> If the user doesn't trust an operating system, why would they use it.

Because in the case of smartphones, there is realistically no other option.

> For example if they don't trust it, they may avoid logging in to their bank on it.

Except when the bank trusts the system that I don't (smartphone with Google Services or equivalent Apple junk installed), and doesn't trust the system that I do (desktop computer or degoogled smartphone), which is a very common scenario.

To trust an Android device, I need to have ultimate authority over it. That means freedom to remove functionality I don't like and make changes apps don't like. Otherwise, there are parts of practically every Android that I don't approve of, like the carrier app installer, any tracking/telemetry, most preinstalled apps, etc.

I recently moved to Apple devices because they use trusted computing differently; namely, to protect against platform abuse, but mostly not to protect corporate interests. They also publish detailed first-party documentation on how their platforms work and how certain features are implemented.

Apple jailbreaking has historically also had a better UX than Android rooting, because Apple platforms are more trusted than Android platforms, meaning that DRM protection, banking apps and such will often still work with a jailbroken iOS device, unlike most rooted Android devices. With that said though, I don't particularly expect to ever have a jailbroken iOS device again, unfortunately.

Apple implements many more protections than Android at the OS level to prevent abuse of trusted computing by third-party apps, and give the user control. (Though some Androids like, say, GrapheneOS, implement lots that Apple does not.)

But of course all this only matters if you trust Apple. I trust them less than I did, but to me they are still the most trustworthy.

Do you actually, bottom-of-your-heart believe that ordinary consumers think like this? They use TikTok and WhatsApp and Facebook and the Wal-Mart coupon app as a product of deep consideration on the web of trust they're building?

Users don't have a choice, and they don't care. Bitlocker is cracked by the feds, iOS and Android devices can get unlocked or hacked with commercially-available grey-market exploits. Push Notifications are bugged, apparently. Your logic hinges on an idyllic philosophy that doesn't even exist in security focused communities.

Did this ever effect real users?

Yeah, not disagreeing with you. It's just that, every time we have this discussion, we see comments like GP's rebutted by comments like yours, and vice versa.

All I'm saying is that we have to acknowledge that both are true. And, if both are true, we need to have a serious conversation about who gets to choose the core used in our front door locks.

Not true on the pinephone, the modem is a peripheral module, so the boot chain does not start with it.

> You can't have that with phones.

Why not?

Obviously we don't have that. But what stops an open firmware (or even open hardware) GSM modem being built?

The GSM processor is often a separate chip. You may have read an article about the super spooky NSA backdoor processor that really controls your phone, but it's just a GSM processor. Connecting via PCIe may allow it to compromise the application processor if compromised itself, but so can a broadcom WiFi chip.

Of course you can have that.

The governments can ban this feature and ban companies from selling devices with that.