Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models.
The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writable memory, you should be able to load your own program and manufacturer may not use technical measures to stop you. The goal of regulation would be preventing of creating digital waste, vendor locks and allow reusing the hardware.
Of course, features like theft prevention won't work, so the user should be able to waive this right.
Looks like GrapheneOS will be available on another "major Android OEM” soon [1].
Regulation should prevent Google from subsidising manufacturers to use Android. Arguably the recent antitrust legislation [2] applies in this case because they're effectively paying manufacturers to place that horrendous and impossible to remove search bar on the home screen.
GrapheneOS is in some ways not an open OS. The official builds don't provide root access. So for example apps are able to hold your data hostage from you.
I get that this is in the name of security hardening. And you can make a build that has limited root access and is officially supported. But GrapheneOS isn't the end-all solution to computing freedom. Although hopefully on those devices you will be able to install custom OSes (root capable build of Graphene or otherwise).
Not sure what exactly you mean with "open source OS" and if Lineage counts as one in your book: it supports quite a few cheap and also fairly recent Motorola phones, which are also easy to unlock:
For family, I just got a used Edge 30 Neo for ~100$ and put LineageOS on it, and it works like a charm. Phones like the Moto g84 go for even less and still can be bought new for a decent price.
Xiaomi would be even cheaper, but I would highly discourage getting one because the unlock process is plain ridiculous nowadays.
And as others have already noted, if you don't mind getting a phone that's a few years old, a used Pixel 5 is not expensive (still happily using a Pixel 4a and don't see why I would need to upgrade).
This is the place where I think lawmakers needs to be involved. Bearing in mind that laws aren't engineering specs, being able to pay for things and use a bank are about as close to fundamental rights as anything is for participants in society. If you have to buy a second device to use Netflix, so be it, but we need laws that guarantee people can make digital payments without Apple or Google's permission.
There are societies today (I live in one) where some businesses are starting to accept payment only through a banking or payment app, no cash, no card, nothing else. And these apps will only function in the very narrow circumstances of "I bought a device which runs software from one of two American tech monopolies and follow all their frequently changing rules for using various software that's unrelated to the payment I need to make." This limitation is mostly in place due to the banks believing it will make things more secure. Security is important, but not important enough that you get to start denying innocent people the ability to make payments or exile them from the banking system because they had some kind of dispute with Apple or Google. Governments need to step in with access mandates here, otherwise this problem WILL come to a jurisdiction near you sooner or later.
Even phones from Motorola require you to literally ask permission to unlock your bootloader via a form on their website, which they then unlock remotely or you enter some generated code.
Other manufacturers do the same, where you have to wait a period of like 45 days before being able to unlock, and then have to ask permission on their website to unlock your bootloader.
Not in markets without significant Huawei and Xiaomi presence. Local banks (Czech Republic) are not using integrity APIs to keep being usable for most clients.
Most DRM / banking apps work fine for me through the browser and you can add them to your home screen. Android / Samsung Pay will stop working, but if you have a Garmin watch, you can still pay with that.
Android and said manufacturers purposefully do everything in their power to make this as awful as possible.
For example, you can't relock the bootloader on any device except pixels. Why? No reason. Just fuck you, I guess.
That's a huge security hole that they're creating, intentionally.
What's going on is they are hoping that if you do use other software that you get malware or get scammed. They are literally, actually, undermining their own device's security just to send a message.
I wouldn't want the bank to access my phone, so it doesn't matter that the app doesn't work, and in a weird case where you urgently need to transfer your money to scammers while not being at home, you can use bank's web app.
All the Fairphone Versions support e/OS/ as far as I know. I have the Fairphone 5 with the current e/OS/ version completely un-googled. But you also have the option to allow partial google-fication in e/OS/ so you don't miss out on most of the features and paid-apps you had.
> Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models.
You can buy a refurbished Pixel 5 for less than 200$. Great screen, great camera, 5G, the works. It's definitely not an "outdated" device, and it runs Graphene or Lineage with minimal hassle.
The Pixel 5 isn't supported anymore. The Pixel 6a still has a little less than 2 years of support left. These have become pretty cheap.
The Pixel 8 and 8a aren't that expensive either. And keep in mind that they are supported until 2030 and 2031 respectively. [1] They not only receive security updates for 7 years, instead of the 5 years for previous Pixel generations, but also have stronger hardware security, by implementing the ARM memory tagging extension. [2]
Droidian[0] currently supports a relatively new Motorola phone[1]. A Snapdragon 8+ gen 1 device, so the performance isn't bad, and most features seem to work, including Waydroid. I've noticed incoming phone calls causing a glitch where the call can't be answered, but other than that, daily drivable. Just like a PinePhone, only more powerful. In my region it can be had for ~€250 brand new.
Did you check the stuff murena has on offer? Most if not all of their phones come with an unlockable bootloader and the OS they come with isn't that bad to start with either.
Every few years or so we collectively rediscover that general computing devices should be general and repeat the same mistake every time new format is released. We're all a bunch of reactive losers and that will never change it seems.
The Pixel 8 and 8a aren't that expensive either. And keep in mind that they are supported until 2030 and 2031 respectively. [1] They not only receive security updates for 7 years, instead of the 5 years for previous Pixel generations, but also have stronger hardware security, by implementing the ARM memory tagging extension. [2]
>The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc).
Why would you make essential security features illegal? Do you want to fly on a plane where the flight control software was maybe overwritten?
>So if you buy a device with CPU and writable memory, you should be able to load your own program and manufacturer may not use technical measures to stop you.
The problem is Google and Apple locking down their Operating System, this is not a technical limitation on hardware.
> Do you want to fly on a plane where the flight control software was maybe overwritten?
I don't understand it. Whoever owns the place can replace any part of it, including computers. So being able to overwrite software doesn't change it. Furthermore, plane computers are not a consumer hardware.
You could make a better example with patched car software.
> The problem is Google and Apple locking down their Operating System, this is not a technical limitation on hardware.
The initial ROM bootloader contains hard-coded signature which prevents you from replacing Apple/Google software.
Security only works if you can control what software is trustworthy. If some software has been proven to be untrustworthy, it is worthwhile to prevent all software that the producer has ever made from working at scale. Adding some nominal process and fee to make it too expensive to create a lot of accounts prevents them from creating hundreds of alternative aliases. There is a lot of precedence for why this is a good idea and works. I think if there was another company involved with performing the audit which folks trusted it might now seem so scary.
No matter how this turns out, I'm sure GrapheneOS will make a smart effort. https://grapheneos.org/
But long-term, Android is such a massive code base, and was designed more for surveillance and consumption, than for privacy&security and the user's interests.
I think getting mainline Linux on viable and sustainable on multiple hardware devices is warmer, fuzzier foundation. (Sort of a cross between Purism's work on the Librem 5, and PostmarketOS's work on trying to get mainline Linux viable on something else.)
> think getting mainline Linux on viable and sustainable on multiple hardware devices is warmer, fuzzier foundation.
You just have to somehow speedrun the decades of development that went into Android to make it decently run on mobile hardware.. never really understood this "throwing out the baby" direction - the UNIX userspace model simply doesn't work on mobile (I would wager it also doesn't work on desktop anymore), has no security (everything runs as your user which made sense when you ran some batch job on a terminal with multiple other users, but nowadays when a single user has as many processes as all the user had back then it effectively means no security between any of those programs), there is no real resource control, no lifecycles, so the device will burn scorching hot and have terrible battery life.
On Android (and iOS) apps were always living in a world with lifecycles so if they wanted to operate correctly, they had to become decent citizens (save state when asked, so they can be stopped and resumed at any moment). This also fits nicely with sandboxes and user permissions, etc.
So without developing an alternative user-space for "GNU-Linux", it's simply not competing with android in any form or shape.
And even if you do, now every GNU app has to somehow be ported to that userspace API (you can't just kill GIMP or whatever Linux process)
The closest I got to Linux mobile is GPD Pocket 4 with LTE and regular apps. Since I can get it to cap at 5 watts, it can give 9 hours of battery life. It does most things I care about, but it is just a mini laptop (which is good enough for me).
The problem is for developers. Abandoning Android for Linux is not viable for software developers who need to eat. Sure, we can use Linux smartphones ourselves, but if the software we make has a grand total of three people who ever lay eyes on it, that's less than ideal. And given how The Year of the Linux Desktop has gone, I think it'd be strongly preferable if we managed to stave off the tightening of control over Android rather than placing bets on the future Year of the Linux Smartphone.
The Year of the Linux Desktop is kind of happening. Not at the scale that the meme implies, but I've never seen anywhere near as much adoption of the Linux desktop as this year. The combination of Valve's efforts, more usage of Linux gaming handhelds, distributions like Bazzite that have strong selling points for Windows gamers, and Microsoft pissing everyone off with everything that is Windows 11, the Linux desktop has some legitimate momentum for once
I know it's been tried before (eg by Mozilla), but perhaps now the time is right for a web apps-only OS.
Many developers would need some help to get offline functionality and updates right though.. And it would be really nice if these apps didn't require parsing megabytes of JavaScript libraries on startup.
Some people don't care and build on top of Linux anyway. This lockdown will accelerate this. At some point a critical mass will eventually be reached, perhaps with the assistance of some corporate entity or organization of some sort that pushes it over the edge. Then there will be a real open competitor. Will take some time though.
so the thing is, as an Android dev if I get embedded linux experience then I have lateral career movement to the peripherals that I'm usually writing apps for. While the intersection of app developers to embedded linux developers is probably very small, there is a smidge of incentive there, and that can be a powerful thing for the community: a lot of the pain points on linux phones feel hardware oriented (I complain loudly about the pinephone battery elsewhere in this thread).
another tailwind might be in the gaming scene. I have the general sense that SteamOS has been an interesting gateway for technically-minded folks to be impressed by this Linux thing. A similar model for mobile phones might be a tailwind (like a SteamOS for ARM?) The reason why that's perfect is because it undermines the Google monopoly and creates an app ecosystem that people will absolutely flock to, at least for games ($$).
Waydroid does surprisingly well at running Android apps on Linux.
Sure some apps won't work for whatever reason & HN commenters will have incredibly scathing things to say about that, but I bet there's a lot of folks who'd be cool with missing an app here or there.
It sucks to be losing Android, but IMO it's an ecosystem in free-fall. Bootloaders are locked more and more, there's literally zero AOSP hardware buyable now, and the roms scene has diminished not grown over time.
I totally think theres a Steam Deck moment waiting around a corner, where what seemed impossible a year ago shows up and is dead obvious & direct, and we all wonder why there were so many doubts before.
> Android is such a massive code base, and was designed more for surveillance and consumption
I disagree. I have been using de-googled / de-spywared Android for a decade now and I really love it. Once you remove google mobile services and rely on open source applications Android feels really good.
Also its questionable if projects such as purism or even the pinephone will ever offer such good security and privacy as a de-googled Pixel with GrapheneOS will.
The hope is lost for Android, there is no moving forward with google antagonizing its foss roots. Libre phone it is. We have to forcibly remove the bandage.
I wish you were wrong, but I don't disagree with assessment. I am on grapheneos ( edit: on pixel ) now, but even that should only be a pitstop now since google has decided to show its hand in such a nasty ( if not that unexpected ) manner.
> Android was designed more for surveillance and consumption, than for privacy&security and the user's interests
I disagree. The Android security model is better than the Linux one. I am very happy with GrapheneOS, I don't have much to complain about.
The problem is that Google sucks and nobody enforces antitrust laws. But it's not just Google: how many Android manufacturers don't suck, really? Do they contribute to AOSP at all? Probably not. Do they build reasonable devices that could run something like GrapheneOS? Nope. Just relocking the bootloader is often a problem.
> I disagree. The Android security model is better than the Linux one.
In some ways it probably is, but it still isn't that good in my opinion (although some of the problems have to do with the way the settings and controls are working rather than the security model itself, there are also problems with the security model itself too). (I think there are other problems with Android (and other operating systems) too.)
(2018) makes me more than a bit sad. I have a OnePlus 6, and it was ok with the software I tried out ~3 years ago, and basically fast enough. But it's soul crushing how running mainline Linux is just so impossible for consumer mobile chips.
It felt at the time like there was positive progress, more bits getting mainlined at a trickle but at least steady trickle rate. But it feels dark now. At least the GPU drivers everywhere have been getting much better, but I get the impression Qualcomm couldn't even ship a desktop/laptop after years of delay, is barely getting that in order now. It feels impossible to hope for the mobile chips anywhere to find religion & get even basic drivers mainlined.
In the past, they forced Steam to implement proper refund policies, and they are currently suing Microsoft about the way subscribers were duped into paying more for "AI features" they didn't want.
Tell them to lodge a designated complaint to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC).
ACCC complaints are designed for individual grievances while a designated complaint from a designated complainer is supposed to address "significant or systemic market issues that affect consumers in Australia".
If, and I do mean if, government is a solution here, its only role is to ensure that app use cannot be required for service ( and we can argue over what services can stay app-only ).
Back in the 2007 or when it came out in Sweden I bought the iPhone and started developing for it. This was cool, new and exciting and it was fine as long as my company was paying the $100 fee every year. But then I switched jobs and worked at a company which produced mostly open source code. Suddenly I would have to pay $100 every year just to be able to put my own software on the phone ...
This is why I switched to Android, just for Google now to pull the rug from under my feet again ...
This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from the start instead of going the ESR way of half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses.
Like most coders, I also prefer the permissive MIT/Apache/BSD licensing for most software projects but incidents like these make me question the direction we are heading towards. They raise fundamental questions about freedom itself - looking at the broader picture, is having a restrictive kind of freedom (GPL) often more beneficial than having full permissive freedom (MIT/Apache)?
But Linux is GPL. That didn't stop Google from using it as a basis for something that is not GPL and in fact not even open source (Google Play Services).
What leverage does a community of engineers have to insist on anything? Android could be entirely closed source. So could Chrome.
It would be naive to assume that the power dynamics in our society can be fundamentally altered by a 10 line software license.
I have a "weakly held strong opinion" on this subject. I think open source has been a disaster for the state of software for normal people. On the one hand exploited developers making peanuts or nothing for their hard work. On the other hand exploited users losing control of their devices and social networks.
The era when people paid an affordable fee for software they could use however they wanted was much better. But it got squeezed out by free software on the one side and serf-ware on the other.
The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is rotten.
Edit: then again maybe it's unfair of me to blame the decline in paid for software on open source.
Of course, Stallman strongly eschews the ambiguity and misdirection inherent in the phrase open source, and in this particular instance the considered use of 'free' or 'freedom' is precisely what we're now all upset about the impending loss of.
GPL doesn't help you one bit in this particular situation, because "regular users" would still be using the locked-down stock Android that came with their device. So they still can't install your app.
Anyone who is already running a rooted Android or otherwise customized OS isn't affected by this, only developers who want to distribute their app to users.
Google is the modern Microsoft spiritual successor to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Look at all the people who use gmail, youtube, etc all from a web app that Google wholly controls.
> This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from the start instead of going the ESR way of half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses.
And we would have been in a better position to lobby for this if unions were widespread in the tech industry, which they are not.
Im a millennial dev which happens to have a Gen Z brother who also chose this profession.
Seeing him walk my steps 15 years later has been eye opening for the brutal cultural change.
They’re socially conditioned to assume that anything free is a scam or illegal, that every tool is associated with a corporation, and that learning itself is going through certain hoops (by the uni, the certificator or whatever) so that you get permission to earn money a certain way.
As more doors get closed, I fear this process will solidify.
> They’re socially conditioned to assume that anything free is a scam or illegal, that every tool is associated with a corporation, and that learning itself is going through certain hoops (by the uni, the certificator or whatever) so that you get permission to earn money a certain way.
To be fair, there are also legit reason for why it evolved this way. It's mainly for quality and reliability. There is so much crappy sloppy work from unqualified workers, and it used to be even worse.. The easy available free knowledge really helped to rise the standard even for people without proper education in an area.
They're right. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish and Enshittification have been the core experiences of digital life with corporations in charge of platforms.
My hope is that LLMs will help open source developers provide reasonable alternatives to the gatekeeping and spyware that corporations are now making their bread and butter. Example: Recent tried to use Unity LTS for a small project - the software is a joke now, basic functionality is broken out of the box. A couple of hours with an LLM and I had all the features I needed using a more lightweight library, monogame. Not an operating system, but I'm hoping the pattern will continue as LLMs get more proficient at code - the moat of "this is hard and laborious to do" will be drained.
Ironically, somewhere around 2014, Google was doing the exact same style "keep Android open" campaign, recruiting developers around the world - including me, to help lobby for keeping Android "open" and tell the horror stories of issues that random OEMs caused by forking Android, breaking compatibility and security.
Made sense to me at the time and they were really into "Android should be open source" vibe, so I supported it.
10 years later, I'm also rugpulled. Their vision has dramatically shifted into trying to build a walled garden on top of Android, but now they are haunted by their open source roots, and the walled garden is just a really tall pile of bricks laid around it.
So many times we've been promised things, only for them to be delivered in a half-baked state with half of the parts open source while other parts were closed only to Google and Google approved apps.
So many times the issue trackers for different parts of the platform ecosystem have changed, that some issues are impossible to debug without using web archive.
And just as many times, they have been closed, ignored for years or unnoticed, being ping-ponged among team members until they forget about it.
Yet, even with all of the closed and privatized parts of the ecosystem, they are still not able to deliver on an ecosystem promise.
They control my email, my photos, my cloud, my browser, my phone - yet cannot keep a single thing properly in sync. Still, I download something and I do not know where it went. Still, I cannot Airdrop things without a 3rd party service. Still, I take a photo only for it to appear on the cloud 5 minutes later. Still, I cannot have a "sandbox" account for testing that just works, but have to juggle multiple accounts, causing their auth system to break 80% of the time when testing.
As a developer, I do not plan to support Android anymore. I recently got an iPhone, and am now fully switching to it. Even tho I am long on $GOOG stock, because the money printer go brrr, I will be spending that money in the Apple's ecosystem from now on.
Apple pisses off many HN users who then swear to switch to Android, Google pisses off many HN users who then swear to switch to an iPhone – so for both companies, in effect, nothing changes.
Aside from that, the masses don't care or know about any of this. A couple of HN users don't make a dent in the revenue of any large company. What we can do is work on alternative ecosystems or at least support the small companies and organizations who do with our wallets.
> 10 years later, I'm also rugpulled. Their vision has dramatically shifted into trying to build a walled garden on top of Android
Abrupt abandoning of their Nexus line for overpriced Pixel hardware was the watershed moment. The exact moment when their executives decided to ride free on open source labor.
> Still, I cannot Airdrop things without a 3rd party service
Well, it hardly works between Apple devices themselves to begin with (sending a bunch of pictures over to a 4 years old iphone works like 1 times out of 10 trial..). At least I can use regular old Bluetooth to send stuff to any kind of device from Android without the cruel gatekeeping of only Apple devices.
So yeah, both platforms have their own ways they suck in.
Yeah, I don't understand why people put up with Apple for this. I would love to write small personal apps for my iPhone. But, I don't want to use a mac, I don't want to pay a fee every year and I don't want to use the apple store (yes there are convoluted work-rounds for the last one).
It’s precisely because it’s a filter, they _want_ to filter for people who take it seriously and/or are seeking app sales. This is a company that chooses to pay people to review every app submitted to the app store, they don’t want millions of apps by tinkerers being submitted, and it reduces total crapware in the store.
I’m not necessarily advocating for this approach, just explaining why they do it.
Doesn’t the play store also charge a fee? It’s smaller from memory but it isn’t free
I can see why they add the fee, but they would both garner so much goodwill by giving free accounts if the app you publish is open source. I don't think it would be that hard to automate by requiring a GitHub link.
Those days are over. Being evil means there is no goodwill to begin with unless you can exploit it financially wise. Google stopped being not evil, they specifically deleted it from the code of conduct.
Ofc, being evil is subjective. But also this is the first excuse of evil players!
See I was similar but the big difference back then was a random little 99c app on iOS would make you several thousand dollars a month, so the $100/year fee was nothing for a long time. It was only after around 2012 that things changed.
On Google Play I never, ever had any app be anything close to as successful as on iOS. I think I probably made less than 1/100th the amount I did on iOS back in the day.
Yes, you can still do that directly (I did that just the other day).
I can't entirely understand Google's announcement, but it almost sounded to me like they will forbid sideloading if you're not an "official" dev (gone through their hoops). I also saw something in their statement about wanting to support hobbyists. It sounded like an afterthought.
I don’t know what it was like back then but in today’s world you do not need to pay Apple any fees if all you’re doing is writing software in Xcode and deploy it to your own device. You do need a developer account, the free version of one, but you only need to pay the fee if you’re going to publish on the App Store.
Free provisioning: If you do not pay the developer fee an app installed via Xcode will work for 7 days. Afterwards the app on your phone will *stop working*, and you must open Xcode on your Mac again, and push a new build to your phone if you want to keep using it.
Paid provisioning: If you have paid the developer fee, a build will expire based on the amount of time left before that payment renews, so if you build and install an app a month before your developer fee renews, that build of the app (that you installed via Xcode) will stop working in 1 month.
100$ a year for a dev in Sweden - that's like money you wouldn't notice if it got lost in your pockets - and I am sure it cuts down on spammers and covers administrative cost.
I have no problem with a store having a small admission fee - that's perfectly reasonable and they do have operational costs. It would be nice if they had some way to waive the fee for popular OSS to garner some god will with the devs.
Taking a 30% cut of revenue on the other hand ... both platforms are guilty of this
> 100$ a year for a dev in Sweden - that's like money you wouldn't notice if it got lost in your pockets
For someone who is making money from it, sure, but that's exactly who this isn't about. The way they get screwed is by the 30%.
A fixed fee -- in any amount -- is screwing the people who aren't in it for the money. Because to begin with, it's not just the fee, it's the bureaucracy that comes with the fee.
You're a kid and you want to make your first app, but you don't have a credit card.
You live in a poor country and maybe the amount you can lose without noticing when you're rich isn't the same there. Or even if you can get the money, you may not have a first world bank account and the conglomerate isn't set up to take the local currency.
You're a desktop developer and you're willing to make a simple mobile app and give it away for free as long as it's not a bother. The money is nothing but the paperwork is a bother so you don't do it, and now the million people who would have used that app don't have it and have to suffer the spam-laden trash alternative from someone who is only in it for the money.
And suppose the amount is as trivial as you propose. Then why does a multi-trillion dollar conglomerate need that pittance from a million ordinary people?
Okay, just so we're all on the same page: that 100 dollar fee IS NOT for publishing your app. That's not what that is. That's a separate thing with its own costs.
That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only.
It's just extortion. It cannot be justified. Apple does it because they can - there are zero technical reasons behind it.
We are not talking about software distribution or admitting it to a store, we're talking about executing something on your own device, a device that you purchased.
I would call it "free developer experience" (using ADB), not "free sideloading".
If you want to send your app to a friend to download and install it directly on their phone (without using a computer with ADB), you need to be Google-approved and register your app first.
1) Oh yes of course, here friend you just need a PC and the command line tools (unless soon you'll need to be a registered and VERIFIED developer) to install revanced or any open source app
2) Unless they decide to ban you (they can if you don't show any activity in the developer account for X months) and of course because you were verified you can't simply apply again and pay again, because you were banned!!!!
Oh, the irony. I still remember how in the early days of Android vs iOS discussions, the main point was "but it's OPEN!". The word "open" was used as a comma by Google people. It was The Thing. The Difference. Good vs Evil and all that.
It looks like eventually any company will start squeezing customers for what they are worth.
But only once the company is powerful enough. We don't call Google a monopoly, because there is Apple, but taken together they certainly behave as one. Both create expectations, create expected momentum in a certain direction, people build (companies, lives) on those assumptions and boom, you can't get out and now the company changes the deal.
Is it just our assumptions that get us in trouble? Or do we need to do more?
I'm not sure how to regulate this, other than to stimulate open source, as the "for the people by the people" solution. But also that will just lead to poor expensive solutions (the market created some nice FOSS though). So the law it should be... And we're back to the problem of lobbying...
Perhaps there should be contracts: Google advertises Android as open: They should sign a contract: For how long will Android be open? Define "Open". The contract can be enforced. Or perhaps we, the people, sue now, for false advertising, although that will just make them flex their legal and lobbying muscles... And they didn't sign any contracts.
Android has not been really open for a long time now.
- Many APIs have been moved to Google Play Services (which is not open source), and many apps have come to rely on them. You can emulate it partially but not fully, see second point below.
- Some features like device attestation / SafetyNet fail on non-"official" devices, for example many banking or government ID apps refuse to work on open source os like GrapheneOS
Android dev at a large company - I've been talking with the folks at Graphene about options for attestation without using Google's API and it looks like there's actually a lot I can do for attestation without them, as long as I add their cert chain to a backend service.
It's a bit of a pain because Google just does that for me normally, but we _can_ support it. It's probably only a sprint of effort give or take. But we're deeply undermanned so it's hard to get done.
Why do you need attestation? It seems to always either serve no real purpose (e.g. Bank apps) or be anti-user (DRM) (except for perhaps enterprise managed devices for companies with serious infosec requirements)
I'm going to say something that probably will get me down votes:
Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open? Seriously. So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives.
A new platform needs to rise that breaks out completely from Google. I've given PostmarketOS a go (with a PinePhone) and while today I can't say it isn't a daily driver for everyone it is certainly the route that needs to be taken.
I'm still unable to use it because is not easy to break away from Android, but is a platform that I think about almost every day, because I do not want to use Android anymore and I'm willing to sacrifice certain aspects to have an open and friendly platform on my hands. And if it is not PostmarketOS then let it be another project.
We need these kind of projects, not kneeling down to a company like Google and begging for Android to be open. Effort needs to be put elsewhere. That's how major projects like Linux, BSDs and open source projects have flourished and taken the world.
Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...).
Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing.
It's not that a new mobile platform couldn't possibly succeed. It's an open platform that cannot, because aforementioned players don't want it, and without them, mobile devices lose 90%+ of their usefulness, dooming them to become mere gadgets instead of (crappy, toylike) tools for everyday use.
Back in '99 Linux didn't run Excel/Word/Powerpoint or most games, but I ran it anyway. What others call showstoppers are for me inconveniences.
I have a motorolla edge 2024 that I'll load whatever open source phone OS will work well enough to place calls and browse the web. I'll keep another phone for the rare times some corporate/government overlord requires it. Many folks who refuse to use smartphones, similarly own a smartphone they rarely use for systems that require them.
My recommendation is to put as little time and energy into closed, locked down platforms as you can. Feel free to complain, but don't forget you can make choices.
Most of us do not want to carry two phones around. The reality is that there is strong utility for those non-open apps and they will never be replaced by open ones.
In some parts of the world, WhatsApp is as necessary as the phone itself. Official business is conducted via it.
Webapps solve this completely. You login to a service as we have been doing forever. And the control is still on their side when you use a webapp. Almost every single app that is on my phone can be a webapp.
Stupid question: couldn't we work around that with some VM/container-style solution? They could probably find ways to lock it down with TPM/TEE and similar, but in today's landscape it should be possible if you're willing to accept the performance and battery cost. And if it does get traction, there'll also be more push to keep open alternatives viable. Giving in without a fight is the only way to ensure you'll lose.
It's not that an open platform can't succeed, but rather people are accustomed to closed platforms, so more resources went into perfecting them. The aforementioned players pushing for control aren't invincible. Whether we can move to open platforms depends on the choices people make.
I can choose to use a bank that allows me to access all of their online banking features via the browser. I can choose to work for a company that doesn't want to surveil my personal device. I can deal with the government via snail mail, or in the browser. I can use third-party YouTube clients and torrent movies and games, or simply don't engage with DRM'd media because there's plenty of entertainment out there.
Count the percentage of software you use that are open-source compared to 10 years ago. I bet it's more. It's only a matter of time before we make hardware open-source, too.
When the mainstream is evil, being an outcast is the right thing to do. Every big change begins as a small movement.
This is why we need laws and regulation. And the most important thing we need is not governments forcing Android to be open, but laws requiring governments to not force their citizens to use locked down hardware.
My government, Denmark, is one of the most digitized societies in the world. While the government has allocated money to a committee to investigate how the country can become less dependent on American big tech corporations, at the same time they are planning on launching a mandatory age verification solution in 2026 where the only possibly anonymous way of verifying your age to access e.g. social media will be through a smartphone app running on either Google Android or Apple iOS. These nincompoops do not realize that this move will effectively put every open source alternative at a permanent and severe disadvantage, thus handing Apple and Google, which are already duopolies in the smartphone market, a huge moat that will lock out all future competitors form entering the market.
I have written to the relevant government agencies, and while they are nice enough to actually answer questions, their answers reveal that they act as if they are a commercial business and not a government agency that is supposed to act in the interest of the people and preserve their freedom. They argue that they are releasing a solution that will work for the vast majority of platforms and that they are continuously monitoring the market to assess whether they need to add support for other platforms. This is a cost-cutting measure which is maybe okay for a commercial entity targeting a specific market demographic, but it is an absurd way for a government to think.
Before the upcoming age verification we already had a national digital identity solution, MitID, which also comes as an app running on Android and iOS, and which is locked down to require strong integrity using Google Play Integrity. But at least here they also offer hardware tokens so people can use their digital identity without owning a smartphone and running an open source OS like Linux on their desktops. But with age verification this is apparently over, all the while the government is lying about actually making an effort to free us from American big tech - they are instead basically forcing us to be their customers now.
I think, even though the ideas aren't "perfect"/"complete", Nietzche's "Will to Power" does a pretty good job of explaining "why" animals/ideologies/organizations/systems "unfold" the way they do. Everything (mostly) tries to protect/strengthen/replicate itself.(viruses being the most obvious example)
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52915/52915-h/52915-h.htm
Yes and to be honest it's not necessarily unjustified BUT it should ONLY be done when the parts, hardware, software, or both, are not linked to a single proprietary actor.
Need security before doing a $1000 transaction because everything so far was $10? Sure, ask for a physical token 2FA, NOT a YubiKey implementation.
Obviously though if I was working at Google or Apple and paid for the success of my company via incentives, e.g. stock, I would fight tooth and nail to let banks know that only MY solution is secure.
> Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...).
The only real issue here is banks that don't offer an equivalent website or require the "app" as authentication factor. I couldn't care less about copyrighted media. It's only fair that I source my media from the high seas when the only options that respect their "rights" infringe my own right to run free software on my devices.
I wonder, if there were an open platform to exist that people use increasingly, maybe that would be incentive enough for at least one bank/financial app to permit that platform just to get a competitive advantage.
In the meantime probably the best that can be done is having a regular phone and a banking phone.
Bank apps: Use an ATM, or a second phone. Enterprise apps: Use a second phone, preferably paid for by work. Government apps: Use a second phone, or refuse to use it (since there's likely elderly whom are not on board yet). Copyrighted media: Piracy.
So the last possible community response is to bring back "responsive web apps"(tm) in the browser. And make sure a privacy first mobile web browser is installed.
I would add that end-users are OK with this because they expect their devices to not be compromised when installing an app. The majority of users are OK with trusted computing and are OK with trusting Google, Apple, Microsoft because it’s easier to trust one of those companies than having to trust each app developer. In the end, you have to trust someone and it’s better if that someone can be held accountable by some legal system.
Yeah, I would absolutely get rid of my smartphone if I could do banking and all the numerous authentication processes without it. While I sympathise with all the Linux phone projects, I just don't have a use case for a Linux phone.
relative of mine has t1d and they use their phone app to monitor and give insulin, also alarm them when they are low..trusting outside the reliability of apple and google for this type of stuff i imagine would be difficult.
This is the reason I have given up on thinking of smartphones as general purpose computers. I used to root my phone on day one, play with custom ROMs, etc...
But then, it became more and more annoying with apps blocking root access, features being unavailable to custom ROMs, etc... There are workarounds (is Magisk still a thing?), but I got tired of them.
So now, I just buy an entry level Samsung, which is well supported, runs all the apps I need (browser, financial, maps, chat, ...) and takes recognizable pictures. It is just a boring tool, like a credit card, I need one because that's the world we live in, but the object itself is of no importance.
If I want to play with a computer, I have a "real" computer. If, at some point, I get interested in smartphones as a platform, I will buy one just for this, in the same way that I have no intention of using the credit card I buy stuff with should I want to play with smartcards.
It has also killed my desire to spend money on a smartphone. What's the point of a $1000 device? What's to point of upgrading unless forced to by planned obsolescence? Why should I pay more than $200 every 5 year or so? They are all the same to me. They even all have the same form factor, besides overpriced and fragile foldables.
> Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing.
But they don't demand the same control over laptops and desktops. Only phones. Why is that? Granted I can't deposit a check with my laptop but I can do any other banking I wish to do.
So to me it's more that they see the chance to gain this control where they didn't see it before. Phone providers are only too happy to get on that bandwagon because they get to deploy all kinds of surveillance capitalism in the name of security ("hey the banks want it!").
Granted these freedoms are slowly leaching away from laptops and desktop too with stuff like TPM, so I don't know. I've about had it though.
that's true only for as long as we allow that to be true. Users can live without Spotify (to cite just one representative of the mentioned categories), but Spotify can't live without users. We could (and should) stop behaving as powerless victims.
And yet Linux and to lesser extent Windows and even lesser macos exist. They don't have that excessive control and we still can use bank/financial goverment and (if we enable DRM) also copyrighted media webpages (and sometimes apps).
Aside from music/video there are no obstacles for other apps to exist in open system.
> Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...).
Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing.
Those work perfectly via a browser, on any platform where the browser can run. As long as a hypothetical open OS has a browser capable with bog standard modern capabilities, it will be fine
> Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open? Seriously.
Because the market has failed, and we have a duopoly. There are many reasons for that, but, this is the exact sort of time a govt must step in - when something becomes a utility, it needs to be regulated as such.
I agree, I don't really want to enshrine Google/Apple into law, however if they are makers of an operating system that is used like a common utility, they should be regulated as such.
Unfortunately western governments are moving to impose more and more control over our digital life, and I think they see a locked down commercial platform as a convenient means to that end because they can regulate it. If the EU commission ever succeeds in passing Chat Control, which requires client side scanning on all devices, then it is very convenient for them if people do not use open source operating systems where they can just run clients that don't send data to a third party.
Legislation is required at this point. Infrastructure companies (including finance and transportation) should be required to provide web apps that have feature parity with proprietary apps. (Enforcement is simple: ban distribution of the proprietary app for 5 years).
I think we going the other way though.
For instance, this recently proposed bipartisan bill would force all (even locally installed) AI apps to repeatedly run age checks on end users, and also adds $100,000 penalties each time the AI screws up when a minor is involved, even for bugs. I don’t see any safe harbor provisions, or carve outs for locally installed / open source / open weight projects, so it’d end up handing a monopoly to ~ 1 provider that’s too big to prosecute:
The most important thing you can do right now is get the democrats to actually field a candidate in 2028 that will restore the rule of law and free markets in the US.
> Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open?
We don't! Instead, we go to regulators. Though I suspect your question really is "Why bother with salvaging Android at all?"
Mobile platforms are hard - famously, Microsoft failed to make Windows phone a viable platform, and John Carmack successfully argued that Meta didn't need a custom OS. Mozilla's Mobile OS that had OEM partners making real phones spluttered out, and nor for the lack of trying. Both Firefox OS and Postmarket rely on an Android foundation for HAL/drivers, IIRC. Device bring-up is hard, and negotiating with OEMs is harder still, and that comes "free" with Android-supporting devices.
Logistically, the vast majority of people who install apps from non-Play-Store sources do so ok their daily-driver phone, which is running the stock operating system. They are not tech savvy at all
> Mozilla's Mobile OS that had OEM partners making real phones spluttered out, and nor for the lack of trying.
Firefox OS had serious issues.
* Web standards 2013-2017 weren't ready enough.
* 2013-2017 phones still weren't powerful enough for complex JS apps to feel fast.
* asm.js was de-facto proprietary (a new FFOS with wasm would be be another story)
* The UI wasn't so great.
* Their launch devices were slow, cheap, and sucked.
* Their launch devices weren't readily available to developers.
* Their OS provided no real advantages over iOS or Android
The OS is still around as KaiOS (with a couple hundred million devices shipped IIRC) and I believe it still powers Panasonic TVs.
Interestingly, I think a FirefoxOS of today with good React Native and Flutter integration and cutting-edge WASM support could have a shot at success if not completely mis-managed.
> Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open?
Because Google and Apple have put themselves between us and everything else.
Until we manage to replace them (by lobbying to everything including governments against them, and by working towards making the alternatives usable), we unfortunately have to resort to this. I'd even say we are entitled to this because we never asked for Google and Apple to become compulsory, they decided this.
I would personally be able to switch to Linux mobile today because I don't rely on anything proprietary (except the interrail app occasionally, damn them - but possibly waydroid would work for this)… if only there was usable and reliable hardware that could run the mainline kernel: decent battery life, decent picture quality, decent GPS, decent calls (especially emergency calls even if I haven't needed to actually make one so far, finger crossed, and Signal would do for most other situations actually).
I've daily-driven the PinePhone for a year. Call quality is awful and calls are awfully unreliable, and SMS are quite unreliable as well. Too bad for a phone. Unfortunately the phone took a big rain and now its modem is unreliable and doesn't come back up very often, but that's something a phone will likely endure in its life. Pictures are awful. GPS never worked well on my regular PinePhone. It somewhat worked on the Pinephone Pro until it died because it overheated. Linux hardware support is okayish, it was nice to run completely free software which was my main motivation for trying it but the hardware is crap to the point of being unusable serious.
The FP5 can apparently run PostmarketOS quite well. It would make an awesome Linux mobile. Camera and calls only partially work though [1]. And that's the main features of a phone.
Linux mobile itself it becoming quite decent (if one can do without the proprietary apps), what we really need is good hardware running it. Then we can begin to imagine a world with it having a decent usage share.
For another platform to rise, there needs to be some heavy market shift. There already were opensource mobile OS: Maemo/meego/Tizen. Heck! I'd even throw phosh and ubports in the pot. But those are about as rare a sight in the wild as lightphones.
Phones have become essential to daily lives and the catch22 is: companies won't support niche platforms for their apps and users won't switch until the apps are there.
Android happened to get adopted before everyone started relying on mobile devices as computer substitutes. Unless a major player pulls out a Valve move and does with waydroid what Valve did with wine, I can't imagine the market changing significantly.
One of the benefits of mobile GNU/Linux distros is that it is possible to run Android apps on them. Waydroid works well. The one catch is that it can be difficult to trick certain picky apps into running on an "unsecured" device.
I don't understand why individuals expect a corporation like Google, driven by profits, to give a sh*t. I would expect no less of Apple with IOS.
Individuals should look for and support alternatives. I'm currently working on a desktop running Ubuntu because I want an alternative to the duopoly of Windows and macOS.
Additionally, we should support open-source alternatives with our donations. I personally donate money every year to Ubuntu, the Gnome foundation, and Tor.
If you're worried about a for-profit company having sway over your computer, Ubuntu is not really the choice to make. Please consider running upstream Debian; there are very few downsides, but the upside is that it is run by an organization that is not (and never will be) driven by profits. Also, it seems a little silly to donate to Ubuntu, which is maintained by a for-profit company.
The OS on desktop situation isn't comparable to the OS on mobile situation. You can buy any PC and expect being able to replace its OS. On phones, you have to look for the ones where it's possible, and depending on the phone, it's possible despite the efforts from the manufacturers for not allowing it.
Also in PC OSs, there isn't a corporation dictating what programs you are allowed to install. In iOS there is, and soon in Android too.
IMO, these corporations have managed to amass an amount of power where there's no longer consumer freedom. Therefore, there's no free market. We have reached a point where the law must intervene to restore capitalism.
Because we can't install that on phones and even if we did, we need to use Android apps to do basic daily things.
Phones are not like PCs, you can't "just install a different OS". You also can't just build a phone from parts like you can with a PC, it comes locked in with the OS, with proprietary drivers and advanced cryptographic DRM measures.
And even if we did get things to the level of desktop Linux, we can't run any of the apps we need for everyday life. Most of these things on desktop are web-based, so you can use them on Linux, but this isn't the case for mobile and many things only come in mobile. Bank apps, government services, digital identification, mandatory companion apps for other devices...
If nothing else, we need to keep Android as open as possible because it makes it easier to port those things to other platforms and maybe one day have a proper alternative.
Oh, and it's not like we have a good alternative. The current Linux stack is completely inadequate for mobile use. An average phone has something like 50 apps the need to be able to react to any of a few dozen different local or remote events at any moment, yet also need to use approximately zero CPU cycles to do that. We need a brand new app paradigm if we want mobile Linux to succeed and it's not looking like that's going to happen any time soon.
The short version is: the PC is a historical accident. By "the PC" I mean "the Windows-Intel platform on which most consumer PCs were built." Linux and BSD were both able to exist in the form they did because there was a commodity hardware platform that was standardized (ad-hoc standardization, mind you) and _somewhat_ open. IBM, Microsoft and Intel were all best frenemies, able to exert enough power to standardize the PC platform but also able to exert enough power against each other to prevent them from locking the platform down too much. There is no standard "smartphone" platform like there is with the PC, really the only standard is Android AOSP. Because of this, it's a lot harder to do a third-party phone platform without adopting large parts of Android's code.
The point we are all missing, Google is not going to pull back, they have already invested in this change, it's in rollout phase, infrastructure is in place. It's
not going to be rolled back. The ship has sailed. Keep Android Open is unfortunately dead on arrival, IF we are going to depend on Google.
And, are we going to keep depending on a profit oriented company to follow our bid? If so, then, we are very well have lost already.
The problem is that a new project and even a fork would need buy in buy companies like Samsung. Otherwise a project LineageOS would be much more popular. This is hard to do without serious money.
Yes, agree 100%. It's not only Android the problem. It's the cartelization between them and hardware manufacturers. But then that means that we will be doomed to the current duopoly between Google and Apple.
The very first step I believe needs to be taken is to pass strict laws to allow devices to be reflashed with whatever we want. Until we do not have that in place we will always be stucked like this. Once people can truly install from scratch whatever they want then the game should change completely.
Why is popularity a concern? I'm writing this on a Librem 5 with PureOS that I've been daily driving for the last few years and which gives me a much better experience than Android could. Why would it matter to me as a user whether it's popular or not? The only thing I can think of is availability of native applications, but this would just hide the actual problem with interoperability and pass it down for the next underdog project to worry about.
Popularity is important when we consider whole societies, but it's not particularly relevant for individuals. I don't need a buy in of Samsung to use GNU/Linux on my phone.
True, if a new system ever wants to rise, it’s gonna need backing from a major player. But once it takes over the market, it might just become the next “Android.”
> "We need these kind of projects, not kneeling down to a company like Google and begging for Android to be open."
Indeed.
> "Effort needs to be put elsewhere."
Also correct. Outside of offering (an) alternative product(s), one also needs to fight the inevitable pushback of industry dinosaurs and their political toadies.
In other words: One needs to invest in massive lobbying efforts on the same playing field of corporations as well, e. g. in the EU or the US. For without sound organizing all efforts will be relegated to hobbyist spaces with an assortment of "Are we there yet?" products.
Smartphones and function-alikes are an entirely different breed of device, or at least can be: the general-purpose computing platform for your pocket. In this market, "somewhat different" rules apply.
The real problem was never solved to begin with: all mobile devices require proprietary drivers to function at all. Because these drivers are proprietary, the only people in a position to make them compatible with an OS are the manufacturer's dev team; and they are only interested in compatibility with Google's proprietary Android fork.
When Google starts to release versions of its proprietary Android fork, any open Android fork (or other alternative OS) will have to reverse engineer that proprietary Android fork in order to match its compatibility with proprietary firmware blobs. This will need to be done for every device.
Imagine trying to find your way through a building while wearing a blindfold. It's much easier if you are able to study the original floor plan that building was modeled after, even if the building itself has a modified design. Google is taking away that floor plan.
The situation is already medium-bad: it would be trivial to use an alternative OS if drivers and firmware were open source. It would be relatively easy if drivers and firmware had open specifications. It's difficult, but feasible in the current situation, where drivers and firmware are closed spec, but designed to be compatible with a close fork of an open source codebase. It will be extremely difficult (and technically illegal in the US) to do when drivers and firmware are closed spec, and designed to be compatible with a closed source codebase.
I used to have a Jolla phone which ran a pretty cool linux OS on it but it only worked because it had an alien dalvik android vm so I could still run apps like those from my bank, whatsapp etc..
It's nearly impossible to live in the modern world without either an iphone or android without making some major sacrifices e.g. I'd love to not use whatsapp but it's not an option because all of my friends and family use it
If people have to put the tiniest bit of effort into using a different platform, they won't. This is the sole problem with alternative platforms. I agree with you that the ideal solution would be to break away from Google entirely, either with a hard fork of Android, or something completely different. But you'll have to make the transition absolutely seamless for the masses, or it won't happen.
Because smartphones are designed such that I cannot put whatever OS I want on them. I'm stuck with whatever proprietary flavor of Android the manufacturer loaded it with.
If I'm really lucky one of the opem source Android forks will support my device. But my current phone is not supported by postmarketOS or GrapheneOS.
I don't want a world where the market can only support a dozen devices across 4 or 5 manufacturers.
Most if not all large, successful open source projects are funded by commercial interests, not just consumers. The resources it takes to maintain something like Android far exceeds what can be funded solely by donations and volunteers.
It's better to have a billion dollar corp footing the bill for the massive amount of work it takes to maintain Android. If it comes to needing a fork so be it, but if they can be convinced (or strongarmed) to be more supportive of an open ecosystem and FOSS Android projects, everyone wins.
Systems with less maintainers require less maintenance because they are made in ways that require less maintenance. They also tend to be less good systems, but not in linear proportion to their reduced maintenance.
Why would you want to start over with a new platform when Android (as a FOSS project) is already most of the way there in terms of freedom and usability? The only problem are "apps" that depend on proprietary Google libraries. This only concerns a minority of apps, but notably includes some foreign banks that require the "app" as second authentication factor.
Perhaps this could be regulated by law or executive power, but considering that governments themselves have created apps that depend on proprietary software, I am not too hopeful. But as long as the same "app" is accessible through a browser, this remains a minor inconvenience.
> So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives.
When it comes to consumer hardware or software targeted at end users? I think such cases are pretty rare and far in between. Firefox had a brief stint of being popular in the late 2000s, Valve is doing some cool stuff with SteamOS/Proton but I can't think of much else of the the top of my head.
Otherwise it's usually companies like Google or Apple which use OSS as a base layer for their closed down and proprietary platforms.
PostmarketOS is cool but its a product niche targeted a very tiny subset of consumers (just like Linux on desktop for that matter).
The equivalent of dual-booting would, IMO, be a big step towards Google-independence.
In my grad school days in the mid-90s I set up Linux because it let me write programs in a modern way, accessing all the available memory without jumping through hoops, etc. I would still switch to Windows for playing games, using Quicken, checking Usenet and email and browsing the web.
AOL not even being available on Windows and modem drivers for cheap-er hardware being Windows-only meant I had to switch back and forth (download on Windows, copy to a floppy, reboot, etc.). This sounds crazy today, but it worked "somewhat OK" for me to keep experimenting.
If we could somehow provide a similar environment for the phone, even jumping through hoops, this will enable enthusiasts to start seriously tinkering with their devices. But this is not easy -- both the hardware and the Android today place way more restrictions than much-vilified Microsoft and Intel did 30 years ago. And Microsoft tried very hard to snuff Linux out, wiping boot sectors and partition tables giving half a chance; Google will be much more successful killing any dual-boot attempts now. My 2c.
The difference is hardware. A large part of the explosion around Linux in desktop computing is based on the fact that IBM's patents for desktop architecture expired and IBM clones proliferated in the marketplace. Also, busses like ISA/PCI/AGP and ports (serial, parallel, ethernet, USB) were all standardized.
In short, Linux was possible because the underlying hardware was open and standard.
IBM had very little patentable subject matter in the original 5150 design, and anything they could patent would have been subject to an antitrust decree that legally required them to, in Tim Kulak[0]'s words, "work for free". That's why they focused on copyright in the BIOS so heavily.
Also, none of this impacts Linux, beyond the fact that IBM clones were ubiquitous by the time Linus started writing the kernel. If IBM clones weren't around, Linux probably would have originally ran on an Amiga. It was very much expected that personal computers would run anything compiled for the CPU, mainly because the companies making them shipped very little software. I guess you could say that Linux was possible because there were PCs to buy - otherwise we'd be stuck with BSD or GNU running on computers we had to rent. But even then, what IBM did here was not directly open the floodgates to a Free OS, they just accidentally opened the floodgates to a bunch of companies entering the PC market by blatantly and legally ripping them off.
[0] Kulak is a Russian word for owners of rural land that refused to join the Soviet collectivization regime, which was then later applied to basically anyone accused of not meeting the hilariously awful production quotas Stalin put on shit. Despite this awful history, I'm appropriating the term because A) it's a good pejorative for land-owning nobility and B) it almost rhymes with Cook.
> A new platform needs to rise that breaks out completely from Google
After many many years and many forks, yes. This is still clearly the right answer. Google didn't succumb to Apple and just accept things, they acquired Android and invested heavily in it. We are all grateful for that. BUT, we must also acknowledge that the time of the two horse race is over. And while OpenAI and many others are attempting to do various things, we can continue to invest and back alternatives that create a more fragmented market. Maybe they will not replace Android, that's fine, but you're not going to fix Android's problems without suing Google, which people are doing, or actively working on alternatives, which again people are doing. Change is coming.
Because money. Yes Android is open source, but Google is spending billions of dollars a year paying engineers to develop it. If you want Android to be "free" find alternate funding, with no strings attached.
Why? Because I want to run bank, OTP, streaming, and other crap apps that requires certain level of trust that a 100% open source version of AOSP made by some guy in a basement doesn't provide, that's why.
Because you cannot own or operate a cellphone. The cell phone modem is not licensed or controlled by you. It cannot be, it is the telecommunication company's. And this reality is intruding more and more into everyday life. You will not be allowed to control your smartphone. They are terrible computers because of this. A smartphone's legal purpose is now basically just banking, shopping, and navigation. Other things that interfere with commerce will not be allowed.
Just use your phone as a hotspot with a real computer for computing that you can and do own.
You're right. Especially with the rise of agentic AI. You could have hundreds of contributors, all using agents, working on different modules, according to existing spec and tests, create a new OS, or Web Browser or anything. It's the end of monopolistic control of software.
But, I think the giants already know and accept this. The moat now is compute. A centralization of power back to the server, the rise of thin clients, and fat services.
So, it is a revolution but there's also counterbalancing forces. Still, we should ride that wave :)
> You could have hundreds of contributors, all using agents, working on different modules, according to existing spec and tests
The current problem with "Linux on phones" is the locked down nature of the hardware. For example, looking at PostmarketOS's support device list [0], sensors, Wifi, even phone calls don't work. Would what you're saying enable faster implementation of those support modules? (This would be really cool if possible).
The way to make this work for real is with a smooth migration path, which means a way to keep running Android apps on your new system.
If you want to sponsor Waydroid to help make that happen, you can do so right now: https://opencollective.com/Waydroid (I'm not affiliated, just a fan, and it's the only realistic route to this I see).
I agree with you, but that only works if people value it and are willing to pay for it.
Look at email. It’s technically open, but in reality there are a few large players who control the majority of it.
The only way open source phone software succeeds is if there is real money behind it and there is an attractiveness to it that makes people pay for it.
We need both. Open source alternatives are great, but they don't replace tight regulation of large corporations. Just because Linux exists doesn't mean we can give Microsoft, Apple and Google free reign.
Problem is the hardware vendors often very much like closed systems. And banking apps too. We sadly have a much less open hardware ecosystem compared to the PC landscape. And even here driver problems are more pronounced the more exotic the OS platform.
For me mobile OS are a broken mess, irrespective of Apple or Google, so I would love to have an alternative. Mobile phones are powerful devices that are severely handicapped by bad software. Restrictions are sold as security and there are a lot of people that even buy into these crap argument. So much so that even legislation has adopted them to some degree.
But for hardware vendors to jump on another train, a new OS must probably offer something shiny. And the average user has no idea how easy it could be to interface your smartphone with other devices without needing some ad riddled vendor specific apps. I mean you can install an ssh client on your phone, but meh... That is more or less the only app I install these days.
I agree, F** Android, the website should me MakeLinuxSmartphoneReady.org and PostmarkeOS + Gnome Mobile is in good shape but a few smartphones support it.
Google has been gradually becoming more restrictive on Android openness, slowly but surely strengtening the thumb screws.
On the long term, the best thing to happen is for them to bang make it proprietary [1] while it is still free and liberal. The shock effect will be big, and the initial changes big, too. Such will motivate the right people. Open source devs, governments, legislators, people with executive powers within other companies.
But Google is too sneakily clever for that. So they go slowly, gradually. There won't be a shock effect, or if it happens it'll be a done deal.
This is how you turn a country into fascism, too. Slowly but surely, and then bang. It is all the small steps beforehand which matter, and this is why the Execute Order 66 quote from Star Wars is so such a beautiful example in popular movie SF.
You can see how failed efforts for coups in democracies have failed recently because of checks and balances. South Korea is a recent example, but looking at the details it was a close call. In my opinion, the same was true for USA, and I don't know enough about the Brazil example.
[1] Yes, I realize Android is proprietary and AOSP is FOSS.
Good luck funding the development of a competing mobile OS by FLOSS nerds that can compete with Google's trillion dollar market cap.
Even if you could get some traction, you're gonna have a bad time getting banks to support this OS, at which point it will be useless for most users, preventing you from ever becoming profitable.
> Even if you could get some traction, you're gonna have a bad time getting banks to support this OS
This already happened. Banks here in Brazil like to require an invasive piece of software (a browser "plugin", though it installs system services) to access their online banking websites. For a long time, this invasive software was Windows-only, so those of us using Linux had to either beg the banks to enable a flag to bypass that "security software" for our accounts, or do without online banking. The same for the government-developed tax software, which was initially DOS-only and then became Windows-only.
But nowadays, there is a Linux variant of that invasive banking "security" software, and that tax software became Java-only (with Windows, Linux, and MacOS installers, plus a generic archive for other operating systems). So things can change.
I also don't think it is right for Goverment to force companies give up their properties, in this case it is like forcing Google to continue to fund Android.
May be Goverment world wide could all fund the same OSS OS which benefits everyone. But right now I see zero incentives for any government to do it.
I regret having wasted a good part of my career supporting Google with the Android enterprise. They had some very good (technically and intentionally) people there, but it all got thoroughly corrupted.
With hindsight the only thing that kept them remotely honest was the Andy Rubin vs Sundar Pichai turf war, which at the time manifested as Android vs Chrome. Once that had a decided winner it was a recipe for serious trouble.
The only viable way forward for an open mobile OS is to fork Android as is. This is the only way to carry over anything resembling existing app support or all the work that goes into making a mobile OS actually work up to the level users expect. i.e. cameras through to hardware media CODECs and total system stability.
Linux on mobile is fun, but really I want AOSP and its superior security model and SDK.
Now I hate Google as much as the next person, but I also hate all the other Android manufacturers who just don't do better.
Ideally, major manufacturers would all contribute to AOSP to make sure that it runs well with their devices. And then we could install the "AOSP distro" we want, be it GrapheneOS or LineageOS or whatever the fuck we want.
> does anyone know if Huawei is following along with this in their fork?
They suck like all the other manufacturers: they forked as a quick solution, and then decided to go with their own proprietary codebase. If nobody else contributes, why would they make it open source?
What I see from the Linux experience is that the only way it works is to have a copyleft licence and a multitude of contributors. That way it belongs to everybody, and it moves too fast for one single entity to write a proprietary competitor on their own. But AOSP is not that: first it's a permissive licence, and only Google meaningfully contributes to it.
> Ideally, major manufacturers would all contribute to AOSP to make sure that it runs well with their devices. And then we could install the "AOSP distro" we want, be it GrapheneOS or LineageOS or whatever the fuck we want.
I was under the impression that we got that with GSI, including that Google required a device to support GSIs in order to be certified or something like that. Am I misremembering?
While I understand the reasons behind this campaign, I have mixed feelings about it.
As an iPhone user, I find it frustrating that deploying my own app on my own device requires either reinstalling it every 7 days or paying $100 annually. Android doesn't have this limitation, which makes it simpler and more convenient for personal use.
However, when it comes to publishing apps to the store, I take a different view. In my opinion, stricter oversight is beneficial. To draw an analogy: NPM registry has experienced several supply chain attacks because anyone can easily publish a library. The Maven Central registry for Java libraries, by contrast, requires developers to own the DNS domain used as a namespace for their library. This additional requirement, along with a few extra security checks, has been largely effective in preventing—or at least significantly reducing—the supply chain attacks seen in the NPM ecosystem.
Given the growing threat of such attacks, we need to find ways to mitigate them. I hope that Google's new approach is motivated by security concerns rather than purely economic reasons.
Android already has this strict oversight, in theory, in the form of the Play Store. And yet.
Personally I feel much more safe and secure downloading a random app from F-Droid, than I do from Google, whose supposed watchful eyes have allowed genuine malware to be distributed unimpeded.
> In my opinion, stricter oversight is beneficial.
I agree; stricter oversight is beneficial for the official app store. It should not be necessary (and neither should Google's (or Apple's, or Microsoft's, or the government's, etc) verification be necessary) for stuff you install by yourself.
> The Maven Central registry for Java libraries, by contrast, requires developers to own the DNS domain used as a namespace for their library.
This means that you will need to have a domain name, and can verify it for this purpose. (It also has a problem if the domain name is later reassigned to someone else; including a timestamp would be one way to avoid that problem (there are other possibilities as well) but I think Java namespaces do not have timestamps.)
> I hope that Google's new approach is motivated by security concerns rather than purely economic reasons.
Maybe partially, but they would need to do it a better way.
If the manufacturer wants to offer verification of developers, this should be an optional feature allowing the user to continue the installation of applications distributed by unverified developers in a convenient way.
Making this verification mandatory is an absolute non-starter, ridiculous overreach, and a spit in the face of regulators who are trying to break Google and Apple's monopoly on mobile app distribution.
I don't understand how you can have mixed feelings about this.
> However, when it comes to publishing apps to the store,
This isn't about publishing apps to the Play Store. If that's all this was about, we wouldn't give a shit. The problem is that this applies to all stores, including third party stores like F-Droid, and any app that is installed independently of a store (as an apk file).
> Given the growing threat of such attacks, we need to find ways to mitigate them.
How about the growing threat of right-wing authoritarian control? How do we mitigate that when the only "free" platform is deciding the only way anybody can install any app on their phone is if that app's developer is officially and explicitly allowed by Google?
Hell, how long until those anti-porn groups turn their gaze from video games and Steam onto apps, then pressure MasterCard/Visa and in turn Google to revoke privileges from developers who make any app/game that's too "obscene" (according to completely arbitrary standards)?
There's such a massive tail of consequences that will follow and people are just "well, it's fine if it's about security". No. It's not. This is about arbitrary groups with whatever arbitrary bullshit ideology they might have being able to determine what apps are allowed to be made and installed on your phone. It's not fucking okay.
My elderly father unknowingly installed an application on Android after seeing a deceptive ad. An advertising message disguised as an operating system pop-up convinced him that his Android phone's storage was almost full. When he tapped the pop-up, and followed instructions he installed a fake cleaner app from the Play Store. While the app caused no actual harm, it displayed notifications every other day urging him to clean his phone using the same app. When he opened it, the app — which did nothing except display a fake graph simulating almost full storage — pressured him to purchase the PRO version to perform a deeper cleanup.
In reality, the phone had 24 GB of free space out of 64 GB total. I simply uninstalled the fake cleaner and the annoying notifications disappeared.
How such an app could reach the Play Store is beyond me. I can only imagine how many people that app must have deceived and how much money its creators likely made. I'm fairly certain the advertisement targets older people specifically—those most likely to be tricked.
For better or worse, I'm pretty sure that such an app would never land into the Apple App Store.
Litmus test: Can you get NewPipe or other Youtube clients onto an Android phone? This is non-malicious software that users want to run but could reduce YouTube's profits.
Between this and a growing number of oems not permitting bootloader unlocking (latest being Samsung with OneUI 8) Android's "open" future is pretty bleak.
IMO the bigger recent issue is that Google stopped pushing AOSP updates timely. As far as I know the QPR1 source is still missing in action after almost two months (!).
Current big tech is based on Stallman-inspired people using their free time to make software. But they are putting MIT lisence because ”someone” had convinced them that GPL is not really free and not socially acceptable!
The issue of android being open is not a developer issue. I do not mean, it does not affect developers, rather that the wrong that must be righted is to the user.
The F-droid article states:
"You, the consumer, purchased your Android device believing in Google’s promise that it was an open computing platform and that you could run whatever software you choose on it. "
This is an actionable issue. I believe this is a legally reasonable issue. If you buy a car and then the car manufacturer changes the car so you can only buy gas from them, or parts, that is an offense.
If you accept that users are wronged by googles action, the problem is what can be done about it?
Wrongs committed by companies like Google, Apple, Amazon are difficult to fix because of failures in our legal system. The typical legal action is a class action suit. These typically result in large "settlements" with little real effect. Users get a notice that they are entitled to $40 but only if they jump through seven hoops. Lawyers on both sides make out like bandits. The offenders have little incentive not to be repeat offenders, just not to get caught again. This is an acceptable risk for corporations and so does not act as a deterrent.
There are states Attorney Generals who can file anti-trust actions. The US government (ha ha) could file an anti-trust action. In my opinion neither of these are likely. And even if it happens, it will take years. And years.
A problem with these two legal solutions is that they rely on someone else. The result is that users are victims. We are all used to that by now.
Since we, as android users, are legally entitled to compensation - is there another way to take a legal action.
In most states the limits on small claims actions is between $3000 and $10,000. Well above the cost of an android phone. If there is one class action legal suit against google they can easily spend the money to defend it. And the time. They have the resources to do this.
However, what would happen if 1000 people filed small claims action, asking for a refund for the cost of their phone? Google is declaring war on users. They have their big legal tanks. Small claims are the equivalent of drones in the legal world.
We have the internet. We have AI. Can we generate reasonable and fair legal small claims court filings for each of the 50 states and put them online to help people.
We, the people, have learned helplessness. We need to learn something else or resign ourselves to simply being fodder for predatory actions by corporations.
This is likely the result of one of the most idiotic and bad rulings to come out of recent tech lawsuits. It's so painfully brain damaged and yet somehow has seemed to largely fly under the radar.
Google was found to have a monopoly on android with the play store (even though you can side load other stores), Apple was found to not have a monopoly with the app store.
OK. But that is not the really bad part, the really bad part came from the appellate court this past July. Google pointed out that the Apple app store was ruled not a monopoly, but somehow Google's more open system was..
The judge, I am not shitting you, said that because Apple doesn't allow competitors on their phones, they cannot be anti-competitive. Google lost the appeal.
So now, clear as day, Google needs to kick out competition to be competitive. Good job legal system.
Whats also an issue is that Android seemingly has stopped publishing the source code for Android (AOSP). Android 16 QPR1 has been out for months but still no source code released.
You can't even develop without the paid dev account? I thought it'd just be for distribution. Like, you can build and run whatever you want on an iPhone without a paid account.
You can develop and install via adb, but you can't just tell the package manager to install an APK you downloaded on your phone. Maybe attestation makes sense to allow Amazon App Store or Epic Games Store to be installed without a warning and to allow companies like Spotify to distribute their apps themselves from their websites without using Google Play Store and without a warning. What's wrong is preventing people from installing apps that haven't been attested by Google straight from their phone, even with a warning.
I get that requiring attestation for downloaded apps is wrong too, it's just this website says "it will no longer be possible to develop apps for the Android platform without first registering centrally with Google" which seems incorrect from what you're saying.
Edit: Oh I get it, "develop for the platform" means develop and distribute. Maybe it's just me, but seems like an important difference.
I don't understand the Google's move. Google uses Android as a platform to collect virtually everyone's personal info and build the profile to benefit its ad business. If there is an extremely tiny chance that people (or a sizble population) may walk away from the platform, it's not worth the risk.
It's Google's response to the remedies required by the Antitrust act decision last August. The timing is explained by the US Supreme Court decision of Oct 6 to deny Google its request to pause implementation of said remedies.
I wish¹ the page would also raise awareness for all the other stuff that's been going on w.r.t. Google & Android recently:
- AOSP is no longer developed in the open (if it ever was) – source releases & security patches have been severely delayed lately.
- Pixel devices will no longer be the reference devices for AOSP, and it seems Google will no longer release their device trees in the future. In addition, Google could also lock down the Pixel's boot loader and thereby prevent installation of custom ROMs.
¹) Of course focus is important, so I get why they kept the page short & sweet. Besides, while the side-loading topic is an issue that might be interpreted as anti-competitive and that institutions like the EU might be able to do something about, with the other issues it's not as clear-cut, I think.
I wonder if it's possible for a consortium led by major phone manufacturers to "libreoffice" Android away from Google's control.
Android (to a lesser extend iOS) has become deeply embedded in the infrastructure of modern society. It is essentially a public utility and should be managed as such.
A year ago I built a React Native Android app for my wife called "Pimp daddy", which she uses to track her earnings as an independent contractor.
The whole concept is meant to poke fun at the idea of me "checking up on her" (I file her tax returns) and the entire theme is 80s pimp styled.
Every time she submits something, she'll get a random pimp remark, like "Go get that money for me, girl!". She just rolls her eyes and ignores it, but it's what made it fun for me to work on it.
Edgy stuff like that could jeopardize my account in the near future. It might just be security now, but an automated "naughty words detector" will be an obvious next step.
I doubt I will invest any more time in hobby app development if I have to deal with some humorless overbearing watchdog telling me what I can and cannot install on my own device. Very sad to see Android following Microsofts anti power user direction.
I've only been interested in Android phones particularly Pixels because I can just flash another OS and do whatever but if Google goes through with this I might consider iphones this time
Are there any alternative mobile OSes actively developed? I remember Ubuntu Touch was the thing and something from Firefox, but not sure if they are continued?
We also have PostmarketOS (alpine base) and Mobian (debian base) as frontrunners. Supposedly Arch Linux for ARM and openSUSE Tumbleweed are also used by some on mobile.
There's HarmonyOS [1], which is developed by Huawei, and which has a similar mix of open (OpenHarmony) and proprietary components. I haven't used it, but it's supported by quite a few phones and sort of surprised it wasn't mentioned anywhere on this thread.
Given the apple v epic ruling about in payment commision outside the app store, I don't understand this. I assume Google would get the same ruling if they tried what apple did, so why bother with walling off if you can't get paid?
At least with 3p app stores they could have Gpay if the app developer wanted to, but now they will be pissed and can't build a 3p app anyway since users can't install it via 3p app stores.
This site is blocked by the UK National Cyber Security Centre via CloudFlare:
>This site may be associated with malicious activity or malware.
Access to this site has been blocked by the Protective DNS Service
Site: keepandroidopen.org
Please contact your local Network Administrator or IT support if you require further assistance
It's disturbing enough that many gadgets these days only stay usable as long as their cloud backend stays working.
But many more gadgets, while not cloud dependent, depend on an app. Think about any number of remote-controlled toys where the remote control is a phone app. Think, for example, about very expensive bicycle derailer systems that can only be configured via app.
Already I've found very neat objects whose app has long faded from the app stores, but for Android at least, you can usually find a .apk and even ancient ones often still load and run. A recent example was that for an ancient parrot ar.drone that I got at a garage sale.
Since these gadgets and their apps precede this attestation thing, newer Android devices will no longer be able to run them. Then what? Keep an old Android device around and hope that it stays working as long as your expensive gadget?
I agree, but it is not good enough. They should also need to actually check for malware and other problems with their own app store, in addition to allowing loading your own unverified (or that you verify yourself in a different way) software if you want to do too (perhaps with the option to configure this, as you mentioned).
(I do not use iPhone nor Android and I won't, even if they do fix these problems.)
Every company is open when they gain from it and closed when they gain from it. The idea of free general computing needs a different sponsor. Like a country or regulations. I don’t think open source projects and private companies can defend this idea adequately.
I think the main ask should not be limited to android/ios but similarly to the rules and regs of previous decades around agressive interop and standardisation. Asks for piecemeal carveouts whenever a monopoliist tightens the noose allows the can to be kicked downn the road when the outrage has subsided and allows for entrenchment of the status quo by stealth. Chipping away until the stated goal is reached.
Just like the car/gas monopolies were not alowed to get away with locking users into their own cartels - similar efforts should (but probably wont) be taken to preserve the ability of users to do with their devices as they see fit.
The idea of offering something for free then later deliberately restricting and or reducing its scope after securing enough takers to maximize benefits and advantages for those making the offer ought to be unlawful as they are knowingly and deliberately manipulating human nature. Those who accept such seemingly appealing offers often end up disadvantaged or harmed. And here with Google's latest Android edict we have yet another instance.
Manipulation and deception tactics are particularly relevant in internet age and they are Big Tech's standard modus operandi because its found them to be such financially successful business models. Laws need to enacted to prevent such exploitation as it is unreasonable and unacceptable for the psyche/reasoning of ordinary citizens to be pitched against such psychological might.
As so often happens with such authoritarian and manipulative dictates, this Google edict comes wrapped in the usual paltry excuse of security. Even Blind Freddy knows this excuse to be bullshit and that the real beneficiary is Google. The time has come for Android to be decoupled completely from Google.
It's tragic that despite a monopolistic finding against Google the Law didn't recognize the fact.
It is a story I heard way too often. Big Tech creates something which is so convenient, you don't want to miss it. Then Big Tech breaks that something, makes it more expensive or uses any other means of rent-seeking just pissing of its customers. We as consumers are by far the biggest lobbying-group, but nobody really gives an f.
I'm trying my way with /e/OS but thats not for everybody. It also shows me how deeply dependencies on google services are woven into the whole ecosystem - even on open source apps.
These things simply do not work. Things that work: legislation (when enforced); lawsuits (when successful and very costly to the company); physical violence of course; people collectively refusing to buy the product because now it has zero advantage over Apple or because someone comes out with a new better competitor; forced interoperability via reverse engineering.
I've got my Linux smartphone running and ready to go. VWYF, folks. I'll take shitty software and poor battery life over digital authoritarianism every single time.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You can still run an Android build that doesn't require a Google signature for apps. You'll just lose access to Play Integrity APIs, which you wouldn't get from non-Android Linux phones either. A better technical solution is to set up a federated replacement for Play Integrity that third party ROM developers can opt into and a library that can use that or Play Integrity for app developers that want it to use.
gonna say: the pinephone has been hell over the last few weeks. Phone auto-boots whenever power is applied (either by their keyboard case or via USB-C), then the battery dies very quickly, and you need a minimum charge to boot the phone, so that means you have to swap an SD card in there with JumpDrive just to charge the darn thing. There are some mitigating factors (larger battery, Tow-Boot + loading OS from SD card, potentially some SMT soldering shenanigans), but I genuinely feel like this is a fire hazard. I -do not- recommend inflicting this on others.
someone suggested (I can't lost the link) flipping the script with a GLiNet Mudi hotspot with SMS forwarding (to e-mail); I really like this idea. It would be suuuper neat to play around with the tethered model: make SIP calls with a hacked Switch with Android installed / dedicated ruggedized VoIP phone for emergencies, or justify making and carrying a cyberdeck.
Personally, I'm hoping to revive my 3DS because I fell in love with the darn thing again (and its near infinite battery life). I heard you can make calls on the original DS with SvSIP, so suuurely that can work on the 3DS too. As a fellow gamer and android dev I'm sure you'd appreciate the idea.
I don't want a phone owned and controlled and spied on by governments and mega corporations. I want a Gibson-Neuromancer style obelisk disk blob thing that does Internet, Telephony, and Computer stuff and uses whatever I tether it to as the human interface.
My primary for the time being remains GrapheneOS, which, ironically enough, only runs on Pixel hardware for now (though the GOS team is working with an unnamed major Android OEM to produce a handset that meets GOS's strict platform requirements).
My Linux phone is a PinePhone pro, which I believe is no longer being sold. It's not great. Phosh could generously be described as "in progress" last time I used it. UIs for many applications aren't built for small touchscreens like that.
I'd have to review the hardware market again if I were going to make a fresh recommendation. Librem looks cool conceptually, but they're a bit pricey, and their framing of a "Made in USA" variant as a premium feature rather than a red flag, a reputation risk, and a supply chain risk make me skeptical of whether Librem is a trustworthy entity at all, or might just be controlled opposition. That could just be me erring on the side of paranoia, though.
i've had a positive experience with OnePlus 6 and Mobian, but if you want something more modern with a business behind it, check out https://furilabs.com/
This works now, but good luck in 10 years time when the radio chip requires a digital signature from the host OS signed by google or apple and your current phone is deprecated by 6g or whatever.
Mobile hotspot with a wireguard tunnel wrapping all traffic. Different RF bands (e.g. Starlink). Unauthorized private autonomous mesh networks. I don't care how hard they make it. I am never going to stop uncompromisingly exercising my right to absolute control over hardware I bought and paid for.
I just bought a fairphone6 hoping this phone would last me a decade with security patches and lineageos support. Naively I was assuming Google would keep Android open for that period. Now I might as well switch to Apple so I'm in sync with the rest of my family.
Ugh.
You will probably run some kind of community Android distribution on that phone, like Lineage or Graphene, and those will likely not include this limitation. The world will be worse off, but you and I will be unaffected. Worst case is that future Google will decide to kick us out of the Play Store, but there has been plenty of workarounds for that before.
Let's not forget Google was legally forced to open up distribution to alternative app stores and direct downloads. This gives them some baseline security/accountability that applies to even side-loaded apps.
That's doable for now in some places. But in an increasing number of countries, payments for just about everything are done directly from an Android or iOS app, so you'd always have to carry around this locked-down phone as well your Linux phone.
I love this and I'll support it, but I know that in the end it won't make a difference. Consumers decided they only wanted 2 choices, and these are the consequences.
This battle was lost a looong time ago. The effort it takes to keep up with all the shenanigans of Google and that play store is way worse than these new changes.
perhaps the users should be allowed to install whatever they want on the devices they own? this "security" narrative google spews is weak, considering how much malware fails to be detected by play store
top comment seems to be on point, it's time for more of a focus on linux mobile (or mobile linux)... this has been known to be needed for years and some progress has been made on it and more can be made with more people getting involved (postmarketos, mobian, ubuntu touch, etc.)
EDIT: apologies I misunderstood that this is limiting third-party distribution. I am of course, in favour of this.
Original comment:
I don't want this. The App Store on iOS has its flaws, but it's a curated system that has a lot of checks in place to prevent malware. I have never felt unsafe on iOS and it's the primary reason I've not joined Android and the Play Store's wild west.
Because I'd actually be interested in an Android phone if Google locks down the play store to legitimate actors, increases the barrier for entry and improves the quality and safety of submissions. Which this looks to be doing?
If people working for Google had a conscience, they would be working to break the system from within. At this point it's leaving the confines of anti-consumerism and entering into a gray area of basic human rights abuse. It's clearly a cartel market with the other big players (Apple and others to a lesser extend) that needed to be broken 10 years ago(if it were possible).
It reminds me a bit of the book "The Constant Soldier", depicting Auschwitz guards and staff enjoying their carefree holiday at a nearby lake resort, before going back to burning people. Might seem like hyperbole, but I think we're rushing towards an ugly plutocracy.
Unfortunately the feedback period for the European Digital Fairness Act has been closed since October 24th. Does anyone know of another way to appeal to my European overlords^H representatives?
The play store ID process is ridiculous, their AI is making up BS why it wouldn't let your documents pass, clearly no human in the loop.
In the EU we can report this to: comp-market-information@ec.europa.eu
State that:
Google is abusing its dominant position on the market for Android-app distribution by “denial of access to an essential facility”.
Google is not complying with their "gatekeeper" DMA obligations (Article 5(4), Article 6(12), Article 11, Article 15)
Attach evidence.
Financial penalty is the only way to pressure this company to abide law.
> [...] the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) obliges gatekeepers like Google to effectively allow the distribution of apps on their operating system through third party app stores or the web. At the same time, the DMA also permits Google to introduce strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that third-party software apps or app stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system or to enable end users to effectively protect security. [...]
They seem to be on it, but no surprise: it's all about Google's claims for "security" and "ongoing dialogue gatekeepers".
Google is evil. Every single one on here arguing "but muh security improves" is against freedom of computing, plain and simple. There's no middle ground.
Google & others have slowly turned down the freedom dial over the years and we let it happen. People working for Google let it happen. I'm not aware of any inside movement protesting this like they protested against various social issues.
Security that you can't turn off is basically a prison.
I'm not familiar with lineageOS but with GrapheneOS any off the apps don't have privileged permissions this includes the Google play services. Google play services works like a normal app via Sandboxed Google play compatibility layer. The layer teaches the play services work like a normal app in standard app sandbox. Because of that, the check of side loaded apps whether or not have been verified by a ID via privileged GSM services are not possible. https://grapheneos.org/features#sandboxed-google-play
Considering that Google has stated their intent that Chrome OS and Android are moving toward a single unified platform, they will essentially be fucking up the laptop/desktop market as well.
The only remaining good thing about Google is their Project Zero. They have become the same shit as every greedy company.
I've been using Android phones since the OG Droid (2009) because I could install software on it. My next phone will be an iPhone if this doesn't change.
Google is killing Android. Along with the side-loading changes, I'm losing the desire to keep using it, as it's no longer an open OS.
What's the point of those changes? Does Google want to maintain its revenue from Play Store? Feels like a bad long-term decision, especially when Apple is releasing excellent phones.
They’re making it worse in your opinion maybe, but I don’t think you can say they’re killing it. It’s not going to die. I fully expect sales will continue to go up and consumers won’t care about this much in general.
For what it is worth, I submitted a (totally, different, "handwritten", personal) complaint to the UK's CMA about this a few weeks ago, when it was first announced.
I received _the_ most boilerplate "Thanks, bog off" response imaginable, which I presume is a good thing...
Dear $NAME,
Thank you for your correspondence.
We value people contacting us with information. This helps us to tackle anti-competitive behaviour and protect people and businesses from being disadvantaged by unfair practices.
What happens now?
Our Digital Markets Team will now analyse your enquiry using our published prioritisation principles (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cma-prioritisation-principles). The Digital Markets Unit (DMU) will oversee a new regulatory regime, promoting greater competition and innovation in digital markets and protecting consumers and businesses from unfair practices.
The CMA will continue to use its existing powers, where appropriate, to investigate harm to competition in digital markets. Please be aware that the CMA has no powers to take action or open a case on behalf of an individual customer or business (for example; to pursue compensation, refunds, or to intervene or adjudicate in disputes).
We prioritise the cases that are most likely to make a real difference for people and the UK economy based on our available resources and the likelihood of a successful outcome.
Can I get an update on my enquiry?
We are unable to give you an update on your enquiry.
We find all enquiries useful to inform our current and future work. However, we offer no guarantee as to where or how your enquiry may be used.
We do publish details of our cases on our website. You can subscribe to email alerts which will inform you when new information has been added.
Will the CMA investigate my enquiry?
We review all the enquiries that we receive. This helps us to understand:
whether different industries in the UK economy are competitive
if competition law is being broken
if shoppers or businesses are being disadvantaged.
Even if we don’t immediately investigate your enquiry, it may lead to us taking further action in the future.
Do I need to do anything else?
You do not need to do anything. If we need further information, we will contact you.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Carol Sampson (she/her) | Enquiries Admin Officer | Strategy, Communications and Advocacy | Competition and Markets Authority
The Cabot | 25 Cabot Square | London | E14 4QZ
So, I naïvely think one way to push this higher up the priority list and get the UK's regulator to act at least would be to look at those prioritisation principles and make the point that it falls high up them. One of them is "The CMA’s work should ensure that competitive markets provide choice and variety and drive lower prices"; another is "the CMA’s actions should empower competitive, fair-dealing businesses to compete, including by addressing the behaviour of a small minority of businesses that try to harm consumers, restrict competition, or prevent markets from functioning properly".
It's pretty clear to me that Google's direction won't be going down this route, and in many ways I wish I knew about these before submitting my complaint. If you're reading this in the UK, consider looking at those guidance points and hamming home explicitly how this move by Google breaks those points – which, frankly, it clearly does (it is going to reduce choice and variety; it is also explicitly restricting competition and harming consumers!)
Just installed Lineage OS 23 (androind 16) on my Motorola g84. Works like a charm. Banking apps work. Do I need to say fuck google? Like it's not obvious?
reminder that stallman was cancelled from the eff with adhominem attacks. and we are back to calling free software (which would prevent things like the article) as Open-Source (which ia just donations to google and meta)
The discussion between open-source and closed-source is essentially a discussion between communism and capitalism.
Anything that reaches a certain threshold of value to society and requires enormous effort to build and maintain has to fall back to a capitalist, for-profit, closed-source structure. That's all that's happening here.
Of course, small stuff like a software library that doesn't require much effort to build and doesn't provide much value can remain open-source. I personally think this obsession with open-source software is simply an obsession with communism and getting things for free, and not wanting getting rewarded for the value of the stuff you build, etc.
> I personally think this obsession with open-source software is simply an obsession with communism and getting things for free, and not wanting getting rewarded for the value of the stuff you build, etc.
Except that both platforms (iOS as well as Android) were either born out of OSS or are still reliant on active development in such projects. They created nothing, they took something from the commons, polished it and are now rent-seeking. It was tolerated till they threatened to choke all competition and trap and rent-seek the entire world with their duopoly.
> they threatened to choke all competition and trap and rent-seek the entire world
They did so legally and didn't break any rules. This is the game of capitalism, and the fact is, IOS and Android are extremely well built and developed, and no open-source project would ever come close to the hundreds of thousands of paid engineers that built IOS and Android.
You can either have capitalism and IOS and Android, or you can have communism and a society that is 10+ years behind in development. Do you really want to give up IOS 26 for a blackberry?
Linux, even though you may think is a massive project and you may be right in some regards, doesn't require massive amounts of capital, human resources and paid developers, etc. to build it.
Android on the other hand is developed by thousands of engineers and is a much larger project in terms of monetary investment than Linux. Linux was essentially built by a single guy. Android could never have been built by a single person or even a open-source project. It's too massive.
However complex you think Linux is, its just a kernel and doesn't require a conglomerate to build and maintain for billions of users. Android does, and those developers need to get paid for the massive value they provide.
What about this is communism vs capitalism? Or even closed vs open source. There are billions of android devices in people's hands. Requiring a centralized authority to authorize what code people get to run on their own devices has nothing to do with a free market economy. This is a private entity telling us it's not safe to run code on our own computers without their approval.
Linux doesn't need a for profit company gate keeping it to ensure it is safe and secure. And even Windows doesn't prevent you from running any executable you choose from the internet. Why are phones treated differently?
Because everyone in this comment section is arguing that Android should be open-source and detached from Google. I'm saying some things are simply too big to be built by the community.
The developers need to get paid. And the developers only get paid if the system is closed-source such that the revenue can only flow back to Google which is where the developers are hired at. In other words, yes it needs to be centralized, and the reason is the money required to build Android is just too much and therefore needs to be developed under a for-profit capitalist organization like Google.
Which Android phones? If I understand correctly this will be a requirement for certification, so any devices that do not enforce it will not pass integrity checks. Goodbye banking apps, etc.
Having a trustworthy channel for verified app loading is a vital security tool. F-Droid is such a channel; the Google Play Store is not. F-Droid inspects the source code of the applications they build, removes malware and other antifeatures from them, and compiles them from source to ensure that the binaries they deliver correspond to the source code they've inspected. The Google Play Store doesn't do any of those things. Consequently it's full of malware.
The topic here is Google nuking F-Droid from orbit, probably because it has NewPipe.
I'm not sure about the NewPipe angle, as Grey Jay exists (Backed by FUTO/Louis Rossman) on the Play store, which has ad-block and sponsor block incorporated into it.
Google is just being malicious towards opensource and privacy, under the guise of security
99% of all malware with real world consequences is caused by unverified developers, ergo, all unverified developers should be removed from app stores.
99% of all car accidents with real world consequences are caused by licensed human drivers, ergo, all licensed human drivers should be removed from roads.
Same argument. It's true, and simultaneously, it skips right past all of the ramifications of the proposal, even when the ramifications conceivably result in more harm than the original problem did.
AFAIK most of the victims actually fall for social engineering in combination with legit apps. If you force developer registration criminals will simply find other attack vectors.
You are restricting a fundamental digital right in exchange for a minuscule reduction in risk.
That's rich knowing that both Apple and Google get most of their store money from dubious casino like games which I'm uncomfortable giving to my family.
Before they are allowed to make any comment on scams, they should clean up their own store first.
Anyone who has lived through the windows PC era knows it's a legitimate problem. Google has tons of data to show malware exists for Android as well. Being able to prevent that malware from affecting the lives of Android users is a moral imperative for Google. I understand why folks are skeptical, but it's worth trying to dig into the fact rather than just react blindly.
The ability to 'sideload' is already off by default, and warns you before turning it on. Maybe just a bigger or sterner warning? I mean there's only so much you can do there...
This won't be true for much longer iiuc. Look at the outcomes of the Epic lawsuit. That's probably why Google is changing how they tackle this problem.
What those "people-who-don't-understand-the-risks" will do then, with more money left? I think they will give their money to all sorts of political populists, who will cause danger not only to themselves, but everyone.
A ton of malware is pushed through Google's adsense network, which already requires some level of verification afaik. It doesn't stop jack shit. You are naive if you think more verification is somehow going to stop this.
Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models.
The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writable memory, you should be able to load your own program and manufacturer may not use technical measures to stop you. The goal of regulation would be preventing of creating digital waste, vendor locks and allow reusing the hardware.
Of course, features like theft prevention won't work, so the user should be able to waive this right.
Looks like GrapheneOS will be available on another "major Android OEM” soon [1].
Regulation should prevent Google from subsidising manufacturers to use Android. Arguably the recent antitrust legislation [2] applies in this case because they're effectively paying manufacturers to place that horrendous and impossible to remove search bar on the home screen.
[1] https://www.androidauthority.com/graphene-os-major-android-o... [2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-signi...
GrapheneOS is in some ways not an open OS. The official builds don't provide root access. So for example apps are able to hold your data hostage from you.
I get that this is in the name of security hardening. And you can make a build that has limited root access and is officially supported. But GrapheneOS isn't the end-all solution to computing freedom. Although hopefully on those devices you will be able to install custom OSes (root capable build of Graphene or otherwise).
12 replies →
> Looks like GrapheneOS will be available on another "major Android OEM” soon.
I'm secretly hoping that this will be Framework or Nothing.
2 replies →
On my samsung phone, I just tested, the search bar was as easy to remove as any other widget.
I just wish they had two sizes, a pocket version please. I have small Trumpian hands.
Not sure what exactly you mean with "open source OS" and if Lineage counts as one in your book: it supports quite a few cheap and also fairly recent Motorola phones, which are also easy to unlock:
https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/#motorola
For family, I just got a used Edge 30 Neo for ~100$ and put LineageOS on it, and it works like a charm. Phones like the Moto g84 go for even less and still can be bought new for a decent price.
Xiaomi would be even cheaper, but I would highly discourage getting one because the unlock process is plain ridiculous nowadays.
And as others have already noted, if you don't mind getting a phone that's a few years old, a used Pixel 5 is not expensive (still happily using a Pixel 4a and don't see why I would need to upgrade).
Most vendors (at some level) allow flashing custom distributions, as long as you didn't buy that device from carrier: https://github.com/zenfyrdev/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame...
You will lose DRM-based apps (e.g. Netflix), Payment apps, and bank apps though.
This is the place where I think lawmakers needs to be involved. Bearing in mind that laws aren't engineering specs, being able to pay for things and use a bank are about as close to fundamental rights as anything is for participants in society. If you have to buy a second device to use Netflix, so be it, but we need laws that guarantee people can make digital payments without Apple or Google's permission.
There are societies today (I live in one) where some businesses are starting to accept payment only through a banking or payment app, no cash, no card, nothing else. And these apps will only function in the very narrow circumstances of "I bought a device which runs software from one of two American tech monopolies and follow all their frequently changing rules for using various software that's unrelated to the payment I need to make." This limitation is mostly in place due to the banks believing it will make things more secure. Security is important, but not important enough that you get to start denying innocent people the ability to make payments or exile them from the banking system because they had some kind of dispute with Apple or Google. Governments need to step in with access mandates here, otherwise this problem WILL come to a jurisdiction near you sooner or later.
11 replies →
Even phones from Motorola require you to literally ask permission to unlock your bootloader via a form on their website, which they then unlock remotely or you enter some generated code.
Other manufacturers do the same, where you have to wait a period of like 45 days before being able to unlock, and then have to ask permission on their website to unlock your bootloader.
11 replies →
Not in markets without significant Huawei and Xiaomi presence. Local banks (Czech Republic) are not using integrity APIs to keep being usable for most clients.
Most DRM / banking apps work fine for me through the browser and you can add them to your home screen. Android / Samsung Pay will stop working, but if you have a Garmin watch, you can still pay with that.
2 replies →
That small little caveat already makes it a non-option
Android and said manufacturers purposefully do everything in their power to make this as awful as possible.
For example, you can't relock the bootloader on any device except pixels. Why? No reason. Just fuck you, I guess.
That's a huge security hole that they're creating, intentionally.
What's going on is they are hoping that if you do use other software that you get malware or get scammed. They are literally, actually, undermining their own device's security just to send a message.
These people are psychotic.
Bank apps work fine (at least UK ones) on Graphene OS installed via the play store.
I wouldn't want the bank to access my phone, so it doesn't matter that the app doesn't work, and in a weird case where you urgently need to transfer your money to scammers while not being at home, you can use bank's web app.
3 replies →
All the Fairphone Versions support e/OS/ as far as I know. I have the Fairphone 5 with the current e/OS/ version completely un-googled. But you also have the option to allow partial google-fication in e/OS/ so you don't miss out on most of the features and paid-apps you had.
> a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device
Except regulations are now moving in the opposite direction: to mandate device locking.
> Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models.
You can buy a refurbished Pixel 5 for less than 200$. Great screen, great camera, 5G, the works. It's definitely not an "outdated" device, and it runs Graphene or Lineage with minimal hassle.
The Pixel 5 isn't supported anymore. The Pixel 6a still has a little less than 2 years of support left. These have become pretty cheap.
The Pixel 8 and 8a aren't that expensive either. And keep in mind that they are supported until 2030 and 2031 respectively. [1] They not only receive security updates for 7 years, instead of the 5 years for previous Pixel generations, but also have stronger hardware security, by implementing the ARM memory tagging extension. [2]
[1] https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-lifetime
[2] https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices
The battery probably lost its capacity in 3-4 years since release.
1 reply →
You can get a new Pixel 8 for ~500$, I would say that has a very decent price to value, and will be supported for longer.
5 replies →
Droidian[0] currently supports a relatively new Motorola phone[1]. A Snapdragon 8+ gen 1 device, so the performance isn't bad, and most features seem to work, including Waydroid. I've noticed incoming phone calls causing a glitch where the call can't be answered, but other than that, daily drivable. Just like a PinePhone, only more powerful. In my region it can be had for ~€250 brand new.
[0] https://droidian.org/ [1] https://www.notebookcheck.net/Lenovo-ThinkPhone-by-Motorola-...
Did you check the stuff murena has on offer? Most if not all of their phones come with an unlockable bootloader and the OS they come with isn't that bad to start with either.
They are pretty bad when it comes to security:
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
10 replies →
Indeed, and starting at 360€ for a CMF Phone 1 with OS already installed, no tinkering, feels relatively affordable and easy to try.
Every few years or so we collectively rediscover that general computing devices should be general and repeat the same mistake every time new format is released. We're all a bunch of reactive losers and that will never change it seems.
fyi you can buy refurb'd pixel 7's off eBay for like ~$170
great for playing around with or if you want to install something like GrapheneOS.
The Pixel 8 and 8a aren't that expensive either. And keep in mind that they are supported until 2030 and 2031 respectively. [1] They not only receive security updates for 7 years, instead of the 5 years for previous Pixel generations, but also have stronger hardware security, by implementing the ARM memory tagging extension. [2]
[1] https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-lifetime
[2] https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices
We just had a thread about this on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45740383.
Many of those devices are closed exactly due to regulations.
>The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc).
Why would you make essential security features illegal? Do you want to fly on a plane where the flight control software was maybe overwritten?
>So if you buy a device with CPU and writable memory, you should be able to load your own program and manufacturer may not use technical measures to stop you.
The problem is Google and Apple locking down their Operating System, this is not a technical limitation on hardware.
> Do you want to fly on a plane where the flight control software was maybe overwritten?
I don't understand it. Whoever owns the place can replace any part of it, including computers. So being able to overwrite software doesn't change it. Furthermore, plane computers are not a consumer hardware.
You could make a better example with patched car software.
> The problem is Google and Apple locking down their Operating System, this is not a technical limitation on hardware.
The initial ROM bootloader contains hard-coded signature which prevents you from replacing Apple/Google software.
1 reply →
Security only works if you can control what software is trustworthy. If some software has been proven to be untrustworthy, it is worthwhile to prevent all software that the producer has ever made from working at scale. Adding some nominal process and fee to make it too expensive to create a lot of accounts prevents them from creating hundreds of alternative aliases. There is a lot of precedence for why this is a good idea and works. I think if there was another company involved with performing the audit which folks trusted it might now seem so scary.
1 reply →
No matter how this turns out, I'm sure GrapheneOS will make a smart effort. https://grapheneos.org/
But long-term, Android is such a massive code base, and was designed more for surveillance and consumption, than for privacy&security and the user's interests.
I think getting mainline Linux on viable and sustainable on multiple hardware devices is warmer, fuzzier foundation. (Sort of a cross between Purism's work on the Librem 5, and PostmarketOS's work on trying to get mainline Linux viable on something else.)
> think getting mainline Linux on viable and sustainable on multiple hardware devices is warmer, fuzzier foundation.
You just have to somehow speedrun the decades of development that went into Android to make it decently run on mobile hardware.. never really understood this "throwing out the baby" direction - the UNIX userspace model simply doesn't work on mobile (I would wager it also doesn't work on desktop anymore), has no security (everything runs as your user which made sense when you ran some batch job on a terminal with multiple other users, but nowadays when a single user has as many processes as all the user had back then it effectively means no security between any of those programs), there is no real resource control, no lifecycles, so the device will burn scorching hot and have terrible battery life.
On Android (and iOS) apps were always living in a world with lifecycles so if they wanted to operate correctly, they had to become decent citizens (save state when asked, so they can be stopped and resumed at any moment). This also fits nicely with sandboxes and user permissions, etc.
So without developing an alternative user-space for "GNU-Linux", it's simply not competing with android in any form or shape.
And even if you do, now every GNU app has to somehow be ported to that userspace API (you can't just kill GIMP or whatever Linux process)
The closest I got to Linux mobile is GPD Pocket 4 with LTE and regular apps. Since I can get it to cap at 5 watts, it can give 9 hours of battery life. It does most things I care about, but it is just a mini laptop (which is good enough for me).
> You just have to somehow speedrun the decades of development that went into Android to make it decently run on mobile hardware
Isn't this mainly due to proprietary drivers and firmware?
2 replies →
flatpak has existed for a decade, and namespaces even longer. They could stand some improvement, but work well enough.
The problem is for developers. Abandoning Android for Linux is not viable for software developers who need to eat. Sure, we can use Linux smartphones ourselves, but if the software we make has a grand total of three people who ever lay eyes on it, that's less than ideal. And given how The Year of the Linux Desktop has gone, I think it'd be strongly preferable if we managed to stave off the tightening of control over Android rather than placing bets on the future Year of the Linux Smartphone.
The Year of the Linux Desktop is kind of happening. Not at the scale that the meme implies, but I've never seen anywhere near as much adoption of the Linux desktop as this year. The combination of Valve's efforts, more usage of Linux gaming handhelds, distributions like Bazzite that have strong selling points for Windows gamers, and Microsoft pissing everyone off with everything that is Windows 11, the Linux desktop has some legitimate momentum for once
31 replies →
I know it's been tried before (eg by Mozilla), but perhaps now the time is right for a web apps-only OS.
Many developers would need some help to get offline functionality and updates right though.. And it would be really nice if these apps didn't require parsing megabytes of JavaScript libraries on startup.
One can dream! :-)
3 replies →
Some people don't care and build on top of Linux anyway. This lockdown will accelerate this. At some point a critical mass will eventually be reached, perhaps with the assistance of some corporate entity or organization of some sort that pushes it over the edge. Then there will be a real open competitor. Will take some time though.
so the thing is, as an Android dev if I get embedded linux experience then I have lateral career movement to the peripherals that I'm usually writing apps for. While the intersection of app developers to embedded linux developers is probably very small, there is a smidge of incentive there, and that can be a powerful thing for the community: a lot of the pain points on linux phones feel hardware oriented (I complain loudly about the pinephone battery elsewhere in this thread).
another tailwind might be in the gaming scene. I have the general sense that SteamOS has been an interesting gateway for technically-minded folks to be impressed by this Linux thing. A similar model for mobile phones might be a tailwind (like a SteamOS for ARM?) The reason why that's perfect is because it undermines the Google monopoly and creates an app ecosystem that people will absolutely flock to, at least for games ($$).
> Abandoning Android for Linux is not viable for software developers who need to eat.
We'll finally get our ecosystem diversity back when the next geopolitical happening happens and Google bans Chinese android apps on bullshit pretexts.
Wait a few years more.
3 replies →
Waydroid does surprisingly well at running Android apps on Linux.
Sure some apps won't work for whatever reason & HN commenters will have incredibly scathing things to say about that, but I bet there's a lot of folks who'd be cool with missing an app here or there.
It sucks to be losing Android, but IMO it's an ecosystem in free-fall. Bootloaders are locked more and more, there's literally zero AOSP hardware buyable now, and the roms scene has diminished not grown over time.
I totally think theres a Steam Deck moment waiting around a corner, where what seemed impossible a year ago shows up and is dead obvious & direct, and we all wonder why there were so many doubts before.
1 reply →
> Android is such a massive code base, and was designed more for surveillance and consumption
I disagree. I have been using de-googled / de-spywared Android for a decade now and I really love it. Once you remove google mobile services and rely on open source applications Android feels really good.
Also its questionable if projects such as purism or even the pinephone will ever offer such good security and privacy as a de-googled Pixel with GrapheneOS will.
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/112712864209034804
The hope is lost for Android, there is no moving forward with google antagonizing its foss roots. Libre phone it is. We have to forcibly remove the bandage.
I wish you were wrong, but I don't disagree with assessment. I am on grapheneos ( edit: on pixel ) now, but even that should only be a pitstop now since google has decided to show its hand in such a nasty ( if not that unexpected ) manner.
2 replies →
AOSP is open source so it could be forked.
7 replies →
> Android was designed more for surveillance and consumption, than for privacy&security and the user's interests
I disagree. The Android security model is better than the Linux one. I am very happy with GrapheneOS, I don't have much to complain about.
The problem is that Google sucks and nobody enforces antitrust laws. But it's not just Google: how many Android manufacturers don't suck, really? Do they contribute to AOSP at all? Probably not. Do they build reasonable devices that could run something like GrapheneOS? Nope. Just relocking the bootloader is often a problem.
> I disagree. The Android security model is better than the Linux one.
In some ways it probably is, but it still isn't that good in my opinion (although some of the problems have to do with the way the settings and controls are working rather than the security model itself, there are also problems with the security model itself too). (I think there are other problems with Android (and other operating systems) too.)
1 reply →
buy a used OnePlus 6 and load Mobian on it. quite functional these days running a mainline kernel.
(2018) makes me more than a bit sad. I have a OnePlus 6, and it was ok with the software I tried out ~3 years ago, and basically fast enough. But it's soul crushing how running mainline Linux is just so impossible for consumer mobile chips.
It felt at the time like there was positive progress, more bits getting mainlined at a trickle but at least steady trickle rate. But it feels dark now. At least the GPU drivers everywhere have been getting much better, but I get the impression Qualcomm couldn't even ship a desktop/laptop after years of delay, is barely getting that in order now. It feels impossible to hope for the mobile chips anywhere to find religion & get even basic drivers mainlined.
>than for privacy&security and the user's interests.
Even if that was true, AOSP is better for privacy and security than any other Linux distro.
By which criterion? This sounds wrong.
11 replies →
As I said in the other thread:
Australian users of alternative app stores should make a complaint to the ACCC: https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/contact-us-or-report-an-iss...
In the past, they forced Steam to implement proper refund policies, and they are currently suing Microsoft about the way subscribers were duped into paying more for "AI features" they didn't want.
I think you are better off making a complaint to the Australian Australian Consumers’ Association (CHOICE) https://accounts.choice.com.au/contact-us/ than to the ACCC
Tell them to lodge a designated complaint to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC).
ACCC complaints are designed for individual grievances while a designated complaint from a designated complainer is supposed to address "significant or systemic market issues that affect consumers in Australia".
Unfortunately, I think attestation is being pushed by other parts of the Australian government. Particularly ACSC.
This is doubleplusungood. The war on General Purpose Computing is the death of innovation and a direct attack on digital freedom.
If you're in the US, UK or EU, please contact your government.
If, and I do mean if, government is a solution here, its only role is to ensure that app use cannot be required for service ( and we can argue over what services can stay app-only ).
Profit is a perverse incentive.
Back in the 2007 or when it came out in Sweden I bought the iPhone and started developing for it. This was cool, new and exciting and it was fine as long as my company was paying the $100 fee every year. But then I switched jobs and worked at a company which produced mostly open source code. Suddenly I would have to pay $100 every year just to be able to put my own software on the phone ...
This is why I switched to Android, just for Google now to pull the rug from under my feet again ...
This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from the start instead of going the ESR way of half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses.
Like most coders, I also prefer the permissive MIT/Apache/BSD licensing for most software projects but incidents like these make me question the direction we are heading towards. They raise fundamental questions about freedom itself - looking at the broader picture, is having a restrictive kind of freedom (GPL) often more beneficial than having full permissive freedom (MIT/Apache)?
But Linux is GPL. That didn't stop Google from using it as a basis for something that is not GPL and in fact not even open source (Google Play Services).
What leverage does a community of engineers have to insist on anything? Android could be entirely closed source. So could Chrome.
It would be naive to assume that the power dynamics in our society can be fundamentally altered by a 10 line software license.
5 replies →
I have a "weakly held strong opinion" on this subject. I think open source has been a disaster for the state of software for normal people. On the one hand exploited developers making peanuts or nothing for their hard work. On the other hand exploited users losing control of their devices and social networks.
The era when people paid an affordable fee for software they could use however they wanted was much better. But it got squeezed out by free software on the one side and serf-ware on the other.
The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is rotten.
Edit: then again maybe it's unfair of me to blame the decline in paid for software on open source.
27 replies →
> ... uncompromised open source (Stallmanist ...
Of course, Stallman strongly eschews the ambiguity and misdirection inherent in the phrase open source, and in this particular instance the considered use of 'free' or 'freedom' is precisely what we're now all upset about the impending loss of.
GPL doesn't help you one bit in this particular situation, because "regular users" would still be using the locked-down stock Android that came with their device. So they still can't install your app.
Anyone who is already running a rooted Android or otherwise customized OS isn't affected by this, only developers who want to distribute their app to users.
5 replies →
Would that have really stoped google having its own cloud/app layer on top of the base system? OEM could still lock the bootloaders.
Unless, maybe the EU, enforce a right to repair and tinker we'll be at the mercy of these companies with their walled gardens.
Google is the modern Microsoft spiritual successor to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Look at all the people who use gmail, youtube, etc all from a web app that Google wholly controls.
> This situation would have been avoided if we, as community of engineers, had insisted on full and uncompromised open source (Stallmanist or GPL way) right from the start instead of going the ESR way of half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses.
And we would have been in a better position to lobby for this if unions were widespread in the tech industry, which they are not.
[flagged]
32 replies →
> half-hearted open source where it's technically open but corporates get to have a free lunch and make abuses.
I'd argue what you describe as "half-hearted" is actually more true to open source and libre software than restrictive licensing.
Im a millennial dev which happens to have a Gen Z brother who also chose this profession.
Seeing him walk my steps 15 years later has been eye opening for the brutal cultural change.
They’re socially conditioned to assume that anything free is a scam or illegal, that every tool is associated with a corporation, and that learning itself is going through certain hoops (by the uni, the certificator or whatever) so that you get permission to earn money a certain way.
As more doors get closed, I fear this process will solidify.
> They’re socially conditioned to assume that anything free is a scam or illegal, that every tool is associated with a corporation, and that learning itself is going through certain hoops (by the uni, the certificator or whatever) so that you get permission to earn money a certain way.
To be fair, there are also legit reason for why it evolved this way. It's mainly for quality and reliability. There is so much crappy sloppy work from unqualified workers, and it used to be even worse.. The easy available free knowledge really helped to rise the standard even for people without proper education in an area.
3 replies →
> They’re socially conditioned to assume that anything free is a scam or illegal
Piracy is technically illegal, but that didn’t stop us.
They're right. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish and Enshittification have been the core experiences of digital life with corporations in charge of platforms.
My hope is that LLMs will help open source developers provide reasonable alternatives to the gatekeeping and spyware that corporations are now making their bread and butter. Example: Recent tried to use Unity LTS for a small project - the software is a joke now, basic functionality is broken out of the box. A couple of hours with an LLM and I had all the features I needed using a more lightweight library, monogame. Not an operating system, but I'm hoping the pattern will continue as LLMs get more proficient at code - the moat of "this is hard and laborious to do" will be drained.
1 reply →
Ironically, somewhere around 2014, Google was doing the exact same style "keep Android open" campaign, recruiting developers around the world - including me, to help lobby for keeping Android "open" and tell the horror stories of issues that random OEMs caused by forking Android, breaking compatibility and security.
Made sense to me at the time and they were really into "Android should be open source" vibe, so I supported it.
10 years later, I'm also rugpulled. Their vision has dramatically shifted into trying to build a walled garden on top of Android, but now they are haunted by their open source roots, and the walled garden is just a really tall pile of bricks laid around it.
So many times we've been promised things, only for them to be delivered in a half-baked state with half of the parts open source while other parts were closed only to Google and Google approved apps.
So many times the issue trackers for different parts of the platform ecosystem have changed, that some issues are impossible to debug without using web archive. And just as many times, they have been closed, ignored for years or unnoticed, being ping-ponged among team members until they forget about it.
Yet, even with all of the closed and privatized parts of the ecosystem, they are still not able to deliver on an ecosystem promise.
They control my email, my photos, my cloud, my browser, my phone - yet cannot keep a single thing properly in sync. Still, I download something and I do not know where it went. Still, I cannot Airdrop things without a 3rd party service. Still, I take a photo only for it to appear on the cloud 5 minutes later. Still, I cannot have a "sandbox" account for testing that just works, but have to juggle multiple accounts, causing their auth system to break 80% of the time when testing.
As a developer, I do not plan to support Android anymore. I recently got an iPhone, and am now fully switching to it. Even tho I am long on $GOOG stock, because the money printer go brrr, I will be spending that money in the Apple's ecosystem from now on.
Apple pisses off many HN users who then swear to switch to Android, Google pisses off many HN users who then swear to switch to an iPhone – so for both companies, in effect, nothing changes.
Aside from that, the masses don't care or know about any of this. A couple of HN users don't make a dent in the revenue of any large company. What we can do is work on alternative ecosystems or at least support the small companies and organizations who do with our wallets.
1 reply →
It doesn't make sense to choose between a snake that bit you and another that bit you earlier.
If you don't want to be bitten, get out of the snake pit.
> 10 years later, I'm also rugpulled. Their vision has dramatically shifted into trying to build a walled garden on top of Android
Abrupt abandoning of their Nexus line for overpriced Pixel hardware was the watershed moment. The exact moment when their executives decided to ride free on open source labor.
> Still, I cannot Airdrop things without a 3rd party service
Well, it hardly works between Apple devices themselves to begin with (sending a bunch of pictures over to a 4 years old iphone works like 1 times out of 10 trial..). At least I can use regular old Bluetooth to send stuff to any kind of device from Android without the cruel gatekeeping of only Apple devices.
So yeah, both platforms have their own ways they suck in.
Out of curiosity, have you seen Genode before?
https://genode.org
One of the things it works on is the PinePhone, so there's _some_ hope of at least one viable alternative happening:
https://archive.fosdem.org/2024/schedule/event/fosdem-2024-3...
Yeah, I don't understand why people put up with Apple for this. I would love to write small personal apps for my iPhone. But, I don't want to use a mac, I don't want to pay a fee every year and I don't want to use the apple store (yes there are convoluted work-rounds for the last one).
It’s precisely because it’s a filter, they _want_ to filter for people who take it seriously and/or are seeking app sales. This is a company that chooses to pay people to review every app submitted to the app store, they don’t want millions of apps by tinkerers being submitted, and it reduces total crapware in the store.
I’m not necessarily advocating for this approach, just explaining why they do it.
Doesn’t the play store also charge a fee? It’s smaller from memory but it isn’t free
2 replies →
Have you tried Expo Go?
I can see why they add the fee, but they would both garner so much goodwill by giving free accounts if the app you publish is open source. I don't think it would be that hard to automate by requiring a GitHub link.
Those days are over. Being evil means there is no goodwill to begin with unless you can exploit it financially wise. Google stopped being not evil, they specifically deleted it from the code of conduct.
Ofc, being evil is subjective. But also this is the first excuse of evil players!
1 reply →
> goodwill
Doesn't seem like something they consider a positive though.
See I was similar but the big difference back then was a random little 99c app on iOS would make you several thousand dollars a month, so the $100/year fee was nothing for a long time. It was only after around 2012 that things changed.
On Google Play I never, ever had any app be anything close to as successful as on iOS. I think I probably made less than 1/100th the amount I did on iOS back in the day.
You don't need a paid dev account to build and run on your own iPhone. I didn't have one most of the time
I totally agree with your sentiment, but can't you still do that with Android?
IIUC, you can still load apps directly via adb. Is that not correct?
Yes, you can still do that directly (I did that just the other day).
I can't entirely understand Google's announcement, but it almost sounded to me like they will forbid sideloading if you're not an "official" dev (gone through their hoops). I also saw something in their statement about wanting to support hobbyists. It sounded like an afterthought.
I don’t know what it was like back then but in today’s world you do not need to pay Apple any fees if all you’re doing is writing software in Xcode and deploy it to your own device. You do need a developer account, the free version of one, but you only need to pay the fee if you’re going to publish on the App Store.
Free provisioning: If you do not pay the developer fee an app installed via Xcode will work for 7 days. Afterwards the app on your phone will *stop working*, and you must open Xcode on your Mac again, and push a new build to your phone if you want to keep using it.
Paid provisioning: If you have paid the developer fee, a build will expire based on the amount of time left before that payment renews, so if you build and install an app a month before your developer fee renews, that build of the app (that you installed via Xcode) will stop working in 1 month.
10 replies →
Don't you also need to buy a Macbook? That is quite expensive. I guess in Apple's view also developping on a non-Apple device is a security risk.
2 replies →
100$ a year for a dev in Sweden - that's like money you wouldn't notice if it got lost in your pockets - and I am sure it cuts down on spammers and covers administrative cost.
I have no problem with a store having a small admission fee - that's perfectly reasonable and they do have operational costs. It would be nice if they had some way to waive the fee for popular OSS to garner some god will with the devs.
Taking a 30% cut of revenue on the other hand ... both platforms are guilty of this
> 100$ a year for a dev in Sweden - that's like money you wouldn't notice if it got lost in your pockets
For someone who is making money from it, sure, but that's exactly who this isn't about. The way they get screwed is by the 30%.
A fixed fee -- in any amount -- is screwing the people who aren't in it for the money. Because to begin with, it's not just the fee, it's the bureaucracy that comes with the fee.
You're a kid and you want to make your first app, but you don't have a credit card.
You live in a poor country and maybe the amount you can lose without noticing when you're rich isn't the same there. Or even if you can get the money, you may not have a first world bank account and the conglomerate isn't set up to take the local currency.
You're a desktop developer and you're willing to make a simple mobile app and give it away for free as long as it's not a bother. The money is nothing but the paperwork is a bother so you don't do it, and now the million people who would have used that app don't have it and have to suffer the spam-laden trash alternative from someone who is only in it for the money.
And suppose the amount is as trivial as you propose. Then why does a multi-trillion dollar conglomerate need that pittance from a million ordinary people?
7 replies →
> and I am sure it cuts down on spammers
Okay, just so we're all on the same page: that 100 dollar fee IS NOT for publishing your app. That's not what that is. That's a separate thing with its own costs.
That 100 dollars is just the fee to even make an app. Even if your iPhone never has an Internet connection. And even if you literally load the app via USB to your iPhone only.
It's just extortion. It cannot be justified. Apple does it because they can - there are zero technical reasons behind it.
7 replies →
We are not talking about software distribution or admitting it to a store, we're talking about executing something on your own device, a device that you purchased.
7 replies →
>This is why I switched to Android, just for Google now to pull the rug from under my feet again
1) You can continue to install unsigned APKs via adb with the upcoming update.
2) Signing APKs for sideloading requires a Google development account which is a one time fee of $25, no yearly fees.
So still a free sideloading option available, and if you want to avoid adb it is a one time cost that is 1/4 the annual rate on Apple.
I would call it "free developer experience" (using ADB), not "free sideloading".
If you want to send your app to a friend to download and install it directly on their phone (without using a computer with ADB), you need to be Google-approved and register your app first.
2 replies →
1) Oh yes of course, here friend you just need a PC and the command line tools (unless soon you'll need to be a registered and VERIFIED developer) to install revanced or any open source app
2) Unless they decide to ban you (they can if you don't show any activity in the developer account for X months) and of course because you were verified you can't simply apply again and pay again, because you were banned!!!!
1 reply →
First they came for F-droid...
1 reply →
Oh, the irony. I still remember how in the early days of Android vs iOS discussions, the main point was "but it's OPEN!". The word "open" was used as a comma by Google people. It was The Thing. The Difference. Good vs Evil and all that.
It looks like eventually any company will start squeezing customers for what they are worth.
But only once the company is powerful enough. We don't call Google a monopoly, because there is Apple, but taken together they certainly behave as one. Both create expectations, create expected momentum in a certain direction, people build (companies, lives) on those assumptions and boom, you can't get out and now the company changes the deal.
Is it just our assumptions that get us in trouble? Or do we need to do more?
I'm not sure how to regulate this, other than to stimulate open source, as the "for the people by the people" solution. But also that will just lead to poor expensive solutions (the market created some nice FOSS though). So the law it should be... And we're back to the problem of lobbying...
Perhaps there should be contracts: Google advertises Android as open: They should sign a contract: For how long will Android be open? Define "Open". The contract can be enforced. Or perhaps we, the people, sue now, for false advertising, although that will just make them flex their legal and lobbying muscles... And they didn't sign any contracts.
> We don't call Google a monopoly, because there is Apple We call that a duopoly, which is similarly bad as a monopoly.
1 reply →
And after the change Google is doing now, it will still be more open than iOS.
And still less secure and less trusted.
Android has not been really open for a long time now.
- Many APIs have been moved to Google Play Services (which is not open source), and many apps have come to rely on them. You can emulate it partially but not fully, see second point below.
- Some features like device attestation / SafetyNet fail on non-"official" devices, for example many banking or government ID apps refuse to work on open source os like GrapheneOS
Android dev at a large company - I've been talking with the folks at Graphene about options for attestation without using Google's API and it looks like there's actually a lot I can do for attestation without them, as long as I add their cert chain to a backend service.
It's a bit of a pain because Google just does that for me normally, but we _can_ support it. It's probably only a sprint of effort give or take. But we're deeply undermanned so it's hard to get done.
Why do you need attestation? It seems to always either serve no real purpose (e.g. Bank apps) or be anti-user (DRM) (except for perhaps enterprise managed devices for companies with serious infosec requirements)
1 reply →
Why do you need attesation? Why do you think Google should own that device and not the user?
1 reply →
I'm going to say something that probably will get me down votes:
Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open? Seriously. So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives.
A new platform needs to rise that breaks out completely from Google. I've given PostmarketOS a go (with a PinePhone) and while today I can't say it isn't a daily driver for everyone it is certainly the route that needs to be taken.
I'm still unable to use it because is not easy to break away from Android, but is a platform that I think about almost every day, because I do not want to use Android anymore and I'm willing to sacrifice certain aspects to have an open and friendly platform on my hands. And if it is not PostmarketOS then let it be another project.
We need these kind of projects, not kneeling down to a company like Google and begging for Android to be open. Effort needs to be put elsewhere. That's how major projects like Linux, BSDs and open source projects have flourished and taken the world.
Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...).
Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing.
It's not that a new mobile platform couldn't possibly succeed. It's an open platform that cannot, because aforementioned players don't want it, and without them, mobile devices lose 90%+ of their usefulness, dooming them to become mere gadgets instead of (crappy, toylike) tools for everyday use.
Back in '99 Linux didn't run Excel/Word/Powerpoint or most games, but I ran it anyway. What others call showstoppers are for me inconveniences.
I have a motorolla edge 2024 that I'll load whatever open source phone OS will work well enough to place calls and browse the web. I'll keep another phone for the rare times some corporate/government overlord requires it. Many folks who refuse to use smartphones, similarly own a smartphone they rarely use for systems that require them.
My recommendation is to put as little time and energy into closed, locked down platforms as you can. Feel free to complain, but don't forget you can make choices.
74 replies →
This.
Most of us do not want to carry two phones around. The reality is that there is strong utility for those non-open apps and they will never be replaced by open ones.
In some parts of the world, WhatsApp is as necessary as the phone itself. Official business is conducted via it.
16 replies →
Webapps solve this completely. You login to a service as we have been doing forever. And the control is still on their side when you use a webapp. Almost every single app that is on my phone can be a webapp.
37 replies →
Stupid question: couldn't we work around that with some VM/container-style solution? They could probably find ways to lock it down with TPM/TEE and similar, but in today's landscape it should be possible if you're willing to accept the performance and battery cost. And if it does get traction, there'll also be more push to keep open alternatives viable. Giving in without a fight is the only way to ensure you'll lose.
1 reply →
It's not that an open platform can't succeed, but rather people are accustomed to closed platforms, so more resources went into perfecting them. The aforementioned players pushing for control aren't invincible. Whether we can move to open platforms depends on the choices people make.
I can choose to use a bank that allows me to access all of their online banking features via the browser. I can choose to work for a company that doesn't want to surveil my personal device. I can deal with the government via snail mail, or in the browser. I can use third-party YouTube clients and torrent movies and games, or simply don't engage with DRM'd media because there's plenty of entertainment out there.
Count the percentage of software you use that are open-source compared to 10 years ago. I bet it's more. It's only a matter of time before we make hardware open-source, too.
When the mainstream is evil, being an outcast is the right thing to do. Every big change begins as a small movement.
6 replies →
This is why we need laws and regulation. And the most important thing we need is not governments forcing Android to be open, but laws requiring governments to not force their citizens to use locked down hardware.
My government, Denmark, is one of the most digitized societies in the world. While the government has allocated money to a committee to investigate how the country can become less dependent on American big tech corporations, at the same time they are planning on launching a mandatory age verification solution in 2026 where the only possibly anonymous way of verifying your age to access e.g. social media will be through a smartphone app running on either Google Android or Apple iOS. These nincompoops do not realize that this move will effectively put every open source alternative at a permanent and severe disadvantage, thus handing Apple and Google, which are already duopolies in the smartphone market, a huge moat that will lock out all future competitors form entering the market.
I have written to the relevant government agencies, and while they are nice enough to actually answer questions, their answers reveal that they act as if they are a commercial business and not a government agency that is supposed to act in the interest of the people and preserve their freedom. They argue that they are releasing a solution that will work for the vast majority of platforms and that they are continuously monitoring the market to assess whether they need to add support for other platforms. This is a cost-cutting measure which is maybe okay for a commercial entity targeting a specific market demographic, but it is an absurd way for a government to think.
Before the upcoming age verification we already had a national digital identity solution, MitID, which also comes as an app running on Android and iOS, and which is locked down to require strong integrity using Google Play Integrity. But at least here they also offer hardware tokens so people can use their digital identity without owning a smartphone and running an open source OS like Linux on their desktops. But with age verification this is apparently over, all the while the government is lying about actually making an effort to free us from American big tech - they are instead basically forcing us to be their customers now.
3 replies →
I think, even though the ideas aren't "perfect"/"complete", Nietzche's "Will to Power" does a pretty good job of explaining "why" animals/ideologies/organizations/systems "unfold" the way they do. Everything (mostly) tries to protect/strengthen/replicate itself.(viruses being the most obvious example) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52915/52915-h/52915-h.htm
Yes and to be honest it's not necessarily unjustified BUT it should ONLY be done when the parts, hardware, software, or both, are not linked to a single proprietary actor.
Need security before doing a $1000 transaction because everything so far was $10? Sure, ask for a physical token 2FA, NOT a YubiKey implementation.
Obviously though if I was working at Google or Apple and paid for the success of my company via incentives, e.g. stock, I would fight tooth and nail to let banks know that only MY solution is secure.
> Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...).
The only real issue here is banks that don't offer an equivalent website or require the "app" as authentication factor. I couldn't care less about copyrighted media. It's only fair that I source my media from the high seas when the only options that respect their "rights" infringe my own right to run free software on my devices.
1 reply →
I wonder, if there were an open platform to exist that people use increasingly, maybe that would be incentive enough for at least one bank/financial app to permit that platform just to get a competitive advantage.
In the meantime probably the best that can be done is having a regular phone and a banking phone.
4 replies →
Bank apps: Use an ATM, or a second phone. Enterprise apps: Use a second phone, preferably paid for by work. Government apps: Use a second phone, or refuse to use it (since there's likely elderly whom are not on board yet). Copyrighted media: Piracy.
29 replies →
So the last possible community response is to bring back "responsive web apps"(tm) in the browser. And make sure a privacy first mobile web browser is installed.
1 reply →
I would add that end-users are OK with this because they expect their devices to not be compromised when installing an app. The majority of users are OK with trusted computing and are OK with trusting Google, Apple, Microsoft because it’s easier to trust one of those companies than having to trust each app developer. In the end, you have to trust someone and it’s better if that someone can be held accountable by some legal system.
1 reply →
I'm fine with using bank/financial services/media via the web. Other stuff can be emulated.
Hopefully I'll never have to buy another closed phone.
5 replies →
Yeah, I would absolutely get rid of my smartphone if I could do banking and all the numerous authentication processes without it. While I sympathise with all the Linux phone projects, I just don't have a use case for a Linux phone.
relative of mine has t1d and they use their phone app to monitor and give insulin, also alarm them when they are low..trusting outside the reliability of apple and google for this type of stuff i imagine would be difficult.
2 replies →
This is the reason I have given up on thinking of smartphones as general purpose computers. I used to root my phone on day one, play with custom ROMs, etc...
But then, it became more and more annoying with apps blocking root access, features being unavailable to custom ROMs, etc... There are workarounds (is Magisk still a thing?), but I got tired of them.
So now, I just buy an entry level Samsung, which is well supported, runs all the apps I need (browser, financial, maps, chat, ...) and takes recognizable pictures. It is just a boring tool, like a credit card, I need one because that's the world we live in, but the object itself is of no importance.
If I want to play with a computer, I have a "real" computer. If, at some point, I get interested in smartphones as a platform, I will buy one just for this, in the same way that I have no intention of using the credit card I buy stuff with should I want to play with smartcards.
It has also killed my desire to spend money on a smartphone. What's the point of a $1000 device? What's to point of upgrading unless forced to by planned obsolescence? Why should I pay more than $200 every 5 year or so? They are all the same to me. They even all have the same form factor, besides overpriced and fragile foldables.
IMO, we should be demanding more from the banks and governments, not that they keep android open.
We should demand that they support every platform. Or at least every platform that adopts some sandboxing model.
The web is an open platform, and most, if not all, aforementioned applications are happily working on the web.
2 replies →
> Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing.
But they don't demand the same control over laptops and desktops. Only phones. Why is that? Granted I can't deposit a check with my laptop but I can do any other banking I wish to do.
So to me it's more that they see the chance to gain this control where they didn't see it before. Phone providers are only too happy to get on that bandwagon because they get to deploy all kinds of surveillance capitalism in the name of security ("hey the banks want it!").
Granted these freedoms are slowly leaching away from laptops and desktop too with stuff like TPM, so I don't know. I've about had it though.
2 replies →
that's true only for as long as we allow that to be true. Users can live without Spotify (to cite just one representative of the mentioned categories), but Spotify can't live without users. We could (and should) stop behaving as powerless victims.
1 reply →
This and also phone manufacturers lock us with Google.
And yet I can open my bank's website on my Linux desktop, using Firefox. The "players" are not all-powerful, and defeatism serves no one.
2 replies →
And yet Linux and to lesser extent Windows and even lesser macos exist. They don't have that excessive control and we still can use bank/financial goverment and (if we enable DRM) also copyrighted media webpages (and sometimes apps).
Aside from music/video there are no obstacles for other apps to exist in open system.
> Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...). Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing.
Those work perfectly via a browser, on any platform where the browser can run. As long as a hypothetical open OS has a browser capable with bog standard modern capabilities, it will be fine
12 replies →
> Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open? Seriously.
Because the market has failed, and we have a duopoly. There are many reasons for that, but, this is the exact sort of time a govt must step in - when something becomes a utility, it needs to be regulated as such.
I agree, I don't really want to enshrine Google/Apple into law, however if they are makers of an operating system that is used like a common utility, they should be regulated as such.
Unfortunately western governments are moving to impose more and more control over our digital life, and I think they see a locked down commercial platform as a convenient means to that end because they can regulate it. If the EU commission ever succeeds in passing Chat Control, which requires client side scanning on all devices, then it is very convenient for them if people do not use open source operating systems where they can just run clients that don't send data to a third party.
4 replies →
Samsung can cut ties with Google if they want to, they have market share to go on their own.
2 replies →
Legislation is required at this point. Infrastructure companies (including finance and transportation) should be required to provide web apps that have feature parity with proprietary apps. (Enforcement is simple: ban distribution of the proprietary app for 5 years).
I think we going the other way though.
For instance, this recently proposed bipartisan bill would force all (even locally installed) AI apps to repeatedly run age checks on end users, and also adds $100,000 penalties each time the AI screws up when a minor is involved, even for bugs. I don’t see any safe harbor provisions, or carve outs for locally installed / open source / open weight projects, so it’d end up handing a monopoly to ~ 1 provider that’s too big to prosecute:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45741862
The most important thing you can do right now is get the democrats to actually field a candidate in 2028 that will restore the rule of law and free markets in the US.
> Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open?
We don't! Instead, we go to regulators. Though I suspect your question really is "Why bother with salvaging Android at all?"
Mobile platforms are hard - famously, Microsoft failed to make Windows phone a viable platform, and John Carmack successfully argued that Meta didn't need a custom OS. Mozilla's Mobile OS that had OEM partners making real phones spluttered out, and nor for the lack of trying. Both Firefox OS and Postmarket rely on an Android foundation for HAL/drivers, IIRC. Device bring-up is hard, and negotiating with OEMs is harder still, and that comes "free" with Android-supporting devices.
Logistically, the vast majority of people who install apps from non-Play-Store sources do so ok their daily-driver phone, which is running the stock operating system. They are not tech savvy at all
> Mozilla's Mobile OS that had OEM partners making real phones spluttered out, and nor for the lack of trying.
Firefox OS had serious issues.
* Web standards 2013-2017 weren't ready enough.
* 2013-2017 phones still weren't powerful enough for complex JS apps to feel fast.
* asm.js was de-facto proprietary (a new FFOS with wasm would be be another story)
* The UI wasn't so great.
* Their launch devices were slow, cheap, and sucked.
* Their launch devices weren't readily available to developers.
* Their OS provided no real advantages over iOS or Android
The OS is still around as KaiOS (with a couple hundred million devices shipped IIRC) and I believe it still powers Panasonic TVs.
Interestingly, I think a FirefoxOS of today with good React Native and Flutter integration and cutting-edge WASM support could have a shot at success if not completely mis-managed.
5 replies →
A lot of these pushes for attestation are coming from regulators and security audits though.
2 replies →
> Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open?
Because Google and Apple have put themselves between us and everything else.
Until we manage to replace them (by lobbying to everything including governments against them, and by working towards making the alternatives usable), we unfortunately have to resort to this. I'd even say we are entitled to this because we never asked for Google and Apple to become compulsory, they decided this.
I would personally be able to switch to Linux mobile today because I don't rely on anything proprietary (except the interrail app occasionally, damn them - but possibly waydroid would work for this)… if only there was usable and reliable hardware that could run the mainline kernel: decent battery life, decent picture quality, decent GPS, decent calls (especially emergency calls even if I haven't needed to actually make one so far, finger crossed, and Signal would do for most other situations actually).
I've daily-driven the PinePhone for a year. Call quality is awful and calls are awfully unreliable, and SMS are quite unreliable as well. Too bad for a phone. Unfortunately the phone took a big rain and now its modem is unreliable and doesn't come back up very often, but that's something a phone will likely endure in its life. Pictures are awful. GPS never worked well on my regular PinePhone. It somewhat worked on the Pinephone Pro until it died because it overheated. Linux hardware support is okayish, it was nice to run completely free software which was my main motivation for trying it but the hardware is crap to the point of being unusable serious.
The FP5 can apparently run PostmarketOS quite well. It would make an awesome Linux mobile. Camera and calls only partially work though [1]. And that's the main features of a phone.
Linux mobile itself it becoming quite decent (if one can do without the proprietary apps), what we really need is good hardware running it. Then we can begin to imagine a world with it having a decent usage share.
[1] https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp...
Did you consider Librem 5? The hardware is much better, calls etc work fine.
> I've daily-driven the PinePhone for a year.
Which OS? Did you try SXMo?
5 replies →
For another platform to rise, there needs to be some heavy market shift. There already were opensource mobile OS: Maemo/meego/Tizen. Heck! I'd even throw phosh and ubports in the pot. But those are about as rare a sight in the wild as lightphones.
Phones have become essential to daily lives and the catch22 is: companies won't support niche platforms for their apps and users won't switch until the apps are there. Android happened to get adopted before everyone started relying on mobile devices as computer substitutes. Unless a major player pulls out a Valve move and does with waydroid what Valve did with wine, I can't imagine the market changing significantly.
One of the benefits of mobile GNU/Linux distros is that it is possible to run Android apps on them. Waydroid works well. The one catch is that it can be difficult to trick certain picky apps into running on an "unsecured" device.
7 replies →
>Unless a major player pulls out a Valve move and does with waydroid what Valve did with wine
Sailfish sort of did.
I don't understand why individuals expect a corporation like Google, driven by profits, to give a sh*t. I would expect no less of Apple with IOS.
Individuals should look for and support alternatives. I'm currently working on a desktop running Ubuntu because I want an alternative to the duopoly of Windows and macOS.
Additionally, we should support open-source alternatives with our donations. I personally donate money every year to Ubuntu, the Gnome foundation, and Tor.
If you're worried about a for-profit company having sway over your computer, Ubuntu is not really the choice to make. Please consider running upstream Debian; there are very few downsides, but the upside is that it is run by an organization that is not (and never will be) driven by profits. Also, it seems a little silly to donate to Ubuntu, which is maintained by a for-profit company.
6 replies →
The OS on desktop situation isn't comparable to the OS on mobile situation. You can buy any PC and expect being able to replace its OS. On phones, you have to look for the ones where it's possible, and depending on the phone, it's possible despite the efforts from the manufacturers for not allowing it.
Also in PC OSs, there isn't a corporation dictating what programs you are allowed to install. In iOS there is, and soon in Android too.
IMO, these corporations have managed to amass an amount of power where there's no longer consumer freedom. Therefore, there's no free market. We have reached a point where the law must intervene to restore capitalism.
Because we can't install that on phones and even if we did, we need to use Android apps to do basic daily things.
Phones are not like PCs, you can't "just install a different OS". You also can't just build a phone from parts like you can with a PC, it comes locked in with the OS, with proprietary drivers and advanced cryptographic DRM measures.
And even if we did get things to the level of desktop Linux, we can't run any of the apps we need for everyday life. Most of these things on desktop are web-based, so you can use them on Linux, but this isn't the case for mobile and many things only come in mobile. Bank apps, government services, digital identification, mandatory companion apps for other devices...
If nothing else, we need to keep Android as open as possible because it makes it easier to port those things to other platforms and maybe one day have a proper alternative.
Oh, and it's not like we have a good alternative. The current Linux stack is completely inadequate for mobile use. An average phone has something like 50 apps the need to be able to react to any of a few dozen different local or remote events at any moment, yet also need to use approximately zero CPU cycles to do that. We need a brand new app paradigm if we want mobile Linux to succeed and it's not looking like that's going to happen any time soon.
> Phones are not like PCs, you can’t “just install a different OS.”
This right here is the root of the problem.
> Phones are not like PCs, you can't "just install a different OS"
They should be. Mine is exactly like that.
The short version is: the PC is a historical accident. By "the PC" I mean "the Windows-Intel platform on which most consumer PCs were built." Linux and BSD were both able to exist in the form they did because there was a commodity hardware platform that was standardized (ad-hoc standardization, mind you) and _somewhat_ open. IBM, Microsoft and Intel were all best frenemies, able to exert enough power to standardize the PC platform but also able to exert enough power against each other to prevent them from locking the platform down too much. There is no standard "smartphone" platform like there is with the PC, really the only standard is Android AOSP. Because of this, it's a lot harder to do a third-party phone platform without adopting large parts of Android's code.
I agree with you completely.
The point we are all missing, Google is not going to pull back, they have already invested in this change, it's in rollout phase, infrastructure is in place. It's not going to be rolled back. The ship has sailed. Keep Android Open is unfortunately dead on arrival, IF we are going to depend on Google.
And, are we going to keep depending on a profit oriented company to follow our bid? If so, then, we are very well have lost already.
The problem is that a new project and even a fork would need buy in buy companies like Samsung. Otherwise a project LineageOS would be much more popular. This is hard to do without serious money.
Yes, agree 100%. It's not only Android the problem. It's the cartelization between them and hardware manufacturers. But then that means that we will be doomed to the current duopoly between Google and Apple.
The very first step I believe needs to be taken is to pass strict laws to allow devices to be reflashed with whatever we want. Until we do not have that in place we will always be stucked like this. Once people can truly install from scratch whatever they want then the game should change completely.
2 replies →
Why is popularity a concern? I'm writing this on a Librem 5 with PureOS that I've been daily driving for the last few years and which gives me a much better experience than Android could. Why would it matter to me as a user whether it's popular or not? The only thing I can think of is availability of native applications, but this would just hide the actual problem with interoperability and pass it down for the next underdog project to worry about.
Popularity is important when we consider whole societies, but it's not particularly relevant for individuals. I don't need a buy in of Samsung to use GNU/Linux on my phone.
10 replies →
True, if a new system ever wants to rise, it’s gonna need backing from a major player. But once it takes over the market, it might just become the next “Android.”
1 reply →
> "We need these kind of projects, not kneeling down to a company like Google and begging for Android to be open."
Indeed.
> "Effort needs to be put elsewhere."
Also correct. Outside of offering (an) alternative product(s), one also needs to fight the inevitable pushback of industry dinosaurs and their political toadies.
In other words: One needs to invest in massive lobbying efforts on the same playing field of corporations as well, e. g. in the EU or the US. For without sound organizing all efforts will be relegated to hobbyist spaces with an assortment of "Are we there yet?" products.
Smartphones and function-alikes are an entirely different breed of device, or at least can be: the general-purpose computing platform for your pocket. In this market, "somewhat different" rules apply.
Drivers and firmware blobs.
The real problem was never solved to begin with: all mobile devices require proprietary drivers to function at all. Because these drivers are proprietary, the only people in a position to make them compatible with an OS are the manufacturer's dev team; and they are only interested in compatibility with Google's proprietary Android fork.
When Google starts to release versions of its proprietary Android fork, any open Android fork (or other alternative OS) will have to reverse engineer that proprietary Android fork in order to match its compatibility with proprietary firmware blobs. This will need to be done for every device.
Imagine trying to find your way through a building while wearing a blindfold. It's much easier if you are able to study the original floor plan that building was modeled after, even if the building itself has a modified design. Google is taking away that floor plan.
The situation is already medium-bad: it would be trivial to use an alternative OS if drivers and firmware were open source. It would be relatively easy if drivers and firmware had open specifications. It's difficult, but feasible in the current situation, where drivers and firmware are closed spec, but designed to be compatible with a close fork of an open source codebase. It will be extremely difficult (and technically illegal in the US) to do when drivers and firmware are closed spec, and designed to be compatible with a closed source codebase.
I used to have a Jolla phone which ran a pretty cool linux OS on it but it only worked because it had an alien dalvik android vm so I could still run apps like those from my bank, whatsapp etc..
It's nearly impossible to live in the modern world without either an iphone or android without making some major sacrifices e.g. I'd love to not use whatsapp but it's not an option because all of my friends and family use it
Why did you stop using it? Asking because I was wondering if I should get one.
If people have to put the tiniest bit of effort into using a different platform, they won't. This is the sole problem with alternative platforms. I agree with you that the ideal solution would be to break away from Google entirely, either with a hard fork of Android, or something completely different. But you'll have to make the transition absolutely seamless for the masses, or it won't happen.
Because smartphones are designed such that I cannot put whatever OS I want on them. I'm stuck with whatever proprietary flavor of Android the manufacturer loaded it with.
If I'm really lucky one of the opem source Android forks will support my device. But my current phone is not supported by postmarketOS or GrapheneOS.
I don't want a world where the market can only support a dozen devices across 4 or 5 manufacturers.
> So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives.
Ironic because the foundation of Android itself is built on open source.
Most if not all large, successful open source projects are funded by commercial interests, not just consumers. The resources it takes to maintain something like Android far exceeds what can be funded solely by donations and volunteers.
1 reply →
It's better to have a billion dollar corp footing the bill for the massive amount of work it takes to maintain Android. If it comes to needing a fork so be it, but if they can be convinced (or strongarmed) to be more supportive of an open ecosystem and FOSS Android projects, everyone wins.
This comment nails it. There was an an article about how the FSF got funding for exactly one dude to work on free phone software https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45586339
That's great and all but it's just a drop in the bucket of the amount of work needed.
Systems with less maintainers require less maintenance because they are made in ways that require less maintenance. They also tend to be less good systems, but not in linear proportion to their reduced maintenance.
Why would you want to start over with a new platform when Android (as a FOSS project) is already most of the way there in terms of freedom and usability? The only problem are "apps" that depend on proprietary Google libraries. This only concerns a minority of apps, but notably includes some foreign banks that require the "app" as second authentication factor.
Perhaps this could be regulated by law or executive power, but considering that governments themselves have created apps that depend on proprietary software, I am not too hopeful. But as long as the same "app" is accessible through a browser, this remains a minor inconvenience.
> So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives.
When it comes to consumer hardware or software targeted at end users? I think such cases are pretty rare and far in between. Firefox had a brief stint of being popular in the late 2000s, Valve is doing some cool stuff with SteamOS/Proton but I can't think of much else of the the top of my head.
Otherwise it's usually companies like Google or Apple which use OSS as a base layer for their closed down and proprietary platforms.
PostmarketOS is cool but its a product niche targeted a very tiny subset of consumers (just like Linux on desktop for that matter).
Likely there just aren't enough of the right people to support such a project, sans a sustained revenue model.
The equivalent of dual-booting would, IMO, be a big step towards Google-independence.
In my grad school days in the mid-90s I set up Linux because it let me write programs in a modern way, accessing all the available memory without jumping through hoops, etc. I would still switch to Windows for playing games, using Quicken, checking Usenet and email and browsing the web.
AOL not even being available on Windows and modem drivers for cheap-er hardware being Windows-only meant I had to switch back and forth (download on Windows, copy to a floppy, reboot, etc.). This sounds crazy today, but it worked "somewhat OK" for me to keep experimenting.
If we could somehow provide a similar environment for the phone, even jumping through hoops, this will enable enthusiasts to start seriously tinkering with their devices. But this is not easy -- both the hardware and the Android today place way more restrictions than much-vilified Microsoft and Intel did 30 years ago. And Microsoft tried very hard to snuff Linux out, wiping boot sectors and partition tables giving half a chance; Google will be much more successful killing any dual-boot attempts now. My 2c.
The difference is hardware. A large part of the explosion around Linux in desktop computing is based on the fact that IBM's patents for desktop architecture expired and IBM clones proliferated in the marketplace. Also, busses like ISA/PCI/AGP and ports (serial, parallel, ethernet, USB) were all standardized.
In short, Linux was possible because the underlying hardware was open and standard.
IBM had very little patentable subject matter in the original 5150 design, and anything they could patent would have been subject to an antitrust decree that legally required them to, in Tim Kulak[0]'s words, "work for free". That's why they focused on copyright in the BIOS so heavily.
Also, none of this impacts Linux, beyond the fact that IBM clones were ubiquitous by the time Linus started writing the kernel. If IBM clones weren't around, Linux probably would have originally ran on an Amiga. It was very much expected that personal computers would run anything compiled for the CPU, mainly because the companies making them shipped very little software. I guess you could say that Linux was possible because there were PCs to buy - otherwise we'd be stuck with BSD or GNU running on computers we had to rent. But even then, what IBM did here was not directly open the floodgates to a Free OS, they just accidentally opened the floodgates to a bunch of companies entering the PC market by blatantly and legally ripping them off.
[0] Kulak is a Russian word for owners of rural land that refused to join the Soviet collectivization regime, which was then later applied to basically anyone accused of not meeting the hilariously awful production quotas Stalin put on shit. Despite this awful history, I'm appropriating the term because A) it's a good pejorative for land-owning nobility and B) it almost rhymes with Cook.
Agreed w the sentiments. Minor nit: "I can't say it isn't a daily driver for everyone" - double negative
> A new platform needs to rise that breaks out completely from Google
After many many years and many forks, yes. This is still clearly the right answer. Google didn't succumb to Apple and just accept things, they acquired Android and invested heavily in it. We are all grateful for that. BUT, we must also acknowledge that the time of the two horse race is over. And while OpenAI and many others are attempting to do various things, we can continue to invest and back alternatives that create a more fragmented market. Maybe they will not replace Android, that's fine, but you're not going to fix Android's problems without suing Google, which people are doing, or actively working on alternatives, which again people are doing. Change is coming.
Because money. Yes Android is open source, but Google is spending billions of dollars a year paying engineers to develop it. If you want Android to be "free" find alternate funding, with no strings attached.
See: linux
1 reply →
Why? Because I want to run bank, OTP, streaming, and other crap apps that requires certain level of trust that a 100% open source version of AOSP made by some guy in a basement doesn't provide, that's why.
Because you cannot own or operate a cellphone. The cell phone modem is not licensed or controlled by you. It cannot be, it is the telecommunication company's. And this reality is intruding more and more into everyday life. You will not be allowed to control your smartphone. They are terrible computers because of this. A smartphone's legal purpose is now basically just banking, shopping, and navigation. Other things that interfere with commerce will not be allowed.
Just use your phone as a hotspot with a real computer for computing that you can and do own.
You're right. Especially with the rise of agentic AI. You could have hundreds of contributors, all using agents, working on different modules, according to existing spec and tests, create a new OS, or Web Browser or anything. It's the end of monopolistic control of software.
But, I think the giants already know and accept this. The moat now is compute. A centralization of power back to the server, the rise of thin clients, and fat services.
So, it is a revolution but there's also counterbalancing forces. Still, we should ride that wave :)
> You could have hundreds of contributors, all using agents, working on different modules, according to existing spec and tests
The current problem with "Linux on phones" is the locked down nature of the hardware. For example, looking at PostmarketOS's support device list [0], sensors, Wifi, even phone calls don't work. Would what you're saying enable faster implementation of those support modules? (This would be really cool if possible).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostmarketOS#Supported_device_...
1 reply →
The way to make this work for real is with a smooth migration path, which means a way to keep running Android apps on your new system.
If you want to sponsor Waydroid to help make that happen, you can do so right now: https://opencollective.com/Waydroid (I'm not affiliated, just a fan, and it's the only realistic route to this I see).
I agree with you, but that only works if people value it and are willing to pay for it.
Look at email. It’s technically open, but in reality there are a few large players who control the majority of it.
The only way open source phone software succeeds is if there is real money behind it and there is an attractiveness to it that makes people pay for it.
Does Qualcomm support the use of their hardware in "raw" Linux phone and tablet use? Where I can be root?
The short answer is its a huge costly chaotic mess to be in a standards/compatibility battle we don't have to be in.
It's far easier for everyone if Google plays nice than to put in the work to unseat them and still keep app devs and users happy.
Simple answer, no open source project can have the keys that sign play store access.
We need both. Open source alternatives are great, but they don't replace tight regulation of large corporations. Just because Linux exists doesn't mean we can give Microsoft, Apple and Google free reign.
Problem is the hardware vendors often very much like closed systems. And banking apps too. We sadly have a much less open hardware ecosystem compared to the PC landscape. And even here driver problems are more pronounced the more exotic the OS platform.
For me mobile OS are a broken mess, irrespective of Apple or Google, so I would love to have an alternative. Mobile phones are powerful devices that are severely handicapped by bad software. Restrictions are sold as security and there are a lot of people that even buy into these crap argument. So much so that even legislation has adopted them to some degree.
But for hardware vendors to jump on another train, a new OS must probably offer something shiny. And the average user has no idea how easy it could be to interface your smartphone with other devices without needing some ad riddled vendor specific apps. I mean you can install an ssh client on your phone, but meh... That is more or less the only app I install these days.
I agree, F** Android, the website should me MakeLinuxSmartphoneReady.org and PostmarkeOS + Gnome Mobile is in good shape but a few smartphones support it.
What are your current bugbears with it to not be a daily driver? I’ve been curious for a while but haven’t pulled the trigger
I completely agree.
Google has been gradually becoming more restrictive on Android openness, slowly but surely strengtening the thumb screws.
On the long term, the best thing to happen is for them to bang make it proprietary [1] while it is still free and liberal. The shock effect will be big, and the initial changes big, too. Such will motivate the right people. Open source devs, governments, legislators, people with executive powers within other companies.
But Google is too sneakily clever for that. So they go slowly, gradually. There won't be a shock effect, or if it happens it'll be a done deal.
This is how you turn a country into fascism, too. Slowly but surely, and then bang. It is all the small steps beforehand which matter, and this is why the Execute Order 66 quote from Star Wars is so such a beautiful example in popular movie SF.
You can see how failed efforts for coups in democracies have failed recently because of checks and balances. South Korea is a recent example, but looking at the details it was a close call. In my opinion, the same was true for USA, and I don't know enough about the Brazil example.
[1] Yes, I realize Android is proprietary and AOSP is FOSS.
Good luck funding the development of a competing mobile OS by FLOSS nerds that can compete with Google's trillion dollar market cap.
Even if you could get some traction, you're gonna have a bad time getting banks to support this OS, at which point it will be useless for most users, preventing you from ever becoming profitable.
> Even if you could get some traction, you're gonna have a bad time getting banks to support this OS
This already happened. Banks here in Brazil like to require an invasive piece of software (a browser "plugin", though it installs system services) to access their online banking websites. For a long time, this invasive software was Windows-only, so those of us using Linux had to either beg the banks to enable a flag to bypass that "security software" for our accounts, or do without online banking. The same for the government-developed tax software, which was initially DOS-only and then became Windows-only.
But nowadays, there is a Linux variant of that invasive banking "security" software, and that tax software became Java-only (with Windows, Linux, and MacOS installers, plus a generic archive for other operating systems). So things can change.
Linux, linux, linux, if you’re blackpilled keep it to yourself, contributes nothing.
2 replies →
For some reason the awful orange app Materialistic does not have down vote so i leave this message instead.
I'm going to say something that should get upvotes.
YOU CAN, AND SHOULD, DO BOTH.
This is the correct take.
Let's say we beg Google to keep it open now, and they acquiesce.
So what?
Do you think this same drama won't repeat in the future?
I also don't think it is right for Goverment to force companies give up their properties, in this case it is like forcing Google to continue to fund Android.
May be Goverment world wide could all fund the same OSS OS which benefits everyone. But right now I see zero incentives for any government to do it.
This feels similar to Sony and their OtherOS feature.[0]
Many people bought Android phones because of the open capability. Even if you don't use it, just knowing you have an out is important.
And now Google is "altering the terms".
[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS
JBQ redeemed: https://www.greenbot.com/jbq-is-quitting-aosp/ (yes, 2013)
I regret having wasted a good part of my career supporting Google with the Android enterprise. They had some very good (technically and intentionally) people there, but it all got thoroughly corrupted.
With hindsight the only thing that kept them remotely honest was the Andy Rubin vs Sundar Pichai turf war, which at the time manifested as Android vs Chrome. Once that had a decided winner it was a recipe for serious trouble.
The only viable way forward for an open mobile OS is to fork Android as is. This is the only way to carry over anything resembling existing app support or all the work that goes into making a mobile OS actually work up to the level users expect. i.e. cameras through to hardware media CODECs and total system stability.
It's a lost cause. We need to focus on pmOS: https://postmarketos.org/
With both Android and Chromium, we're ultimately at Google's mercy.
btw, does anyone know if Huawei is following along with this in their fork?
Linux on mobile is fun, but really I want AOSP and its superior security model and SDK.
Now I hate Google as much as the next person, but I also hate all the other Android manufacturers who just don't do better.
Ideally, major manufacturers would all contribute to AOSP to make sure that it runs well with their devices. And then we could install the "AOSP distro" we want, be it GrapheneOS or LineageOS or whatever the fuck we want.
> does anyone know if Huawei is following along with this in their fork?
They suck like all the other manufacturers: they forked as a quick solution, and then decided to go with their own proprietary codebase. If nobody else contributes, why would they make it open source?
What I see from the Linux experience is that the only way it works is to have a copyleft licence and a multitude of contributors. That way it belongs to everybody, and it moves too fast for one single entity to write a proprietary competitor on their own. But AOSP is not that: first it's a permissive licence, and only Google meaningfully contributes to it.
> Ideally, major manufacturers would all contribute to AOSP to make sure that it runs well with their devices. And then we could install the "AOSP distro" we want, be it GrapheneOS or LineageOS or whatever the fuck we want.
I was under the impression that we got that with GSI, including that Google required a device to support GSIs in order to be certified or something like that. Am I misremembering?
> btw, does anyone know if Huawei is following along with this in their fork?
They are moving to their own completely proprietary OS called HarmonyOS NEXT.
I just looked into this few days ago and it seems all Android references and Linux kernel are completely removed.
While I understand the reasons behind this campaign, I have mixed feelings about it.
As an iPhone user, I find it frustrating that deploying my own app on my own device requires either reinstalling it every 7 days or paying $100 annually. Android doesn't have this limitation, which makes it simpler and more convenient for personal use.
However, when it comes to publishing apps to the store, I take a different view. In my opinion, stricter oversight is beneficial. To draw an analogy: NPM registry has experienced several supply chain attacks because anyone can easily publish a library. The Maven Central registry for Java libraries, by contrast, requires developers to own the DNS domain used as a namespace for their library. This additional requirement, along with a few extra security checks, has been largely effective in preventing—or at least significantly reducing—the supply chain attacks seen in the NPM ecosystem.
Given the growing threat of such attacks, we need to find ways to mitigate them. I hope that Google's new approach is motivated by security concerns rather than purely economic reasons.
Android already has this strict oversight, in theory, in the form of the Play Store. And yet.
Personally I feel much more safe and secure downloading a random app from F-Droid, than I do from Google, whose supposed watchful eyes have allowed genuine malware to be distributed unimpeded.
Exaclty. Play Store takes a cut from what it is selling, so they should be more strict what can be sold, not lock the whole platform.
> In my opinion, stricter oversight is beneficial.
I agree; stricter oversight is beneficial for the official app store. It should not be necessary (and neither should Google's (or Apple's, or Microsoft's, or the government's, etc) verification be necessary) for stuff you install by yourself.
> The Maven Central registry for Java libraries, by contrast, requires developers to own the DNS domain used as a namespace for their library.
This means that you will need to have a domain name, and can verify it for this purpose. (It also has a problem if the domain name is later reassigned to someone else; including a timestamp would be one way to avoid that problem (there are other possibilities as well) but I think Java namespaces do not have timestamps.)
> I hope that Google's new approach is motivated by security concerns rather than purely economic reasons.
Maybe partially, but they would need to do it a better way.
If the manufacturer wants to offer verification of developers, this should be an optional feature allowing the user to continue the installation of applications distributed by unverified developers in a convenient way.
Making this verification mandatory is an absolute non-starter, ridiculous overreach, and a spit in the face of regulators who are trying to break Google and Apple's monopoly on mobile app distribution.
I don't understand how you can have mixed feelings about this.
> However, when it comes to publishing apps to the store,
This isn't about publishing apps to the Play Store. If that's all this was about, we wouldn't give a shit. The problem is that this applies to all stores, including third party stores like F-Droid, and any app that is installed independently of a store (as an apk file).
> Given the growing threat of such attacks, we need to find ways to mitigate them.
How about the growing threat of right-wing authoritarian control? How do we mitigate that when the only "free" platform is deciding the only way anybody can install any app on their phone is if that app's developer is officially and explicitly allowed by Google?
Hell, how long until those anti-porn groups turn their gaze from video games and Steam onto apps, then pressure MasterCard/Visa and in turn Google to revoke privileges from developers who make any app/game that's too "obscene" (according to completely arbitrary standards)?
There's such a massive tail of consequences that will follow and people are just "well, it's fine if it's about security". No. It's not. This is about arbitrary groups with whatever arbitrary bullshit ideology they might have being able to determine what apps are allowed to be made and installed on your phone. It's not fucking okay.
My elderly father unknowingly installed an application on Android after seeing a deceptive ad. An advertising message disguised as an operating system pop-up convinced him that his Android phone's storage was almost full. When he tapped the pop-up, and followed instructions he installed a fake cleaner app from the Play Store. While the app caused no actual harm, it displayed notifications every other day urging him to clean his phone using the same app. When he opened it, the app — which did nothing except display a fake graph simulating almost full storage — pressured him to purchase the PRO version to perform a deeper cleanup.
In reality, the phone had 24 GB of free space out of 64 GB total. I simply uninstalled the fake cleaner and the annoying notifications disappeared.
How such an app could reach the Play Store is beyond me. I can only imagine how many people that app must have deceived and how much money its creators likely made. I'm fairly certain the advertisement targets older people specifically—those most likely to be tricked.
For better or worse, I'm pretty sure that such an app would never land into the Apple App Store.
2 replies →
> Maven Central registry for Java libraries, by contrast, requires developers to own the DNS domain used as a namespace
What are the requirements around domain renewal?
Litmus test: Can you get NewPipe or other Youtube clients onto an Android phone? This is non-malicious software that users want to run but could reduce YouTube's profits.
The threat of such attacks is not growing
A direct link to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, in case you don't want to go via a blog post:
https://contact-the-cma.service.gov.uk/wizard/classify
It's very simple to submit a complaint.
Between this and a growing number of oems not permitting bootloader unlocking (latest being Samsung with OneUI 8) Android's "open" future is pretty bleak.
IMO the bigger recent issue is that Google stopped pushing AOSP updates timely. As far as I know the QPR1 source is still missing in action after almost two months (!).
Stallman was right.
> Stallman was right.
Stallman did not find an economic model that works within our business/legal environment.
Non sequitor. He was right about what companies would do if allowed, and that's the most important thing to keep in mind.
1 reply →
Current big tech is based on Stallman-inspired people using their free time to make software. But they are putting MIT lisence because ”someone” had convinced them that GPL is not really free and not socially acceptable!
He usually is, given time.
I wonder, what thing does HN think Stallman is wrong about today (and which in the future we will be proven wrong and Stallman was right).
I haven't seen him say anything I disagree with. But we would have to discuss specifics for me to have confidence.
Well, the things that got him canceled were and are wrong obviously. But anything (i know of) software related was right
2 replies →
It’s funny how the “Google doesn’t control it it’s open source” crowd has gotten very quiet as of late. See also chromium and manifest 3
The issue of android being open is not a developer issue. I do not mean, it does not affect developers, rather that the wrong that must be righted is to the user.
The F-droid article states: "You, the consumer, purchased your Android device believing in Google’s promise that it was an open computing platform and that you could run whatever software you choose on it. "
This is an actionable issue. I believe this is a legally reasonable issue. If you buy a car and then the car manufacturer changes the car so you can only buy gas from them, or parts, that is an offense.
If you accept that users are wronged by googles action, the problem is what can be done about it?
Wrongs committed by companies like Google, Apple, Amazon are difficult to fix because of failures in our legal system. The typical legal action is a class action suit. These typically result in large "settlements" with little real effect. Users get a notice that they are entitled to $40 but only if they jump through seven hoops. Lawyers on both sides make out like bandits. The offenders have little incentive not to be repeat offenders, just not to get caught again. This is an acceptable risk for corporations and so does not act as a deterrent.
There are states Attorney Generals who can file anti-trust actions. The US government (ha ha) could file an anti-trust action. In my opinion neither of these are likely. And even if it happens, it will take years. And years.
A problem with these two legal solutions is that they rely on someone else. The result is that users are victims. We are all used to that by now.
Since we, as android users, are legally entitled to compensation - is there another way to take a legal action.
In most states the limits on small claims actions is between $3000 and $10,000. Well above the cost of an android phone. If there is one class action legal suit against google they can easily spend the money to defend it. And the time. They have the resources to do this.
However, what would happen if 1000 people filed small claims action, asking for a refund for the cost of their phone? Google is declaring war on users. They have their big legal tanks. Small claims are the equivalent of drones in the legal world.
We have the internet. We have AI. Can we generate reasonable and fair legal small claims court filings for each of the 50 states and put them online to help people.
We, the people, have learned helplessness. We need to learn something else or resign ourselves to simply being fodder for predatory actions by corporations.
Does it also mean that developers in "bad" countries will not be able to create installable Android apps?
yes.
> please big corpo overlord do not do what is most profitable for you, pretty pretty please please
This is likely the result of one of the most idiotic and bad rulings to come out of recent tech lawsuits. It's so painfully brain damaged and yet somehow has seemed to largely fly under the radar.
Google was found to have a monopoly on android with the play store (even though you can side load other stores), Apple was found to not have a monopoly with the app store.
OK. But that is not the really bad part, the really bad part came from the appellate court this past July. Google pointed out that the Apple app store was ruled not a monopoly, but somehow Google's more open system was..
The judge, I am not shitting you, said that because Apple doesn't allow competitors on their phones, they cannot be anti-competitive. Google lost the appeal.
So now, clear as day, Google needs to kick out competition to be competitive. Good job legal system.
While I didn't study the case, I'm speculating that Google's legal team intentionally fumbled the case for this purpose
Yes, I recall HN commenters of the time predicting this exact outcome as a result.
That's fucking insane.
Whats also an issue is that Android seemingly has stopped publishing the source code for Android (AOSP). Android 16 QPR1 has been out for months but still no source code released.
They're exremely tight-lipped on this.. many people asked using multiple channels but no response for months.
Yep, slowly moving pieces of AOSP to closed source and now silence on putting out any AOSP releases, in the name of simplifying their development..
You can't even develop without the paid dev account? I thought it'd just be for distribution. Like, you can build and run whatever you want on an iPhone without a paid account.
You can develop and install via adb, but you can't just tell the package manager to install an APK you downloaded on your phone. Maybe attestation makes sense to allow Amazon App Store or Epic Games Store to be installed without a warning and to allow companies like Spotify to distribute their apps themselves from their websites without using Google Play Store and without a warning. What's wrong is preventing people from installing apps that haven't been attested by Google straight from their phone, even with a warning.
I get that requiring attestation for downloaded apps is wrong too, it's just this website says "it will no longer be possible to develop apps for the Android platform without first registering centrally with Google" which seems incorrect from what you're saying.
Edit: Oh I get it, "develop for the platform" means develop and distribute. Maybe it's just me, but seems like an important difference.
1 reply →
I don't understand the Google's move. Google uses Android as a platform to collect virtually everyone's personal info and build the profile to benefit its ad business. If there is an extremely tiny chance that people (or a sizble population) may walk away from the platform, it's not worth the risk.
It's Google's response to the remedies required by the Antitrust act decision last August. The timing is explained by the US Supreme Court decision of Oct 6 to deny Google its request to pause implementation of said remedies.
I wish¹ the page would also raise awareness for all the other stuff that's been going on w.r.t. Google & Android recently:
- AOSP is no longer developed in the open (if it ever was) – source releases & security patches have been severely delayed lately.
- Pixel devices will no longer be the reference devices for AOSP, and it seems Google will no longer release their device trees in the future. In addition, Google could also lock down the Pixel's boot loader and thereby prevent installation of custom ROMs.
¹) Of course focus is important, so I get why they kept the page short & sweet. Besides, while the side-loading topic is an issue that might be interpreted as anti-competitive and that institutions like the EU might be able to do something about, with the other issues it's not as clear-cut, I think.
I wonder if it's possible for a consortium led by major phone manufacturers to "libreoffice" Android away from Google's control.
Android (to a lesser extend iOS) has become deeply embedded in the infrastructure of modern society. It is essentially a public utility and should be managed as such.
Major phone manufacturers would break androids neck. (E.g.Samsung)
Has anyone seen Andy Rubin publicly comment on Google's stewardship of Android? I wonder what he thinks about his creation and the way its evolving.
Considering Andy Rubin is a massive creep, let's not have him publicly comment about anything at all, ever: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se...
never been a better time to donate to postmarket os, mobian or friends.
Google got a minor slap on the wrist for their last antitrust case so now they know they're invincible and can get away with anything.
A year ago I built a React Native Android app for my wife called "Pimp daddy", which she uses to track her earnings as an independent contractor.
The whole concept is meant to poke fun at the idea of me "checking up on her" (I file her tax returns) and the entire theme is 80s pimp styled.
Every time she submits something, she'll get a random pimp remark, like "Go get that money for me, girl!". She just rolls her eyes and ignores it, but it's what made it fun for me to work on it.
Edgy stuff like that could jeopardize my account in the near future. It might just be security now, but an automated "naughty words detector" will be an obvious next step.
I doubt I will invest any more time in hobby app development if I have to deal with some humorless overbearing watchdog telling me what I can and cannot install on my own device. Very sad to see Android following Microsofts anti power user direction.
I've only been interested in Android phones particularly Pixels because I can just flash another OS and do whatever but if Google goes through with this I might consider iphones this time
Are there any alternative mobile OSes actively developed? I remember Ubuntu Touch was the thing and something from Firefox, but not sure if they are continued?
Ubuntu Touch is still a thing.
We also have PostmarketOS (alpine base) and Mobian (debian base) as frontrunners. Supposedly Arch Linux for ARM and openSUSE Tumbleweed are also used by some on mobile.
There's HarmonyOS [1], which is developed by Huawei, and which has a similar mix of open (OpenHarmony) and proprietary components. I haven't used it, but it's supported by quite a few phones and sort of surprised it wasn't mentioned anywhere on this thread.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarmonyOS
https://mobian.org
Given the apple v epic ruling about in payment commision outside the app store, I don't understand this. I assume Google would get the same ruling if they tried what apple did, so why bother with walling off if you can't get paid?
At least with 3p app stores they could have Gpay if the app developer wanted to, but now they will be pissed and can't build a 3p app anyway since users can't install it via 3p app stores.
> why bother with walling off if you can't get paid?
To destroy competitors of Google apps such as Aurora Store or NewPipe.
I bet those are just a rounding error to their profits.
If you leave under a dictatorship you definitely don't want to reveal your identity to develop and distribute an app that fights the government.
This site is blocked by the UK National Cyber Security Centre via CloudFlare:
>This site may be associated with malicious activity or malware. Access to this site has been blocked by the Protective DNS Service Site: keepandroidopen.org Please contact your local Network Administrator or IT support if you require further assistance
It's disturbing enough that many gadgets these days only stay usable as long as their cloud backend stays working.
But many more gadgets, while not cloud dependent, depend on an app. Think about any number of remote-controlled toys where the remote control is a phone app. Think, for example, about very expensive bicycle derailer systems that can only be configured via app.
Already I've found very neat objects whose app has long faded from the app stores, but for Android at least, you can usually find a .apk and even ancient ones often still load and run. A recent example was that for an ancient parrot ar.drone that I got at a garage sale.
Since these gadgets and their apps precede this attestation thing, newer Android devices will no longer be able to run them. Then what? Keep an old Android device around and hope that it stays working as long as your expensive gadget?
Please, just give users the ability to say whether they want this "extra safety" control on. (If it even is extra safety, but whatever.)
If they don't, they can sideload, and use F-Droid, and etc.
And then we can debate whether it should be default on, or default off, and how hard it should be to turn off.
I agree, but it is not good enough. They should also need to actually check for malware and other problems with their own app store, in addition to allowing loading your own unverified (or that you verify yourself in a different way) software if you want to do too (perhaps with the option to configure this, as you mentioned).
(I do not use iPhone nor Android and I won't, even if they do fix these problems.)
Every company is open when they gain from it and closed when they gain from it. The idea of free general computing needs a different sponsor. Like a country or regulations. I don’t think open source projects and private companies can defend this idea adequately.
Remember when Apple removed the signature of the dev of iTorrent, distributed via an 'alternative' app store?
Exactly the same.
GAFAM are controlling what you can and cannot install on your computer.
It's time for a broader law that goes beyond what is in the DMA (bootloader, OS, etc...).
I think the main ask should not be limited to android/ios but similarly to the rules and regs of previous decades around agressive interop and standardisation. Asks for piecemeal carveouts whenever a monopoliist tightens the noose allows the can to be kicked downn the road when the outrage has subsided and allows for entrenchment of the status quo by stealth. Chipping away until the stated goal is reached. Just like the car/gas monopolies were not alowed to get away with locking users into their own cartels - similar efforts should (but probably wont) be taken to preserve the ability of users to do with their devices as they see fit.
The idea of offering something for free then later deliberately restricting and or reducing its scope after securing enough takers to maximize benefits and advantages for those making the offer ought to be unlawful as they are knowingly and deliberately manipulating human nature. Those who accept such seemingly appealing offers often end up disadvantaged or harmed. And here with Google's latest Android edict we have yet another instance.
Manipulation and deception tactics are particularly relevant in internet age and they are Big Tech's standard modus operandi because its found them to be such financially successful business models. Laws need to enacted to prevent such exploitation as it is unreasonable and unacceptable for the psyche/reasoning of ordinary citizens to be pitched against such psychological might.
As so often happens with such authoritarian and manipulative dictates, this Google edict comes wrapped in the usual paltry excuse of security. Even Blind Freddy knows this excuse to be bullshit and that the real beneficiary is Google. The time has come for Android to be decoupled completely from Google.
It's tragic that despite a monopolistic finding against Google the Law didn't recognize the fact.
It is a story I heard way too often. Big Tech creates something which is so convenient, you don't want to miss it. Then Big Tech breaks that something, makes it more expensive or uses any other means of rent-seeking just pissing of its customers. We as consumers are by far the biggest lobbying-group, but nobody really gives an f. I'm trying my way with /e/OS but thats not for everybody. It also shows me how deeply dependencies on google services are woven into the whole ecosystem - even on open source apps.
These things simply do not work. Things that work: legislation (when enforced); lawsuits (when successful and very costly to the company); physical violence of course; people collectively refusing to buy the product because now it has zero advantage over Apple or because someone comes out with a new better competitor; forced interoperability via reverse engineering.
I've got my Linux smartphone running and ready to go. VWYF, folks. I'll take shitty software and poor battery life over digital authoritarianism every single time.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
>VWYF, folks
Volkswagen Your Face
Vincent Wants Yummy Fries
Viewing Worked Yesterday, Frank
Voyeur Whom You Fuck
Veiled Widows You Fancy
Vore Website? Yes, Free!
Vote With Your Francs, obviously.
1 reply →
Very witty. You're funny!
1 reply →
You can still run an Android build that doesn't require a Google signature for apps. You'll just lose access to Play Integrity APIs, which you wouldn't get from non-Android Linux phones either. A better technical solution is to set up a federated replacement for Play Integrity that third party ROM developers can opt into and a library that can use that or Play Integrity for app developers that want it to use.
Banking apps will not work then.
2 replies →
Which brand do you suggest ?
Google wants my apartment lease to let me distribute free games, so I just won't support their platform.
This is not about security, it's about control.
gonna say: the pinephone has been hell over the last few weeks. Phone auto-boots whenever power is applied (either by their keyboard case or via USB-C), then the battery dies very quickly, and you need a minimum charge to boot the phone, so that means you have to swap an SD card in there with JumpDrive just to charge the darn thing. There are some mitigating factors (larger battery, Tow-Boot + loading OS from SD card, potentially some SMT soldering shenanigans), but I genuinely feel like this is a fire hazard. I -do not- recommend inflicting this on others.
someone suggested (I can't lost the link) flipping the script with a GLiNet Mudi hotspot with SMS forwarding (to e-mail); I really like this idea. It would be suuuper neat to play around with the tethered model: make SIP calls with a hacked Switch with Android installed / dedicated ruggedized VoIP phone for emergencies, or justify making and carrying a cyberdeck.
Personally, I'm hoping to revive my 3DS because I fell in love with the darn thing again (and its near infinite battery life). I heard you can make calls on the original DS with SvSIP, so suuurely that can work on the 3DS too. As a fellow gamer and android dev I'm sure you'd appreciate the idea.
I don't want a phone owned and controlled and spied on by governments and mega corporations. I want a Gibson-Neuromancer style obelisk disk blob thing that does Internet, Telephony, and Computer stuff and uses whatever I tether it to as the human interface.
1 reply →
This is not about security, it's about control.
Of course we know, but they always spin it as being about security.
4 replies →
My primary for the time being remains GrapheneOS, which, ironically enough, only runs on Pixel hardware for now (though the GOS team is working with an unnamed major Android OEM to produce a handset that meets GOS's strict platform requirements).
My Linux phone is a PinePhone pro, which I believe is no longer being sold. It's not great. Phosh could generously be described as "in progress" last time I used it. UIs for many applications aren't built for small touchscreens like that.
I'd have to review the hardware market again if I were going to make a fresh recommendation. Librem looks cool conceptually, but they're a bit pricey, and their framing of a "Made in USA" variant as a premium feature rather than a red flag, a reputation risk, and a supply chain risk make me skeptical of whether Librem is a trustworthy entity at all, or might just be controlled opposition. That could just be me erring on the side of paranoia, though.
i've had a positive experience with OnePlus 6 and Mobian, but if you want something more modern with a business behind it, check out https://furilabs.com/
1 reply →
If you're cheap like me a used Pixel3a is a grand device.
This works now, but good luck in 10 years time when the radio chip requires a digital signature from the host OS signed by google or apple and your current phone is deprecated by 6g or whatever.
when the radio chip requires a digital signature from the host OS signed by google or apple
China will never let that happen.
5 replies →
Mobile hotspot with a wireguard tunnel wrapping all traffic. Different RF bands (e.g. Starlink). Unauthorized private autonomous mesh networks. I don't care how hard they make it. I am never going to stop uncompromisingly exercising my right to absolute control over hardware I bought and paid for.
I just bought a fairphone6 hoping this phone would last me a decade with security patches and lineageos support. Naively I was assuming Google would keep Android open for that period. Now I might as well switch to Apple so I'm in sync with the rest of my family. Ugh.
You will probably run some kind of community Android distribution on that phone, like Lineage or Graphene, and those will likely not include this limitation. The world will be worse off, but you and I will be unaffected. Worst case is that future Google will decide to kick us out of the Play Store, but there has been plenty of workarounds for that before.
The nice thing about laws in the EU is: if Google locks it down, like iOS, we just enforce that it needs to be more open again.
But for iOS, that did not work well so far, as I have zero apps installed via AltStore PAL (iOS), yet some apps via F-Droid (Android).
What's the best resource to keep track of all efforts to make open source phone OSes?
I'm looking for a new phone and it's tough with the current state of things.
Also about contacting your government, what's the best approach? I'm in EU.
Let's not forget Google was legally forced to open up distribution to alternative app stores and direct downloads. This gives them some baseline security/accountability that applies to even side-loaded apps.
How about linuxonphone.org and just dump all your financial/auth related apps to an old Android phone?
Actually, better, dumbphone.org and dump all financial/auth/chat apps to an old Android phone that costs some $200.
That's doable for now in some places. But in an increasing number of countries, payments for just about everything are done directly from an Android or iOS app, so you'd always have to carry around this locked-down phone as well your Linux phone.
Yeah I do carry two phones with me. I agree it’s inconvenient.
I love this and I'll support it, but I know that in the end it won't make a difference. Consumers decided they only wanted 2 choices, and these are the consequences.
This battle was lost a looong time ago. The effort it takes to keep up with all the shenanigans of Google and that play store is way worse than these new changes.
I think this might be an opportunity for runner-up mobile hardware manufacturers to build their models so alternate OSes can be loaded.
in https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-... install an app via adb is not affected, seems that means the wrapper software of adb will prosper.
Kill it so we get a chance to see a new competitor.
have you seen the stupidity that is trying to develop for ie qualcomm soc if you are a small fry?
It won't get better if nothing changes.
1 reply →
What makes me depressed the most is that Google made this decision knowing full well how much pushback they are going to receive.
And still.
Perhaps Android could run sideloaded apps in a container. I know Android apps are already somewhat contained by userid.
perhaps the users should be allowed to install whatever they want on the devices they own? this "security" narrative google spews is weak, considering how much malware fails to be detected by play store
[dead]
top comment seems to be on point, it's time for more of a focus on linux mobile (or mobile linux)... this has been known to be needed for years and some progress has been made on it and more can be made with more people getting involved (postmarketos, mobian, ubuntu touch, etc.)
We need hardware. Why aren't there 5G RF modules that connect via some standard interface like PCIe?
I wonder if filing a complaint at the FTC is a waste of time due to the current government shutdown?
Related question, is Modern Android as good if not better than iOS? Or does iOS still have an edge?
EDIT: apologies I misunderstood that this is limiting third-party distribution. I am of course, in favour of this.
Original comment:
I don't want this. The App Store on iOS has its flaws, but it's a curated system that has a lot of checks in place to prevent malware. I have never felt unsafe on iOS and it's the primary reason I've not joined Android and the Play Store's wild west.
I can't emphasize this enough, your comment is 100% wrong.
This is about only allowing play verified apps. Play store will remain whatever you think of it regardless of this move.
What this has to do with the topic, if you're on iOS?
Because I'd actually be interested in an Android phone if Google locks down the play store to legitimate actors, increases the barrier for entry and improves the quality and safety of submissions. Which this looks to be doing?
5 replies →
The European Commission public consultation is closed. Maybe that would be worth adding a note.
Seriously, is this launched by Google to keep people from doing something real? Kindergarten...
Don't be a jerk, if you sign this, you should sign "Make iOS Open" first
Why? iOS never pretended to be open.
So what? I don't care what iOS or Android pretend to be, I care that they are not open.
If people working for Google had a conscience, they would be working to break the system from within. At this point it's leaving the confines of anti-consumerism and entering into a gray area of basic human rights abuse. It's clearly a cartel market with the other big players (Apple and others to a lesser extend) that needed to be broken 10 years ago(if it were possible).
It reminds me a bit of the book "The Constant Soldier", depicting Auschwitz guards and staff enjoying their carefree holiday at a nearby lake resort, before going back to burning people. Might seem like hyperbole, but I think we're rushing towards an ugly plutocracy.
Going full on Godwin today?
People working for Google are not Nazis and people using Android phones are not like Auschwitz prisoners. That's a really terrible analogy.
Unfortunately the feedback period for the European Digital Fairness Act has been closed since October 24th. Does anyone know of another way to appeal to my European overlords^H representatives?
Write to your mep
The play store ID process is ridiculous, their AI is making up BS why it wouldn't let your documents pass, clearly no human in the loop.
In the EU we can report this to: comp-market-information@ec.europa.eu
State that: Google is abusing its dominant position on the market for Android-app distribution by “denial of access to an essential facility”. Google is not complying with their "gatekeeper" DMA obligations (Article 5(4), Article 6(12), Article 11, Article 15)
Attach evidence.
Financial penalty is the only way to pressure this company to abide law.
The EU's DMA team replied to a previous inquiry:
> [...] the Digital Markets Act (‘DMA’) obliges gatekeepers like Google to effectively allow the distribution of apps on their operating system through third party app stores or the web. At the same time, the DMA also permits Google to introduce strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that third-party software apps or app stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system or to enable end users to effectively protect security. [...]
They seem to be on it, but no surprise: it's all about Google's claims for "security" and "ongoing dialogue gatekeepers".
Freedom to use own hardware or software, no.
Google is evil. Every single one on here arguing "but muh security improves" is against freedom of computing, plain and simple. There's no middle ground.
Google & others have slowly turned down the freedom dial over the years and we let it happen. People working for Google let it happen. I'm not aware of any inside movement protesting this like they protested against various social issues.
Security that you can't turn off is basically a prison.
It's finally the time for Sailfish OS / Linux Smartphone OSes!
You should have all embrace Windows Phone with all of its early issues.
Will this impact forks od AOSP? Like lineage os or graphene os?
I'm not familiar with lineageOS but with GrapheneOS any off the apps don't have privileged permissions this includes the Google play services. Google play services works like a normal app via Sandboxed Google play compatibility layer. The layer teaches the play services work like a normal app in standard app sandbox. Because of that, the check of side loaded apps whether or not have been verified by a ID via privileged GSM services are not possible. https://grapheneos.org/features#sandboxed-google-play
Well I’m sure these comments will be rational and balanced…
It's time for a new non-Google OS frankly. Not sure if HarmonyOS would be the one, but I don't see a lot of Mobile OS development going on anymore
https://wiki.pine64.org/wiki/PinePhone_Software_Releases
Considering that Google has stated their intent that Chrome OS and Android are moving toward a single unified platform, they will essentially be fucking up the laptop/desktop market as well.
The only remaining good thing about Google is their Project Zero. They have become the same shit as every greedy company.
I've been using Android phones since the OG Droid (2009) because I could install software on it. My next phone will be an iPhone if this doesn't change.
You can still install software on it.
I've seen this website before haha
Google is killing Android. Along with the side-loading changes, I'm losing the desire to keep using it, as it's no longer an open OS.
What's the point of those changes? Does Google want to maintain its revenue from Play Store? Feels like a bad long-term decision, especially when Apple is releasing excellent phones.
They’re making it worse in your opinion maybe, but I don’t think you can say they’re killing it. It’s not going to die. I fully expect sales will continue to go up and consumers won’t care about this much in general.
This is worst thing ever happened to humankind.
For what it is worth, I submitted a (totally, different, "handwritten", personal) complaint to the UK's CMA about this a few weeks ago, when it was first announced.
I received _the_ most boilerplate "Thanks, bog off" response imaginable, which I presume is a good thing...
So, I naïvely think one way to push this higher up the priority list and get the UK's regulator to act at least would be to look at those prioritisation principles and make the point that it falls high up them. One of them is "The CMA’s work should ensure that competitive markets provide choice and variety and drive lower prices"; another is "the CMA’s actions should empower competitive, fair-dealing businesses to compete, including by addressing the behaviour of a small minority of businesses that try to harm consumers, restrict competition, or prevent markets from functioning properly".
It's pretty clear to me that Google's direction won't be going down this route, and in many ways I wish I knew about these before submitting my complaint. If you're reading this in the UK, consider looking at those guidance points and hamming home explicitly how this move by Google breaks those points – which, frankly, it clearly does (it is going to reduce choice and variety; it is also explicitly restricting competition and harming consumers!)
Just installed Lineage OS 23 (androind 16) on my Motorola g84. Works like a charm. Banking apps work. Do I need to say fuck google? Like it's not obvious?
>Banking apps work. Do I need to say fuck google?
You are not using Google Play services? Many banks rely on the google play integrity api sadly
reminder that stallman was cancelled from the eff with adhominem attacks. and we are back to calling free software (which would prevent things like the article) as Open-Source (which ia just donations to google and meta)
Keep Android open.
that's cool and all, but I would just like to sign the letter from a form on the same page instead of having to email someone
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
The discussion between open-source and closed-source is essentially a discussion between communism and capitalism.
Anything that reaches a certain threshold of value to society and requires enormous effort to build and maintain has to fall back to a capitalist, for-profit, closed-source structure. That's all that's happening here.
Of course, small stuff like a software library that doesn't require much effort to build and doesn't provide much value can remain open-source. I personally think this obsession with open-source software is simply an obsession with communism and getting things for free, and not wanting getting rewarded for the value of the stuff you build, etc.
> I personally think this obsession with open-source software is simply an obsession with communism and getting things for free, and not wanting getting rewarded for the value of the stuff you build, etc.
Except that both platforms (iOS as well as Android) were either born out of OSS or are still reliant on active development in such projects. They created nothing, they took something from the commons, polished it and are now rent-seeking. It was tolerated till they threatened to choke all competition and trap and rent-seek the entire world with their duopoly.
> they threatened to choke all competition and trap and rent-seek the entire world
They did so legally and didn't break any rules. This is the game of capitalism, and the fact is, IOS and Android are extremely well built and developed, and no open-source project would ever come close to the hundreds of thousands of paid engineers that built IOS and Android.
You can either have capitalism and IOS and Android, or you can have communism and a society that is 10+ years behind in development. Do you really want to give up IOS 26 for a blackberry?
Ah, yes, the library named Linux.
Linux, even though you may think is a massive project and you may be right in some regards, doesn't require massive amounts of capital, human resources and paid developers, etc. to build it.
Android on the other hand is developed by thousands of engineers and is a much larger project in terms of monetary investment than Linux. Linux was essentially built by a single guy. Android could never have been built by a single person or even a open-source project. It's too massive.
However complex you think Linux is, its just a kernel and doesn't require a conglomerate to build and maintain for billions of users. Android does, and those developers need to get paid for the massive value they provide.
2 replies →
What about this is communism vs capitalism? Or even closed vs open source. There are billions of android devices in people's hands. Requiring a centralized authority to authorize what code people get to run on their own devices has nothing to do with a free market economy. This is a private entity telling us it's not safe to run code on our own computers without their approval.
Linux doesn't need a for profit company gate keeping it to ensure it is safe and secure. And even Windows doesn't prevent you from running any executable you choose from the internet. Why are phones treated differently?
Because everyone in this comment section is arguing that Android should be open-source and detached from Google. I'm saying some things are simply too big to be built by the community.
The developers need to get paid. And the developers only get paid if the system is closed-source such that the revenue can only flow back to Google which is where the developers are hired at. In other words, yes it needs to be centralized, and the reason is the money required to build Android is just too much and therefore needs to be developed under a for-profit capitalist organization like Google.
1 reply →
If you care about it, then buy Android phones that will support sideloading. Financially reward companies that are doing what you want.
Which Android phones? If I understand correctly this will be a requirement for certification, so any devices that do not enforce it will not pass integrity checks. Goodbye banking apps, etc.
Chinese phones, ones with GrapheneOS, new ones created to fulfill the market demand Google is creating.
>will not pass integrity checks
Those apps can add support for other integrity APIs. Operating system owners can fund this work to help their operating system gain marketshare.
This affects all Android devices with Google Services.
99% of malware with real world consequences of people losing much or all of their money is from unverified developers.
This is a step in the right direction to keep people safe in my opinion. Most people around the world don’t understand the risks.
Having a trustworthy channel for verified app loading is a vital security tool. F-Droid is such a channel; the Google Play Store is not. F-Droid inspects the source code of the applications they build, removes malware and other antifeatures from them, and compiles them from source to ensure that the binaries they deliver correspond to the source code they've inspected. The Google Play Store doesn't do any of those things. Consequently it's full of malware.
The topic here is Google nuking F-Droid from orbit, probably because it has NewPipe.
I'm not sure about the NewPipe angle, as Grey Jay exists (Backed by FUTO/Louis Rossman) on the Play store, which has ad-block and sponsor block incorporated into it. Google is just being malicious towards opensource and privacy, under the guise of security
1 reply →
"NewPipe" I use "PipePipe", which does less stracktraces.
99% of all malware with real world consequences is caused by unverified developers, ergo, all unverified developers should be removed from app stores.
99% of all car accidents with real world consequences are caused by licensed human drivers, ergo, all licensed human drivers should be removed from roads.
Same argument. It's true, and simultaneously, it skips right past all of the ramifications of the proposal, even when the ramifications conceivably result in more harm than the original problem did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
AFAIK most of the victims actually fall for social engineering in combination with legit apps. If you force developer registration criminals will simply find other attack vectors.
You are restricting a fundamental digital right in exchange for a minuscule reduction in risk.
That's rich knowing that both Apple and Google get most of their store money from dubious casino like games which I'm uncomfortable giving to my family.
Before they are allowed to make any comment on scams, they should clean up their own store first.
The malware boogeyman is really paying off tangibly for Google. They've got actual fans of their profit-motivated paternalism.
Anyone who has lived through the windows PC era knows it's a legitimate problem. Google has tons of data to show malware exists for Android as well. Being able to prevent that malware from affecting the lives of Android users is a moral imperative for Google. I understand why folks are skeptical, but it's worth trying to dig into the fact rather than just react blindly.
1 reply →
The ability to 'sideload' is already off by default, and warns you before turning it on. Maybe just a bigger or sterner warning? I mean there's only so much you can do there...
This won't be true for much longer iiuc. Look at the outcomes of the Epic lawsuit. That's probably why Google is changing how they tackle this problem.
When was the last time you read articles about malware in F-droid? When was the last time you read articles about malware in the play store?
What those "people-who-don't-understand-the-risks" will do then, with more money left? I think they will give their money to all sorts of political populists, who will cause danger not only to themselves, but everyone.
Akshually 99% of malware with real world consequences comes preinstalled on your phone.
YOU should be kept safe.
A ton of malware is pushed through Google's adsense network, which already requires some level of verification afaik. It doesn't stop jack shit. You are naive if you think more verification is somehow going to stop this.