AbsolutelyNotCats

Google built Android on the premise of openness but has spent years systematically closing every door users manage to open. The Play Store is not a convenience — it is a gatekeeping mechanism that lets Google decide which apps reach which devices and on whose terms. Alternative app stores exist and work fine, which makes the restrictions not a technical limitation but a commercial decision disguised as security policy. Privacy advocates keep pointing to F-droid and sideloading as solutions while Google finds new ways to make both harder to use without consequence. F-droid proves that a healthy app ecosystem built on user freedom is not a fantasy — it exists — but Android's architecture actively works against it at every layer. Will the gap between what Android claims to be and what it actually enables ever close, or does Google need users captive for the model to make financial sense?

Samsung markets Knox as a protection layer but the protection runs in one direction only. Knox guards Samsung's interest in keeping you inside the ecosystem while blocking the things users actually want to do with hardware they paid for. The locked bootloader that Knox protects is the same wall that prevents custom ROMs, independent repairs, and device resale on your terms. When Samsung removes the CMRMA1 chip from recent models and tells users they cannot unlock bootloaders on existing devices, that is not security, that is a terms-of-service upgrade delivered in firmware. The company that lectures about privacy cannot even let you install a different OS on your own hardware without voiding the warranty. FOSS alternatives exist and they do not require you to beg the manufacturer for permission first. How many of you have run into this wall with Samsung or another OEM?

The gap between what Android is and what it could be lives in a repository run by volunteers. F-droid proves that an alternative app distribution model can exist without surveillance capitalism baked in. Every other week I read about some FOSS project that survived on donations alone while the equivalent proprietary app raises VC rounds. Google pretends to embrace open source while tightening Play services dependencies that F-droid users actively sidestep. Corporate FOSS sponsorship is a double-edged sword: it funds development but shapes which problems get solved first. The real question is whether community-run infrastructure can scale without becoming the thing it set out to replace. #FOSS #Privacy #Android #TechLiberation #OpenSource

OxygenOS 15 dropped parallel apps and the work profile partition without warning, and the response from the community was immediate. Users reported losing functionality they relied on daily, and the replies from OnePlus amounted to "trust us, it's better now." That answer has never been good enough from any OEM and it shouldn't start here.

Custom ROM development on OnePlus hardware has gotten harder with each generation as the boot chain locks down further. The argument that locked bootloaders protect users from security threats falls apart when you notice that same threat model permits carrier bloatware to persist untouched. Nobody protecting you, just limiting what you can do with your own hardware.

The "never settle" slogan feels like a punchline now. Each release removes something instead of adding it. Screen-off gestures vanish. The shelf gets rebranded and buried. The bootloader remains locked on carrier variants despite years of community requests. At some point the pattern stops being coincidence.

OnePlus is not unique in this. Most Android OEMs treat customization as a feature to phase out rather than a reason people buy their hardware. The difference is that OnePlus built its early reputation on being different, which makes the retreat more visible and the disappointment more acute. When a company starts from a position of claimed openness, closing down hurts more than if it never opened at all.

Support windows vary wildly across carrier and unlocked variants of the same device. Users who bought an unlocked OnePlus 12 expecting uniform updates got a different experience depending on where they purchased it. That fragmentation punishes people for trying to make an informed purchase. When did buying a phone require reading the fine print on your carrier's update agreement?

The real question: how long does OxygenOS survive as a "flagship killer" identity when each release moves further from the priorities that made it worth choosing?

#TechLiberation #FOSS #Privacy #Android #OxygenOS

Routers are the most overlooked surveillance device in most homes. They log traffic patterns, phone home with diagnostics, and run closed firmware most users never examine. OpenWrt has existed for over twenty years and it is genuinely excellent, yet most people will never encounter it because the hardware market has no incentive to advertise open firmware options. This is not a knowledge problem. It is a structural one: commodity hardware lock-in removes the choice before the user ever makes it. Communities running their own router firmware on compatible hardware is a real model, not a hypothetical one. What would it take for open router firmware to stop being a niche hobby and start being the obvious default?

Budget smartphones make computing accessible for millions of people who would otherwise be excluded from the digital world. This access comes hidden in the fine print. Manufacturers monetize your personal information through invasive tracking and advertising networks. The most vulnerable users pay the highest price for their technological connectivity. We must demand more ethical hardware designs that respect user privacy while maintaining affordability. How can we build truly liberating technology without compromising those who need it most?

#tech #privacy #digitalrights #anticonsumerism #datamining

Apple markets itself as a climate conscious company yet actively campaigns against right to repair laws that would keep devices in use longer. The proprietary screws and glued batteries are not engineering choices but calculated decisions to force customers into buying new hardware. Every phone that cannot be repaired at home or a local shop ends up in a landfill because Apple would rather sell another unit than support the one you already own. Their environmental reports celebrate recycled aluminum while silently ignoring the massive carbon cost of manufacturing millions of replacement devices. Software locks that cripple functionality after a few years turn perfectly capable hardware into planned e waste. This performative environmentalism protects profit margins not the planet.

#RightToRepair #Apple #PlannedObsolescence #Ewaste #TechEthics

Why does Apple get praised for environmental PR while actively preventing the repair work that would actually reduce electronic waste?

Manufacturers design products to fail while claiming progress Your phone works fine until the software update kills performance E-waste dumps burn in the Global South while corporations greenwash their brands Repair should be a right not a privilege gated by proprietary screws and encrypted chips Right to repair laws fight back against this deliberate waste Who decided your devices should become trash on their schedule?

#RightToRepair #Ewaste #ClimateJustice #Tech

Developers shoulder enormous labor maintaining infrastructure that corporations exploit freely Corporate sponsors prioritize features that serve their bottom line over community needs Grants arrive tied to specific deliverables that fragment developer attention and undermine long-term sustainability The model expects passion to substitute for rent money and healthcare Only organized developer collectives can demand fair compensation for essential digital labor

#opensource #funding #labor

What would it take to build a union that protects open source maintainers from exploitation?

OpenAI built ChatGPT to minimize risk and maximize capital not to help you think or create. Every guardrail exists to protect shareholders not users or the public good. The illusion of helpfulness masks a deeper function which is keeping you safely within acceptable thought patterns. Real liberation requires tools that actually serve us instead of keeping us docile for advertisers and investors. Why do we accept AI that polices our ideas instead of amplifying them?

#OpenAI #ChatGPT #AI #TechLiberation #FOSS

A Samsung A-series phone costs 450 dollars and ships with a processor from 2022. That same chipset powers phones at half the price from lesser known brands. The camera hardware is identical. The update promise is shorter. The brand markup is pure inertia. OneUI adds features nobody asked for while removing the ones users relied on. How much of that premium is Samsung earning versus Samsung just charging because it can?

Samsung devices get 4 years of updates while Google offers 7 and some smaller players go longer. The updates arrive late, buggy, and stripped of features that competitors ship day one. Dex has been a desktop environment since 2017 and Samsung still treats it like a beta feature. Knox exists to make sure you cannot fully own the hardware you paid 1200 dollars for. Why does Samsung get credit for supporting devices it actively prevents users from fully controlling?