"But this is not all Google's doing there: all the Android manufacturers are actively preventing users from doing it."

Google is (a) restricting "Android" functionality through trademark and software licenses with manufacturers and (b) paying the manufacturers, e.g., through placement agreements and revenue sharing agreements

Given Google's actions in this regard, why would a manufacturer want to allow hardware purchasers to remove Android and install an OS of their own choosing, e.g., one that does not enable Google data collection, surveillance and ad services and generates no revenue for the manufacturer

The idea of regulating manufacturers that partner with Google seems far-fetched, not serious. For example, I don't see HN comments suggesting Apple should be prohibited from interfering with buyers who want to remove iOS and install another OS in its place

Meanwhile the control, privacy, etc. problems with these corporate OS are avoidable right now by choosing different hardware, specifically hardware that allows installation of open source OS that a concerned buyer can edit, compile and install themselves

▲

xphos 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

▲

1vuio0pswjnm7 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"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 seperate[sic] companies and the OS regulated like the monopoly service it is."

Was this under a different HN account

I went through all replies by xphos and found nothing that discussed removing IOs and running some other OS on an iPhone

What I want is for Apple to sell hardware that has no OS installed. This is actually how I prefer to buy computers today, with no OS. I just want the Apple hardware, not the Apple software

The AirPort Extreme was the closest I have seen to this wish for Apple hardware without Apple software coming true. It included Apple software, but it could be operated using a NetBSD 6.x kernel

	▲	1vuio0pswjnm7 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		s/IOs/iOS/

▲

kuhsaft 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ironically, I think regulation is what keeps them in power. They are major companies that comply with government regulations. Why would the government regulate to allow people to have devices that forgo government regulations?

If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators.

These small grassroots operating systems fail because, to do all those things, you need to be pragmatic.

The next major operating system will be backed by a business or government.

	▲	palata 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If you want a successful mainstream operating system. It needs to work within the rules of society. It needs to comply with regulations. It needs to cooperate with mobile device manufacturers and network operators. Which can be done with a small team by building on top of AOSP, like GrapheneOS does. How is that not pragmatic?

▲

palata 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.