55 ms·

Why not? It's their operating system, and they're trying to balance quite a few competing priorities. Scammers are not a threat to dismiss out of hand (i've h

by tux1968 8mo ago

Why not? It's their operating system, and they're trying to balance quite a few competing priorities. Scammers are not a threat to dismiss out of hand (i've had family who were victims). For it to be truly considered open source, you should be able to fork it and create your own edits to change the defaults however you wish. Whether that is still a possibility or not, is a completely separate issue from how they proceed with their own fork.

yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
> Why not? It's their operating system It's my phone.
- mturilin 8mo ago
  What makes it “yours”? You paid for it but Google still has the control. I understand that you prefers things to be different (as do I) but the reality is that we don’t have control over devices we paid for.
  - ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
    > What makes it “yours”? You answered the question here: > You paid for it If you paid for hardware, legally that makes it yours. > Google still has the control Therein lies the problem. Google should not exercise such control over devices which are yours, not theirs.
    - hunter2_ 8mo ago
      I think it's reasonable for Google to control what happens in their version of Android (which can be installed by default) but it's not reasonable for Google to lock the bootloader (preventing installation of a non-Google OS). Perhaps this is why Google hardware doesn't have locked bootloaders; Samsung et al can get away with locked bootloaders since it's not Google forcing the consumer in that case. Whether the bootloader is or isn't locked should be very conspicuous before purchase, for consumer protection.
  - pastage 8mo ago
    You might choose to not have control. The reason people protest is because we should have more control over the things we own. Sure this might create a better market for alternatives but it is worse for most people. F-droid is spectacular.
  - eptcyka 8mo ago
    Microsoft got penalized for way less.
  - 1718627440 8mo ago
    > What makes it “yours”? The law. The contract. The money I paid. > the reality is that we don’t have control over devices we paid for So, the reality is that a company is exerting ownership rights on things they don't own. If that is exclusive, then that is called theft.
- firegodjr 8mo ago
  100%. If I buy something, it's mine. I should be able to resell it, modify it, or generally work on it however I see fit. Licensed digital media bound to platforms is different (barring some kind of NFT solution?) but an OS that my phone cannot function without (and that cannot be replaced in many cases) absolutely must be under my jurisdiction.
- tux1968 8mo ago
  Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. Do you want to install spyware on your girlfriends phone? Maybe that's your idea of complete freedom, but the fact that Google makes it harder, is a good thing, not a bad thing. If you don't like their choices, you should be able to install other software you do like. There should be completely free options that people can choose if they desire. But the majority of people just want a working phone, that someone like Google is taking great pains to make work safely and reliably.
  - microtonal 8mo ago
    The problem is that step by step ownership of your device is taken away. First most phones stopped supporting unlocking/relocking (thank Google for keeping the Pixel open), now the backtracked version of this, next the full version, etc.
    - tux1968 8mo ago
      Yes, that is a real problem. But it doesn't justify arguing uncritically or unrealistically in other areas. I think people should be free to do anything they want with their own devices. They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate. There are legitimate concerns being addressed by these feature restrictions.
      - Ajedi32 8mo ago
        > demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. Unfortunately, they've already done a lot of things to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. SafetyNet, locked bootloaders, closed-source system apps, and now they're (maybe) trying to layer "you can't install apps we don't approve of" on top of that.
- briandear 8mo ago
  Is anything stopping you from coding your own OS?
  - shakna 8mo ago
    Reverse engineering the drivers, to permit you creating your own OS, for your own hardware, is already an area where people are accused of crimes. DMCA Section 1201 isn't something to so easily be worked around, to allow you to place your software in a working state onto undocumented hardware. So, yes, there is a lot of things stopping you from coding your own OS.
krzyk 8mo ago
It's their only if they use it.

by tux1968 8mo ago

yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago

> Why not? It's their operating system It's my phone.

mturilin 8mo ago
What makes it “yours”? You paid for it but Google still has the control. I understand that you prefers things to be different (as do I) but the reality is that we don’t have control over devices we paid for.
- ImPostingOnHN 8mo ago
  > What makes it “yours”? You answered the question here: > You paid for it If you paid for hardware, legally that makes it yours. > Google still has the control Therein lies the problem. Google should not exercise such control over devices which are yours, not theirs.
  - hunter2_ 8mo ago
    I think it's reasonable for Google to control what happens in their version of Android (which can be installed by default) but it's not reasonable for Google to lock the bootloader (preventing installation of a non-Google OS). Perhaps this is why Google hardware doesn't have locked bootloaders; Samsung et al can get away with locked bootloaders since it's not Google forcing the consumer in that case. Whether the bootloader is or isn't locked should be very conspicuous before purchase, for consumer protection.
- pastage 8mo ago
  You might choose to not have control. The reason people protest is because we should have more control over the things we own. Sure this might create a better market for alternatives but it is worse for most people. F-droid is spectacular.
- eptcyka 8mo ago
  Microsoft got penalized for way less.
- 1718627440 8mo ago
  > What makes it “yours”? The law. The contract. The money I paid. > the reality is that we don’t have control over devices we paid for So, the reality is that a company is exerting ownership rights on things they don't own. If that is exclusive, then that is called theft.
firegodjr 8mo ago
100%. If I buy something, it's mine. I should be able to resell it, modify it, or generally work on it however I see fit. Licensed digital media bound to platforms is different (barring some kind of NFT solution?) but an OS that my phone cannot function without (and that cannot be replaced in many cases) absolutely must be under my jurisdiction.
tux1968 8mo ago
Of course it's your phone, but the whole point of using Android is that it makes a lot of choices for you. It forces a billion things on you, and this is really no different than any of the others. Everything from UI colors, to the way every feature actually works. For instance, should you be able to text message one million people at a time? You might want to, but Android doesn't offer that feature. Do you want to install spyware on your girlfriends phone? Maybe that's your idea of complete freedom, but the fact that Google makes it harder, is a good thing, not a bad thing. If you don't like their choices, you should be able to install other software you do like. There should be completely free options that people can choose if they desire. But the majority of people just want a working phone, that someone like Google is taking great pains to make work safely and reliably.
- microtonal 8mo ago
  The problem is that step by step ownership of your device is taken away. First most phones stopped supporting unlocking/relocking (thank Google for keeping the Pixel open), now the backtracked version of this, next the full version, etc.
  - tux1968 8mo ago
    Yes, that is a real problem. But it doesn't justify arguing uncritically or unrealistically in other areas. I think people should be free to do anything they want with their own devices. They should be able to install any software they want. That's very different than demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire. ie. You should be able to install your own operating system, you don't get to tell them how theirs should operate. There are legitimate concerns being addressed by these feature restrictions.
    - Ajedi32 8mo ago
      > demanding someone make their software exactly how you desire IMO the way this should work is that Google can make their software however they want provided they don't do anything to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. Unfortunately, they've already done a lot of things to stop me from changing it to work the way I want. SafetyNet, locked bootloaders, closed-source system apps, and now they're (maybe) trying to layer "you can't install apps we don't approve of" on top of that.
briandear 8mo ago
Is anything stopping you from coding your own OS?
- shakna 8mo ago
  Reverse engineering the drivers, to permit you creating your own OS, for your own hardware, is already an area where people are accused of crimes. DMCA Section 1201 isn't something to so easily be worked around, to allow you to place your software in a working state onto undocumented hardware. So, yes, there is a lot of things stopping you from coding your own OS.

krzyk 8mo ago

It's their only if they use it.