Keep Android Open

I agree but the poll ended a couple of minutes ago :(

Even if CCI restrict Google in an unlikely scenario it can take a long time to realize. I think we have to go to the root of the issue - Google (and apple) having the final say in Operating Systems. In case of Windows on PC, availability of GNU/Linux was enough to counter as installing another OS was not prevented. But on smart phones the level of difficulty is much much higher, only limited number of old models can have custom roms, mostly expensive models. So I think we should more aggressively promote GNU/Linux mobile (Mobian, PostmarketOS etc) as an alternative. What do you think?

Another recent example of them misusing monopoly is rejection of Prav from Apple app store.

More on this https://epadlite.fbin.in/p/prav-apple-iff we are also planning to approach CCI (asking if IFF can help with the complaint).

@Pirate Praveen 

- Waydroid lets you run Android apps on Linux (as long as it doesn't need Google Play Services DRM). Postmarket, Mobian, etc can take advantage of this
- MicroGMS is a free (as in freedom) implementation of Google Play Services
- Aurora Store: Access Google Play Store without needing a Google account or Google Play Services.

There's 2 roadblocks to these
Technical Restrictions:
(i) Google Play Integrity: This DRM system on all Google Android devices basically detects root/unlocked bootloader and snitches on you to apps like WhatsApp, Netflix, Banking Apps etc so they can lock themselves up and refuse to work if your device is "tampered" with, e.g using a custom ROM, not using Google Play Services, etc. These apps don't work at all on Waydroid either, AFAIK (not very sure).

(ii) Mobile manufacturers rendering their devices' bootloaders untamperable/unmodifiable Also, Mobile manufacturers not (or very rarely and not at all keeping it up-to-date) sharing devicetree/kernel source, bootloader/firmware code, hardware diagrams/pinouts makes community reverse engineering effort an uphill battle. It's hard for modding communities to manually research every single device on the market, develop bootloader exploits, patch Postmarket/Mobian/Graphene OS etc

The lack of app support, apps not working/misbehaving on alternative OSes, and reduced accessibility/compatibility of those OSes with the hardware people actually use are the biggest roadblocks to alternative mobile OSes. Both of these problems are artificially manufactured by the mobile industry and Google exactly so they can kill this kind of mobile competition in the crib. The proof of that claim is exactly the fact that, despite mobile phones being general purpose computers, very few people go through the trouble of installing alternative OSes, and fewer still create and maintain them, a number that dwindles each time Google and the mobile industry succesfully create and popularise new technological restrictions. From the anti-competition POV, Google and the mobile industry have succesfully marginalised any and all Android competitors using anticompetitive tactics, not out of any merit. People only stick to Google Android because they're coerced to by the fact that WhatsApp refuses to work on Postmarket OS or Lineage OS.

That sounds like a circular claim, but I hope I made it clear that that vicious cycle exists, and exactly how and why the people who perpetuate it do so.

Legal Restrictions:
Due to the lack of legal clarity surrounding this it seems to be a hazard against commercial investment in reverse engineering efforts as well. AFAIK Sec.65A, 65B Sec.52(1)(aa),(ab),(ac),(ad) of the Indian Copyright Act, 2012 have not been well-tested in Indian courts as of writing, specifically for scenarios like these.

@Derpitron the least troublesome angle is banking apps, if netbanking works and the option of a rsa or yubikey authenticator exists. As long as the web exists.

The problem with everything else is that they are app-only. And, with LLMs, browsing is also through an app or service now.

@Life is Tetris Do any Indian banks support yubikey/rsa authentication? Many banks here use only SMS/their app for 2fa and UPI.

@Derpitron Yes, Waydroid can help us bridge the app gap to a large extend, and some can be bridged with web apps - for example Uber. But the more crucial part is convincing people to take this jump. I only use android apps via Waydroid on Furiphone FLX1 (I also have a Purism Librem 5 without waydroid). I don't use an android phone. *99# used to work for most common UPI needs (it broke for Federal bank since last month and I just updated my ICICI bank account with my airtel number to continue using it) and cash + card can fill the gaps and in emergency cases depending on friends and family. See https://wiki.fsci.in/NUUP for this option.

@Pirate Praveen From a legal standpoint* we are absolutely legally allowed to hack apps to get them running on OSes and devices we want, and we are legally allowed to hack any TPM that tries to stop us from doing so.

However EULAs (which are just contracts of adhesion you "agree" to by downloading, clicking, buying, scrolling, or using software) are unclear in the law. software EULAs subordinate Doctrine of First Sale, the very notion of software ownership-vs-licensing, and Sec.52 fair dealing rights, but also, EULAs can't subordinate Sec.52 rights? Nearly all proprietary software employs these restrictive EULAs especially on mobile phones nowadays, to the extent that it threatens the very idea of owning software you purchase, directly (like MatLab) or indirectly (like Android, which comes with your phone). And this bodes threateningly for any justification of restricting the openness of tech on the basis of "you don't have legal ownership anyway". They actively take away our ownership, and then they say we never had a right in the first place because we don't own it..

*I'm aware of the technical, awareness, etc matters involved in these. But I do believe the legal aspect is important for people to know, especially so they have an idea of what obscure laws/precedents exist that might threaten them. Somebody could launch (or have launched against them) a court case regarding this to clear it up. If there is legal clarity, it sets a free ground for awareness and technical effort from then on.

@Pirate Praveen If you are looking into fighting this in court/discussing it with regulators I highly recommend you read up about this judgement: [1] and its' implications.

Basically it means if consumers legally obtain software under proprietary licenses that restrict their rights/abilities, they don't even get ownership of the software itself! This is an explicit exception to the Doctrine of First Sale (that gives ultimate copyright over to the purchaser of a good) and allows EULAs to restrict consumer rights and ownership itself, completely ignoring Sec.52(1)(ab), consumer rights, fair use, etc. Even if we have a "right" under the Copyright Act, if we sign a restrictive EULA we lose that right wrt. that software. That is the precedent, though it is disputed here: [2] and nobody seems to have recognised this judgement in the software rights debate.

I can't overstate how awful of a precedent that is, and I have good reason to think it's the innermost source of all of the software rights issues. Thus, if we want to make a change, we have to change the regulatory framework or get a new court precedent that renders EULAs no longer enforcable in court, because they are unconscionable, anticompetitive, anticonsumer, unilateral, and onerous. We could justify it using the judgement [2]

[1] https://spicyip.com/2021/03/supreme-court-recognises-doctrine-of-copyright-exhaustion-in-softwares-and-its-subservience-to-eulas.html
[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164343914/#:~:text=17,anyone,-%2E%20The

@Derpitron Probably HSBC, but probably not bring-your-own-key.