A cheap device would deliver lower performance, but that doesn't explain the poor OS design issues. I used to be quite a fan of Android, but even as performance has improved other things have gotten worse. I don't like the Apple ecosystem either so perhaps I will be a customer for the Pine phone as my app needs are quite limited.
That's one way to lower price, but in an industry of razor sharp hardware returns if you really want to make something cheap you do it by getting money from services and if those "services" include interest based advertising then it's even better. Just look at why all modern TVs are "smart TVs" and default (often hard to disable) "call home" tracking features.
This is one thing I don't understand about the Android ecosystem... Android fans like to point out that you have a choice of phone price points from $100 up to $1000, where on Apple devices it's generally $600 to $1000. But if you actually buy one of those $100 phones and have a problem with it, the first response is always "well yeah that's what you get for buying a cheap phone".
Seems like an illusion of choice if you're guaranteed a working phone only if you buy the latest $1000 Samsung flagship.
Smartphones are like many other technology products. Yes, you can get the cheapest one available but it will be total garbage or you could spend another $100 or so and get a pretty decent phone. Going beyond this point you get diminishing returns, is spending another $700-800 really worth it for a better camera, a faster CPU/GPU and a screen with a bit better colour when all you do is watch Youtube videos and browse facebook/instagram/whatever other social media?
I agree with you, but for the same of argument... this Android user will also earn prospective buyers up front that they should steer well clear of the cheap devices before they buy them too!