[r00tanon]

ELI5 - everything about a phone only works when the carrier allows it to connect to the network.

So, the way this is done is to, well, connect to the network and allow the phone to be unlocked - which according to the article is what happened?

So the real complaint is that the Pixel can't be loaded with a customized Android OS (or Linux, etc.) without being connected to the internet first and this is bad because the vendor might put bloatware, spyware, etc. on the phone, which, once you install your OS will be gone anyway?

OK, well then other than the underlying hardware needing to still be recognized on the carrier's network, which pretty much means you still have to be connected. The point is you aren't going to be stealthy using the carrier network on a phone, so at the EOD you have a pretty expensive device you can really only use on WIFI using your own VPN without the Vendor's software.

So what's the advantage over a small tablet based on OTS SOC hardware that you have full control over? IOW why buy the phone in the first place?

[chaxor]

One issue for this process that I have seen when talking about the Pixel is:

    -  ***You can't actually back up your Pixel***

It's enormously frustrating, because this is the typical advice before moving to a different OS. But apparently, actually mounting the device or seeing it via `lsblk` is from what I can tell impossible. I tried for a while to simply make a direct image with `dd` to try out other OSes etc but I couldn't even figure out a way to mount it, or in the cases it could be mounted it was using some insanely stupid fuse fs that was specifically made to be difficult to use. They want you to use some ridiculously complex and idiotic idea that revolves around using the cloud for backups, which I couldn't figure out precisely what was done because it isn't open source, so I refuse to use it. It's insane that you can't just `dd if=/dev/sdX of=phone.img` or something simple.

[r00tanon]

Yep. It was fun while it lasted, but I expect none of the manufacturers will support hacking or mods on these devices in the future because there's too few people doing that compared to the masses they want to sell to, and they have zero time or money to train technical support staff. They want to sell you an appliance that can't be repaired, has planned obsolescence and locks you into the platform by (effectively) keeping your data hostage.

[chaxor]

Well, this isn't necessarily about hacking - it's about backing up a phone too. Google doesn't allow backing up a phone in any reasonable way.

[fsflover]

If you actually care about FLOSS on your phone, you might be interested in trying a GNU/Linux phone (Librem 5 or Pinephone). Those have no restrictions on mounting or alternative operating systems.

[chaxor]

Yeah, those are excellent choices when purchasing, but when you already have something and are trying to use it - you should be able to.

[justsomehnguy]

> this is bad because the vendor might

Because the vendor can anytime say 'fuck you' and disable/remove the process which allows unlocking the bootloader.

Edit: already happened with Pixel 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854552

[r00tanon]

So anyone who has already unlocked their Pixel 2 is good to go right? Getting the latest Pixel unlocked requires an internet connection, but once done it's done.

So the complaint is that in the far future the vendor might not support that on a six year old phone (by that time)? But, it is supported now, so what's the beef?

My old Pixel 2 only works now plugged into power and on WIFI because the battery is dead. I can get super-pissed off at Google for not supporting battery replacement on the Pixel 2, but it's a 6 year old phone. How long should I expect them to support it knowing at the time about the sealed battery. I can't get that pissed seeing as I bought it knowing the facts at the time :)

[saagarjha]

I mean, not being able to unlock your Pixel 2 is a pretty legitimate concern.

[justsomehnguy]

> So anyone who has already unlocked their Pixel 2 is good to go right?

So anyone who hasn't is fucked and you are fine with that?

> So the complaint is that in the far future

It's not a far future. It's already happening. And if decades ago it took up to years for a company to stop providing the services (or existing as a company) nowadays it takes mere weeks from the announcement.

And this is still not relevant to the problem - you can't do what you want with the device you paid full price for.

It's always amusing to hear people like you who defend the corporate behemoths at the expense of Regular Joe. "Embarrassed millionaires" vibe.

[ImPostingOnHN]

supporting something and not spending extra effort to block it are two different things, google only needs to do the second one here

[_heimdall]

I believe the real complaint here is that you can't buy and use a Pixel at all without ending up as a row in Google's database that may include hardware identifiers, network details, you're location, your phone number, etc.

When buying a phone directly from Google you are indeed buying the hardware but you don't actually own the software. The OS will work only if Google still supports it and allows you to use it. The article is raising the point that even if you don't want to use Google's software and instead want to jump straight to your own OS installation you can't avoid their OS initialization steps and any network traffic sent back to Google first