I can imagine a reasonable user who doesn’t look into it beyond the old warning text being aware that incognito’s purpose is to not store browsing history and therefore assuming that somehow impacts Google’s ability to know where you’ve been. Like, they might know it doesn’t stop trackers but assume not having the history logged means it’s not there for Google to take. Or speaking more generally, they could’ve taken it to mean “we won’t track you, but we can’t do anything about others doing so.”

I wouldn’t say it just relied on basic reading abilities, as you could easily be misled if your mental model for how tracking and data collection works was just a bit off.

That’s fine, just let the rest of us do the same.

They only support Pixel hardware because it’s currently the only line that meets their list of requirements. I’d guess that if something came around which beat the Pixel line, they’d support it…but I also don’t see anyone positioned to do that right now.

Though it’s worth mentioning that the developers don’t emphasize degoogling all that much and their community often have a bit of tension with degooglers who come to join them. The OS certainly meets the needs of those of us getting away from Google but the developers have no problem recommending workflows that go through Google (albeit with regular app access rather than the privileged and deeply integrated access on stock Android) when they’re more secure than the alternatives. For example, they’ll regularly suggest using sandboxed Google Play over F-Droid or Aurora Store, again because of their stance of prioritizing security above all.

It can sometimes be a bit annoying when your priorities are more about avoiding corporate surveillance than protecting yourself from attackers or a snooping government, but their work ends up supporting both regardless.