People showing their middle finger won't be enough, because the vendors are torn between two groups of interests here:

1. Building a HW/SW product which works within controlled boundaries to provide warranty, support, repairs, future maintenance, Google-compliance, regulatory compliance,...

2. A subset of Customers wanting the HW to be separable from the SW, for product to be open in a way that they can use it differently than intended (potentially creating "Group#3", a HW/SW product with a different SW).

To create a product for Group#2, alot of the aspects of Group#1 still apply, but in a more-complicated, more-expensive manner. If there is a viable business-case for Group#2, it will be a separate more-expensive product with lower volume.

But in reality, the only way a vendor could meaningfully resolve the needs of Group#2 is if ALL his devices support this feature (including customers who don't want a unlockable "open" device now), allowing everyone to become member of Group#2 without having to buy a new separate product.

For this, the economic incentive doesn't exist.

Explicit example: The Fairphone is a great device, but it will never sell more volume than a Samsung Flagship, because it's a device satisfying the conscious needs of a niche of customers, without the chance of reaching comparable volume to compete in all other areas.

That's why the only chance I see is to create a regulatory incentive by making the requirements of Group#2 a part of Group#1, to have the "unconscious needs" of the majority also satisfied.

Because only THEN the mainstream-customer can be converted to *users* of this potential "Group#3" product, and market-forces have a chance to flow freely again, if you see what I mean...