Nope. No reason that you should pay $1000 for a device and not, at the very least, be able to exert administrative control over it.
We wouldn’t accept this from Microsoft.
Should side loading be discouraged and warned about? Yes. Should it be impossible? Maybe through “parental” controls or MDM, but absolutely not out-of-the-box.
FreeBooteR69@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
All bootloaders should be able to be unlocked and able to install the OS of your choice. Also you should be able to choose whatever app store you want. It is your hardware, you payed for it.
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
If you want a customizable phone, yes. If you want a secured phone, no.
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 5 weeks ago
Apple’s software is malware
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
How so?
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Except Google is trying to limit this on Android phones as well (e.g. with SafetyNet).
If manufacturers had their way, there wouldn’t be any phones for one side.
Zak@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
There’s nothing stopping manufacturers from permanently locking the bootloader. Some do and others don’t suggesting that the industry does not have a universal preference.
I do think Google wants it to be inconvenient enough to run a version of Android they haven’t blessed as one’s main phone that it has no chance to become mainstream, but that’s about the prospect of an OEM not bundling Google’s apps and store, not hobbyists running custom builds. If that sounds like an attempt to use market power to exclude competitors in violation of fair trading laws in a multitude of jurisdictions, you might be on to something.