Right to root access

Dependent is not exactly the right thing here. Lower support costs probably is. If a vendor gives out root access. If that root access can brick a machine. Then you will get a small percentage of very high touch broken things as returns. Customers like this are in the 'dangerous enough' but not 'good enough to do it correctly' stage of hacking. They will then not claim any responsibility for breaking it. As they are hoping you just fix it for free.

I had one customer who would randomly change out stored procedures on our code. Then yell at our tech support for thing not working or being broken. Wasting hundreds of hours of time until we realized what he was doing. Locking him out is very appealing. Instead we sold him and his management on 'we will do the work for you for a fee'. Which was more along the lines of 'you do this again we will fire the customer'.

That is but one small thing that can/will happen.

"Freedom" is also a terrible argument for this. What does it even mean? Freedom from what? Freedom to do what? It's such a meaningless word you're going to lose half your audience just by bringing it up.

Just my opinion from many conversations with normies about this: It's because most of them don't know (the marketing material from these companies certainly doesn't advertise it), and the ones who do know don't care because they wouldn't be able to (technical knowledge) or want to root/unlock and utilize the capabilities.

Who the fuck knows ? And how is that even remotely a useful question to ask - it's not answerable, those who commit the scam are the only people with the figures, and there's no "register of fuckers who scam other people" where they have to tell you how well they do.

> how exactly does device vendor lockdown stop this particular scam

Premise 1: All (for a suitable definition of "all") computer users are clueless when it comes to internet security

Premise 2: You are not trying to help any given individual's security, because some of them violate premise #1. You are trying to raise the bar for the clueless hurting themselves.

Premise 3: It is not about "personal freedom". It is about preventing the clueless (by no fault of their own, this shit is complicated) becoming drones and mules for attacks on others. It is an attempt to increase the greater good at the expense of placing restrictions on what any individual can do on their own phone. Those restrictions can be mitigated mainly by coughing up $100/year, which is a sufficient bar to prevent bad guys from doing it en-masse, but not so high as to prevent the people who want to do stuff from doing it.

Stopping people doing stupid stuff because they don't know any better is the goal, and that inevitably gets more and more restrictive as time progresses, because an arms race is instituted between the truly evil arseholes who prey on the clueless, and the manufacturers who don't want their produces seen as vehicles leading the clueless to the slaughter.

Personally I don't give a crap. The iPhone is fine for me as-is, I can install my own software on my own phone, and sure it costs $100/year. That's not a big deal IMHO, in terms of outgoings it barely registers above the noise floor. YMMV.

It makes sense to allow the _buyer_ to responsibly lock out others. This is common in other products that could be dangerous. But allowing the _seller_ to lock out others, e.g., competitors or the buyer, is a recipe for malfeasance, at the buyer's expense. Interestingly, with computers and pre-installed software, there is no option to lock out the sellers such as Apple or the companies that partner with sellers and pre-install software on the computers, such as Microsoft, Google, etc.

"It's all about protecting their profits, not protecting us."

It is interesting that the "protections" are not optional. It assumed _every_ buyer wants the protections from others _and also from themselves_ enabled by default, and also for protections from so-called "tech" companies to be _disabled_ by default. A remarkable coincidence.

Perhaps if buyers were given the option to login as single user and change the default protections some (not all) might disable phoning home to Silicon Valley or Redmond. They might block unwanted access to their computers by so-called "tech" companies who sell them out as ad targets. The so-called "tech" companies and their customers (advertisers) from other peoples' computers might be locked out.

Indeed letting buyers lock out whomever they choose might diminish the profits of so-called "tech" companies.

In the past HN commenters often sidestepped the question of these "protections" as self-serving and argued that so-called "tech" companies serve the "majority" of computer users and in fact these "protections" are what computer users want even though these users were never asked or given the choice to opt-out. If that were true then allowing a "minority" of users to control the protections themselves, i.e., operate as root, would only affect a minority of profits.