Being more constructive, the future isn't looking bright for freedom of choice in mobile OSes, as governments and banks enforce use of approved apps on approved devices for identification and banking. Without one of either an Android or an iPhone, things get difficult. My government for example can consider a phone running something like GrapheneOS a Criminal Device.
Android is the most open of the two, being open source, so it would be nice if it stayed that way.
Applying your argument more broadly, we shouldn't critique any product or changes made to it, and I don't see any reason why that should be true.
Caring about the products you use is pretty standard behaviour, and when the product changes under the user's hands, it's normal to complain. It can resolve the issue faster and less painfully than switching products would.
The fact of the matter is that Android is fully funded and developed by Google and you kinda don't have much standing to control what they do with their project and how - especially if all you can say is that their work is bad.
You can be unhappy about it, but it doesn't change that its their work and their money on the line here with very little relationship to you or your wishes. You're not even a paying customer.
This doesn't apply to "any product or changes" at large.
You said we can be unhappy, which is what the grandparent was being, but you took issue with that anyway. I imagine people in deep enough to care about the downstream release cycle of android are well aware of the power structures at play. Being under the thumb of a massive corporate is not an enviable position but here we are, and here we complain.
It's not the same lol
I become a paying customer of Samsung and Google because Samsung paid for it (you have to pay for your device to be verified and access Google Play Services) and some of the cost is absorbed by me
I don't become a PAYING customer of Linus because Thinkpad didn't pay for Ubuntu (and if anything was paid I would become a customer of Canonical)
