Bloatware hiện lỗi your device does not support block mode năm 2024

This is a step in the right direction for security/privacy, and I appreciate the effort, but ultimately you have no real control over your device if you are forced to use the proprietary OS that came with the phone. (Unfortunately this is the case with most Android phones, aside from the Google Pixel series, which allow custom versions of Android, like open-source GrapheneOS, to be installed.)

Fortunately, as of now, it seems most Android OEMs allow you to disable their bloatware with adb, but there's no reason they have to allow this, and they could easily block it with a software update.

Can you please link to somewhere it says that OEMs can't prevent adb from disabling system apps? They obviously can't disable adb entirely (because it's useful to Android developers), but they can probably add restrictions on top of it.

I don't see anything in there that requires `adb uninstall com.sony.foo` to work, for example?

The command should generally work, sure, but that doesn't appear to require the command should work for all stock package names.

Most of these devices don't "support" LineageOS though; rather, LineageOS supports them. As in, they are not designed to support custom OSes, but people make it work anyway through bootloader unlock exploits and other weird hacks, which may introduce security issues. Using hacks to install a custom open-source OS might be better than sticking with the proprietary one it came with, but ideally your device would natively support custom OSes.

This is not true for many, if not most of the devices on that list. You may have to jump through some hoops to unlock the bootloader but once that is done installing alternative distributions is no more difficult than installing a vendor distribution. Have a look at the installation instructions (click on a model and follow the 'Installation instructions' link in the header) to see how things are done for that model.

That may be true, but most of the devices on that list are either old or not devices people actually want to use. Apple, Samsung, Lenovo (Motorola), and LG combined make up 94% of the market share in the US, while others make up only 6% [1]. Of these, only Motorola seems to allow bootloader unlocking. Samsung locks bootloaders on all US smartphones (though international versions reportedly aren't locked) and uses proprietary "download mode" instead of fastboot mode.

[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

Going down the list:

- Apple: next...

- Samsung: supports unlocking the bootloader (enable developer options, enable OEM unlock, boot into download mode and follow the on-screen instructions for "Unlock Bootloader")

- LG: supports unlocking the bootloader (see http://developer.lge.com/resource/mobile/RetrieveBootloader....)

- Lenovo: supports unlocking the bootloader (see https://www.zui.com/iunlock)

- Motorola: supports unlocking the bootloader (see http://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/standalone/bo...)

In other words, all devices in your list support unlocking the bootloader.

I've used devices from many different manufacturers from around 2010 onwards, none of them run vendor distributions. It used to be difficult to install new distributions but this has not been the case for more recent devices. I'm in Europe but often source devices from elsewhere since they are not 'officially' sold here.

\> Samsung

As I said, bootloader unlocking is not supported on any modern US Samsung phone with a Snapdragon SoC. [1] It is at least """nice""" that they allow unlocking the international models though. (Perhaps the EU legally requires this?)

\> LG

The site you linked says this:

\> we offer a method to unlock the bootloader on some of our devices

Looking at the list, we see that many LG phones are excluded for some reason. Also, LG doesn't sell phones anymore. [3]

\> Lenovo/Motorola

That's nice, but unlocking the bootloader requires visiting this website, entering your serial number, and voiding your warranty, which means most people won't do it. Unlocking your Pixel phone's bootloader does not void the warranty, and all you have to do is enable "OEM unlocking" in developer options, rather than visit some website that tries its hardest to convince you that bootloader unlocking is scary and you shouldn't do it.

[1]

(Spoiler alert: no, the US model S10 is not unlockable. [2])

[2]

[3] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/after-a-decade-of-fa...

\> but unlocking the bootloader requires visiting this website, entering your serial number, and voiding your warranty, which means most people won't do it.

Now you're just moving the goal posts...

With all listed phones, you are NOT "forced to use the proprietary OS that came with the phone", and they all "allow custom versions of Android, like open-source GrapheneOS, to be installed". Those are your words.

It's also rather banal to go through a list of supported phone models, reduce that list to just the brands, and then complain that not all phones from each of the brands are supported.

\> Most of these devices don't "support" LineageOS though; rather, LineageOS supports them.

That's usually how a "custom open-source OS" works. It's not as if Google "support" the open source OSes that they allow you to install on their Pixel devices, either.

Go buy a Pixel if you want to, just stop spouting off that they're the only phones that give you options when they clearly are not. Hell, some of the non-Google phones LineageOS supports have SD card slots and easily swapable batteries, which is the kind of freedom Google never offers with their phones.

Reading back through my comments, I'm realizing they come off as shilling for Google.

In my original top-level comment, I said "most" Android phones don't allow you to install a custom OS, which I still think is true, at least when talking about phones currently sold in the US. Google is a notable exception because they have a consistent track record of not impeding the user from installing a custom OS in any way. Every phone they've released has been easily unlockable, and their policy has always been that this doesn't void your warranty. OnePlus is another US brand that operates this way.

I was mostly just commenting on the sad state of industry that most vendors, if they don't completely disallow unlocking, at least put up various roadblocks to prevent most users from doing so. However, there are indeed good, non-Google options. GrapheneOS and CalyxOS currently only support Pixel phones due to their consistently unlockable bootloaders and security features, but hopefully they expand support to other phones. See the requirements for CalyxOS and GrapheneOS device support: and . LineageOS is not quite as secure but should still be perfectly adequate.

Giving money to Google might actually make it harder to de-Google your phone in the future, since they'll be throwing that money into developing """features""" like hardware-backed SafetyNet attestation.

You're right that from a different perspective (repair), Google phones actually offer you less control over your device than some of the competition. I don't think they've released a single phone with a replaceable battery, yet every phone Apple releases has one (though iOS will annoyingly warn you if you replace it yourself).

Well EU is one reason to not unlock the phone. Due to their law banking app requires some google safety net which means if we root our phone our bank app wont work. And many app which uses safety net might not work. (I know magisk might make it work but its icky when the opponent is Google).

Regarding unlocking I think Chinese phones like Xiomi, Oneplus are better. We just need to provide phone number (so that distributor can't abuse it so I think its fair) and using fast-boot we can unlock it. And we can go back if we want so AFAIK warranty doesn't gets void due to unlocking as long as we can re flash stock firmware.

Pixel phones are also better for unlocking but they come with premium price.

Unlocking your phone does not fail safetynet. Installing a custom ROM _can_ cause a safetynet failure, but it is possible for ROM developers to pass it. In other words, for most phones, safetynet shouldn't be a major barrier to unlocking.

Rooting, on the other hand, does trip safetynet unless you take extra steps to hide it.

Tragically, Google is gradually moving to hardware-backed attestation, which is nearly impossible to bypass in most cases: https://www.xda-developers.com/safetynet-hardware-attestatio...

SafetyNet is, of course, anti-user and unacceptable. Random developers on the Play Store have the audacity to demand that you use a Google-approved OS on your phone if you want to use their apps. But "Google-approved" just means "proprietary". For example, GrapheneOS is leaps and bounds more secure than any Samsung ROM, yet Samsung's ROMs are Google-approved, and GrapheneOS is not. Google also releases vanilla AOSP builds for Pixel phones without Google apps, but these are not "Google-approved" according to SafetyNet, either.

Besides, no corporation should get to influence what OS you choose to run on your device. As the user, you should make the decision whether to trust a custom OS or not on your own. That's how it works on PCs. You are warned of the risks at every stage of the process of installing a custom ROM, from the moment you enable "OEM unlocking" in developer settings. You're even greeted with a non-hideable warning to remind you that the OS is not OEM every bootup [1]. (I think this is good, by the way. It also protects those buying used phones, which is another silly argument I've heard in favor of SafetyNet. IMHO, if you continue using a phone that warns you every bootup that it's unsafe, you deserve to be hacked.)

Google says they're doing all this for the sake of user security, but I find it very suspicious that it also happens to make de-Googling your phone much harder (if you rely on apps that rely on SafetyNet, like most Android banking apps).

[1] https://source.android.com/security/images/boot_yellow1.png

If you have a rooted phone, you can try to use Magisk Hide. That worked for me on various banking apps (but not Google Pay).

An alternative solution is to use another device with the stock ROM (e.g. an older/used/slightly-cracked phone) for banking purposes. Then it can be locked down to reduce the attack surface (e.g. uninstall non-banking apps, stored in a secure place, bluetooth disabled, remove SIM, turned off when not in use, etc.)

An older device may not have the latest OS security updates, but it'll still be reasonably secure if you reduce the attack surface. Most of the exploitable security issues will be updated via the Play Store, and due to the Android's heterogeneity and security protections, OS/driver vulnerabilities are difficult to exploit.

\> EU ... law ... banking app requires some google safety net

AFAIK it's not the law. The law only says the banks should adopt adequate safety measures, and they do safety net as it's easy and customers don't care, as there is usually a backup plan of just using the website (apart from a few novelty banks like N26).

excuse the pun but it's not practical to support some devices if the manufacturer keeps placing road blocks. THeya re simply not worth the effort when there are so many great options that make it easy to unlock and flash. Some even give you unbrick tools in case you kill the bootloader.

If you want a devices that can be easily customized, just buy one of the ones that have the OEM unlock option in the dev menu. For power users, those are the only ones worth buying and supporting.

Vote with your wallet.

\>> LG ...

\>Looking at the list, we see that many LG phones are excluded for some reason. Also, LG doesn't sell phones anymore.

Err. You mentioned LG earlier ("Apple, Samsung, Lenovo ... and LG combined"). Now, you complain that they shouldn't have been mentioned because they don't sell phones anymore? That's just your list.

I pulled the OEM list from the source of the percentages that I cited. Also, I am not "complaining" about anything; I am simply sharing information. I can see how it could be interpreted this way, so if I could edit the comment, I would probably change it to something like "by the way, LG doesn't sell phones anymore".

Here's something else I said:

\> most of the devices on that list are either old or not devices people actually want to use.

Since LG doesn't make phones anymore, all of their phones on the LineageOS list qualify as "old". This is what I was getting at; it doesn't matter much that they used to make some phones with unlockable bootloaders because they will soon be obsolete and the market share percentage will creep further and further down until it joins the "others".

In the global smartphone market, the leading Android manufacturers are Samsung (22%), Xiaomi (14%), Oppo (11%), and Vivo (10%). Affecting these percentages: Apple (17%) and other (26%).

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...

Among the named manufacturers, Samsung (excluding U.S.) and Xiaomi sell phones with unlockable bootloaders.

In the U.S., OnePlus is the most popular phone brand with unlockable bootloaders. Google takes second place.

Yes. Depending on what features are important to you, choosing an android phone can be quite difficult, especially if you're on a whitelisted-only carrier like Verizon and AT&T that only activate certain models and completely rule out major brands like Xiaomi.

\> Unfortunately this is the case with most Android phones, aside from the Google Pixel series, which allow custom versions of Android, like open-source GrapheneOS, to be installed.

In my experience, what's important is not the manufacturer of the phone, but whether or not the phone was bought from the carrier or the original manufacturer. If you buy a Pixel directly from Google, then the bootloader will be unlocked allowing you to install a different OS. If you buy the phone from a carrier like Verizon or At&t, the bootloader will be locked and it will be impossible to install a different OS.