[dghlsakjg]

Carrier locking is not firmware locking! Carrier locking doesn't disable a stolen phone. It disables the use of non approved carriers on the phone, stolen or not.

That's my whole point. Carrier locking used to be standard, even on iPhones, and phone theft was very common too. Carrier locking wasn't a theft deterrent.

Firmware locking is a great theft deterrent. A stolen iPhone is basically just a few cheaper used parts, and all the expensive ones are useless.

[stouset]

Both of these tactics reduce the sale price of a stolen phone.

One is extremely effective. One is marginally effective. But that still means both of them are effective just to different degrees.

[dghlsakjg]

Yes, but one harms the consumer far more than any possible benefit from reduced theft (again, I would argue that carrier locks don't reduce theft), and the other causes no harm to the consumer while providing a huge benefit by reducing theft.

[lazide]

Ok?

[dghlsakjg]

So we have a measure that is, at best, “marginally effective” as a theft deterrent by your phrasing and actively harms consumers while actively benefitting the entities that artificially impose it.

The only theft it is preventing is other carriers stealing customers from one another.

[lazide]

You seem to think marginal == zero. Which is the part that is confusing me.

[dghlsakjg]

You seem to think that I have said there is a marginal reduction in theft due to carrier locks. I do not think that is the case at all, and I have said so.

I am arguing that the reduction in theft due to carrier locks is 0. You are arguing that it is small (marginal).

I am saying that no matter what, the actual cost of the carrier lock to the consumer (as demonstrated by used phone values on eBay), is far higher than whatever marginal benefit you are arguing for.

It is a massive net loss to the consumer, and the only guaranteed beneficiary is the wireless carrier.