Would you like to see a new mainstream mobile OS to compete with iOS and Android?

I was in a hurry at the time. I should have said "bare minimum". However, I think the context should have made it clear enough that I agree with you, so I'm filing your "disagree" reply under "typical Slashdot hostility" whereas I think you had the opportunity to go for "thoughtful clarification".

I could try to clarify more, but not sure how much your brief reply calls for. Let me just say that there are cases where choice can be restricted artificially, but as long as you have two, then there is still some meaning Sad example, but the American presidential election system is deliberately designed to be winner-take-all. The Constitution has a number of important innovations, but coalition government was not one of them, so they wanted to deliberately create a situation where some leader would have a "majority" and some sort of mandate for strong action, though I believe their wise idea was that presidential strength should only be needed if the nation faced an actual existential threat that the Congress couldn't address quickly enough.

(In other words, doing nothing was often good enough for them, and they knew full well (and even hoped) that Congress was a committee that would usually do nothing unless the best thing to do was pretty darn obvious. In other other words, "First of all, do no harm." I am quite certain that the fabulous founders would be appalled by how strong the president has become so that (in our current situation) a childish dotard could potentially tweet the nation into a shooting war.)

Let me get back on topic. I don't think there's any natural reason why smartphones should be controlled by two 600-pound gorillas. I happen to believe both of the gorillas are rather evil, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is the gorillas are stifling innovation, limiting choice, and thereby reducing our freedom. My admittedly pie-in-the-sky solution of progressive taxation based on market share would put pressure on both of the gorillas to create more freedom by creating a real competitor.

On the theory that the google has control over the largest share of the market, their profits related to that market dominance, even the indirect profits, would be taxed at the higher rate. If they want to reduce their taxation, it would be in the google's interest to create real competition and a third choice, or somehow distance themselves from Android so that there are other companies seriously competing with them for the profits related to the Android standard. Or they could just keep paying the higher taxes with some of the money used to regulate the company, and some of it used for research into ways to weaken their position, and any surplus used for other government purposes (such as public schools that are at least good enough to send your dog to (in contrast to the feeble obedience schools most public schools have become)).

I actually favor the first solution (because it is similar to what should have been done to Microsoft many years ago). I think the Android standard could be split into two competing Androids. Each one would start with a copy of all relevant source code and half the resources, and then they would be encouraged to go at it, hammer and tongs. They could maintain a unified public standard OS, if they want, but they would have to publicly share all of the necessary information to conform to that standard and they would need to produce competing implementations of the standard that people like us could choose from. However I would think it better if they started from the same point and then went their own ways, with the standardization focused on data interchanges.

Rather an excessive response considering your lack of a question, eh?