4 ms·

Android effectively stopped being "open source" when they added Google Play Services. Try running anything on stock AOSP now. Good luck!

ewzimm 2y ago
You can have a very usable phone with https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/ Obviously, you will be able to find plenty of examples of things that don't work, and you probably have a bank app or some other thing that you need Google for, but alternatives do exist, and I'd argue that you can have a healthier, more productive, and more enjoyable experience if you can have all your needs met by software that isn't treating you as a product. My opinion is you should use whatever works; I do. But try not to absolutely need software that you can't control.
- bitsandboots 2y ago
  As you say, due to banking, this works more or less depending on which country you live in. Some countries have tied their banking to their phones, with apps that use SafetyNet to check how Googled you are. Somehow corporations and nations have given sovereignty away for convenience and so you may need 2 phones: the google one and the good one, to properly be f-droid only.
  - tonyhart7 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bitsandboots 2y ago
      I agree with you that most consumers probably do want things that are bad for them. I would at least be cautious of services provided by one of the companies with the most anti-trust lawsuits this century, I really don't think they're your friend.
      - tonyhart7 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ewzimm 2y ago
        It’s dangerous to assume so much as this about the thoughts of someone on comments, but let me offer a supporting opinion to the other point: People like things to be consistent and reliable. When we’re talking about technology, they probably don’t know what specific coding or licensing or development practices lead to that, but they know that they don’t like it when something they use gets worse over time. When things they use everyday change at the whim of one company that has full control, they don’t always like it. Having software that’s free to modify and distribute makes it so people will always have options and not depend on one company or another having the same opinions about what makes software good.
        tonyhart7 2y ago
        "Having software that’s free to modify and distribute makes it so people will always have options and not depend on one company or another having the same opinions about what makes software good" Yeah its called android, company like samsung,xiaomi,huawei etc literally modify android and its come out of the box with the phone are you saying that android without google is the answer since android is still google, saying you dont want google but still using android is not really live up to the opinion since google can change android core anyway
        ewzimm 2y ago
        This isn’t about wanting or not wanting Google but wanting freedom. I don’t avoid Google completely, but I don’t want to be dependent on them. I always want to have free and open alternatives to what they provide. The AOSP works for those different companies because it’s free to modify. Huawei had to move away from Android (still using parts) because Google services were not free or available to them. That was fine because at least the core parts remained free. If the basic functions of life like paying for things don’t work without Google, it’s a problem. That’s bad for people and too much pressure for Google to do the right thing for people who have different needs.
bsimpson 2y ago
Before Google Play Services, updates were a big concern for Android. If Android N had the feature you wanted, but Verizon/Motorola only shipped N-1 for your Droid, you were out of luck. There were pie charts routinely tossed around showing which devices had which Android version numbers. You don't hear those concerns nearly as often anymore. Makes me wonder what the tradeoffs/alternatives are. Maybe they could have still moved features to a Play Services-esque library but published the source for it. Considering we're commenting on a post about how developing in the open is too inconvenient for modern Google, the difference might have been moot.
ohgr 2y ago
I’m running GrapheneOS without it fine. Everything I need works fine.
Ferret7446 2y ago
Android is not any one thing and it was never open source. AOSP meanwhile is entirely open source, to the letter. AOSP is a compromise, because device manufacturers don't want to share anything. Google effectively negotiated with device manufacturers to open source part of their software. Device manufacturers lose some of their secret features to competitors. In exchange, they don't have to develop those features themselves. App developers get a standard platform, which benefits everyone: users and manufacturers and app developers. This is very much a win-win situation, because the alternative is that every manufacturer has their own proprietary system.
- alexvitkov 2y ago
  > This is very much a win-win situation, because the alternative is that every manufacturer has their own proprietary system. No, it's a lose-lose situation. If we have 100 different mobile OS's it's a matter of time until a "good one" appears, and we get some sort of innovation in the space - be it from a technical perspective, from an UX perspective, or whatever. Now we're all stuck with Android, where manufacturers can't really do anything interesting with their phones, users get an incredibly bloated, technically incompetent system, and all parties have to abide by Google's every whim.
mbac32768 2y ago
what app won't work without Google Play Services that doesn't deserve to be confined to a Firefox tab?
maxloh 2y ago
Alternative clean-room implementations exists, like microG, but it is quite limited compared to Google Play Services though.

ewzimm 2y ago

You can have a very usable phone with https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/ Obviously, you will be able to find plenty of examples of things that don't work, and you probably have a bank app or some other thing that you need Google for, but alternatives do exist, and I'd argue that you can have a healthier, more productive, and more enjoyable experience if you can have all your needs met by software that isn't treating you as a product. My opinion is you should use whatever works; I do. But try not to absolutely need software that you can't control.

bitsandboots 2y ago
As you say, due to banking, this works more or less depending on which country you live in. Some countries have tied their banking to their phones, with apps that use SafetyNet to check how Googled you are. Somehow corporations and nations have given sovereignty away for convenience and so you may need 2 phones: the google one and the good one, to properly be f-droid only.
- tonyhart7 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bitsandboots 2y ago
    I agree with you that most consumers probably do want things that are bad for them. I would at least be cautious of services provided by one of the companies with the most anti-trust lawsuits this century, I really don't think they're your friend.
    - tonyhart7 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ewzimm 2y ago
        It’s dangerous to assume so much as this about the thoughts of someone on comments, but let me offer a supporting opinion to the other point: People like things to be consistent and reliable. When we’re talking about technology, they probably don’t know what specific coding or licensing or development practices lead to that, but they know that they don’t like it when something they use gets worse over time. When things they use everyday change at the whim of one company that has full control, they don’t always like it. Having software that’s free to modify and distribute makes it so people will always have options and not depend on one company or another having the same opinions about what makes software good.
        tonyhart7 2y ago
        "Having software that’s free to modify and distribute makes it so people will always have options and not depend on one company or another having the same opinions about what makes software good" Yeah its called android, company like samsung,xiaomi,huawei etc literally modify android and its come out of the box with the phone are you saying that android without google is the answer since android is still google, saying you dont want google but still using android is not really live up to the opinion since google can change android core anyway
        ewzimm 2y ago
        This isn’t about wanting or not wanting Google but wanting freedom. I don’t avoid Google completely, but I don’t want to be dependent on them. I always want to have free and open alternatives to what they provide. The AOSP works for those different companies because it’s free to modify. Huawei had to move away from Android (still using parts) because Google services were not free or available to them. That was fine because at least the core parts remained free. If the basic functions of life like paying for things don’t work without Google, it’s a problem. That’s bad for people and too much pressure for Google to do the right thing for people who have different needs.

bsimpson 2y ago

Before Google Play Services, updates were a big concern for Android. If Android N had the feature you wanted, but Verizon/Motorola only shipped N-1 for your Droid, you were out of luck. There were pie charts routinely tossed around showing which devices had which Android version numbers. You don't hear those concerns nearly as often anymore. Makes me wonder what the tradeoffs/alternatives are. Maybe they could have still moved features to a Play Services-esque library but published the source for it. Considering we're commenting on a post about how developing in the open is too inconvenient for modern Google, the difference might have been moot.

ohgr 2y ago

I’m running GrapheneOS without it fine. Everything I need works fine.

Ferret7446 2y ago

Android is not any one thing and it was never open source. AOSP meanwhile is entirely open source, to the letter. AOSP is a compromise, because device manufacturers don't want to share anything. Google effectively negotiated with device manufacturers to open source part of their software. Device manufacturers lose some of their secret features to competitors. In exchange, they don't have to develop those features themselves. App developers get a standard platform, which benefits everyone: users and manufacturers and app developers. This is very much a win-win situation, because the alternative is that every manufacturer has their own proprietary system.

alexvitkov 2y ago
> This is very much a win-win situation, because the alternative is that every manufacturer has their own proprietary system. No, it's a lose-lose situation. If we have 100 different mobile OS's it's a matter of time until a "good one" appears, and we get some sort of innovation in the space - be it from a technical perspective, from an UX perspective, or whatever. Now we're all stuck with Android, where manufacturers can't really do anything interesting with their phones, users get an incredibly bloated, technically incompetent system, and all parties have to abide by Google's every whim.

mbac32768 2y ago

what app won't work without Google Play Services that doesn't deserve to be confined to a Firefox tab?

maxloh 2y ago

Alternative clean-room implementations exists, like microG, but it is quite limited compared to Google Play Services though.