Comment by scottbez1
5 months ago
This is entirely unsurprising. It's been clear that Google has been into their Android duopoly-abusive stage for a while now, with more and more of their Android changes moving into GMS or non-AOSP Google apps (like camera, messages, location services, etc) over the last decade. Graphene has been doomed to this fate for a long time, and anyone who thought otherwise was naively optimistic.
The same is clearly coming for Chromium forks, which is why I've always thought the privacy and ad-blocking forks are a joke - if they ever gain enough marketshare, or if google just tires of the public open source charade, they have no chance of maintaining a modern browser on their own.
This is all the more likely now that Google has been emboldened by not having to sell off Chrome for anticompetitive reasons.
Security patches aren't being delayed for AOSP specifically but rather Android as a whole including the stock Pixel OS. The title is misinterpreting our reply. We didn't say they're delaying patches to AOSP specifically. Stock Pixel OS has delayed patches too.
A more detailed explanation is at https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/1964754118653952027.
GrapheneOS has an OEM partner and early access to the security patches so our complaint isn't about us not having access. Google has added an exception to the embargo where binary-only patches can be released which we could use for a special security update branch but that's a ridiculous exception and it should be allowed to release the sources. It can be reversed from the security patches anyway and is trivial for Java and Kotlin. We can't break the embargo ourselves but we CAN publish the security patches early under the rules of the embargo via a special branch and people could reverse the patches from there which could then be applied to the regular GrapheneOS branch. The system is ridiculous and our hope is these changes are undone.
The title should really be changed from "for AOSP" to "for Android". There's a binary-only exception in the embargo now but that's not really about AOSP and isn't being used in practice even for Pixels. They've really just delayed all patches 4 months instead of 1 while also destroying any semblance of there being a real embargo (which was already very weak).
Thanks for the clarification. Delaying patches for all Android is even worse than delaying for AOSP. Excerpts below.
This would be a good discussion topic for the Linux Plumbers conference in 3 months.
Just a year prior, I would have been against a decision to force Google to part with either Android or Chrome.
Now, I'm of the opinion that they should have been forced to sell off both, and maybe Chromebooks too, for the good measure.
No company with a direction as vile and openly user-hostile as what Google currently demonstrates should have anywhere near this level of control over the ecosystem.
They should lose YouTube as well. Remember how they used their control over YouTube to kill Windows Phone back in the day also. They should have lost it right then.
Google is very clearly an abusive monopoly, and has been for a very long time. We all overlooked it because they were mostly benevolent. That is no longer the case.
> YouTube to kill Windows Phone back in the day also.
I hope you're not referring to YouTube blocking the 3rd party YT Windows Phone client that didn't play or display ads? At the time, Microsoft was threatening Android OEMs with patent infringement (without disclosing the specific patents!), and making it go away if they agreed to make Windows phone models[1]. Google refusing to make a first-party YouTube client for Windows Phone was to be expected, it was an ugly, hand-to-hand fight and all parties used the weapons they had at hand.
1. The agreements were never made public, but HTC and Samsung disclosed they'd be making Windows phones in their respective agreements with Microsoft. Microsoft also initially filed an Amicus brief in Google v Oracle - supporting Oracle's position.
The sad thing is I think Google keeping Chrome is actually likely the better of two possible bad outcomes... Anyone else interested and willing to pay the true value of owning the entire Internet ecosystem is almost certainly going to look to extract value from that, and that's almost certainly worse than what Google does today. E.g. using everyone's browser to extract training data for AI without getting IP blocked.
A year or so ago, I would have agreed. Not anymore.
Sure, a company can buy Chrome and proceed to sell user browsing habits data to the highest bidder, or use it as a backbone for decentralized scraping - backed by real user data and real residential IPs to fool most anti-scraping checks. But if they fuck with users enough, Chrome would just die off over time, and Firefox or various Chromium forks like Brave would take its place. This already happened to the browsing titan that was IE, and without the entire power of Google to push Chrome? It can happen again.
The alternative is Google owning Chrome for eternity - and proceeding with the most damaging initiatives possible. Right now, Google is seeking to destroy adblocking, tighten the control over the ad data ecosystem to undermine their competitors, and who knows what else they'll come up with next week.
6 replies →
Split it to a point where no one company can own the entire Internet ecosystem. Apply antitrust laws to keep it like this.
Maybe the development will slow down, but let's be honest: we would still be fine if Android and iOS had stopped "improving" years ago. Now it's mostly about adding shiny AI features and squeeze the users.
5 replies →
I wonder if Android and Chrome would support open source even less as independent companies though.
Why not spin them each off into an independent non-profit?
3 replies →
And by destroying the Android development team you'd achieve what exactly? Magical appearance of the security patches you're complaining about here?
Would you start to actually pay for all those hundreds of engineers maintaining the OS?
Either the new company takes over maintaining Android, or it fumbles the bag and the development becomes less centralized for a while - until some leader emerges and takes over.
Either way, the new control center of Android wouldn't be Google. A decade ago, I would have seen that as a very bad thing. Now, I'm almost certain that this would be a change for the better. Google is not what it once was.
2 replies →
Drone manufacturers like Samsung, Xiaomi etc need an OS. Right now it's more profitable for them to just pay licences to Google. But if Google lost Android... they would need to find a solution.
I would like to see this, at least something would be happening.
3 replies →
Yep. If we’re gonna be forking browsers, Firefox should be the base, not Chromium. Mozilla is in much less of a position to abuse their position, and more Firefox forks means more chances that one catches on with some slice of the larger public and helps chip away at Blink hegemony.
Fully agreed. I am however worried by the fact that Firefox is basically kept alive by Google. I assume it's just so that they can pretend Chrome isn't a monopoly, but the minute Firefox becomes an inconvenience they can stop financing it. I hope we can find a way for Firefox to sustain itself long term.
It’s a valid concern, and it may not be possible to properly address so long as Mozilla in its current form continues to be the controlling party of Firefox/Gecko. The best scenario might actually be for Mozilla to collapse and some other NPO or PBC with better financial sense to pick up the projects and their engineers.
Google pays Firefox for traffic acquisition, not out of pity. If Google stopped paying, another search engine like Bing or Perplexity would be happy to take over.
2 replies →
Last time I suggested brave on hn to base off on Firefox and they said its pita but we have unpaid.volunteer run waterfox and others, then we have floorp, tor and others so I know for a fact brave not basing on Firefox is pure politics because of brendan
> This is all the more likely now that Google has been emboldened by not having to sell off Chrome for anticompetitive reasons.
Exactly. The only thing that can prevent this behaviour is regulations. But apparently nobody wants to regulate, so we're screwed.