Ubuntu Touch, Sailfish OS, Tizen, Mobian, etc.
Because they aren’t fully baked and they aren’t properly backed by billion/trillion dollar companies.
Hardware support.
If I have to own a specific phone or line of phones, that I otherwise would never buy, I’m not going to get one just to run Linux on it.
In terms of the mobile side, these OS’s aren’t very well polished, and the Linux phone is quite new. However, there are Linux phones being made, but this is more of a niche kinda deal, as people tend to use GrapheneOS or an iPhone (Stock Googled Android is a no-go anymore due to the malware that both Google and other malicious devs add to the Play Store). That’s just how I see it, though.
Hardware is too locked down. Open source chip platforms are only starting to be developed now after decades of computing. It’s all been running off the same architectures from monopolists. Linux phone devs like PostmarketOS work in such a tiny box that AOSP guys get much further. That is what I have gathered learning about it past few years anyways.
Because of very limited support for phone models, and many, many apps not supporting them.
I would recommend to check SailfishOS. Quite a few officials supported devices and even more community ports
To extrapolate…
Phones are many and varied and while a manufacturer might assist google to ensure android is compatible they sure as shit aint helping any linux OS.
There is no gargantuan megacorporation funding linux OS development, and there is practically no revenue for the few small companies that do. This means the existing implementations are, not very well polished.
Because the UX is so terrible it’s just a non-starter for non-enthusiasts.
Because there are no users there are no app developers.
SoCs used in phones are heavily tivoised. You can’t just run any OS you want on them. This is also slowly but steadily coming to PCs with UEFI and those very important “security” chips and “technologies”.
The situation will improve not earlier than when we are able to print chips at home, as we can now with small plastic parts.
Which is not going to happen anytime soon IMO. Even if we were able to print our own chips at home, they would be just DIY devices only to be used by geeks, meaning no mainstream apps/programs would work and it would be just like Linux desktop days back in 2000s (some still don’t work even today).
It’s getting more and more into a dystopic future where freedoms are willingly given up by people under the excuse of “advancing” or “getting the best technology we can ever get right now”. Meanwhile companies make more billions and getting more power by stealing more and more data from their user base. So I’m not as optimistic as you.
I’m sure what I’m about to say has already been echoed by others, but there are a few factors working against them. This is from a US/Canada perspective. Other countries may have more or fewer barriers.
- Mobile hardware - Mobile hardware has higher security. Some of this is by design for the user, since mobile devices are more likely to fall into wrong hands than e.g. a desktop. Some of it is corps preventing users from using their hardware in ways they don’t want you to, though. The level of locked down mobile hardware has only increased over time.
- Carriers - This one is particular to North America, I think. Carriers here have a long history of meddling in phone hardware - from bloatware to SIM locks and everything in between. One of the things they do since LTE is require device makers to pay them to get certified to make calls on their network. Linux capable devices are too niche to be able to afford this. This is why Fairphone, for example, even with its Android-based OS, only works on one carrier here.
Those are the main two barriers here. Things like apps can have workarounds for those that would be interested in early adoption of Linux phones. But there’s no way around the combination of carrier certification costs and limited options of only very locked down hardware.
As many pointed out, lack of apps.
Don’t know how much it improved over the years,
but battery life wasn’t the best either.What Linux mobile needs to gain traction imo,
would be Android app virtualisation.Kinda like Waydroid, WSL, WSA, WinApps, WinBoat…
But then specifically for seamless Android apps on Linux mobile.That could close the gap of lack of apps,
resulting in more users/devs,
resulting in more native apps,
eventually resulting in less need for Android apps on Linux mobile.Sailfishos has this their own Android App Support. That integrates Android apps to native UI quite beautifully what I have seen
I hate Android. A bit over a decade ago, I ran across an ArsTechnica article about a sale on Windows Phone, so I figured, for $55, may as well give it a try. Turns out I don’t hate the form factor; I hate Android.
I got a much better Windows phone shortly after, and I rode that for about two years. When I first got into the ecosystem, pretty much all apps were available (The Economist built a WP app!), but as uptake went nowhere, the apps started disappearing, and I had to come crawling back to Android.
I hate this fucking thing of “no, no, let us control your hardware.” And software options. And sell your location data to anyone willing to buy it.
I loved BB10. It had gesture-based navigation years ahead of its time, the Hub was the best notification system I’ve ever used, and it could run Android apps alongside BB10-native apps. It helped that I liked the form factor of the devices with physical keyboards, too.
Nowadays can choose between a large, glass rectangle, and an extra-large, glass rectangle in one of two flavours: Apple and Android. It’s no coincidence that Android has become more restrictive in terms of control over your own device, as the competition has dwindled and thinned.
A lot of technical answers, but consider a social driver: Linux users and developers are a lot more likely to prefer to do their computing on a “real” computer with a keyboard and large screen. Therefore, Linux as a desktop/laptop OS will always be significantly ahead of mobile offerings.
My guess is that because hardware support, you can install PC Linux on pretty much any system, but I am unaware of mobile Linux os that officially supports my phone.
In my case it’s because I can’t get hardware that supports it without paying a fortune for importing. The other option is ancient hardware that most likely has a cooked battery that I’d have to hunt for in a used market.
Then there’s the lack of VoLTE support on a lot of models which is becoming a non-starter as carriers are taking down the 3G towers.
That’s before I’ve even gotten to try the software which I’m not hearing great things about.
It’s not popular because it’s an enthusiast niche at best. Linux mobile needs more time in the oven before it’s ready, by my measurement another couple of decades.
Every review I’ve seen of them is really bad. Basic things like simply placing or receiving a call do not work properly.
Have you checked SailfishOS? Of course it might have bug once a while but generally they seem to be extremely reliable as phone
I’m still fucking pissed that MS stopped Windows Phone development. My Lumia 950XL was the height of my smartphone experience. Live tiles, so, like, I could just look at my home screen and see how my accounts were doing (yeah, I used to have savings and investments and such) alongside weather and … a Jedi needs not these things.
But when you get laid off three times in a year, the calculus changes. “Sorry you’re fucked, but we don’t care” – IRS
I wanted to try GrapheneOS on an old Pixel, but when I pulled it out of the box, the power button was gone. And you can’t really fake it with a ballpoint pen.
Android is Linux based and arguably the most popular mobile OS.
I was talking about other Linux based mobile OSes that aren’t Android or derivatives of it.
They aren’t popular because there already is a very popular linux based mobile OS: Android. What would be the point of another one? Why would anyone want to use a new OS with zero app support and no advantage to using it?
If you want to overcome the obstacle of being a new platform with no support then you have to provide a significant advantage to make it worth the pain, and there simply isn’t one.
Why did people switch to iOS and Android phones when companies like Nokia had the market cornered? Because they offer a massive improvement in UX over the established players. What advantage do those OSes you mentioned have?
you have to provide a significant advantage to make it worth the pain, and there simply isn’t one.
Ah, but there is. Privacy. Some of us are old enough to remember when that was an enshrined right instead of us just being data providers to rich guys.
I don’t know why you think you have the moral high ground here and are being so argumentative and making specious analogies, but, yeah, there are people who don’t like being part of a surveillance economy, and as paid-off lawmakers aren’t going to do jack shit, we need to have options outside of just being pawns for Google and Apple.
How this escapes you is beyond me, but I’m not going to be an asshole like you’ve been in every response on this thread.
Ah, but there is. Privacy.
Tell that to the masses who post their entire private lives on bookface and tictac. The overwhelming majority of people don’t give a fuck. Especially if it means having to give up all their favorite apps.
I don’t know why you think you have the moral high ground here
What makes you assume I think that?
there are people who don’t like being part of a surveillance economy, and as paid-off lawmakers aren’t going to do jack shit
Of course there are. The question was why mobile OSes that offer that don’t take off. And the answer is simply that very few people care enough for it to be a viable market. Very few people care enough to be willing to get excluded from iMessage or Facebook groups just to take a principled stance on privacy.
If you want these to take or you have to offer way more than some abstract promise of better privacy. Think of what you’re asking people to give up. To get them to switch you need a massive incentive.
I mean, I left Facebook in 2014 and have never been on Instagram or TikTok. You act like it’s this huge endeavour to not be on such sites. I used WhatsApp to stay in touch with my family in Europe, but once Facebook bought that, I was done. Told them to message me on Signal.
I’m asking people to give up parasocial relationships. They aren’t useful, so no loss there.
And it’s not my fault they can’t see that.
mean, I left Facebook in 2014 and have never been on Instagram or TikTok.
I’ve never been on any social media, but we’re not exactly average people. For a lot of people it’s hugely important to their social lives. Giving up Facebook for them means being excluded from social events. They will no longer see event announcements from their social groups.
You and I may not care about these things, but to a lot of people these are hugely important.
And it’s not my fault they can’t see that.
It’s your fault for not being able to even consider that other people are different from you and have different needs.
You could put me on an uninhabited island for 10 years and I’d be perfectly happy. My brother by contrast will get depressed after 2 days without social contact.
They don’t have different “needs” … they just don’t realize what they’ve signed up for. It was very easy to get rid of Facebook … I sent a final message letting them know how to get a hold of me. If they don’t want to engage elsewhere, it’s relatively easy to determine the depth of our friendship.
I’ve been in solitary confinement for going on seven years. I doubt you’d enjoy it as much as you think. We’re social creatures.
I do want to point out, as I was a bit snarky in my last reply, that I appreciate your more balanced tone here.
