While your statement is technically correct, the number of users falling into that category, and would go the extra effort to ensure a non-commercialized day to day phone is usable, is infinitesimally small. Most users embrace the convenience associated with the commercial solution.
This will be a tiny niche phone
If I buy a phone from you, and then download an app that bricks it, I want my money back from you.
Yes, you can argue that I'm responsible for that, but consumer protection laws will apply, and there's going to be a court case, possibly even a class action suit. Too many uneducated users who refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. Yes, it's not ideal, but this is how people are.
Your response has at some point got to include vetting the software that your users can download onto their phone, for purely financial reasons.
If I buy a laptop, and then install Linux on it, and download a malicious package and install it, then that's on me. If someone buys a Dell laptop and downloads a malicious application and installs it, then Dell support gets to deal with that problem. After a while, Dell is going to install some software by default to help with this, and spy on what users have been doing purely so that if they mess up then Dell can help. Eventually this happens enough and Windows gets an app store, and fairly soon after a version of Windows that can only install apps via the app store.
This is not about control for control's sake, or revenue (except saving support costs). This is about protecting people from themselves.
But sure, if Pine can put a big sticker on the phone saying "do not install anything on this phone" and make that legally binding, then they won't need an app store.
App distributiors are distributing malware. The vendors and the app developers are spying on you because it's profitable to sell your data. They keep walled gardens so that they get their 30% cut of every transaction. They are doing it in the service of their financial interests, which also motivates everything else they do.
The idea that they're doing it out of some kind of charitable desire to keep the user's phone working is ridiculous.
Yes. So what?
I will be more direct for your benefit.
Not only are you wrong. You’re wrong on a scale so large, 100 years ago the average person had never thought of numbers that high.
Not only is the commercial App Store system working for users, it’s working for billions of them. Billions of humans are cool with it.
Your “open App Store” concept works for so few people, as to hardly be compared in the same breath.
Now, the more general argument about the "commercial app store model not working" is utterly ridiculous - you can't make any useful generalizations with a sample size of 2. (actually, Steam seems to be doing pretty well - I rarely hear people complaining about it, and it's a commercial app store)
> Not only are you wrong. You’re wrong on a scale so large, 100 years ago the average person had never thought of numbers that high.
...is an amazing comeback, that I will be taking.
Are Google and Apple's implementations of the concept bad? Yes. But it's not very difficult to separate out the traits of the implementations with the traits of the idea. Steam seems to be doing very well, and as a user of that platform, they are executing it pretty well.
Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before trying to speak for others.
My argument boils down to "Perfect is the enemy of good"