I disagree. I already use a custom open-source Android OS that has extended the life of my phone. Open source isn’t enough to make the ‘typical consumer’ interested in using it instead of upgrading, most people default to the simple option.
Android is open source in name only. It depends on tons of closed source firmware from hardware manufacturers. It’s a lot of work to integrate them all, you can’t just download Android from the repo and expect it to work on your phone. The reason updates stop after a few years because manufacturers stop maintaining all these closed source bits.
I agree. My point still stands. How will a 100% FOSS firmware and software make any difference to a normal user? Wouldthey really still be maintained of they were open firmware?
I can use a very old laptop because most Linux distros support old hardware. I assume it would be similar. If the closed source firmware issues are solved, then installing Android into old devices become as easy as installing Linux to a laptop.
I understand that someone can do that. I do something similar.
I’m saying that I think most people won’t. Not because they are unable, but because it’s not something they will even think of doing, or its not the easy option (buying a new phone is more expensive but requires no installation), or its a technical process they aren’t comfortable with.
Maybe this point is more relevant in countries with a strong consumerist culture like the US?
As much as I don’t like Apples’s overall products, their relatively long software update durations shows that even normal people adapt to this. Yes some people still tend to replace their devices regularly, but there is a larger secondary market and more family internal hand-downs of still functional Apple devices compared to cheaper Androids.
Again you are completely missing the point. I don’t like Apple either, so no point in repeating all the crap they do, but running old apps on newer OS is mostly irrelevant to normal users as the apps they use get updated through the appstore anyways. Rather the opposite is the problem… i.e. apps get updated and stop working on older Android versions.
I think the point was that open source software makes it last much longer. If using open source Android OS has extended the life of your phone then you are proving his point.
Of course it’s not the only thing that can extend the life of the phone, and of course additional measures should be taken to extend it further, but that doesn’t contradict anything the comment said.
Also, if having an open source OS isn’t a “simple option” for “typical consumer”, then we aren’t even there yet. Imho the phones should come with a fully open source OS that is easily upgradable independently of the manufacturer right out from the store.
Not quite. As I said in the other comment chain, my counter-point was that most people aren’t open to installing an operating system. It was nerve-wracking for me the first times, especially for mobile. If most people aren’t even thinking managing their OS, then being open source alone won’t fix it.
I do think there was an interesting rebuttal in that it would be different if switching OSs was easier or more normalized, or if there were phone vendors (or similar) providing that as a service.
Imho the phones should come with a fully open source OS that is easily upgradable independently of the manufacturer right out from the store.
I agree, although I understand that currently manufacturers have monetary motivation to choose not to do this. Exceptions like the Pinephone are super rare, and I wouldn’t expect that to change without force.
my counter-point was that most people aren’t open to installing an operating system
I mean, the original point didn’t say users should be required to install it themselves. It just said that phones should have an open source OS to increase their life span, which is something your “counter-point” is just building up on, not contradicting nor opposing it.
In fact, not every Android phone has open source firmware available that properly supports the hardware, so there are many cases where even if you knew how to install it you wouldn’t be able to.
Exceptions like the Pinephone are super rare, and I wouldn’t expect that to change without force.
I agree. There needs to be either legislation or a consumer driven shift. The real problem is that most users don’t seem to care that much about that and prefer getting a new shiny one with the latest trending features instead of a Pinephone or Fairphone.
I disagree. I already use a custom open-source Android OS that has extended the life of my phone. Open source isn’t enough to make the ‘typical consumer’ interested in using it instead of upgrading, most people default to the simple option.
Android is open source in name only. It depends on tons of closed source firmware from hardware manufacturers. It’s a lot of work to integrate them all, you can’t just download Android from the repo and expect it to work on your phone. The reason updates stop after a few years because manufacturers stop maintaining all these closed source bits.
I agree. My point still stands. How will a 100% FOSS firmware and software make any difference to a normal user? Wouldthey really still be maintained of they were open firmware?
I can use a very old laptop because most Linux distros support old hardware. I assume it would be similar. If the closed source firmware issues are solved, then installing Android into old devices become as easy as installing Linux to a laptop.
I understand that someone can do that. I do something similar.
I’m saying that I think most people won’t. Not because they are unable, but because it’s not something they will even think of doing, or its not the easy option (buying a new phone is more expensive but requires no installation), or its a technical process they aren’t comfortable with.
Maybe this point is more relevant in countries with a strong consumerist culture like the US?
They don’y have to. Once the capability exists, someone can do it for them. (like the vendor that sells the phone to them)
That’s a good point, I hadn’t thought of that.
As much as I don’t like Apples’s overall products, their relatively long software update durations shows that even normal people adapt to this. Yes some people still tend to replace their devices regularly, but there is a larger secondary market and more family internal hand-downs of still functional Apple devices compared to cheaper Androids.
Removed by mod
You are missing the point completely… this is not about app compatibility, but OS security (and feature) updates.
Removed by mod
Again you are completely missing the point. I don’t like Apple either, so no point in repeating all the crap they do, but running old apps on newer OS is mostly irrelevant to normal users as the apps they use get updated through the appstore anyways. Rather the opposite is the problem… i.e. apps get updated and stop working on older Android versions.
Removed by mod
I think the point was that open source software makes it last much longer. If using open source Android OS has extended the life of your phone then you are proving his point.
Of course it’s not the only thing that can extend the life of the phone, and of course additional measures should be taken to extend it further, but that doesn’t contradict anything the comment said.
Also, if having an open source OS isn’t a “simple option” for “typical consumer”, then we aren’t even there yet. Imho the phones should come with a fully open source OS that is easily upgradable independently of the manufacturer right out from the store.
Not quite. As I said in the other comment chain, my counter-point was that most people aren’t open to installing an operating system. It was nerve-wracking for me the first times, especially for mobile. If most people aren’t even thinking managing their OS, then being open source alone won’t fix it.
I do think there was an interesting rebuttal in that it would be different if switching OSs was easier or more normalized, or if there were phone vendors (or similar) providing that as a service.
I agree, although I understand that currently manufacturers have monetary motivation to choose not to do this. Exceptions like the Pinephone are super rare, and I wouldn’t expect that to change without force.
I mean, the original point didn’t say users should be required to install it themselves. It just said that phones should have an open source OS to increase their life span, which is something your “counter-point” is just building up on, not contradicting nor opposing it.
In fact, not every Android phone has open source firmware available that properly supports the hardware, so there are many cases where even if you knew how to install it you wouldn’t be able to.
I agree. There needs to be either legislation or a consumer driven shift. The real problem is that most users don’t seem to care that much about that and prefer getting a new shiny one with the latest trending features instead of a Pinephone or Fairphone.