Microsoft will be selling games on Android next month, Epic will be next year. The solution is competition, and we can thank Tim Sweeney for finally making it happen on mobile.
Instead of forcing Google to do a thing they already do (allow alternative app stores on android), they could have banned them from distributing apps that require Google Play Services (i.e., all apps must run well on the open source version of android, which must be permissively license, and manufacturers would incur no penalties for shipping other mobile operating systems).
That would instantly open the android ecosystem up to competition by making AOSP (and things like Lineage/Graphene) viable competitors.
What the judge did ban is a bunch of things Google did you may not have even realized they were doing, like the terms in the MADA agreements all manufacturers like Samsung, LG, etc. were required to sign which prevented any competition and required Play Services. The judge also banned revenue sharing agreements with manufacturers and mobile carriers used to prevent companies from using different search engines or app stores.
Nobody, figuratively, will ever care about some custom ROMs. But the judge has broken all of the means Google was using to control device manufacturers.
2 reasons I can confidently disagree: 1. Unlike desktop platforms, most android devices cease receiving "official" updates long before the chipset stops receiving updates, thus maintaining them requires an alternative rom. While most people will just buy a new phone, the percent usually on the fence about something like switching from Windows to Linux are gonna be pushed harder into looking into alternatives. 2. Well over 1% of desktop users use Linux. Even if you debate the methods to get the current 4%, there's simply no debate on at least 1%.
The two combine to suggest that, on android, there's a very good change that more than 1% of android users are using some rom, and all roms help each other.
Don't screw up your otherwise valid argument by trying to "put tech nerds in their place" like that. These roms do matter, even if the judge 100% didn't "screw up". Everything else you said is both true and important, and probably matters more than what parent wanted, but it doesn't diminish the value of the roms, just suggests that parent was misguided.
Look, most Android devices are held by people who would be hard-pressed to tell you which model of phone they have, and almost certainly can't find the place to see what version of Android it is running.
Most people will use their tech until it breaks and then get something new and use it until it breaks, which is why automatic updates are pushed so aggressively now.
My personal opinion of roms is that because they do not offer freedom to the masses, it is elitist to focus on them. And insofar as choice in the ecosystem is, roms are actively harmful: They've wasted decades of volunteer developer-hours protecting Android's control of the ecosystem, when those developer-hours could've been invested in real mobile Linux or another option not encumbered by Google's proprietary stench.
I think it has to do with the difference between top-down and bottom-up perspective. Top-down politicians/regulators/courts/whatnot end up looking at these things of how they can be contained and controlled (regardless of how they will continue wielding the leverage that allows them to dominate their specific market), whereas bottom up we look at what it would actually take to actually create some competition (despite such attempts inherently looking like baby steps at the start).