And as an OEM, you have the sources for those libraries. It's not the same situation as ripping them from the factory images of another vendor. They don't just get a package of binaries. They get a source tree to build the vendor image which is a mix of open source and NDA repos.
Conversation
Years ago, OEMs even got the source code for the Qualcomm baseband, but they stopped sharing it and allowing modifications. Anyways, SoC vendor choice becomes something in our control if we have our own hardware. It doesn't have to stay the same between generations either.
1
1
We can choose what we think is the least bad compromise and then that choice can change as the situation changes. We hardly have any issues AOSP and it has rapidly improving privacy/security itself. Our issues are with the OEMs (Google as the Pixel OEM) and their hw vendors.
1
1
I don't think targeting devices made by other vendors is viable in the long-term. I haven't thought it was viable after the first couple years working on this in 2014-2015. I quickly realized having our own hardware was crucial. If my business partner hadn't been a sociopathic
1
1
narcissist solely interested in making money via the path of least resistance and with no concern for ethics, perhaps we'd already be in the position where we'd have our own hardware platform. I do not really see much of a path forward ATM. I continue because I have to continue.
1
1
Need a hardware vendor that is security focused and wants to support AOSP with open source drivers. Not going to get that from Purism or Pine64. It will be even harder to accomplish anything of value and provide a secure phone that way. Doesn't get any closer to controlling own
1
1
destiny and not depending on incredibly flawed OEMs with incompatible goals. You're treating the device being made with using open source drivers as a core goal as if that's the hardest and most important aspect. It's one of many aspects, and is far from the hardest thing to do.
2
1
I am not saying purism/Librem5 should be the end goal but I think they are the current best case studies of small companies pulling off open-source-first hardware being very transparent about the process which is huge.
Gotta crawl before you can walk.
1
I don't see it that way at all. They're incredibly dishonest, not at all transparent, and do not really have the goal of making open hardware. They are explicitly anti-security and anti-privacy in many ways too. It's not a good hardware target and they won't ever make a good one.
2
1
Them sharing the trials of building devices at scale, thermal design, injection molding trials and iteration etc etc are all great case study info.
They don't need to have the exact same end goals to be a reference for new efforts.
1
They have drastically different goals with little overlap and I see far more harm than good being done.
I've had a enough of narcissistic sociopaths and dishonest, downright creepy companies. Have personal experience with them too, as do people I know.
I don't see anything they've shared that's at all useful for producing a device. Also not the only 2 projects like those.
I'll probably just end up finding a new profession not ruled by charlatans but til then I'll dream of working with others genuinely sharing the goals I have.