> No, it's not. AOSP is free and open source OS that is completely functional without google's account or services. That's just what I said. But most tie the a

> No, it's not. AOSP is free and open source OS that is completely functional without google's account or services. That's just what I said. But most tie the android experience to the app ecosystem, which (not necessarily, but in practice (for most people)) is tied to the play store. Which requires a google account. > Well yes, but either we give a pass to both of them or none. WHY?! Google is honest about it. Why are they honest about it? Because they happen to be in a position where they can be honest about it. Samsung choose not to, because they rather trick people. Google is required for the typical android experience. Samsung is only required if you like to be abused. They are not the same. > But at the same time, this aproach is anti-competative. You will always buy into the biggest vendor, because it gives you the most features. No, you buy into the vendor that is required. Not the one that tries to bully you and sneak under the radar. > Just as google's software isn't AOSP, it's google android. Google makes both. Google is much close to AOSP. Doesn't matter at all huh? Google follows the typical android UX (close than anyone else at least), samsung tries to be different just for the sake of being different. The competition to android is not samsung, it is non-android OSes This is like defending tracking popups. They are abusive, illegal, user hostile and doesn't offer anything. But somehow avoiding sites that has them is anti-competitive?