[G2 and Desire Z Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] flarbear:
I am serious, and I am not dead wrong. You are making another bad analogy and misunderstanding at least part of my point. I am not telling people to stop asking for open phones - I myself am asking for it. I am asking people to stop being ineffective in the way that they ask for this because, frankly, the form of your requests is a bunch of ignorant whining based on an imagined right that the industry (and very few other agents that might step in to help us) recognize. If you understand what the basic principles are here, then perhaps you will start making the moves that will actually result in more open phones being released.

There were a few reasons why Linux is now available on some (not all) computers:

- Customers who did not want Windows became vocal with their needs and the lock-in on shipping Windows became big enough news to get some attention.

- There were options available to get a box that never had Windows on it - typically it would involve building your own box from the ground up which was not a viable option for every computer user, but it was available and those who really cared about this issue opted to take that route.

- Windows came pre-loaded on a general computing device which was sold with an implied expectation that someone could load another OS (as a replacement, or dual boot) if they wanted. It was a different type of device with a different environment of expectations.

- Windows could be replaced, it was simply provided "as a volume purchased convenience" and people were fighting for the ability to avoid subsidizing that volume purchase, not for the ability to replace the software - they already could replace the OS as was appropriate for that class of device.

- There had been some shady business dealings in the way that Windows was essentially forced onto computers that came to light because of the above fight. Once the business models changed it was easier to provide the option. Note that volume deals for Windows did not end, but a few particulars about how they are set up changed.

- At no time was there a mandate that computer manufacturers *must* provide Linux as an option - it was a business move. At best, there became a mandate that they must not be forced to require Windows, but it is still largely their choice to provide Linux. Even today not every computer is necessarily available with that option, but it has become fashionable to provide the option and it is increasingly common.

In this case we are buying a phone. It is an electronic device intended for making phone calls and running productivity apps which happens to be built on a general computing platform. It would be nice if every manufacturer would give us the raw power of that platform, but it is not a pre-determined expectation with any sort of precedent in this corner of the industry.

It is built on open software, but the target of the open software wasn't reserved specifically for us. It was primarily targeted at making it "open for manufacturers" to build the devices that would level the playing field for Google and make the devices cheaper by reducing or eliminating licensing fees. Google also "wants" us end users to be able to customize our OS (as can be seen by the open-ness of the phones they provided directly), but they don't want to force that particular form of open-ness on the manufacturers because they don't want any barriers for manufacturing adoption. They want to make Android attractive to manufacturers and this particular added expectation isn't in that best interest in today's climate.

We need to change that climate. We need to make it fashionable. We aren't going to get anywhere telling manufacturers that they got it wrong because it has no legal merit nor popular traction to support it. Google offered the world a way to send a clear message to carriers and manufacturers that we weren't going to stand for having our phones be closed when they started marketing the Nexus One. I bought one. I supported that effort. I did my bit to support opening up phones in the only really effective way available to us. I never even personally rooted it, but I wanted to buy one because I think that is a very laudable goal (it didn't hurt that it was a cool phone - at the time - as well).

I also happen to have bought a G2 because it is, by and large, a better phone than the N1 in many ways that matter to me on a day to day basis. It's closed and I accept the legality and the right of the manufacturer to make it that way. I didn't get it right away because I still stood behind my N1 and the principles it stood for. But, in the end, I need a phone that works and I'm not 100% willing to sacrifice on some of the broken design details of the N1 for these principles. Besides, buying a G2 at least sends the "please make more Android phones of whatever form" message, if not the specific "and please make them open" additional concern.

It can't hurt to make it public that manufacturers are locking in the OS, but when you write it in a form that presumes that they have no right to do that then you are shooting your message in the foot because there is no such rule. Simply point out that the practice limits the options for end-users and target them to start asking for open phones and buying them when they find them. Then you will get traction. Shaking fingers at the manufacturers just makes you easy to dismiss as a fanatic.

In short - whining is not a solution, purchasing habits are. If there is some legal discrepancy in the way someone is violating the letter of some law or licensing agreement, then let's identify that and put it on the table if we can, but don't just whine incoherently about "open means doing what I want" because you aren't making an effective argument and the more you convince others that buying a G2 and whining about its NAND lock is an appropriate tactic the more you water down the real strategy...