[Zak]

That requires having a PC to unlock basic functionality on your Android device, assuming the change we're talking about is still app installs.

I don't think OS vendors should be expected to keep people from doing dangerous things. A warning label saying "hey that's dangerous because..." is reasonable, but anything more and they're trying to be my sysadmin against my will.

[criddell]

The sysadmin part is their value-add. One reason my current phone being an iPhone after being 100% Android for a decade are the better walls and nicer garden.

These are sold as consumer devices and not general computers. It sounds like you want something different. They’re selling cars and you want a motorcycle.

[Zak]

Android was very open when it was released and for some time after. Installing APKs directly was easy. Most devices had unlocked or unlockable bootloaders. An Android phone treated its user much like a PC did.

More sysadmin-as-a-service type stuff is fine as long as the opt-out is easy. This isn't. I'm upset about the rug pull.

[criddell]

I understand. I was one of the 25 people excited about the OtherOS option on the PS3. When Sony removed that in an update I was bummed because that’s one of the reasons I bought it.

You never know though. Sometimes things go the other way. When the iPhone launched there was no way to create apps for it or install third party applications except as web apps.

[Zak]

People keep framing it as tinkerers versus normies. That's not the real problem.

The real problem is that prior to verification, Google can't ban ICE tracking apps (or whatever the next problematic government doesn't like) from Android, and after verification they will be able to for most users.

They say they won't do that. I might even believe the people currently running things won't do that, but they will be incentivized to do that in the future, and incentives are much better at predicting outcomes than intent.