I see threads like "rooted and having xyz" problem, and I intuitively assume based on zero experience (a dubious proposition, but it's how I'm wired) that the problem is related to rooting. What's worth the hassle? Similarly: help me understand why people want to root or get uptight about encrypted bootloaders with as OS as open as Android. OTHER THAN TO TETHER which I get, but am not interested, because I don't really need it, and was successfully spooked by the Verizon sales dude who said "[usb | wireless without extra fee] tethering may be possible, but V may be able to detect it now or in the future and my unceremoniously cancel your account". Sorry I hope I didn't cause thread drift in the first post of a thread. Anyway. I can see wanting to jailbreak, or do similar things on other restrictive platforms, where the manufacturer/carrier prevents you from doing legitimately useful stuff. I guess I can see some sort of hacker "because it's there" / "it's the principle" mentality, which I don't find at all compelling, but can sorta understand someone might. There's a wi-fi router that you can re-flash with open-source/3rd party kernels, which I considered doing because it was arguably more feature rich and at the same time more stable. Is it the same thing here? I'm pretty new to Android, but from what programming books on it I've read it seems amazingly open/extensible and there are available APIs galore. In particular, there's the ability to extend/replace core operating stuff, but perhaps that's mostly at the UI level. It seems like it's a significant risk, but I don't see the reward. I guess it would be kinda neat to have a BASH prompt and be able to prevent processes that I don't really need from loading on startup and using the very little memory they use, but seems sorta meh. From the momentum and buzz about all this stuff, it seems to me that I'm wrong, and am just missing something, but I don't know what.