The core issue is not "Google not allowing a feature", it's that small businesses cannot buy phones, install a patched version of Android without a restriction and sell them to make money.
Until this problem is solved, everything else is palliative.
When it comes to running patched operating systems, Google's phones are pretty much the only ones that provide a decent option for running secure and user-controlled firmware. It's every other vendor, from Apple to Xiaomi, that's preventing people from doing so.
That said, there are a few companies out there that will happily put your brand and your firmware on their hardware. That's how the Trump Phone was made, the biggest example of this practice in the west. Other utility brands have been releasing cheap crap branded phones for years (like the Gigaset smartphone). You'll need money upfront and a decent minimum order quantity, but getting phones with firmware you control straight from the factory is still an option.
Obviously the Google Play features being available only to Google are a problem, and it's good that the EU is forcing Google to cut the crap, but Google's restrictions aren't the reason companies aren't running custom ROMs. It's pretty much everyone but Google that's at fault for that, from vendors restricting user freedom to app developers restricting their apps to Google Play certified devices only.
I don't think it's high volume, I think this is done by some of the microg folks.
But OEMs probably do everything in their power to make this business model unviable or at least not scale.
Pardon my ignorance; but why would Android need to be patched? Is it because it wouldn't run on the phone hardware otherwise?
Because those 11 features mentioned in the OP post need to be unlocked.
DMCA and other anti-circumvention regulations.
Some of the ones that seem unlockable are actually not unlockable in practice. Like Xiaomi which provides an unlock option that doesn't work unless you work for Xiaomi.
Hopefully the hardware vendor GrapheneOS is working with can add a second product line to the list.
Please stop parroting surveillance tech company's narratives.
To what end? Do you think that kind of approach convinces anyone?
There is no "fake android," either. Your whole argument is based on two false premises.
Besides, depending on the actual OSI license, you can definitely have bootlegs if you really care to argue.
A bootleg does not need to be exploited commercially. It can just be counterfeit.
I am not insulting you. I am telling you that you are being overly pedantic while being wrong at the same time. You might find this difficult to accept but I'm just calling it.
> I said bootleg Android didnt I?
And you're still doing it. Just let it go. It doesn't matter, your argument is wrong either way.
Also, please stop insulting me.
If your worry is about phone-home, no need to mention Android specifically. This happens with all off the shelf phones. Point is about a phone that has an OS that looks like what you would expect and just doesn't do what you expect. Obviously you didn't understand what I had written so I had to call you on that. You may feel insulted, does not mean that I am insulting you.
Anyway, just so that it is clear. Probably should end the conversation here so no one feels insulted any further.
No, my first comment is this:
> Everyone who buys an Android phone. This is about the opposite, an option to buy a phone that does not do that.
It doesn't say anything about "bootleg."
> Obviously you didn't understand what I had written so I had to call you on that
Again, please stop insulting me.
> You may feel insulted, does not mean that I am insulting you.
Look, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's really difficult. Do you genuinely not understand that the following things you said are insulting?
"So pedantic, you must be fun at parties."
"you are being overly pedantic while being wrong at the same time. You might find this difficult to accept but I'm just calling it."
I do understand that some people lack social awareness and therefore don't understand when they are being insulting, so it's possible that you genuinely do not realize how you come across. I am telling you now, though, that saying things like these is, in fact, insulting, regardless of your intent. So if you genuinely did not intend to insult me, I hope you will now stop writing stuff like that.
What you do not seem to understand is that with a normal Android distribution, you expect a phone home tied to the manufacturer of your phone.
Matter fact, as I pointed to you but you conveniently ignored, it does not have to be an 'Android' phone. It is the same for Apple and their iphones and pretty much all off the shelf phones. Not need to single out Android if your point is not about the fact that I said 'bootleg' Android...
With a bootleg Android, you forego any security, beyond the phone home. ANd you wouldn't even find someone to speak to about it. What is so difficult to understand?