upvote
>For example, non-Samsung Android OEMs aren't allowed to directly sell devices with GrapheneOS and Google will only permit it within a quota. It can and is being worked around and there will be devices sold with GrapheneOS as the stock OS without Google restricting how many can be sold.

I think at this point is too late for complicity, they are actively fighting against GrapheneOS anyway. You either fight back, or wait until you loose all the leverage

reply
My point isn't about fighting back vs rolling over. Just that it doesn't achieve anything to guess at why Google did a certain thing.

Edit: Maybe you replied to the wrong comment? I didn't say anything about complicity and neither did the GrapheneOS announcement in the part I quoted.

reply
The quote is from another thread, not sure why GP didn't link their source to avoid this confusion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49946698
reply
>best not to

Because? The obvious implication is you're saying Google will abuse their monopoly to hurt you if you upset them. Is that what you're implying? Or is it user trust, or something else you think is improved by avoiding such speculation?

reply
I was actually just implying that it looks unprofessional. Say they cut an important security feature. Don't try to guess why.
reply
It entirely depends on the strategy you try to implement through your communication.

That is generally true: prior to any professional communication you have a goal, assumptions, messaging, etc. Why would you produce communication at all, if you had not?

Marketing people often think there is a cookie-cutter rulebook you should follow, but there is not.

We are living in the "the bird is freed" and "nice genes" era of corporate communication.

reply
Well you clearly didn't realise what you did.

Oh, and I'm not going to tell you what it was, and 'don't try to guess'.

/s

reply
I'm not entirely sure what I "did". Given that I don't do comms for a serious open source project, mind letting me in on your secret?
reply
Innuendo about how large organizations make decisions, issued by people who have never had a job, are de rigueur for open source activists and catnip for HN.
reply
I think cutting it for saving money is the most charitable explanation you can give, the other ones would look much worse for Google.
reply
Timeline pressure seems to me the most likely one, and that looks no worse than saving money.
reply
How could that be when previous models have it? In terms of timeline, it seems quicker not to remove a feature than to remove and test the new changes
reply