Hi Megi! Thank you for your great work to make the PinePhone so much better than it was when I got it!

(I was going to add a people "I want to thank for their hard work"-section to the post, but lacked the time to do it thoroughly and make sure I would not forget a major contributor, and therefore dropped that.)

The Firefox video there seems pretty misleading from my personal experience. I got a pinephone a couple of years ago with the intention of doing a little bit of development for it, and using it mostly as a handheld web browser and signal client. Even without plugging into an external monitor I found Firefox unusable for most my needs. With essentially any extensions it would grind to a halt. I don’t run a lot of extensions, but Firefox without ublock origin is essentially worthless to me, and with ublock origin enabled it would take Firefox tens of seconds to start, and several seconds to load a new tab. Scrolling on sites with a lot of images- especially infini-scrolling sites like Twitter was nearly impossible.

I really want to like the pine phone, but whether the fault is hardware or software the result is that it’s just not there for performance in my experience.

I’m hopeful that between the pine phone pro and a bit more time to optimize software it could be one day, but it seems a while off.

Incidentally I have basically the same complaint about the pinebook pro. It’s not unusable, but a very small amount of extra power would take it from being a secondary laptop I only pick up for fun to a real viable daily driver when paired with a powerful desktop.

Software optimization is never going to be solved.

Ultimately, software developers will ALWAYS stress the hardware to the limit. With labor saving software tools or else with performance hogging GUIs.

Simply put, devices need to keep up with the latest and greatest.

As a counter-argument, i don't understand how it's even legal to sell hardware without the proper manual and schematics.

If you're worried about competition, hardware specs is what fuels competition, both for hardware manufacturers (so clients can make an informed decision about what they buy) and for software vendors (so clients have a choice).

The software competition/interop problem is very well summed up in this article: https://www.haiku-os.org/blog/mmu_man/2021-10-04_ok_lenovo_w...

Just imagine if you bought a house and the schematics were under an NDA you have no access to. You would have to contract a specific company to perform any repairs/adjustments, and said company could proclaim your house EOL any day and stop providing support for the many cracks and leaks its bad designs created in the first place. That would be a nightmare situation, don't you agree? Why is the equivalent supposed to be acceptable when it comes to phones?

> Unfortunately, this seems to be a common line of thinking, not least within the EU corridors of power themselves: Instead of nurturing competition and their own tech industry or create an environment where such an industry can thrive, they somehow try to regulate it into being.

Then why haven't "vendors [..] capable of producing decent hardware to run Linux on" sprung up in the unfettered entrepreneurial utopias of Shenzhen or SV?

This has nothing to do with Europe's (very real) difficulties in establishing a local tech industry. The OP wished for the EU to enforce the opening of phone hardware because he does not see any path for this to happen organically anywhere, and the EU happens to be the only entity that might be both capable and willing to knock down technological moats.

> Instead of nurturing competition and their own tech industry or create an environment where such an industry can thrive, they somehow try to regulate it into being

Fair and efficient markets don't exist in a vacuum.

In a free-for-all, everyone would be insider trading, stealing, and defrauding.

Integrated, non-modular technology platforms are not competitive marketplaces. You cannot introduce a competitor to the Apple App store or iOS because it's a monopolistic integrated platform.

Society has to continually keep creating laws that turn non-marketplaces into marketplaces. Just as it has always done.

According to Adam Smith himself, competition only works in well-defined markets. Creating a phone, as it stands today require being a hardware vendor yourself, or ordering in such high quantities that hardware vendors would actually care about you, while simultaneously you are a huge software vendor who simultaneously managed to capture enough users to make it worthwhile for third-parties to target the platform.

Remember, not even Microsoft managed to pull it off and not for lack of money or try. There is simply an inherent local minima/maxima for these 2 platforms.

How do we expect a third competitor to show up? It’s like expecting a 4 years old girl to compete with heavy-weight MMA champions. The rules around a market are the only reason capitalism could work, otherwise we would only have paper-clip machines sacrificing everything for profit.

> Instead of nurturing competition ... regulate it into being.

Regulation is exactly how you nurture competition. That's what a government is supposed to do.

Instead the US not only allowed but actively encouraged the google/apple duopoly to control the whole market.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture for clarification.

IMO it's more of a question about e-waste and sustainability. the moment a vendor stops providing updates, they should have to open the hardware to be flashed with other operating systems