Samsung's public reasoning might be that disabling unlocking the bootloader because of the directive, but there is nothing in the directive that forces them to lock the bootloader. It does sound like a convenient scapegoat if they don't want to talk about the real reasons though.
The phone makes who end up disabling the unlocking of bootloaders are all doing so on their own accord, not because some regulation is forcing them to.
Finally, the EU’s broader right-to-repair policies makes it kind of impossible that an outright prohibition of unlocking the bootloader could happen. But of course, nuance doesn't make people click article titles on the web...
Lawmakers need to assume that their laws will be interpreted and abused in the worst possible way.
Is there anything from the current directive's text that makes you believe they didn't already? Again, this directive doesn't require them to disable the unlocking of bootloaders in any shape or form.
If the company want to disable the unlocks, they'll do so for as long as there is no regulation forces them to keep them open, regardless if there are unrelated directives or not.
In fact, my actual phone is now just a feature phone and the smartphone my portable computer with internet access via WiFi and a pocket router with SIM card.
> As of August 2025, manufacturers selling devices in the EU need to:
> Block the installation of unauthorized software
> Use Secure Boot (or similar) to verify firmware authenticity
> Ensure only signed and approved ROMs can run
But the text at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2022/30/oj/eng mentions no word such as "authorized"/"unauthorized" or "authent(icity)" or "signed" or "approved" so how can we know that this is the EU which does this when it seems like the removal was global, as seen in this article: https://xiaomitime.com/android-makers-remove-bootloader-unlo... ?
(d) radio equipment does not harm the network or its functioning nor misuse network resources, thereby causing an unacceptable degradation of service;
(e) radio equipment incorporates safeguards to ensure that the personal data and privacy of the user and of the subscriber are protected;
(f) radio equipment supports certain features ensuring protection from fraud;
These so-called "requirements" are so vague that if there was a regulatory body gatekeeping radio devices, I could easily see how the regulatory body could interpret those "requirements" however they wish, including just stonewalling any manufacturer who wishes to argue about the vagueness and interpretation of these so-called "requirements". But the fact that point (i) of Article 3(3) of Directive 2014/53/EU is separated from points (d) through (f) seemingly could be used to argue that "requirements" (d) through (f) were not intended to restrict user choice of software, else point (i) would have also been referenced by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30?
This page (cited by the article at the bottom) has a lot more context and somewhat detailed technical. Information.
Quoting article 3, §3 (i):
> radio equipment supports certain features in order to ensure that software can only be loaded into the radio equipment where the compliance of the combination of the radio equipment and software has been demonstrated.
The opening of §3 is:
> Radio equipment within certain categories or classes shall be so constructed that it complies with the following essential requirements:
> (19) Verification by radio equipment of the compliance of its combination with software should not be abused in order to prevent its use with software provided by independent parties.
Put together with the EU’s broader right-to-repair, if any phone manufacturer disables unlocking the bootloader, they're doing so for other reasons, not because RED rules forces them to.
The story may be hyped but the underlying issues are very relevant.
robin_reala•6mo ago
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/53/oj/eng
BaardFigur•6mo ago