3 ms·

> I do wish legislators forced Apple and Google to give users a path to install an alternative OS on their device. All Google phones allow installation of alte

by izacus 3y ago

> I do wish legislators forced Apple and Google to give users a path to install an alternative OS on their device. All Google phones allow installation of alternative OSes (and are pretty much the only phones that allow resigning the boot loader so they're still secure - which is why they're chosen by projects like GrapheneOS). Why do you think they need to be forced into anything? You can buy a Pixel right now and run an alternative OS.

K0nserv 3y ago
Yeah I know some devices already support this, the point of forcing it via legislation would be for those that don't. I think this is also the answer to "the app store question". It feels unfair to force Apple to change a core value proposition by forcing them to allow side loading, but in the spirit of "It's my device" it should be possible to install an OS that makes a different tradeoff e.g. Android
zote 3y ago
I interpret their comment as suggesting that Apple should adopt a similar approach, and that Google, as a platform owner, should mandate this requirement for licensing Android™ (not AOSP) to other OEMs (I've had several phones whose bootloader couldn't be unlocked), and for this to be a practice enshrined by law for any other such companies that could operate in a similar position.
blacksoil 3y ago
I think the biggest problem is in the alternative OS. Non-official OSes typically are unstable that I personally find not worth the time given phone is quite important piece of communication. As others have already mentioned, certain lines and brands, such as One Plus, Google Pixels, etc have unlockable bootloader so people are free to install custom OSes.
- andrepd 3y ago
  I've been installing alternative ROMs on my android phones for almost 15 years. Never did I have any stability issues, on the contrary: the community ROMs often did a much better job than the official ones in terms of battery management, etc.
  - d3w4s9 3y ago
    Not trying to contradict what your say, but my experience from a few years ago was: * If you don't use a super popular model, you would have very few choices for custom ROMs * Often custom ROMs are still at the mercy of original manufacturer for certain hardware support -- e.g. they need to release "base AOSP image" or something like that * Custom ROMs often had random things not working, e.g. NFC not functional or cell/WiFi signal weaker than stock ROM * Some come with certain crappy preinstalled apps. Sure you can remove them, but still annoying * Battling SafetyNet was a cat-and-mouse game which I gave up * Browsing xda-developers forum and following the latest reply of a 10-page, 200-post thread like back in the early 2000s was the only way to get updates of a certain ROM. OTA updates were mostly out of the question * ... and many more added to this I don't know how much has changed, hopefully a lot. I don't doubt if you have a phone of a popular model, you can find a custom ROM that does not make compromises and is much cleaner and better than the stock ROM. But these days I simply don't have any time for tasking the risk and messing with these things and worry WiFi might not work in some cases.

by izacus 3y ago

K0nserv 3y ago

Yeah I know some devices already support this, the point of forcing it via legislation would be for those that don't. I think this is also the answer to "the app store question". It feels unfair to force Apple to change a core value proposition by forcing them to allow side loading, but in the spirit of "It's my device" it should be possible to install an OS that makes a different tradeoff e.g. Android

zote 3y ago

I interpret their comment as suggesting that Apple should adopt a similar approach, and that Google, as a platform owner, should mandate this requirement for licensing Android™ (not AOSP) to other OEMs (I've had several phones whose bootloader couldn't be unlocked), and for this to be a practice enshrined by law for any other such companies that could operate in a similar position.

blacksoil 3y ago

I think the biggest problem is in the alternative OS. Non-official OSes typically are unstable that I personally find not worth the time given phone is quite important piece of communication. As others have already mentioned, certain lines and brands, such as One Plus, Google Pixels, etc have unlockable bootloader so people are free to install custom OSes.

andrepd 3y ago
I've been installing alternative ROMs on my android phones for almost 15 years. Never did I have any stability issues, on the contrary: the community ROMs often did a much better job than the official ones in terms of battery management, etc.
- d3w4s9 3y ago
  Not trying to contradict what your say, but my experience from a few years ago was: * If you don't use a super popular model, you would have very few choices for custom ROMs * Often custom ROMs are still at the mercy of original manufacturer for certain hardware support -- e.g. they need to release "base AOSP image" or something like that * Custom ROMs often had random things not working, e.g. NFC not functional or cell/WiFi signal weaker than stock ROM * Some come with certain crappy preinstalled apps. Sure you can remove them, but still annoying * Battling SafetyNet was a cat-and-mouse game which I gave up * Browsing xda-developers forum and following the latest reply of a 10-page, 200-post thread like back in the early 2000s was the only way to get updates of a certain ROM. OTA updates were mostly out of the question * ... and many more added to this I don't know how much has changed, hopefully a lot. I don't doubt if you have a phone of a popular model, you can find a custom ROM that does not make compromises and is much cleaner and better than the stock ROM. But these days I simply don't have any time for tasking the risk and messing with these things and worry WiFi might not work in some cases.