Absolutely not. My standard is the many other AOSP-based ROMs communities and companies that were founded around them, having success within a few years - yes, they could lean on the ecosystem compatibility and didn't produce their own hardware, but maybe that's a more viable way to start?
"shoestring budget with no volume discounts" does not explain the points of criticism above.
Sailfish is spiritually MeeGo: actual Linux on the phone, not a custom skin on Google's foundations. Obviously it's faster to build a kit-car than a car factory, I don't see how that's a rebuttal, it's an entirely different conversation.
An AOSP fork on Qualcomm hardware isn't independence. Jolla are actually trying to build the factory.
The $50 fee and tablet scandal are fair hits- but fuck-ups don't make you a grifter, and we've forgiven larger players far worse.
You still haven't said what you'd actually do.
I think the chance of Google completely closing AOSP is pretty small, AOSP being open maintains a power equilibrium between Google and other OEMs. Closing up AOSP carries the huge risk that Samsung and some other big OEMs will fork it and Google has essentially lost the whole market overnight. I am pretty sure this is why Samsung phones also have the Galaxy Store with a bunch of apps like Netflix in it. The Galaxy Store is Samsung's subtle message to Google saying: don't try to rein us in, we can cut you out.
That said, even if Google closes AOSP, forking it and maintaining it as an open project is going to be far less work than brining Sailfish OS to the level of polish, security, etc. of AOSP.
But even if you insist on a non-AOSP way: Supporting any other, more well regarded projects and initiatives? Random top of my head idea: motivate Fairphone (Denmark) to adopt some non-android OS like Ubuntu Touch?
Because its existence relies on a good will of Google. See:
Google will allow only apps from verified developers to be installed on Android (9to5google.com)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028
and
GrapheneOS accessed Android security patches but not allowed to publish sources (grapheneos.social)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925
> Any large enough entity can fork.
Only megacorps will likely be able to support a hard fork for such a large codebase.
> Hundreds already did, successfully.
Which of them are hard forks? China will not be a benevolent dictator of AOSP
> Fairphone
It's Android again.
There are indeed non-Android alternatives, but not in Europe. I use Librem 5 btw.
AOSP is open source. Anyone can fork it.
>Google will allow only apps from verified developers
This is done by Play Services which is not included in AOSP even.
>Only megacorps will likely be able to support a hard fork for such a large codebase.
The same can be said about any operating system. The scope of an operating system is huge.
GNU/Linux is already supported without a (single) megacorp. So not all OSes have this problem.
Sailfish is more like GNU/Linux, that is the OS in this context. For Jolla that is less code to maintain themselves then what Google maintains in Android/Linux. Hard forking Android/Linux looks to be quite a big bite to chew on.
When millions of dollars support a feature, that feature beats others- even technically superior ones, on the basis of support and polish.
We’re all playing to the tune of what Google wants because Google has the power.
Imagine a world where theres no Linux because MacOS and Windows paid lip service to people using partially functional derivatives of their OS’s, they’d still push things like liquid ass and windows recall, and those features would be spidered in.
Then people would be saying “don’t use linux, you can just use WinCore” Even though using Wincore is aiding Windows commercial interests over those of the industry as a whole.