I'm not a fan of it, because that basically means that Google asks the community to take up the bill for a service they sell at extraordinarily high price. I k

I'm not a fan of it, because that basically means that Google asks the community to take up the bill for a service they sell at extraordinarily high price. I know that's the case for lots of open-source software, but since we're coming to that topic, Google's open-source policy that produces software that is either tightly aligned with their own interest (Chrome) or barely usable without their proprietary ecosystem (Android) is shameful. Quite frankly, I would much rather see open-source communities work on linux phones, no matter how useless that may be. Another reason I'm not a fan of it is that if Google is allowed to transfer their responsibility to a community, I'm willing to bet that their initial support duration will drop even more, and that any issue will be blamed on open-source maintainers, log4j-style. > But if the environment is the reason, why not share the load? Does Google share the profits? Is their Android business barely profitable to justify getting free labour?