Yes, opening the boot process while providing no drivers, or binary-only drivers for a specific kernel, or blob-based firmware, are common tactics to deflate th

Yes, opening the boot process while providing no drivers, or binary-only drivers for a specific kernel, or blob-based firmware, are common tactics to deflate the expectation that control is a necessary feature of ownership. I can understand that sometimes the NDAs weave all the way down to the silicon manufacturers though, so it can be like pulling teeth to get anywhere at times. Notably, Google and Apple are both in good positions to promote control-in-ownership, if not FOSS, but only Google has taken that stance. Even without drivers, if hardware manufacturers were serious about delivering control with the hardware, they would prioritize providing as much of the same documentation they would have needed for internal development as possible, along with the device, to speed up community efforts to support hardware they may not be able to support themselves. I can understand it if their hands are tied (they could say if so, for example), but I consider the the HTC and Samsung (and Archos) bootloaders half-hearted. They are selling Android devices, and the early Android community was very excited about the prospect of a Linux phone (like they are about an Ubuntu phone or a Firefox phone, and were about the Neo Freerunner). They are understandably disappointed and vocal (and persistent, hacking them every which way)... It feels like the bootloader efforts from most manufacturers is more an attempt to deal with the negative PR than to deliver meaningful control, but I'd love to be proven wrong.