Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
It's not just the ability to install a different OS. The above blog post was mostly inspired by my experiences with a Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 phone. I have been reasonably happy with the OS that was preloaded and I would be happy to update to the new OS that Sony Ericsson are offering (Android 2.3). But I'm not happy to wipe out all my data which can't be backed up because the Android security policy prevents me getting root access for programs such as Titanium Backup.
This (among other reasons) is why Jonathan Corbet has stated that mobile devices constitute a major challenge for Linux, and for software freedom more widely. The business practices surrounding this hardware have conventionally been very different from the (relative) openness associated with desktop and server systems. I think he is right in considering Android to be a step in the direction of greater openness, notwithstanding the limits of that move.
http://www.virginmobile.com.au/Shop/Rate-Plan-Details/9941/Fair-Go-19
As for what market share is necessary to be anti-competitive, Virgin is offering 4 different phones for a $0 fee on the $19 per month plan. I think that at least 3 of those should be modable. If the majority of the most affordable phones from a major telco can't be modded then it's anti- competitive.
That, as I interpret it, is how you would like the law to work, whereas my question was asking what the law is (under a reasonable interpretation of relevant statutes). Both questions are pertinent, of course, the latter to regulatory action or court proceedings, the former to law reform efforts in the event that current regulations are insufficient. There's a new tablet-style device on the way that runs KDE Plasma Active. Though not a "phone", it does belong to the category of mobile devices which has been receiving heightened attention in recent years. Apart from Android, Linux has had limited presence in this space, despite MeeGo and related efforts. Of course, Android is a very large and significant exception to that generalization.