Yes, agree 100%. It's not only Android the problem. It's the cartelization between them and hardware manufacturers. But then that means that we will be doomed to the current duopoly between Google and Apple.

The very first step I believe needs to be taken is to pass strict laws to allow devices to be reflashed with whatever we want. Until we do not have that in place we will always be stucked like this. Once people can truly install from scratch whatever they want then the game should change completely.

Good point about hardware duopoly, and laws (along lines of "right to repair", right?). Nit: "Until we do not have that in place" - double negative

Agreed.

So many good working devices go to waste because no longer supported by Google and the hardware manufacturers. They have good cameras, good wifi etc... we should be able to reflash them and install whatever OS we want on them.

It's becoming more and more difficult to install even Lineage on a lot of 6 or 7 year old hardware.

Why is popularity a concern? I'm writing this on a Librem 5 with PureOS that I've been daily driving for the last few years and which gives me a much better experience than Android could. Why would it matter to me as a user whether it's popular or not? The only thing I can think of is availability of native applications, but this would just hide the actual problem with interoperability and pass it down for the next underdog project to worry about.

Popularity is important when we consider whole societies, but it's not particularly relevant for individuals. I don't need a buy in of Samsung to use GNU/Linux on my phone.

For example because the wait time in the theme park which I visited can be find only in their app for iOS and Android. The same true for ordering food to your table in another theme park. Yeah, there are alternatives, but those cost you time, sometimes hours. And these companies won’t implement anything for an error margin.

The fact this is a thing is part of the problem.

We should not be downloading executables and running them from random third parties in order to do mundane tasks. If they absolutely must have an app, it should be a web app, end of.

Here's a question, what if the executable was thoroughly sandboxed? Like Firecracker level with virtualization? And once you're there, what's the difference between that and a webapp?

I don't think apps are going away so users need to have a switch that says, "I don't trust this company with anything". Extremely limited Internet access, no notifications, no background activity at all, nothing. It needs to be like apps for the 2nd gen iPhone: so completely neutered that webapps look like Star Trek level technology.

Google is a step ahead of that, with their device attestation technology. Now apps can make sure they are only running in an approved environment.

This is the inverse of what he's saying. Attestation takes control away from users. Permissions give control to users. The ultimate user control is not using the software at all.

That's what the GP meant, wasn't it? "Good luck with your sandboxing, Google is already a step ahead in this cat-and-mouse game".

There is beyond zero incentive for either Apple or Google to provide something like this. Google HAS network permissions on Android. You just can't access them. They're hidden from you, presumably because Google prefers more malware and spyware running on your phone.

The reality is that both Google and Apple are not just in on this, they created this situation. They not only don't care if you download 1 million apps from the app store that may or may not be malware, they actually prefer that model. Going as far as to sabotage the web to maintain that model. Going as far as developing their own browser which is broken to maintain that model.

Which, relatedly, is why any type of argument of "safety" around the app store or play store is complete and utter bullshit. Apple and Google want you to download as much malware as possible. All their actions demonstrate that.

Again:

> but this would just hide the actual problem with interoperability and pass it down for the next underdog project to worry about.

Just consider how this wouldn't happen at all in an environment where no platform dominates in popularity (and it doesn't always happen today either, as lots of things like these are accessible via the Web from any platform regardless).

We have exactly that interoperability right now, and the market said that they don’t want use that.

A market like that needs to be better regulated then.

True, if a new system ever wants to rise, it’s gonna need backing from a major player. But once it takes over the market, it might just become the next “Android.”

Not so, if the next system is mobile GNU/Linux. As long as the components remain free and mostly the same as on desktop, if one or two go bad, they can be replaced. And certainly the core system won't go bad.