Comment by samrus
7 hours ago
I kinda dont see how both of you cant be right. We need a mobile OS that google isnt involved in. Why not use pure open source android to do it. It can only be cheaper than making it from scratch, since it has alot of work already done on it
AOSP has so few of the features a full phone needs today. Google has moved too much of the Phone OS into "Google Play Services". This is already the Extend phase of the classic "embrace, extend, extinguish". Given how the next most popular AOSP implementation, Amazon's Kindle Fire isn't even trying to compete in the phone space and involves an equally large company throwing nearly as much money into an "also ran" alternative to "Google Play Services", it seems easy enough to argue Android may even already be in the extinguish phase.
(ETA: See also Microsoft's many years of trying to build its own "Google Play Services" competitor. Eventually breaking and making use of Amazon's. Then giving up entirely again on a de-Googled alternative to running Android apps.)
(Copying my reply from below)
Building and maintainance cost are not linear, especially when you inherit legacy code. The AOSP codebase isn't great, is 4x bigger than the Linux Kernel, and full of "Ship now, patch later" mess.
But I agree that it is a significant endeavor. But the OSS community succeeded in similar projects before, and the current state of the Linux desktop makes me hopeful.
> Building and maintainance cost are not linear, especially when you inherit legacy code. The AOSP codebase isn't great, is 4x bigger than the Linux Kernel, and full of "Ship now, patch later" mess.
And yet the GrapheneOS devs seem to be managing just fine.
> But I agree that it is a significant endeavor.
Yes, in fact it is orders of magnitude more significant an endeavor that just building upon and improving the existing AOSP stack.
My point was about hard forks, which GrapheneOS is not.
Should not the Netscape -> Mozilla example be a good inspiration in that regard?