I think this fits into the "don't lock your doors" genre of argument, where one argues that there's no point in making it harder for something bad to happen because even if you do some bad things will continue to happen.
What the genre (and this instance) misses is that nobody is claiming that the solution is perfect. As long as it reduces the cost of theft more than the costs it imposes, it's a net win for society.
I'd expect this approach to reduce opportunistic theft quite a bit. Petty criminals are not big on delayed self-gratification; if they were, they'd be doing something else. If they can't use or easily sell the phone they just stole, then many will stop stealing them.
It may not reduce organized theft as much, but it would depend a lot on how hard it is to subvert the lock. If they have to throw out the motherboard of the phone, then sure, they can still sell the screen, but their per-theft profit goes down, reducing financial incentives and complicating their business model.
What the genre (and this instance) misses is that nobody is claiming that the solution is perfect. As long as it reduces the cost of theft more than the costs it imposes, it's a net win for society.
I'd expect this approach to reduce opportunistic theft quite a bit. Petty criminals are not big on delayed self-gratification; if they were, they'd be doing something else. If they can't use or easily sell the phone they just stole, then many will stop stealing them.
It may not reduce organized theft as much, but it would depend a lot on how hard it is to subvert the lock. If they have to throw out the motherboard of the phone, then sure, they can still sell the screen, but their per-theft profit goes down, reducing financial incentives and complicating their business model.