

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 16:23
  • Pr@c
  • Ubuntu Takeover

Oooh I'm sooo glad I waited Lolololol

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 16:19
  • RbXH
  • PL2

> In reply to JACK SPARRROW @ 2013-04-30 16:00 from jn@v - click to readSo because the vast majority of users cannot or do not want to do things the manufacturers can stipulate what they like? I don't disagree that for most this is a moot point but it is our right to choose. By penalising us for excercising a choice they are effectively removing it. I'm afraid I do not find that funny in the slightest.

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 16:05
  • p%n8
  • JACK SPARRROW

10 % of people know what bootloader is lol. It doesnt matter

  • Reply
  • 2013-04-30 16:00
  • jn@v