Comment by kllrnohj

8 hours ago

> As if you didn't need any more proof you don't own "your" devices.

Can you install your own OS? If yes, you own it. And Google consistently lets you do that. It other OEMs don't then direct your outrage at them.

>Can you install your own OS? If yes, you own it.

Not before connecting it to the internet, even Pixels will go through hundreds of megabytes of data before allowing you to unlock them (see 0). Also, will Google let me browse the web with "my own OS" without their proprietary services installed on it? (see 1) And without developers pouring tens of thousands of work hours into making projects such as GrapheneOS viable despite Google, you wouldn't even be able to do much that requires anything to do with SafetyNet and all successors delivered through Google Play Services, which is functionally the core component of any Android device for the near entirety of typical use-cases. And I'm not excusing OEMs, but they did not build their market share off of being "open" then start to close every door and trap you in it.

0. https://www.fitzsim.org/blog/?p=545

1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/07/googles-new-remote-att...

  • > Not before connecting it to the internet, even Pixels will go through hundreds of megabytes of data before allowing you to unlock them (see 0)

    oookay? Hardly seems like a big deal? It would indeed be nice if the unlocked phones were set from the factory as such instead of all being the same system image as the ones that locked carriers use, sure, but hardly significant since it's not like you have to sign in or anything?

    > Also, will Google let me browse the web with "my own OS" without their proprietary services installed on it? (see 1)

    Why are you even asking Google at all? Just use Firefox? Don't even need to root or use a custom ROM for that, even.

  • >Not before connecting it to the internet, even Pixels will go through hundreds of megabytes of data before allowing you to unlock them (see 0).

    What's the problem here? Are you roaming all the time and that imposes a unreasonable cost on you? You want to stay totally off the grid and using VPN/tor isn't enough?

    >Also, will Google let me browse the web with "my own OS" without their proprietary services installed on it? (see 1)

    Having control of something isn't the same as third party services granting you access. Many online games only supports windows with secureboot and TPM enabled, but that would be a silly excuse to say that you don't really "own" your PC.

    • >What's the problem here? Are you roaming all the time and that imposes a unreasonable cost on you? You want to stay totally off the grid and using VPN/tor isn't enough?

      It depends on a remote endpoint that can go down at any point, and depends on the company's policies present and future. It is functionally asking for permission to another party to unlock it, and that would not fall under the umbrella of ownership through being able to install "my own OS" on it, at least for me. And a simple OTA update is all it takes to add multiple verification steps to it, such as providing your ID/using your verified Google account, or just take it out.

      3 replies →

    • > Having control of something isn't the same as third party services granting you access. Many online games only supports windows with secureboot and TPM enabled, but that would be a silly excuse to say that you don't really "own" your PC.

      Your example is about one developer's decision, which is not really what we're talking about. The damage goes way up when you start talking about an arbitrary number of applications. A more apt analogy is, what if you couldn't install any applications except through the Windows Store? We're talking about restrictions laid down by the OS developer and for iding all applications outside of their crappy walled garden, which is very different. Also, you don't actually think Google is going to stop there do you? They will certainly turn it off one day of they think they can get away with it, because it is in their financial self-interests to do so.

      1 reply →