Paradox is, that with Pixel device you can get most freedom and security togather. Installation of GrapheneOS is easiest custom ROM installation that could possibly be.
If I have to install Google Messages for RCS, Google Calendar, Google Contacts, Pixel Camera (which forces you to use Google Photos for basic functionality), … where is the benefit?
If I have to turn Graphene into a Pixel to make it usable, and I did, there’s not much point. And the apps are 90% of the time very noticeably better on iOS, so overall turns into a very bad trade.
I disabled Google Photos but I didn't notice any issues with Camera except for not being able to open the photo just taken from the camera interface. Am I missing something else?
I avoid RCS like a plague, so I can't comment about that.
I am not sure why would you have to install messages has nobody uses RCS these days.
As for calendars and contacts, I am struggling to see the added value over the fossify alternatives, hence I don't have them anymore on my smartphones.
Pixel camera and google photos are nice to get the most out of tye pixel camera but thanksfully grapheneOS lets you use them without access to network. Stock Pixel rom doesn't allow you to do that. That is a major difference imho.
I think it's because they got blamed for not warning everyone with the Valencia floods last year but it's really ridiculous now. Now they blow up everyone's phone just when there's going to be a bit of wind.
and you get absolutely nothing in return. Yeah you will have root access sometimes. But other than that, android is not opensource anymore.
I mean, it never was because you had hundreds (no exaggeration [1]) closed-binary blobs running (not to mention a whole OS on things like radio and camera, running on their own SoC), but now you cannot get even close to a proper of the userspace since google already anounced they will not be mainlining anything back to AOSP
[1] zero source for kernel pieces, even for pixel https://github.com/GrapheneOS/device_google_laguna-kernels_6...
You get improved privacy and security, at least on some fronts. By default, GrapheneOS does not provide root access and recommends against rooting the device. Is there a trade-off? Certainly. Security and privacy are always at conflict with what a completely open platform can provide. Given the amount of access to personal information that goes through our devices and the number of bad actors out there (both behaving legally and illicitly), some people believe it is worth the price. At least GrapheneOS offers more transparency than Android or iOS.
The bit about clamping down on open source, that is very much disappointing. I doubt that it is going to go away entirely in Android. On the other hand, hopefully it will provide incentives for companies to explore developing more open alternatives and consumers to explore buying more open alternatives. It won't be a huge market, but many of us have avoided growing so dependent upon the current platforms that we couldn't simply walk away.
It was probably for saying everyone else doesn't deserve the piece of the pie. That's incredibly subjective on my part.
More to the point, it seems reasonable to design for onboarding brand new users. That was never a strength of Linux, which most Linux fans would probably acknowledge. What ever happened to "it just works".
If you are comparing apples-to-apples (e.g. setting up pre-installed Linux verses pre-installed Windows, or installing Linux to installing Windows), I would argue that Linux has been in the lead for many years. Setting up a reasonable desktop distribution (Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.) is no more and no less technical. Linux distributions won't encourage you to create online accounts, try to upsell you online services, or bombard you with questions about privacy settings.
From my last experience with macOS: on a technical front, macOS is simpler to reinstall. The online account setup and upselling is far less intrusive (perhaps to the point where you can legitimately consider it as a beneficial setup step for the end user). Perhaps macOS has the lead, but it is a marginal one.
The basic flavor was that I spent at least an hour getting a working apple account and getting signed into it, and I used at least two other devices to achieve that.
I do vividly recall that whenever I performed the final successful account verification, rather than seeing a success message, I saw a page or webview that just had a huge XML document in it. I only knew that attempt worked after I just tried logging in again. But that was one papercut out of dozens from my hazy recollection.
If I ever set up another Apple thing, I'll take photos, but it will probably work perfectly then. Oh well.
Most of the author's criticisms were centered on avoiding account creation and third-party apps. I'm not sure I would give Apple the benefit of the doubt here since the motivations are different: Apple is far more interested in locking customers into their own ecosystem. On the Android front, that isn't all that different from getting a Pixel. Of course, getting an Android based Samsung adds an extra company who wants to do the same as well as selling space to third parties.
While Android being more open does add complexity, it is mostly limited to those who buy devices produced by another vendor or those who choose to exercise their freedom (e.g. by choosing to install a third-party version of Android, or installing a third-party "app store", or developing their own software).