Interesting insights, thanks!

If I may ask: is that a reason to prevent me from unlocking, adding custom keys and relocking the bootloader? It feels like you are talking about the implementation details below that. I don't really mind if it is different, I just want a common API, and it seems like whatever is done on the Pixel phones is totally fine. Why not make that mandatory for all manufacturers?

Nevertheless, postmarketOS manages to run Linux without Android on quite a few phones.

Agreed. And it does not mean that they should open source everything.

If I buy a connected fridge, they should give me a technical way to flash my own OS on it. Maybe I will lose most functionality by doing that, and maybe it will be a lot of work for me to get the OS working properly with the fridge. But it should be possible.

I feel like you haven't read enough HN reply but I've said the exact thing about Apple OS they can have it and have HW but they should be seperate companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is.

OSs are few in number and are special pieces of software supported by extreme network effects and locking in effects. Its virtually impossible to abandon mainstream OSs even in the desktop world which is much more permissive their are basically 2 OSs. You can count Linux as a third but its not a serious market share competitor yet! EU and France might change that.

But essentially total OS control allows a type of anti competitive behavior that is unavoidable. You either need 10s of options which are different in the services which isn't viable because modern OSs are some of the most complex pieces of software in existence. Your only other option is to regulate them like the power company because its not practical to build your own grid to have fair pricing and access

Not sure what you are trying to say. My point is that technically, we have good alternatives. I am not talking Mobile Linux: we have Android alternatives that are indistinguishable from Stock Android to normal people... except for a few pain points.

We need to fight to address those pain points, in order to have good alternatives. What this article is trying to do is not trying to address those pain points at all, it's trying to change something in the Google flavour of Android. At the end of the day, it will still be the Google flavour of Android.

> why would a manufacturer

That's why I say we need to fight for regulating it. Technically, nothing prevents it. It's just that the manufacturers don't want or don't care. And it's not just manufacturers: banks that ban your OS if it's not "the Android signed by Google" are part of the problem as well, and we need to regulate that.

I think that for the first step, we need to make sure that AOSP forks can work. And those can just copy the binary blobs.

Don't get me wrong: I like all alternatives. But the most realistic alternative to Stock Android is based on AOSP. In good approximation, today nobody would want anything else.

If we get there, then the next step is to get open source firmwares. But I don't know much about that and it feels like it is a much harder fight. Hardware manufacturers probably strongly believe that they will lose their competitive advantage if they open source their firmwares, and I don't know how true that is.

I feel like you missed my point. I am fighting for the 100% (and you are not, as you say). We should all own our devices, and owning a device means that we can install whatever OS we want on it. The beauty of it being that if you can install whatever OS you want on it, then the problem raised by the article does not exist anymore.

Today, if you own a Pixel, you can just install GrapheneOS and it will mostly work. Why just "mostly"? Not because of GrapheneOS. Because of some goddamn companies (usually banks) who want to lock you into the Google flavour of Android.

If you own another device, maybe you could install LineageOS or /e/OS, but chances are that you won't be able to relock the bootloader, so you will lose the security model of Android. For many people, this should mean that it's not a reasonable option. But that's not LineageOS' or /e/OS' fault: it's the manufacturer's fault: they are locking you into the Google flavour of Android (which many times also means their own flavour based on top of the Google flavour).

And on many other devices, you just cannot install an alternative OS at all, so you are stuck with the Stock OS.

You are essentially saying "it is fine that 99.99999% of the people are locked into their manufacturer flavour of Android, as long as we can keep using F-Droid" (because really, the changed discussed here mostly affects F-Droid, and it would be debatable whether or not F-Droid's design is fine or not).

I disagree, it is not fine. When we buy an Android device, we should be able to install an alternative OS, period. All of us.

I’d say that it’s more of a cartel. The mobile network operators, the mobile device manufacturers, the mobile OS developers. They all work together in their consortiums to make money together.

It’s a bit obvious when you look at the supply chain where “competitors” supply each other with parts.

RF hardware is heavily regulated by governments, so a truly open-for-consumer hardware solution won’t exist.

When you buy an Android phone, the Stock OS you get is AOSP (the open source Android base) + Google stuff + Manufacturer stuff.

Now it sounds like you don't know about it, but if you take only AOSP and run it on your phone, you will not immediately notice that it is not "a normal Android you expect".

There are alternatives based on AOSP, e.g. GrapheneOS, LineageOS, /e/OS. To 99.99% of the people, those would count as Android. The difference between e.g. a FairPhone Android and a Samsung Android is not smaller than the difference between FairPhone Android and /e/OS.

What I am saying is that we should fight for those alternatives to run properly. Right now you may have heard that "it is not a full replacement because some things don't work". First, few things "don't work" (fewer than you may expect). Second (and more importantly), those few things that "don't work" are not the responsibility of those alternative OSes. It's precisely because Google + Android manufacturers prevent them from working that they don't.

I don't think it is such a ridiculous take. Rather, I feel like you just have no idea about how it works, and therefore you cannot imagine how there are alternatives to the situation you know.