There are technical reasons, but as ever the real underlying causes are incentives. Companies realized that the OS is a profit center, something they can use to influence user behavior to their benefit. Before the goal was to be a hardware company and offer the best hardware possible for cost. Now the goal is to own as large a slice of your life as possible. It's more of a social shift than a technological one. So why would a company, in this new environment, invest resources in making their hardware compatible with competing software environments? They'd be undercutting themselves.
That's not to say that attempts to build interoperability don't exist, just that they happen due to what are essentially activist efforts, the human factor, acting in spite of and against market forces. That doesn't tend to win out, except (rarely) in the political realm.
i.e. if you want interoperable mobile hardware you need a law, the market's not going to save you one this one.
But, I'd guess this accounts for a relatively small fraction of corporate decision on lock-in strategies for rent extraction - advanced users should be able to treat their cell phones OS like laptops, with the same basic concepts, eg just lock down the firmware for the radio output, to keep the carriers happy, and open everything else, maybe with a warranty void if you swap out your OS. Laws are needed for that, certainly.
Since a PC was a big box of parts anyone could manufacture one. A modern phone is much more complicated.
As to why there aren’t a plethora: the market doesn’t demand it that much. The people doing it aren’t wildly successful. Perhaps that’s changing (I hope so) but I know very few people outside this community who have ever thought “I wish I could have a third party version of Android”.
https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/rfdevice
> INTENTIONAL RADIATORS (Part 15, Subparts C through F and H)
> An intentional radiator (defined in Section 15.3 (o)) is a device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction that may be operated without an individual license.
> Examples include: wireless garage door openers, wireless microphones, RF universal remote control devices, cordless telephones, wireless alarm systems, Wi-Fi transmitters, and Bluetooth radio devices.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A...
Other countries have similar regulations.
PCs don't have that restriction.
You might be able to get to the point where you have a broadcast license and can get approved to transmit in the cellphone radio spectrum and get FCC approval for doing so with your device... but if you were to distribute it and someone else was easily able to modify it who wasn't licensed and made it into a jammer you would also be liable.
The scale that the cellphone companies work at such liability is not something that they are comfortable with. So the devices they sell are locked down as hard as they can to make it clear that if someone was to modify a device they were selling it wasn't something that they intended or made easy.
That's a long running effort, going all the way from lobbying (DMCA and their ilk), to all kinds of hardware root-of-trust, encrypted and signed firmware, OS kernels and drivers etc etc. And yes, today we have the transistor budgets to spend on things like this, which wasn't an option back when the PC architecture was devised.
Very little of it was open, including the headliner apps of WordPerfect and 123.
Google had the benefit of three decades to study IBM's loss of control to prevent it with Android. Aside from China, they have been largely successful.
IBM didn't think to lock it down, the BIOS was the main blocker and was relatively quickly reverse-engineered (properly, not by copying over the BIOS source IBM had included in the reference manual). They tried to fix some with the MCA bus of the PS/2 but that flopped.
> almost every phone has closed drivers
Lots of hardware manufacturers refuse to provide anything else and balk at the idea of open drivers. And reverse engineering drivers is either not worth the hassle for the manufacturer or a risk of being sued.
> Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
Incentive. Specifically its complete lack of existence.
The other notable thing about the situation is that three companies ended up simultaneously responsible for a large part of the PC platform, originally -- IBM, Microsoft and Intel. They all worked in various ways to encourage competition to each other -- the reason we see OS competition on the PC platform is that IBM and Intel both found it in their interests to allow other OSes on the platform to reduce Microsoft's leverage over them. IBM in fact created one of the competing PC OSes out the gate, OS/2, which was originally an IBM/Microsoft joint project until they started feuding. Now, OS/2 is dead, but IBM's interest in being able to support their own OS instead of Microsoft's is a big reason the PC platform was built in an OS agnostic way. People criticize UEFI for locking down the PC platform more than the previous BIOS implementations, but UEFI is still _way_ more open than basically any other platform, most of which don't have a standard for bootloaders at all. It's really the absense of a standard for bootloaders that keeps most Android phones locked down. Two Android phones from the same OEM might have different bootloaders, much less two phones from different manufacturers. We've yet to see an alternate OS with the resources to support implementing their own bootloaders for a majority of Android phones.
Edit: I am not saying just user replaceable. I mean standardized so the same cells in a 2024 phone also works on 2025...
Its really easy to make a custom rom but hard to do serious "real life" stuff; companies don't want to make it easy. To most regular users, if they cant download apps from the google play store, and they can't use venmo\cashapp, then the OS is dead in the water from day 1
My guess is that modern hardware is too complicated for one hacker to write reliable drivers. That wasn't the case back in the 90-s, when Linux matured. So we are at mercy of hardware manufacturers and they happened to not be interested in open upstreamed drivers.
From triumph of the nerds part 2 ( worth a watch.. they also explain how IBM ended up getting and operating system from Microsoft)
https://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html
“In business, as in comedy, timing is everything, and time looked like it might be running out for an IBM PC. I'm visiting an IBMer who took up the challenge. In August 1979, as IBM's top management met to discuss their PC crisis, Bill Lowe ran a small lab in Boca Raton Florida.
Bill Lowe:
Hello Bob nice to see you. BOB: Nice to see you again. I tried to match the IBM dress code how did I do? BILL: That's terrific, that's terrific.
He knew the company was in a quandary. Wait another year and the PC industry would be too big even for IBM to take on. Chairman Frank Carey turned to the department heads and said HELP!!!
Bill Lowe Head, IBM IBM PC Development Team 1980:
He kind of said well, what should we do, and I said well, we think we know what we would like to do if we were going to proceed with our own product and he said no, he said at IBM it would take four years and three hundred people to do anything, I mean it's just a fact of life. And I said no sir, we can provide with product in a year. And he abruptly ended the meeting, he said you're on Lowe, come back in two weeks and tell me what you need.
An IBM product in a year! Ridiculous! Down in the basement Bill still has the plan. To save time, instead of building a computer from scratch, they would buy components off the shelf and assemble them -- what in IBM speak was called 'open architecture.' IBM never did this. Two weeks later Bill proposed his heresy to the Chairman.
Bill Lowe:
And frankly this is it. The key decisions were to go with an open architecture, non IBM technology, non IBM software, non IBM sales and non IBM service. And we probably spent a full half of the presentation carrying the corporate management committee into this concept. Because this was a new concept for IBM at that point. BOB: Was it a hard sell? BILL: Mr. Carey bought it. And as result of him buying it, we got through it.
And a huge reason it seems like BS is this:
> PCs don't have that restriction.
There are obviously PCs with Wi-Fi and even cellular modems, so this can't be an excuse for a phone to not be at least as open as a PC.
When you buy a Windows PC, the first thing a lot of tech people will do is format it and put on a clean install of Windows without all of the OEM crapware, or in these days install Linux if grandma is just using email and Facebook anyway.
If you try to do that on your Android device, your bank app is broken, most importantly not because of anything the alternate OS is doing wrong, which causes the vast majority of people to not want to do it even if it means suffering the OEM crapware, with no way for the alternative OS to fix it. And that in turn allows the OEMs to get away with locked bootloaders etc., because then they're not losing sales to a competitor that lets you remove the crapware when nobody can do it either way.
On any PC, you can still use BIOS/UEFI services to get a basic framebuffer and keyboard input. You cannot do that on embedded ARM devices - you need to get several layers into the graphics stack to have a framebuffer. I tried it on the PinePhone, using existing source code as a reference, and the furthest I got was sending commands from the video port to the LCD controller and then not having an oscilloscope to see if the LCD controller replied back.
Because that's what customers want to buy. People are paying premium iPhone prices for hardware with mediocre specs and then the hardware sells out when someone like Purism or Fairphone actually makes an open one. How many sales would you get if you did the same thing on a phone that was actually price/performance competitive with the closed ones?
Meanwhile all of that "profit center" talk is MBA hopium. Nobody is actually using the Xiaomi App Store, least of all the people who would put a different OS on their phone.
The real problem here is Google. Hardware attestation needs to be an antitrust violation the same as Microsoft intentionally breaking software when you tried to run it on a competing version of DOS and for exactly the same reason.
But I still haven't contacted the support to ask them to verify phones in another way.
Having basic framebuffer in BIOS/UEFI is neat for toy OSes, but not very relevant for something practical. You gotta need proper driver for GPU. And if you're just starting, UART console is actually more preferable way to interact with board, IMO.
Modern hardware has turned our operating systems into isolated "user OS" nodes in the schematics, completely sandboxed away from the real action. Our operating systems don't really operate systems anymore.
These days things are way slower and the are no exponential growth in users. Plus fast cellular networks made the speed of local hardware much less relevant. So the software became way more important and so its control.
Yes!! Absolutely agree. This needs to be made illegal.
It's not your phone, it's theirs. They're just letting you use it, and only if you're a good boy who follows all their policies and terms and conditions. Subvert this in any way and it's a felony.
Rooting/jailbreaking have had exemptions for many years now, on a three year basis which has seemingly been continually renewed, by the Librarian of Congress.
Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies (2024)
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/28/2024-24...
Where do you see this in the rules? The only thing I see that even comes close is the following sentence:
"Manufacturers and importers should use good engineering judgment before they market and sell these products, to minimize possible interference"
Maybe it's because I don't routinely deal with the FCC but to me, that language doesn't imply anything close to your ironclad rule you posted.
I'll also point out there are plenty of other devices that get sold that seemingly break your rule. SDRs, walkie talkies with the power to transmit for miles, basically every computer motherboard made since the year 2010, the Flipper, etc. At most, they simply have some fine print in the manual saying "you should probably have an FCC license to use this".
"Battery capacity" is like the one thing phone manufacturers still try to improve.
https://www.reddit.com/r/RTLSDR/comments/dx5sln/do_developer...
Depending on the power of the walkie talkie, it may require a license.
https://www.rcscommunications.com/which-two-way-radios-requi...
> MURS (Multi-Use Radio Service) – Two-way radios programmed to operate within the MURS (Multi-Use Radio Service) are not required to be licensed. They transmit at 2 watts or less and only operate on pre-set frequencies between 151 -154 MHz in the VHF band. MURS radios have a general lack of privacy, a limited coverage area, and frequent channel interference.
> ...
> GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service) – The General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) is another of the most popular and numerous licenses the FCC granted. GMRS licenses allow for radios to transmit up to 50 watts. GMRS licenses also allow for hand-held, mobile, and repeater devices. The GMRS spectrum has 22 channels that it shares with FRS and an additional 8 repeater channels that are exclusive to GMRS.
> Virtually Every Other Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Device – Virtually all two-way radios beyond the models mentioned above are subject to FCC licensing. In fact, any device that transmits at 4 watts or higher requires coordination (and, thereby, licensing) by the FCC.
---
The Flipper is licensed to operate with a particular set of power and frequency ranges. https://flipperzero.one/compliance
For the SDR it is licensed to operate between 304.5 - 321.95; 433.075 - 434.775; and 915.0 - 927.95 MHZ range in the US.
Note that none of those are the cellphone frequency bands.
---
https://prplfoundation.org/yes-the-fcc-might-ban-your-operat...
which quotes 2.1033 Application for grant of certification. Paragraph 4(i):
> For devices including modular transmitters which are software defined radios and use software to control the radio or other parameters subject to the Commission’s rules, the description must include details of the equipment’s capabilities for software modification and upgradeability, including all frequency bands, power levels, modulation types, or other modes of operation for which the device is designed to operate, whether or not the device will be initially marketed with all modes enabled. The description must state which parties will be authorized to make software changes (e.g., the grantee, wireless service providers, other authorized parties) and the software controls that are provided to prevent unauthorized parties from enabling different modes of operation. Manufacturers must describe the methods used in the device to secure the software in their application for equipment authorization and must include a high level operational description or flow diagram of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters. The applicant must provide an attestation that only permissible modes of operation may be selected by a user.
and 2.1042 Certified modular transmitters. Paragraph (8)(e)
> Manufacturers of any radio including certified modular transmitters which includes a software defined radio must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a particular radio can be loaded into that radio. The software must not allow the installers or end-user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements.
We actually saw this play out twice with Microsoft's return to mobile (Windows phone) and web browsers, money is a pretty small part of it.
Trying to get some scale, you're hypothesizing about giving 10 millions to HSBC to make business with your startup, when they're throwing away 500+ millions every year just to cover their money laundering.
https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n...
And we're discussing doing this for basically every major banks.
I see it akin to the proverbial "not getting out of bed for less than XXXXX". You're getting out of bed every day, for free. But having someone make you do it for a specific reason will be an exponentially harder proposition.
> 1 line in their app
Aren't you asking them to maintain compatibility outside of Play Services and be on available on your platform ? That's a whole project, including their (or their contracting shop's) validating the whole new stack from a security and technical perspective, and a legal and business check on what that actually means to them.
Perhaps we can look at it from a darker perspective: if a random guy came to the bank to ask them support for their parralel phone ecosystem, the bank would at least want to know what they're getting into and what's in it for them. Especially if they're offered 10 millions for allegedly one line of code.
Plenty of adversarial countries have a competent security service. A foreign government can compromise the corporation's root signing key for the devices through technical attacks and through bribery, espionage, physical intrusion, etc. And they're not going to tell you that they have before using it against your high value targets, so how do you protect them? By not relying on systems with a single point of compromise.
I just made up the figure. Perhaps 10 billion dollars is more enticing. Perhaps you have to purchase the company outright and then dictate they add support. My point is that it's not impossible to get the apps people need to work on an alternate Android OS. It is a matter of funding conpatibility. You can find a niche audience of people to start out with to make a competitive OS for them. And then overtime expand that audience more and more.
>Aren't you asking them to maintain compatibility
Typically the complaints about banks is that they use the Play Integrity library which doesn't trust other operating systems. So the ask is to support the Android API for integrity and to trust the key of the OS provider. This would be done via a new library to make integration easier and more foolproof.
> You can pay app developers to port their apps off of play services, you can pay developers to add support for your attestation keys.
an additional anecdote from my time then: they came to where i was working at the time and proposed funding a windows mobile version of our app (quite a large sum) but our supervisor finally said no, because the upkeep of now 3 apps would be too much for too few customers
you cant just throw money at devs and expect much unless you have the user base (potential market) to back it up
1. It doesn't require an entirely new app. You can ship the same apk on all platforms.
2. Most apps already don't have a hard dependency on play services.
Key clients requesting support for the alternative OS will be a way faster route IMHO. The same way nobody bribed banks to support android, they saw the market share and potential and decided by themselves it was a worth doing. Which is why it came so late.
I understand you're offering a way to get around the chicken and egg problem, I'm saying dealing with the supply part is crazy hard. Somewhat paying users to buy into your ecosystem despite the lack of support could be a better use of money (I'm thinking about Meta subsidizing Occulus until it got some traction, and I assume it's still in the red after so many years)
> the Android API
People loosely explain the lack of technical challenge, but from the institution's POV you're asking them to expand their trust from Google, a US company which will be solely responsible if anything critical happens...to potentially each single phone maker, whoever happens to be selling the device to your clients ?
If Google didn't exist that's what they'd do. But Play Services is a thing. The more I think about the less I see an incentive for any established player to do that move until customers are actively clamoring for it. There's just no upside otherwise.