The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, or CIPPIC, is described as “Canada‘s first and only public interest technology law clinic” and is operated out of University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law
Peter Nowak is also covering this at his substack.
Then focus on forcing all Android devices to be totally unlocked and let consumers decide whether they want a freedom-based and chaotic ecosystem, or a locked-down and orderly ecosystem.
I mean, isn’t the free market all about letting consumers decide?
And if sideloading and unlocked bootloaders were so vital to consumers, wouldn’t those manufacturers making those devices be seeing overwhelming market demand?
The point being, bootloaders are locked for security reasons, and to maintain separation between warranty concerns. That’s why most Android devices with unlockable bootloaders require OEM codes, such that warranties on those devices can be invalidated due to no longer being within the provider’s control. It would be moronic for any manufacturer to warranty anything that is not within their control.
And look at that: less than 1% of Android phones currently being used have said directly-unlockable bootloaders. And the availability of phones with directly-unlockable bootloaders has been shrinking rapidly as of late. I wonder how many of those have actually been unlocked.
Honestly, I am not seeing any material consumer demand for said directly-unlocked phones, otherwise manufacturers would have those phones as permanent best-sellers and seek to make more of the same.
I don’t know if it’s different in the rest of the world. And I don’t know if it’s changed in the 7 years since I last worked in the industry, but in Canada, you cannot invalidate a hardware warranty based on the software that’s installed. If your phone’s speaker dies, it’s a hardware issue and the warranty is impelled to cover it.
Software can most certainly drive hardware beyond its specs, resulting in physical damage.
Just try and tune a brand-new vehicle with third-party software, and then try to get warranty work done on a related part that broke. The manufacturer can and will successfully deny that warranty based on how that tune had the capability to drive the part beyond spec, thereby directly causing the failure… my BiL works at a dealership and has seen it happen dozens of times. Even skipping software updates can run the risk of voiding your vehicle’s warranty these days, when said updates are meant to correct software that doesn’t control the hardware correctly.
Phones are no different. If your custom OS has the ability to drive a speaker to volumes that are beyond its spec, that invalidates the warranty even if you never drove the volume that high. Manufacturers don’t have to prove that you actually did (and how can they, when it’s no longer their software that’s in control?), only that the custom software made it possible to do so. It’s up to you to then prove that you never did, and good luck with that.
The big manufacturers can bulk buy all the factory space to make the best chips. People are chasing specs over freedom.
People certainly don’t believe that corporate schilling when it comes to home computers and cars.
Also why are you letting ai do the thinking for you in that second link?
Show me a single desktop/laptop computer manufacturer - aside from Apple - that deeply ties the software to the hardware.
Phones are different because the OS needs to be closely tweaked to work properly (and I would argue more specifically, functionally) on the phone. It’s why releases of custom ROMs are so model-specific. You cannot take a ROM for a Pixel XL and expect it to even boot on a Pixel 4 XL, much less a OnePlus. That kind of deep integration involves many specific settings because hardware is so wildly varied between models.
And car manufacturers can and do invalidate warranties based on software… a brand-new vehicle that has been “tuned” can and will have the warranty for a broken part invalidated if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the custom tuning software installed merely had the capability to affect the part in question. Since it’s not their software, they have no control over it to prevent it from driving the part beyond spec and breaking the part in question. Therefore, the onus is on the owner to prove that they never drove the vehicle such that the tune pushed the part beyond spec, and since you cannot prove a negative, good luck with that.
My BiL works at a dealership, and has seen many dozens of cases over the years where a warranty on a tune, chipped, delete, or software-modded vehicle was successfully denied. Hell, these days even software updates failing to be installed can cause a warranty to be denied if said updates correct a manufacturer’s mistake in the currently-installed software.
Because according to several different search engines, no-one has ever published any kind of answer to this kind of a question. The sales data is publicly available for each model, but nothing in aggregate when presented against the entire Android ecosystem.
Now granted, my view on AI is exceedingly dim. Even I take its answers at much more than arm’s length. But after poking at the sales figures for select models and comparing them against that of the entire ecosystem, I found its answer to be reasonably rational enough to be linked to.