If manufacturers had their way, there wouldn’t be any phones for one side.
There’s nothing stopping manufacturers from permanently locking the bootloader. Some do and others don’t suggesting that the industry does not have a universal preference.
I do think Google wants it to be inconvenient enough to run a version of Android they haven’t blessed as one’s main phone that it has no chance to become mainstream, but that’s about the prospect of an OEM not bundling Google’s apps and store, not hobbyists running custom builds. If that sounds like an attempt to use market power to exclude competitors in violation of fair trading laws in a multitude of jurisdictions, you might be on to something.
There’s nothing stopping manufacturers from permanently locking the bootloader. Some do and others don’t suggesting that the industry does not have a universal preference.
Some manufacturers have stopped allowing unlocking their bootloaders, some bootloaders have been hacked by the community. It’s not like this is a static system.
I do think Google wants it to be inconvenient enough to run a version of Android they haven’t blessed as one’s main phone that it has no chance to become mainstream, but that’s about the prospect of an OEM not bundling Google’s apps and store, not hobbyists running custom builds.
No, Google is also trying to stop hobbyists running custom builds from accessing services built on their software (the aforementioned SafetyNet). Hackers keep finding ways around this, but Google keeps trying to lock them out.
No, Google is also trying to stop hobbyists running custom builds from accessing services built on their software (the aforementioned SafetyNet). Hackers keep finding ways around this, but Google keeps trying to lock them out.
That’s a side effect. If Google really wanted to interfere with hobbyists, they would mandate hardware-based attestation and all the current workarounds would be broken. It would be much harder to create workarounds for that.
It appears phones as old as the Android 8 era can support this and phones that shipped with Android 13 or newer always do. I had the impression it had been universal a little longer.
If you want a customizable phone, yes. If you want a secured phone, no.
There are already existing products for both sides. No point in forcing them to do something else at this point.
Except Google is trying to limit this on Android phones as well (e.g. with SafetyNet).
If manufacturers had their way, there wouldn’t be any phones for one side.
There’s nothing stopping manufacturers from permanently locking the bootloader. Some do and others don’t suggesting that the industry does not have a universal preference.
I do think Google wants it to be inconvenient enough to run a version of Android they haven’t blessed as one’s main phone that it has no chance to become mainstream, but that’s about the prospect of an OEM not bundling Google’s apps and store, not hobbyists running custom builds. If that sounds like an attempt to use market power to exclude competitors in violation of fair trading laws in a multitude of jurisdictions, you might be on to something.
Some manufacturers have stopped allowing unlocking their bootloaders, some bootloaders have been hacked by the community. It’s not like this is a static system.
No, Google is also trying to stop hobbyists running custom builds from accessing services built on their software (the aforementioned SafetyNet). Hackers keep finding ways around this, but Google keeps trying to lock them out.
That’s a side effect. If Google really wanted to interfere with hobbyists, they would mandate hardware-based attestation and all the current workarounds would be broken. It would be much harder to create workarounds for that.
And also all current phones would be broken, which they can’t do.
It appears phones as old as the Android 8 era can support this and phones that shipped with Android 13 or newer always do. I had the impression it had been universal a little longer.
Apple’s software is malware
How so?