zlacker

Makes sense why they had to get rid of the "don't be evil" motto. They've been on a roll.

I've seen a lot of similar sentiment on this thread, but the reason I use Android is because it gives me more control than iOS by allowing full-on painless sideloading, and custom distributions like GrapheneOS. They're doing everything they can to turn themselves into a worse Apple. All of the downsides of Apple, but none of the upsides. Apple beats them in every aspect that isn't "openness".

When will the straw break the camel's back? I'm shocked we've let it get to this point with no realistic alternatives. There's no reason a competitive Linux-based smartphone can't exist (no, I'm not counting Android in that).

>>seanw4+(OP)
> There's no reason a competitive Linux-based smartphone can't exist (no, I'm not counting Android in that).

Yes there is. You all don't understand that they will use remote attestation to force everyone to use approved devices with signed apps on signed OSes only

You won't be able to bank, call a cab, write a chat message, watch a youtube video or do anything relevant on a device anymore that isn't signed, approved and controlled by google. They've made us cattle and now they are going to milk us dry.

>>seanw4+(OP)
> There's no reason a competitive Linux-based smartphone can't exist

There is; it's the "phone" part of "smartphone". Being a phone makes the device subject to a lot more requirements (for an obvious example, emergency dialing must always be available and work, and at the same time the phone must never accidentally dial the emergency number).

In my country, only cell phones certified by the government telecommunications agency (Anatel) can be imported, so I can't for instance go to the Jolla or PinePhone store and buy a Linux-based smartphone; if I tried, it would be sent back the moment the package entered the country. (See https://www.gov.br/anatel/pt-br/regulado/certificacao-de-pro... for details.)

>>cesarb+24
> There is; it's the "phone" part of "smartphone". Being a phone makes the device subject to a lot more requirements (for an obvious example, emergency dialing must always be available and work, and at the same time the phone must never accidentally dial the emergency number).

Funnily, Google is one the few phone manufacturers who can’t make emergency calls to work. (e.g. search Pixel problems)

>>cesarb+24
> for an obvious example, emergency dialing must always be available and work, and at the same time the phone must never accidentally dial the emergency number

Why are Pixel phones allowed to be sold then? Google broke emergency calling on a least three different models, and at least once across models.

>>IlikeK+l1
That's the blackpilled take. The whitepill is that sticking up for yourself hasn't ever been easy, but it's always been an option.

>>seanw4+Jn2
I wish there was a path to victory here. MAYBE there's an antitrust complaint to be made in the EU. But it's already being used against me everyday as a grapheneos user there are several services i am barred from using for no reason.

>>seanw4+(OP)
> Makes sense why they had to get rid of the "don't be evil" motto.

I hate how this always gets brought up because:

1. Evil has no definition, so it means nothing. They get to define what evil is for themselves. They stated their reasons they think this change is good. You can't prove it breaks their code of conduct.

2. It's straight up false, it's still in their code of conduct:

> And remember... don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!

https://abc.xyz/investor/google-code-of-conduct/

>>cresha+GZ
Because these regulations rarely do what is written. They just lock the gates for anyone who hasn't got enough cash that says "yes we're compliant"

>>hbn+Ns2
> They stated their reasons they think this change is good.

Right, because someone doing something evil would say outright what they're doing is evil.

> It's straight up false, it's still in their code of conduct

This is news to me. I think it's interesting that they removed it from the opening and put it at the end though.

>>seanw4+(OP)
> There's no reason a competitive Linux-based smartphone can't exist

And it does exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librem_5

>>seanw4+3J5
> Right, because someone doing something evil would say outright what they're doing is evil.

That's my point. It means nothing, so who cares if it's in the code of conduct?