Android originally has been intended to be way more "open" compared to the totally closed down iOS platform. However... Google seems to increasingly walking the path of Apple and it seems they was able to go one step further into becoming a "alternate Apple". Ultimately, no matter iOS or Android, both are proprietary platforms, with one of them currently still a bit more "open"... yet it may slowly become locked down as well.

I think, as long as a OS is inside the hands of a "megacorp" the users will never be free but because of the unchallenged influence of those megacorps, basically controlling the App-market about the same way Microsoft is controlling the PC-game market, there is not really any "way out". The users are dependent on those Apps... or games... this is the way how to avoid new more open platforms being able to bloom.

Simply have to gain control toward a certain non-avoidable ecosystem, which is bound to a certain to some extend proprietary system and there is almost no way out anymore. Most people may enjoy it because some big power is "holding their hands and is setting up any laws or rules for them"; yet... some minor user-base surely is not happy about, because they simply will lose a lot of freedom.

Yes it is true, in theory at least... Android at its very core is a "open OS", so not proprietary. Although, it is nowadays bundled with so many proprietary "add-ons" along with a proprietary ecosystem on many spots, that it nowadays can be seen as a kinda "proprietary system". Android may be able to run by itself but it will then become nothing more than a OS, without any Apps anymore. No matter what, Android is already so strongly "connected" to this ecosystem that it is nearly impossible running it "independent", without some hard overhaul that may even break this OS as it has been developed with all those proprietary "add ons" in mind. So, Google slowly is succeeding making something at its base non proprietary now proprietary, and this is surely not a coincidence.

Not sure if it's the MAIN reason, but it's still a harsh blow. I don't like when Microsoft asks to sign up with a Windows Account, when Steam requires DRM, when Android needs a google account to work. They just track you down and sell your data.

Well, on my Android phone, I am extra diligent in removing the Google account from the phone immediately once I do everything I need it for (like downloading/updating an app from the store). Luckily, it's still not mandatory to operate the phone, but I have a feeling that is going to end sooner rather than later.

Might be a totally ignorant thing to say, but this self-regulation sounds like a good idea to me.

Very recently, software developers call themselves "engineers" and are given a lot of salary and privilege. But almost entirely without the public accountability and standards that other traditional professional engineers are held to.

My personal name is searchable and if I fuck up badly, my career's done. But if these guys fuck up, then it's a simple rebranding and they can continue as-is. I understand software isn't as consequential to the public, relatively, but this is a good start that adds greater credibility to their profession, especially since it's largely gone unregulated for decades.

*cue the impending anti-gov't/regulation and responses*

Believe it or not Government issued phones are the worse culprit. Those are pre-packaged with a bundle of mandatory Google apps. Some of which are hard to un-install, if at all possible.

On a slightly different note, back in the early 00s I remember a virus (or was it my own incompetence?) that removed the IE icon from the Desktop. And I thought to myself "I can no longer browse the web". I didn't understand that it was still in a folder. I think for the masses, they need the reassurance. But the price is their privacy. Not a good trade-off if you ask me.

Step 1: Don’t use Android.

Done. That’s the whole process.

Suggest an alternative.

Requirement: Said alternative must run on readily available phone hardware, and must allow for placing and receiving calls. Also, it must be well maintained.

I'd suggest a PC.
But that's just because I don't use my phone for anything more than web-browsing. I can't relate. My phone is a walkman and a 2FA.

My phone can send and receive calls without any kind of operating system. So the alternative I use is really simple: none. Making it even better than well maintained: it does not require any kind of maintenance.

Well this "self"-regulation would be a good idea - if Google enforced it on the Play Store and the Play Store only.

But here's the kicker, they want to enforce it on ALL OF ANDROID. If you didn't know, Android is a system that lets you sideload apps from outside Google Play, either as APKs from a website of your choice like GitHub or itch.io, or through other app stores like F-Droid. It's kind of like Windows. The whole point of being able to sideload apps ever since the feature was introduced very early on in Android is that I can install whatever I want without anyone's permission but of course I'd be responsible for my actions. If Microsoft did all of this we won't be hearing the end of it.

So yeah obviously I'm against it as its scope is too broad and changes a fundamental aspect of Android, one of many reasons why I consistently choose Android phones over iOS.

That was forseeable. F big tech companies. The way Android was going it's ironic to suggest to use Linux OS.

For everyone reading there are Alternatives and they are Community-driven.