It's not just the cost I'm worried about. If the cost is low enough (~1 EUR per device or so) I wouldn't really care about that. I'm more worried about long-term support and things like: will we be able to upgrade stuff (in particular, the kernel) without trouble? It would really suck if maintaining compatibility with some proprietary software would become something that holds us back from moving forwards in the future.
AFAICT, Alien Dalvik is a userspace application that just happens to run android apps. Why would it be trouble? Or have I missed something?
Why is a dual-boot between GNU/Linux and Replicant not a good enough solution for now?
You can't multitask android and non-android applications with dual boot. As an analog, consider you had to switch to KDE every time you wanted to run Qt apps or Gnome for GTK+ apps. Not very convienient and takes away a lot of the point for being able to run both. As a direct comparison: why have Wine at all when you can just boot to Windows?
Also I'm opposed to forcing people to buy proprietary software if it can be avoided. GPU drivers and stuff like that is one thing -- there is no alternative at the moment, so not much can realistically be done. But in this case there are plausible alternatives.
I'm too, but given the downside for the user is neglible, I don't see any alternatives with comparable compatibility and/or performance. I consider the situation less than ideal, but better than nothing (or substantially less).
I don't mind having Alien Dalvik as an optional thing you can choose to have pre-installed on your device, but I don't want it to be something everyone has to pay for even if they are not interested in running fart apps without having to reboot. (Just kidding about the fart apps, I realize that there is more than that in Android
)
I understand this stance, but consider the actual absolute magnitude of the downside per user who doesn't use it (from zero [no cost] to small negative [small cost]). Now consider the actual absolute magnitude of upside per user for those that will use it (from zero [not able to run android apps] to big positive [able to run most andorid apps]). Compare these two. I'll draw a parallel to hardware features people don't want to pay for because they aren't going to use them. Everyone pays for them, they may be proprietary, some won't use for them, others will benefit from them. There may or may not be non-proprietary solutions of varying applicability and/or performance that may or may not entirely make the entire feature useless even for those that wanted it.
I consider "practically good, ideologically neutral, neglible cost" a win. (legend: "practically good" - brings new uses in addition to existing ones, "ideologically neutral" - Doesn't require the rest of the system to be less free, but isn't free itself, "neglible cost" - per unit, maybe)
(disclaimer: I do not have any idea on the pricing of AD. All this is based on the assumption that it can't be enormous given that a small company like Jolla can manage it. I'm guessing the amortized price per unit is neglible)