What Every Argument About Sideloading Gets Wrong (hugotunius.se) 89
Developer Hugo Tunius, writing in a blog post: Sideloading has been a hot topic for the last decade. Most recently, Google has announced further restrictions on the practice in Android. Many hundreds of comment threads have discussed these changes over the years. One point in particular is always made: "I should be able to run whatever code I want on hardware I own." I agree entirely with this point, but within the context of this discussion it's moot.
When Google restricts your ability to install certain applications they aren't constraining what you can do with the hardware you own, they are constraining what you can do using the software they provide with said hardware. It's through this control of the operating system that Google is exerting control, not at the hardware layer. You often don't have full access to the hardware either and building new operating systems to run on mobile hardware is impossible, or at least much harder than it should be. This is a separate, and I think more fruitful, point to make. Apple is a better case study than Google here. Apple's success with iOS partially derives from the tight integration of hardware and software. An iPhone without iOS is a very different product to what we understand an iPhone to be. Forcing Apple to change core tenets of iOS by legislative means would undermine what made the iPhone successful.
When Google restricts your ability to install certain applications they aren't constraining what you can do with the hardware you own, they are constraining what you can do using the software they provide with said hardware. It's through this control of the operating system that Google is exerting control, not at the hardware layer. You often don't have full access to the hardware either and building new operating systems to run on mobile hardware is impossible, or at least much harder than it should be. This is a separate, and I think more fruitful, point to make. Apple is a better case study than Google here. Apple's success with iOS partially derives from the tight integration of hardware and software. An iPhone without iOS is a very different product to what we understand an iPhone to be. Forcing Apple to change core tenets of iOS by legislative means would undermine what made the iPhone successful.
Oh, Please! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod up. This is low quality bullshit, software is nothing but instructions for the hardware. Controlling what the software on my hardware does IS controlling my own hardware and further once it's provided to me the software belongs to me as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"When Google restricts your ability to install certain applications they aren't constraining what you can do with the hardware you own, they are constraining what you can do using the software they provide with said hardware." What a bunch of bullshit.
Really just picking nits, but there is an important sense that this is true for some Android phones. You can install a different OS if you wish to. LineageOS and GrapheneOS both have different policies from Google about software installation. On the other hand, for iOS you can't do that so you have no ownership of the hardware you paid for. The same applies to many other Android phones including those that need to be jailbroken. By default you don't get to own the hardware you paid for.
We need people to pus
Re: (Score:2)
Even though it's Linux, you're out of luck booting another kernel on many devices as many drivers are closed source. License violations? Try suing the Chinese manufacturer. Now try to get a whole different system to boot. I don't think you get X11 or Wayland to work easily on most devices.
Re: (Score:2)
it indeed smells like shit, but he's sadly right and he's not really telling anything new. you will be free to run whatever you want on your hardware provided that you root/degoogle it first. the practical problem with that will be convincing your banks to allow their apps to run on that too, but that's neither google's nor the bank's problem.
btw, i don't find it really outlandish/surprising (given the circumstances and apple's precedent) to require verification to publish something on google play. but requ
Banks (Score:2)
Re:Oh, Please! (Score:4, Interesting)
My bank doesn't rate an app.. they have a website that works fine in a browser (desktop or mobile). I'm probably an edge-case for user behavior/desires, but I won't install an app on my iphone that does something I can do via browser.
Re: (Score:2)
My bank also has a website, but unfortunately I need an app from that bank as second factor to log in. And even worse: That app also doubles as a banking app, making a joke of that second factor on my smart phone.
Re: (Score:2)
it indeed smells like shit, but he's sadly right and he's not really telling anything new. you will be free to run whatever you want on your hardware provided that you root/degoogle it first.
The problem with his argument is that he's saying you SHOULDN'T have the right to sideload apps on your phone.
IF he were merely arguing that under the current laws we don't have that right, he would be correct. When he says we shouldn't have that right, he's just stupid and doesn't back up his point in the blog.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't see where he argues that "we shouldn't have the right" (to sideload)? anyway we are giving him too much attention:
his first point sums upt to: the hardware is yours, the software isn't (as it is proprietary), so google controls it. which is ... obvious? round of applause, please.
he then advocates for hardware to be accessible, which is a different issue i would agree with, but for some reason centers it on the iphone ("i should be able to run android on an iphone") and promptly loses it and contradi
Re: (Score:2)
"Forcing Apple to change core tenets of iOS by legislative means would undermine what made the iPhone successful...If you want to play Playstation games on your PS5 you must suffer Sony’s restrictions"
He doesn't think we should have the right to sideload apps on our phones (or on our Playstations). And he is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
the full quote:
If you want to play Playstation games on your PS5 you must suffer Sony’s restrictions, but if you want to convert your PS5 into an emulator running Linux that should be possible.
here he's just reafirming his first point: that on a proprietary os you do not have any control, which is true. he doesn't say "you should not sideload", he doesn't even mention sideloading, he says that you are subject to the provider's terms of service and license. that's again, for the third time, captain obvious speaking.
then he complements that with saying that you should be able to replace that proprietary os entirely, and thus have control over the entire thing. which is a totally diff
Re: (Score:2)
he says that you are subject to the provider's terms of service and license.
The blog doesn't say anything about the terms of service and license. You made that up.
Re: (Score:2)
he says exactly that you are subject to the provider's will, that is, whatever is covered by the terms of service and license agreement you agreed on. these terms and restrictions may or may not include de ability/permission to sideload, as well as another zillion things.
you might argue that 'sideloading" is mentioned both in the headline and the very first word in the very sentence, so you would expect the discourse to be about sideloading. well, it isn't. the sole argument he makes is about restrictions i
Re: (Score:2)
couple corrections:
he says exactly that you are subject to the provider's will
what he exactly says is you "must suffer Sony's restrictions". i know you're picky.
if you have an iphone, you have agreed to terms that do not
i'm not really sure about this. i think it is the case and that many would consider this a feature (including our guru), but it might be that iphone's tos actually allowed it under specific conditions.
bravo (Score:2)
you flagged the all-too-clever dodge. The person who wrote that MIGHT have believed it, but it makes no sense given the paring of the OS with the hardware. If the phone comes with Android pre-installed, and it's basic function is essentially null-and-void if Android were removed, then there's no practical severability and restrictions of the OS become de-facto restrictions on the hardware.
It's a bit like saying you are free to sit on any seat in the plane while it's in flight, but then preventing you from b
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Pardon my French.
You sir, can go to hell (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's circular bullshit too. The argument for restricting our ability to load what we want is that it then talks on the network providers network and the provider has a right to control the environment they own but I don't have the same right to restrict and control the software running in the environment that I own?
I own the device and once provided I own my copy of the software as well, further the software is just instructions to run on MY hardware.
Rebranding it to "Software Sidetalking" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This guy's proposed solution is legislation. But not to enforce sideloading. No, it's to enforce Google and Apple "making it easier", whatever that means, for someone to run Linux on their hardware Or maybe to write their own OS from scratch? The first seems unlikely to happen anytime soon, and the second sounds unlikely to happen anytime ever.
Although in theory, it might be nice to be able to run a different OS on a phone, in practice, this would likely just involve people rooting their Android phones or running Android on iPhones, which people have done. Sort of [thehackernews.com]. Realistically, nobody is going to create a second open source phone operating system, now that one exists, because there just aren't not enough users who care. Maybe you'd have some Android forks that turn off certain security features or whatever, but it will still probably be Andr
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, nobody is going to create a second open source phone operating system, now that one exists
https://mobian.org/ [mobian.org] phosh, kde-plasma...
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, nobody is going to create a second open source phone operating system, now that one exists
https://mobian.org/ [mobian.org] phosh, kde-plasma...
I stand corrected. I'm assuming the majority of the push for this is from folks doing their own low-volume manufacturing of hardware? Oh, yeah, I see the supported device list. :-D
The point remains that to within a small margin of error, operating system projects on mobile devices exist largely to support hardware vendors, and that real-world end-user interest in installing a different OS on their phones is likely to be close to zero (except for users of those specific hardware vendors) for the same reaso
What a load of bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is asking Apple to change any of the core tenets of iOS. What APIs Apple and Google provide to developers on hardware are not under question, and that's the control they have over their platform an integration, the question presented is about not gatekeeping *functionality*.
The bullshit comes in them playing the morality police, or worse rejecting apps for "duplicating functionality" (if an app actually duplicated functionality then people wouldn't download it). It's about stopping the anti-trust related bullshit that comes by *policy* not by control over the OS. At no point are you able to run whatever code you want. The OS still restricts how you interact with the phone, and that's ok. But that is *ALL* they should be able to restrict.
And if a few people want the warm comforting feeling of a mega corp deciding what they should and shouldn't see they can take comfort in the warm confines of their walled garden. At no point is anyone forcing someone to sideload. If a user actively wants to deviate from the iPhone's supposedly perfect design by sideloading an app that is "wrong" in the eyes of the corporate overlord then that's on the user, the iPhone will be no less successful as a result.
apple used to take adult content blocking to far (Score:2)
apple used to take adult content blocking to far like blocking the European magazines app.
Re: (Score:2)
They still arguably take it way too far, just slightly less way too far.
Re: (Score:2)
The bullshit comes in them playing the morality police...
The bullshit comes from them telling me that I can only run approved programs. It's my computer, and no one has any business telling me what I can and can't run. They sold it to me, so it's mine.
Re: (Score:3)
The bullshit comes in them playing the morality police...
The bullshit comes from them telling me that I can only run approved programs. It's my computer, and no one has any business telling me what I can and can't run. They sold it to me, so it's mine.
That's an ideal that resonates with me, but it's not true on any mobile phone. Even phones that have unlockable bootloaders which allow you to flash and run any system software you want still don't allow you to replace any of the lower-level software. The sequence of bootloaders up to and including that Android Bootloader (the one that starts Linux) are all completely locked down, you can't change any of them. The Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) OS and apps are completely locked down, you can't chang
Re: (Score:2)
That says it better than I tried to. Yeah my point exactly. Apple controls how their OS runs, but should fuck all the way off when it comes to *what* their OS runs.
Re: (Score:2)
The OS still restricts how you interact with the phone, and that's ok. But that is *ALL* they should be able to restrict.
The policy is able to be enforced because of how the OS is designed, and the hardware design refusing to allow an alternative OS to be installed. So NO, to change the policy, you need the ability (as the property owner) to tell the phone not to listen to it's manufacturer.
TL;DR: Apple / Google is able to play morality police because they control what the phone is allowed to do.
Am I missing something? (Score:3)
I thought the new plan is that every app would need to be signed by a certified developer. You'd still be able to sideload, you just need a cert so that when app turns out to be malicious, they know who to go for.
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We've got to the point where EVERYTHING Microsoft does, from Secure Boot, TPM, Bitlocker, apps signing, Admin acces, EVERYTHING they do in these controversial directions are way, way, WAY better (in the sense of preserving customer's freedoms and everything) than what the supposed partly open source Linux kernel based Android does. This is dystopian beyond belief.
Re: (Score:2)
And naturally any developer can apply for a certificate and receive one, especially those that make applications alternative to the google provided ones, right? /s
Re: (Score:3)
I thought the new plan is that every app would need to be signed by a certified developer. You'd still be able to sideload, you just need a cert so that when app turns out to be malicious, they know who to go for.
It would depend on what is required to be "certified". If the apps I create contain objectionable functionality or content (they compete with the core platform or they contain pornography or something), but I am willing to put my name behind them (and take on any related legal liability), would they be allowed? If the answer is "yes" then requiring signed code (being a certified developer and being able to get a signing key) seems reasonable, however if there are other restrictions, then the developer progr
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... (Score:5, Informative)
they are constraining what you can do using the software they provide with said hardware
It has been a VERY long time since I've seen such a textbook definition of the phrase "a distinction without a difference".
On an Intel x86 PC, even the most locked-down iterations of Windows give users a means of running whatever code they want. If the user doesn't want to run Windows at all, a user can download an ISO of Ubuntu or Fedora or Proxmox or VMWare or GhostBSD or Haiku, make a menu change in the BIOS, and install those OSes instead. Done and done. Windows can be replaced in 30 minutes or less if a user wants to, with nothing but GUI tools and youtube tutorials that are universally accurate (admittedly with slight variations on where to disable secure boot in the BIOS).
On an Android phone, one must unlock the bootloader (which some phones prevent through artificial constraints), then hope that some Good Samaritan has made a different OS for it...and then go through 101 steps involving CLIs, recovery environments, and ADB interfaces...AND those steps and software downloads vary with each model of phone, AND Google gives app developers a means of telling users "sorry, I won't run on a phone you have control over", AND that assumes that a replacement OS is available in the first place...otherwise, the user needs to replace the phone, or go all the way to doing their own compiling of AOSP, which is its own rabbit hole.
So yeah, the argument rings incredibly hollow: "we're not constraining what the hardware can do...but we ARE constraining what the software can do AND constraining your ability to replace that software if you so choose." If the argument is that the constraints are purely related to software, then Google needs to put way more effort into streamlining the ability for users to depreciate the use of whatever software those constraints are implemented to protect. If they aren't going to do that, then they are being disingenuous.
If, in a court of law, they cannot produce documentation regarding the means by which the hardware can be used to run unapproved code, then I would deem them guilty of perjury for making this statement under the current climate.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, this is a completely delusional analysis. The reason phones are so locked down is that their business models evolved from phone companies, who have a rich legacy of anti-consumer practices. For the longest time, you wouldn't even be able to own a phone--just rent it from the phone company. This practice has never really stopped, and whether its exact implementation is in hardware or software is irrelevant.
It's funny to think of Google and Apple as phone companies, but it's much more apt comparison.
phones where also locked to stop local sims so you (Score:2)
phones where also locked to stop local sims so you paid roaming that used to go as high as $2.05-$20/MB of data, calls up to $3/min
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is a clear distinction. I agree with the premise that the post is rubbish and bad in every way, but there's a big difference between saying "I restrict what programs you run in my OS" and "I restrict what you can do with the hardware you own". Ask literally anyone who runs LineageOS.
The distinction without a difference only applies when read in unison with bootloader locking, and that is out of control of Google for all but their Pixel devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Google also prohibits buying or even upda
Completely misses the point (Score:1)
Phones are filthy and sideloading is not helping
The consumer base is not qualified to make decisions about their rotting banana let alone what they're installing on their favorite plaything.
Re: (Score:2)
Phones are filthy and sideloading is not helping
The consumer base is not qualified to make decisions about their rotting banana let alone what they're installing on their favorite plaything.
And this is why operating systems have to be designed to be resilient and secure by default. If you can run any app you want, but you have to explicitly allow an app to access any content from any other source app on a per-source basis, to access passwords on a per-password basis, etc., then there's approximately zero danger in running the app, because it literally can't do anything that the user doesn't let it do. And if the user lets it do something that it shouldn't, it's the user's responsibility for
Brazil and 3 others are hotbeds of scamware (Score:2)
If you can run any app you want, but you have to explicitly allow an app to access any content from any other source app on a per-source basis, to access passwords on a per-password basis, etc., then there's approximately zero danger in running the app
There is danger to the user's bank accounts from running an app that was made for the primary purpose of enabling financial scams, social-engineering the user into draining their life savings. The previous featured article [androidauthority.com] states that the initial set of countries where Google plans to put this policy change into effect (Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand) are hotbeds of scamware distributed through unknown sources.
Re: (Score:2)
then there's approximately zero danger in running the app
You have zero idea of what an "app" is or what it represents, nevermind grasping all the inherent risks.
I get to monitor our internal users' personal device and they are almost all infested with C2, malware, miners and a whole slew of other filthy apps because users are woefully incapable of assessing risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look. Someone with a filthy phone is triggered.
Zero surprise
Re: (Score:2)
Weasel. (Score:2)
they aren't constraining what you can do with the hardware you own, they are constraining what you can do using the software they provide with said hardware
And because of how it interacts with the hardware, by extension restricting what you can do with it - not that even if it were somehow mystically confined to the software only the argument would be any better IMO.
What a wasely, and cunty justification, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopoly power (Score:1)
The fact that Android and iOS control so much of the smart-phone market in the US and most other smartphone-using countries cannot be ignored. That power gives them "lock-in" and "network effect" (in the economic sense) power that other operating systems that Android-factory-loaded phones don't have.
If Android controlled 5% of the US and worldwide smartphone market, it would be much less of an issue.
Oh, and if the bootloader is locked, then the phone+firmware+bootloader+blessed operating system (typically
blocking is good for big tech, bad for consumers (Score:5, Interesting)
forcing Apple to change core tenets of iOS by legislative means would undermine what made the iPhone successful.
This idea that apple's success relies on tight integration is only technically true. Apple's early success in the phone market was entirely because of itunes music library lock-in, which was only possible because of the tight integration. Apple fans might have you believe the tight integration was a good experience, and pro-consumer, but it was actually the opposite. They only relented on this "feature" once it became obvious that streaming services were going to replace the itunes library, and the lock-in was no longer a moat users would have to cross.
Blocking sideloading is another attempt to build a moat for users to cross, this time with their library of apps. Its great for apple and google, bad for consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even technically true. Having tight integration in no way prevents someone from doing something more custom. The "success" and the "good experience" remain there even when a user who doesn't like something decides to do something different. Arguably Apple would have even more success if it were more open, a lot of people flocked to Android precisely because Apple's approach was so locked down, and while they dominate in America, Apple has less than 25% market share in many of the world's large mark
Re: (Score:2)
Today that's the case, but I'm talking about initial adoption. People with ipods who purchased music on itunes would risk needing to re-buy all of their music if their first smartphone was LG's instead of Apple's.
What a load of absolute BS (Score:5, Insightful)
It's my device and software, and I have full rights to use them however I want.
If I want to install malware ... according to Google, I should be able to do so. That's the biggest issue here. Authorities are not infallible. And they have been caught abusing their power throughout our entire history. Today it's an OK app, tomorrow it's outlawed according to the powers that be. /. just recently ran a story of Apple taking down a Torrent app ... outside of their own App Store. You must be a fan of that, right?
You can hide sideloading behind the developer option flag, but leave it be. Period.
Re:What a load of absolute BS (Score:5, Informative)
It's my device and software, and I have full rights to use them however I want.
It isn't, and you don't.
Google is implementing this in order to comply with legal requirements that (1) require them to sanction "bad" people, and (2) place them on the hook for security and malware on Android *even if not distributed by Google's storefront*.
Meanwhile, other regulations require that the device maker lock the hardware down so that mere mortals cannot mess with the radio -- be it transmitting OR receiving -- It's a literal felony to listen in on cellular radio bands. Depending on how the hardware is implemented, this can mean locking down the hardware too.
So sure, you own the inert hardware. But the software isn't yours; it never was -- Unless you wrote it from scratch, anyway. But you can't do that either, as anything to do with breaking digital locks (describing how, creating/distributing tools, and the actual breaking of said locks) that would allow you to run arbitrary software is also a felony in most of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
However, the license it's under doesn't allow for control of these sorts of things.
That, perhaps, makes it kind of funnier in a way.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft isn't liable for all the random malware out there that runs on Windows, nor are they liable if someone (or some entity) on some sanctions list distributes software for Windows, why should Google be liable for the same thing on their OS? If Google isn't involved in approving or distributing the software, they shouldn't be liable for that software in any way.
As for the radio stuff, if its possible for a 3rd party user-space application (which should be running in a sandbox) to mess with the cellular
Re: (Score:2)
It's your device but it is objectively *not* your software. Read the license agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a distinction without a difference (Score:2)
they aren't constraining what you can do with the hardware you own, they are constraining what you can do using the software they provide with said hardware.
That's only relevant when an oligopoly - in this case pretty much a duopoly - isn't in effect, and when there are viable open hardware designs being actively manufactured at scale.
When for all intents and purposes there are only two OSs available for a bunch of closed hardware platforms - for a product which these days is pretty much a necessity of life - assertions like the one that Tunius makes are utter horseshit. Legislating users' freedom in this case is a necessity, and any government that truly wante
Re: (Score:2)
they aren't constraining what you can do with the hardware you own, they are constraining what you can do using the software they provide with said hardware.
I bought the software as well as the hardware.
What about the other guys? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: What about the other guys? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we singling Google out here? Sure, they run the Android project, but almost nobody actually buys a Google-branded phone. Surely Samsung or Xiaomi could offer a more open Android device if they wanted to.
Not if they want to keep Google services (Google Play store, Google pay, etc) on their phones. Those are not part of the open-source Android OS and come with a ton of strings attached. The side loading change applies to all phone makers who ship Google certified Android devices (which is basically all phone makers shipping Android outside of China domestic market), not just Google branded devices.
what a weird argument (Score:2)
Here's the real argument against forcing sideloading on literally everything:.
Some people want the Ayn-Randian wild wild west, where anything goes, you keep what you kill, you're responsible for your own security and you better be watching your back and carrying a shotgun at all times. For people who want this, they should be able
Re: (Score:3)
Your mistake is in assuming there is a difference between being able to do what you want and being able to do what you want.
Your Randians (who are the opposite of anarchists, actually) also want guarantees that their guns are fit for purpose, and if they build them themselves, they want guarantees that the material they use is fit for purpose as sold, and if they mine it themselves, they want guarantees that the mining equipment is fit for purpose and so on.
And your garden gnomes don't want to be locked int
Re: (Score:2)
You can have the freedom to use it and the guarantee that it is usable, both at the same time.
You can't have the freedom to use it in ways not contemplated by the maker and the guarantee that it is usable in that way.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have the freedom to use it and the guarantee that it is usable, both at the same time.
You can't have the freedom to use it in ways not contemplated by the maker and the guarantee that it is usable in that way.
If you have a hammer, do you ask the maker what you can use it for? Or do you rely on it working as a hammer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your mistake is in assuming there is a difference between being able to do what you want and being able to do what you want.
Your first sentence makes zero logical sense.
Given that x = x. /= x is a mistake, yes? No?
Then, logically, assuming that x
Some people want [x]
Some people want [x]
Where x = to use a tool they own as that tool. That tool being a computer.
Installing software on a computer you own is not a wild abandonment of accountability.
Nor is wanting the manufacturer to be held accountable for the product the same as accepting that you do not own it. And it is not the objectivists who jail-break other people's neutered computers, it is the people who buy them.
Here [pageabode.com] is a clarification of how Randians are
Re: (Score:2)
This is so simple. The second group of people don't jump through the many hoops that stand in the way of sideloading.
I deny the existence of a group of people that need to be protected by totally eliminating non-Google-mediated apps.
What a bunch of crap. (Score:2)
They are not refusing to facilitate the installation of others software, they are actively interefering with your ability to do so.
This is crap. If you have the right to install any software you want on your hardware, then the seller of the hardware cannot install any software that intereferes with your rights.
Illusory ownership. (Score:2)
We should really stop letting these device manufacturers get by with "selling" these devices to us. If they insist that they own them, whether it be because of the software or some other nebulous reason, then it shouldn't be something that requires an outright purchase. In fact, if they are only used as information sources for the corporate entity behind "selling" them, we should be getting paid to use them. But, since I know that wouldn't be acceptable, I'd be fine with a nominal singular rental fee. Say,
Re: (Score:2)
Better go call the FBI, I'm sure they'd love to strike up a conversation.... *snicker*
That's why asked about Pine Phone (Score:2)
I'm interested in teh Pinephone, but I've never seen one, and have no idea how good it is. If anyone does, I'd like to hear about it.
And why do the arguments get that part wrong? (Score:2)
Google is basically using trusted computing techniques to restrict what users can do with their device.
You get the full experience only when the device still has its "integrity" (i.e. no privileges for the user) and otherwise e.g. SafetyNet fails and you won't get to use banking apps. If you booted an unmodified Android, Google tells you what you can do, including doing changes like restricting sideloading.
Yes, comparing with apple is correct. They did that right from the start. Only that most Android users
Nonsense (Score:2)
For most people it means exactly that. Yes, I have F-Droid on my phone and can get even a build-image if I want it (Fairphone), but how common is that? Most people cannot get around the restrictions that Google places and that is the simple reality.
Noooope (Score:1)
It's a distinction without a difference (Score:2)
Sure, the control is through the software. But what other software is a viable option, given your Samsung or Motorola phone? Sure, you can download an open source Android image, and get a dated version of the software that nobody supports, and that doesn't let you download apps from the App Store.
Google doesn't have to control the hardware, to control the hardware.
Even alleged free-software advocates (Score:2)
The iPhone popularity argument (Score:2)
I see... (Score:2)
Google isn't locking you out of the hardware you bought, they're locking you out of the *software* you bought. Well, that makes all the difference.
Go eat shit (Score:1)
Like google can competently prevent side loading.. (Score:2)