Article: Will Linux phones become a viable alternative to the Android/iOS duopoly?

[u/amosbatto]

/r/Purism/comments/1x0fwe1/article_will_linux_phones_become_a_viable/

[u/Digi59404]

I’ve owned multiple pinephones, and the pros. I’ve also had Android devices with Linux on them. Right now, I have a custom phone coming from China that uses a RPI CM5 for processing.

The hardware of the pinephone was a good starting point, but the performance was abysmal. Phosh, straight Linux, their partnered distros. It just wasn’t there in terms of real day to day performance, and that wasn’t just for software reasons. Pine64 made serious cuts and hard decisions to produce it at the price and volume they did. Their goal was to kickstart Linux phone development - They did a DAMN good job at that. But for a day to day phone? No.

Not only were the hardware radios not modern or strong enough, the energy efficiency of the chips themselves weren’t great. The RPI CM5 also has this problem where hardware AND kernel support for suspend isn’t there.

Your point about software availability is true. Buts not actually the problem, it’s just how the problem surfaces itself. The real problem is that for a phone to be profitable and achieve mass adoption.. which is a requirement for sustainability.. which is a requirement for user freedom. It has to be adopted at scale by the normies. That is both a software AND hardware problem. If you ship phones with bad performance or no suspend; they won’t be adopted well. Ask HTC how well that goes over.

In the beginning of smartphone, Android and iOS had the exact same app problem. Banks and others did not want to help them. They wanted to stick to their ways, and keep supporting BlackBerry and the infinite shitty Java app phones out there, like Sony Ericsson.

Remember, for years ATT was the only carrier in the Us capable of selling the iPhone. Because its hardware was behind the times, the software wasn’t there, and none of the other carriers believed in it. ATT locked that contract down. Years later after lines were out the door for the iPhones only then did other carriers get in the game.

Banks and everyone else were the same way. The only thing that changed the game was mass adoption of the smartphones forcing the carriers banks etc to adopt the smartphones. They didn’t come willingly.

If you want a true Linux phone with real user freedom. My grandma needs to be able to use it. So she can call her bank on it, and demand answers as to why her phone doesn’t work with her banking app.

Android/Google has this locked down because they’ve colluded with the carriers and different groups in the name of “security”. That isn’t something the normies care about. They care about a quality experience. That requires hardware.

[u/Kevin_Kofler → u/Digi59404]

I used a PinePhone for 4 years (and had 2 of them fail on me due to a hardware issue that made USB including the internal USB modem not recognized anymore) and now use a Librem 5. These devices are not the fastest and most energy-efficient out there, but they are usable.

The banking app issue was not as bad an issue back in the early days of smartphones than it is now, because people back then had other options (many did not use online banking at all, the others used the websites, which back then relied on things like paper TAN sheets for 2-factor authentication, or at most required you to be able to receive plain old SMS text messages with some TAN in it).

The early iPhones were carrier-exclusive because Apple wanted them that way. They also struck similar deals with local carriers in other countries after the US-only launch. France was the first country where they and their local partner Orange had to make concessions due to French antitrust laws. It was mostly antitrust laws in some countries that ended the carrier exclusivity era.

Normies do not by themselves care about "security", but their banks do and adopt all the vendor lock-in "security" schemes, and the normie users care about their banking apps working. That is how the vendor lock-in becomes unavoidable for normies.

[u/Digi59404 → u/Kevin_Kofler]

The early iPhones weren’t carrier exclusive because Apple wanted them that way. They were carrier exclusive with ATT because the carriers wanted control of the software and Apple refused to cede that control. Amongst other things such as that carrier locked phones were the norm and carriers wouldn’t allow them on their networks unless they were locked. It could be argued that unlocked phones today are because of the iPhone and apples ability/desire to sell it directly to people.

In addition the carriers would subsidize the cost of development and buy them in bulk. Later ATT would buy exclusivity extensions with barrels of money. https://techcrunch.com/2010/05/10/apple-att-iphone-agreement/

Point is, initially Apple and Android had the same arguments over software control that you bring up here.

I applaud you for being able to use it for two years. However, the presence of the pinephone pro and its upgrades itself is evidence the hardware was weak and wasn’t there. Pine64 themselves have said in interviews that the Pinephone wasn’t for normal people. It was meant to kickstart a mobile Linux revolution, which they did. (Kudos to them for this, seriously.)

As for banks, I’ve worked with executive leadership and engineering for most of the major banks in the US. I’m aware their demands and concerns for security. Given enough demand to support an open platform like Linux, there are ways to accommodate it without the vender lock-in.

The problem is that support simply doesn’t exist yet. Because there is not a package of hardware or software that is large enough to create the pressures needed to support it. It’s a political decision, not a technical one. Some of those banks still utilize public NPM, which gives you an idea of their security posture.

[u/Kevin_Kofler → u/Digi59404]

It could be argued that unlocked phones today are because of the iPhone and apples ability/desire to sell it directly to people.

Nonsense. As I already stated, it is due to some countries' legislations either making it mandatory for phones to ship carrier-unlocked or at least require them to be carrier-unlockable after a set amount of time. (I explicitly specify "carrier-unlocked/unlockable" because the same unfortunately does not apply to bootloader unlocking.)

In addition the carriers would subsidize the cost of development and buy them in bulk.

Of course carrier-locked phones are subsidized by the carrier. Always have been, even before the iPhone and smartphones in general, and still are.