15 ms·

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 hav

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.

figmert 1y ago
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.
- seba_dos1 1y ago
  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.
  - ruszki 1y ago
    For example because the wait time in the theme park which I visited can be find only in their app for iOS and Android. The same true for ordering food to your table in another theme park. Yeah, there are alternatives, but those cost you time, sometimes hours. And these companies won’t implement anything for an error margin.
    - seba_dos1 1y ago
      Again: > but this would just hide the actual problem with interoperability and pass it down for the next underdog project to worry about. Just consider how this wouldn't happen at all in an environment where no platform dominates in popularity (and it doesn't always happen today either, as lots of things like these are accessible via the Web from any platform regardless).
      - ruszki 1y ago
        We have exactly that interoperability right now, and the market said that they don’t want use that.
        seba_dos1 1y ago
        A market like that needs to be better regulated then.
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      The fact this is a thing is part of the problem. We should not be downloading executables and running them from random third parties in order to do mundane tasks. If they absolutely must have an app, it should be a web app, end of.
      - Steltek 1y ago
        Here's a question, what if the executable was thoroughly sandboxed? Like Firecracker level with virtualization? And once you're there, what's the difference between that and a webapp? I don't think apps are going away so users need to have a switch that says, "I don't trust this company with anything". Extremely limited Internet access, no notifications, no background activity at all, nothing. It needs to be like apps for the 2nd gen iPhone: so completely neutered that webapps look like Star Trek level technology.
- liendolucas 1y ago
  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.
  - chrisweekly 1y ago
    Good point about hardware duopoly, and laws (along lines of "right to repair", right?). Nit: "Until we do not have that in place" - double negative
  - dorfsmay 1y ago
    Agreed. So many good working devices go to waste because no longer supported by Google and the hardware manufacturers. They have good cameras, good wifi etc... we should be able to reflash them and install whatever OS we want on them. It's becoming more and more difficult to install even Lineage on a lot of 6 or 7 year old hardware.
- mrasong 1y ago
  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.”
  - MarsIronPI 1y ago
    Not so, if the next system is mobile GNU/Linux. As long as the components remain free and mostly the same as on desktop, if one or two go bad, they can be replaced. And certainly the core system won't go bad.
aNoob7000 1y ago
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.
- agile-gift0262 1y ago
  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.
- bigfishrunning 1y ago
  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.
  - graemep 1y ago
    > If you're worried about a for-profit company having sway over your computer, Ubuntu is not really the choice to make. Why not? The point is not to not have anything supplied by a business. The point is to avoid being controlled by a business. Ubuntu does not have the same hold over your computer that Google has over your phone. The software is open source. You can switch distros easily as it does not have lock-in.
paulnpace 1y ago
Likely there just aren't enough of the right people to support such a project, sans a sustained revenue model.
echelon_musk 1y ago
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.
- cesarb 1y ago
  > 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.
- mistercheph 1y ago
  Linux, linux, linux, if you’re blackpilled keep it to yourself, contributes nothing.
  - echelon_musk 1y ago
    Like many others in this thread have already said, Linux is not the solution. You call it blackpilling, I call it facing reality.
    - mistercheph 1y ago
      Your reality is sad, glad I don't live in it!
ElectricSpoon 1y ago
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.
- MarsIronPI 1y ago
  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.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    > The one catch is that it can be difficult to trick certain picky apps into running on an "unsecured" device. Imho, this is where we should fight for regulation. "All mobile apps must allow the user to acknowledge the risks of running on an unsecured platform, but then launch normally" Couple it with a liability shield for user security issues, if the user acknowledges risk. The real Android lock-in is the universe of essential apps that, through developer laziness, refuse to launch on alternative platforms.
    - smaudet 1y ago
      Eh, I disagree. You can never catch all "bad actors". Sure, you can make a best effort, but govts are not efficient/usually work better at doing one thing, not 100 - they should be regulating the common platform not all actors on it. Anyways, that's just as bad as what Google's trying to do. > that, through developer laziness, refuse to launch on alternative platforms. Android Dev is (relatively) quite difficult. The code and UI elements do not translate easily to other platforms. If a solitary developer (keep in mind, they may be a volunteer doing things in their free time, or just someone scratching a personal itch) does not then go out, purchase multiple other pieces of hardware, and write the application on multiple other platforms, that is not "developer laziness", rather that is a high cost to entry creating practical hurdles.
grigio 1y ago
I agree, F** Android, the website should me MakeLinuxSmartphoneReady.org and PostmarkeOS + Gnome Mobile is in good shape but a few smartphones support it.
scheeseman486 1y ago
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.
- symbogra 1y ago
  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 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.
- immibis 1y ago
  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.
chrisweekly 1y ago
Agreed w the sentiments. Minor nit: "I can't say it isn't a daily driver for everyone" - double negative
TeMPOraL 1y ago
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.
- liendolucas 1y ago
  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.
  - ulrikrasmussen 1y ago
    This works only as long as the webapp allows you to log in using a username/password and/or 2FA which is not tied to a smartphone app. More and more countries are moving to digital identity solutions, and while many of them offer hardware tokens as alternatives to apps, the future looks like one where smartphone apps will be only option.
    - ecef9-8c0f-4374 1y ago
      Banking websites will tell you that you need 2FA. Of course you need to use not just any 2FA you need to use their app and of course you don't need a 2FA if you use the app directly for banking. My companys equity app does not even want to run on lineageos. At the moment it looks like a 2 phone will be necessary at some point.
      - ubertaco 1y ago
        Is there anything preventing use of something like Keepass vaults as your 2FA solution?
spacechild1 1y ago
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.
9cb14c1ec0 1y ago
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.
t_mahmood 1y ago
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.
smaudet 1y ago
> 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.
- ulrikrasmussen 1y ago
  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.
  - tonyhart7 1y ago
    right, government literally side with them if any open hardware/platform is impossible if they mandate all chat is exported to gov anyway
    - smaudet 1y ago
      some governments, especially autocratic or authoritarian. Even govts that may be in some political climates authoritarian can and will want exceptions to this. There is no world that I see where decisions being made by Google are a good or reasonable choice for all parties, even ones you might think would side with this decision. Remember, this give Google more control than an authoritarian govt. Sure, there may be a cost of doing business with some countries, however, even in those cases, this is bad for them - Google can just say "sucks to suck" and they either must use their product or develop their own, but if they use their product, *Google still has more control over that authoritarian govt than the people in it* Put simply, now, Google Is Evil.
  - 1y ago
Fnoord 1y ago
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.
hedora 1y ago
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 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.
overfeed 1y ago
> 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
- hajile 1y ago
  > 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.
  - angiolillo 1y ago
    Web standards have progressed but your other points would still apply. Does there exist a company or project that has the resources to develop a smartphone with better performance, UI, and cost than Android or iOS devices? Microsoft couldn't pull it off, and I am skeptical that Meta would have been able to. I can imagine an alternative smartphone carving out a niche audience like older users, FLOSS enthusiasts, digital minimalists, kids, gamers, privacy-focused users, etc. Perhaps over the span of decades such a project could iteratively improve while the incumbents enshittify and eventually surpass them in popularity. But it seems more likely to me that Android and iOS will dominate consumer smartphones for as long as that form factor exists. When they are displaced, it'll probably be by some innovative non-smartphone computing device.
MisterTea 1y ago
> 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.
- Ajedi32 1y ago
  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.
  - MisterTea 1y ago
    > Most if not all large, successful open source projects are funded by commercial interests, not just consumers. Right, the key point here is most of the fundamental projects were never commercial in origin and had grassroots community or academic roots. Android is built on top of a student's hobby Unix clone. > The resources it takes to maintain something like Android far exceeds what can be funded solely by donations and volunteers. Um, no duh a corporate project requires corporate funding. Android was never a grass roots community effort.
jraph 1y ago
> 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-fp5) https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp...
- fsflover 1y ago
  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?
  - jraph 1y ago
    The Librem 5 is awfully outdated now (and so I won't buy it today because I'd worry about it becoming e-waste fast), doesn't have a good battery life, is very pricey, and I'd worry about call reliability (I have no doubt it can be made to work, but reliably, from sleep?). I'm sure it's way better than the PinePhone, but the Librem 5 is definitely not suitable for the general public, even without considering the Linux mobile part. > Which OS? Mobian and postmarketOS > Did you try SXMo? Yes, not my cup of tea. I'm happy with a stable Plasma or Phosh; at this point, the GUI is not a concern at all for me. SXMO is a nice project but it will never target the general public, and I think we need to target the general public because I wish the general public's computing were free. It's nice that nerds can be free but it's also not good enough.
CivBase 1y ago
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.
AbraKdabra 1y ago
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.
paxys 1y ago
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.
- mistercheph 1y ago
  See: linux
  - paxys 1y ago
    How many consumer devices is Linux successfully running on?
asim 1y ago
> 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.
shaneqful 1y ago
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
- dagurp 1y ago
  Why did you stop using it? Asking because I was wondering if I should get one.
jrm4 1y ago
[flagged]
qwertox 1y ago
Does Qualcomm support the use of their hardware in "raw" Linux phone and tablet use? Where I can be root?
thomastjeffery 1y ago
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.
keepamovin 1y ago
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 :)
- Flere-Imsaho 1y ago
  > 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_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostmarketOS#Supported_device_...
  - keepamovin 1y ago
    If it's just about building software against suites of tests and spec that already exist, then definitely what I'm saying would make it faster. But if it's a hardware control issue, then no. In that case (ie, if in order to be free we need to free the hardware, too), we need to create a hardware company that builds a phone from the modem/radio on up and owns every layer. Obviously non trivial hahahahaha :) AI is letting the world of bits move faster than before by exponentially reducing rework and sharing around the benefit of network effects from collective human knowledge. It's not touching hardware in the same way, and doesn't give us the same superpower. edit: I guess the "easier" play is to convince an existing full stack phone hardware company to make us an OpenPhone that we can hack on because they believe in the inevitabilities of trends and consequences from AI and want to invest in that future. That would be cool? Any takers? Reach out cris@dosaygo.com
codexb 1y ago
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.
jayd16 1y ago
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.
franga2000 1y ago
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.
- rewgs 1y ago
  > Phones are not like PCs, you can’t “just install a different OS.” This right here is the root of the problem.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > Phones are not like PCs, you can't "just install a different OS" They should be. Mine is exactly like that.
profsummergig 1y ago
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?
glitchc 1y ago
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.
- kmeisthax 1y ago
  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.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
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.
superkuh 1y ago
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.
elif 1y ago
Simple answer, no open source project can have the keys that sign play store access.
ksec 1y ago
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.
qwytw 1y ago
> 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).
hn_saver 1y ago
For some reason the awful orange app Materialistic does not have down vote so i leave this message instead.
alfiedotwtf 1y ago
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
spankibalt 1y ago
> "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.
cwyers 1y ago
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.
buildfocus 1y ago
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 https://opencollective.com/Waydroid (I'm not affiliated, just a fan, and it's the only realistic route to this I see).
drnick1 1y ago
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.
ptero 1y ago
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.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

figmert 1y ago

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.

seba_dos1 1y ago
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.
- ruszki 1y ago
  For example because the wait time in the theme park which I visited can be find only in their app for iOS and Android. The same true for ordering food to your table in another theme park. Yeah, there are alternatives, but those cost you time, sometimes hours. And these companies won’t implement anything for an error margin.
  - seba_dos1 1y ago
    Again: > but this would just hide the actual problem with interoperability and pass it down for the next underdog project to worry about. Just consider how this wouldn't happen at all in an environment where no platform dominates in popularity (and it doesn't always happen today either, as lots of things like these are accessible via the Web from any platform regardless).
    - ruszki 1y ago
      We have exactly that interoperability right now, and the market said that they don’t want use that.
      - seba_dos1 1y ago
        A market like that needs to be better regulated then.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    The fact this is a thing is part of the problem. We should not be downloading executables and running them from random third parties in order to do mundane tasks. If they absolutely must have an app, it should be a web app, end of.
    - Steltek 1y ago
      Here's a question, what if the executable was thoroughly sandboxed? Like Firecracker level with virtualization? And once you're there, what's the difference between that and a webapp? I don't think apps are going away so users need to have a switch that says, "I don't trust this company with anything". Extremely limited Internet access, no notifications, no background activity at all, nothing. It needs to be like apps for the 2nd gen iPhone: so completely neutered that webapps look like Star Trek level technology.
liendolucas 1y ago
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.
- chrisweekly 1y ago
  Good point about hardware duopoly, and laws (along lines of "right to repair", right?). Nit: "Until we do not have that in place" - double negative
- dorfsmay 1y ago
  Agreed. So many good working devices go to waste because no longer supported by Google and the hardware manufacturers. They have good cameras, good wifi etc... we should be able to reflash them and install whatever OS we want on them. It's becoming more and more difficult to install even Lineage on a lot of 6 or 7 year old hardware.
mrasong 1y ago
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.”
- MarsIronPI 1y ago
  Not so, if the next system is mobile GNU/Linux. As long as the components remain free and mostly the same as on desktop, if one or two go bad, they can be replaced. And certainly the core system won't go bad.

aNoob7000 1y ago

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.

agile-gift0262 1y ago
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.
bigfishrunning 1y ago
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.
- graemep 1y ago
  > If you're worried about a for-profit company having sway over your computer, Ubuntu is not really the choice to make. Why not? The point is not to not have anything supplied by a business. The point is to avoid being controlled by a business. Ubuntu does not have the same hold over your computer that Google has over your phone. The software is open source. You can switch distros easily as it does not have lock-in.

paulnpace 1y ago

Likely there just aren't enough of the right people to support such a project, sans a sustained revenue model.

echelon_musk 1y ago

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.

cesarb 1y ago
> 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.
mistercheph 1y ago
Linux, linux, linux, if you’re blackpilled keep it to yourself, contributes nothing.
- echelon_musk 1y ago
  Like many others in this thread have already said, Linux is not the solution. You call it blackpilling, I call it facing reality.
  - mistercheph 1y ago
    Your reality is sad, glad I don't live in it!

ElectricSpoon 1y ago

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.

MarsIronPI 1y ago
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.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  > The one catch is that it can be difficult to trick certain picky apps into running on an "unsecured" device. Imho, this is where we should fight for regulation. "All mobile apps must allow the user to acknowledge the risks of running on an unsecured platform, but then launch normally" Couple it with a liability shield for user security issues, if the user acknowledges risk. The real Android lock-in is the universe of essential apps that, through developer laziness, refuse to launch on alternative platforms.
  - smaudet 1y ago
    Eh, I disagree. You can never catch all "bad actors". Sure, you can make a best effort, but govts are not efficient/usually work better at doing one thing, not 100 - they should be regulating the common platform not all actors on it. Anyways, that's just as bad as what Google's trying to do. > that, through developer laziness, refuse to launch on alternative platforms. Android Dev is (relatively) quite difficult. The code and UI elements do not translate easily to other platforms. If a solitary developer (keep in mind, they may be a volunteer doing things in their free time, or just someone scratching a personal itch) does not then go out, purchase multiple other pieces of hardware, and write the application on multiple other platforms, that is not "developer laziness", rather that is a high cost to entry creating practical hurdles.

grigio 1y ago

I agree, F** Android, the website should me MakeLinuxSmartphoneReady.org and PostmarkeOS + Gnome Mobile is in good shape but a few smartphones support it.

scheeseman486 1y ago

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.

symbogra 1y ago
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 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.
immibis 1y ago
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.

chrisweekly 1y ago

Agreed w the sentiments. Minor nit: "I can't say it isn't a daily driver for everyone" - double negative

TeMPOraL 1y ago

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.

liendolucas 1y ago
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.
- ulrikrasmussen 1y ago
  This works only as long as the webapp allows you to log in using a username/password and/or 2FA which is not tied to a smartphone app. More and more countries are moving to digital identity solutions, and while many of them offer hardware tokens as alternatives to apps, the future looks like one where smartphone apps will be only option.
  - ecef9-8c0f-4374 1y ago
    Banking websites will tell you that you need 2FA. Of course you need to use not just any 2FA you need to use their app and of course you don't need a 2FA if you use the app directly for banking. My companys equity app does not even want to run on lineageos. At the moment it looks like a 2 phone will be necessary at some point.
    - ubertaco 1y ago
      Is there anything preventing use of something like Keepass vaults as your 2FA solution?

spacechild1 1y ago

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.

9cb14c1ec0 1y ago

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.

t_mahmood 1y ago

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.

smaudet 1y ago

> 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.

ulrikrasmussen 1y ago
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.
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  right, government literally side with them if any open hardware/platform is impossible if they mandate all chat is exported to gov anyway
  - smaudet 1y ago
    some governments, especially autocratic or authoritarian. Even govts that may be in some political climates authoritarian can and will want exceptions to this. There is no world that I see where decisions being made by Google are a good or reasonable choice for all parties, even ones you might think would side with this decision. Remember, this give Google more control than an authoritarian govt. Sure, there may be a cost of doing business with some countries, however, even in those cases, this is bad for them - Google can just say "sucks to suck" and they either must use their product or develop their own, but if they use their product, *Google still has more control over that authoritarian govt than the people in it* Put simply, now, Google Is Evil.
- 1y ago

Fnoord 1y ago

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.

hedora 1y ago

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 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.

overfeed 1y ago

> 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

hajile 1y ago
> 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.
- angiolillo 1y ago
  Web standards have progressed but your other points would still apply. Does there exist a company or project that has the resources to develop a smartphone with better performance, UI, and cost than Android or iOS devices? Microsoft couldn't pull it off, and I am skeptical that Meta would have been able to. I can imagine an alternative smartphone carving out a niche audience like older users, FLOSS enthusiasts, digital minimalists, kids, gamers, privacy-focused users, etc. Perhaps over the span of decades such a project could iteratively improve while the incumbents enshittify and eventually surpass them in popularity. But it seems more likely to me that Android and iOS will dominate consumer smartphones for as long as that form factor exists. When they are displaced, it'll probably be by some innovative non-smartphone computing device.

MisterTea 1y ago

> 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.

Ajedi32 1y ago
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.
- MisterTea 1y ago
  > Most if not all large, successful open source projects are funded by commercial interests, not just consumers. Right, the key point here is most of the fundamental projects were never commercial in origin and had grassroots community or academic roots. Android is built on top of a student's hobby Unix clone. > The resources it takes to maintain something like Android far exceeds what can be funded solely by donations and volunteers. Um, no duh a corporate project requires corporate funding. Android was never a grass roots community effort.

jraph 1y ago

> 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-fp5) https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp...

fsflover 1y ago
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?
- jraph 1y ago
  The Librem 5 is awfully outdated now (and so I won't buy it today because I'd worry about it becoming e-waste fast), doesn't have a good battery life, is very pricey, and I'd worry about call reliability (I have no doubt it can be made to work, but reliably, from sleep?). I'm sure it's way better than the PinePhone, but the Librem 5 is definitely not suitable for the general public, even without considering the Linux mobile part. > Which OS? Mobian and postmarketOS > Did you try SXMo? Yes, not my cup of tea. I'm happy with a stable Plasma or Phosh; at this point, the GUI is not a concern at all for me. SXMO is a nice project but it will never target the general public, and I think we need to target the general public because I wish the general public's computing were free. It's nice that nerds can be free but it's also not good enough.

CivBase 1y ago

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.

AbraKdabra 1y ago

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.

paxys 1y ago

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.

mistercheph 1y ago
See: linux
- paxys 1y ago
  How many consumer devices is Linux successfully running on?

asim 1y ago

> 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.

shaneqful 1y ago

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

dagurp 1y ago
Why did you stop using it? Asking because I was wondering if I should get one.

jrm4 1y ago

[flagged]

qwertox 1y ago

Does Qualcomm support the use of their hardware in "raw" Linux phone and tablet use? Where I can be root?

thomastjeffery 1y ago

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.

keepamovin 1y ago

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 :)

Flere-Imsaho 1y ago
> 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_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostmarketOS#Supported_device_...
- keepamovin 1y ago
  If it's just about building software against suites of tests and spec that already exist, then definitely what I'm saying would make it faster. But if it's a hardware control issue, then no. In that case (ie, if in order to be free we need to free the hardware, too), we need to create a hardware company that builds a phone from the modem/radio on up and owns every layer. Obviously non trivial hahahahaha :) AI is letting the world of bits move faster than before by exponentially reducing rework and sharing around the benefit of network effects from collective human knowledge. It's not touching hardware in the same way, and doesn't give us the same superpower. edit: I guess the "easier" play is to convince an existing full stack phone hardware company to make us an OpenPhone that we can hack on because they believe in the inevitabilities of trends and consequences from AI and want to invest in that future. That would be cool? Any takers? Reach out cris@dosaygo.com

codexb 1y ago

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.

jayd16 1y ago

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.

franga2000 1y ago

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.

rewgs 1y ago
> Phones are not like PCs, you can’t “just install a different OS.” This right here is the root of the problem.
fsflover 1y ago
> Phones are not like PCs, you can't "just install a different OS" They should be. Mine is exactly like that.

profsummergig 1y ago

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?

glitchc 1y ago

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.

kmeisthax 1y ago
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.

raxxorraxor 1y ago

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.

superkuh 1y ago

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.

elif 1y ago

Simple answer, no open source project can have the keys that sign play store access.

ksec 1y ago

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.

qwytw 1y ago

> 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).

hn_saver 1y ago

For some reason the awful orange app Materialistic does not have down vote so i leave this message instead.

alfiedotwtf 1y ago

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

spankibalt 1y ago

> "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.

cwyers 1y ago

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.

buildfocus 1y ago

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 https://opencollective.com/Waydroid (I'm not affiliated, just a fan, and it's the only realistic route to this I see).

drnick1 1y ago

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.

ptero 1y ago

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.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]