14 ms·

Keep Android Open

2258 points by LorenDB 8mo ago

stackghost 8mo ago
From a marketing standpoint it seems like a baffling decision on Google's part. I own a Pixel and while the hardware seems decent, I've had a buggy and annoying experience with Android, and it's been getting worse lately. Are Google so high on their own supply that they think people use their phones out of preference for the OS? Because frankly it's not very good. That's like Microsoft thinking people use Teams because of its merits. People buy Android phones because they can be had cheaper than an equivalent iPhone and because in spite of the buggy and inconsistent mess of an OS, you aren't beholden to Apple's regimented UX. Locking down Android will not give it a "premium experience"... It'll always just be "Temu iOS" at best.
- StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
  > Are Google so high on their own supply that they think people use their phones out of preference for the OS? Because frankly it's not very good Honestly having gone back and forth between iOS and Android every three years or so, both OS are the same. It's not like the grass is really greener on the Apple side. The UX is virtually identical for anything that matters. Personally I put material Android above liquid glass iOS. The alleged polish of the Apple UX was lost on me when I had my last iphone. The reason Google's moves are surprising has more to do with them embracing being a service player more and more with the arrival of Gemini and them having regulators breathing down their necks everywhere. I guess they did it after the truly baffling US decision in the Epic trial but it's very likely to go against them in the EU.
  - tadfisher 8mo ago
    The rumors that I have heard (and one government document I read that was poorly translated from Thai) is that there are some countries who are pressuring Google on this to combat info-stealing malware. Apparently, account-takeover/theft is very prevalent in SE Asia where most banking is done via Android phones.
    - StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
      Maybe but lobbying is extremely strong in SE Asia. It's hard to distinguish from governments putting pressure for something and companies suggesting it would be a good idea.
- gf000 8mo ago
  > "Temu iOS" Come on, that's absolutely laughable. There are several topics where Android is significantly ahead to the point that iOS is just a toy, and there are areas where the reverse is true. And I say that as a recent convert, so it's not like I have a decade out of date view of any of the OSs. In my experience I had more visual bugs in case of iOS than android (volume slider not displaying correctly in certain cases when the content was rotated as a very annoying example).
  - stackghost 8mo ago
    >Come on, that's absolutely laughable. It's not, though. Google phones are not going to suddenly become luxury devices. It's going to remain at the same level of polish (i.e. mediocre), except now without the major selling point of being able to run your own apps and have alternative app stores, etc. Back around Ice Cream Sandwich or thereabouts they got rid of "phone calls only mode" and forced us to rely on their half-baked "priority mode" that's an opaque shitshow. When my wife is on call she gets random whatsapp notifications dinging all night, whereas when I had an iphone I could set Focus mode and achieve proper "phone calls only". Android is not good. I use it despite its flaws, because of the trade-offs, not because it's better.
    - gf000 8mo ago
      I'm talking about the OS though.
      - stackghost 8mo ago
        Me too. The OS sucks.
    - malfist 8mo ago
      > Google phones are not going to suddenly become luxury devices Pixel Fold disagrees. > When my wife is on call she gets random whatsapp notifications dinging all night, whereas when I had an iphone I could set Focus mode and achieve proper "phone calls only". You can do that with do not disturb. > Android is not good. I use it despite its flaws, because of the trade-offs, not because it's better. That is your opinion. My opinion is different.
- drnick1 8mo ago
  Have you considered Graphene since you own a Pixel? It's a huge upgrade over the stock OS in terms of security, privacy and general reduction of bloat.
  - stackghost 8mo ago
    Yep it's definitely on my list but my Pixel is on its last legs and I'm considering going back to iOS.
    - drnick1 8mo ago
      I urge you not too. iOS is fully locked down -- Apple won't allow you to exert control over the hardware that you bought and own, it's shocking.
      - stackghost 8mo ago
        I've owned iPhones before, they're fine.
        drnick1 8mo ago
        If by fine you mean "they work," then sure. But since it is a closed platform controlled by Apple, you are always one law away from client-side scanning of your conversations, emails and any other content on your Phone. Of course, this will be done to "catch terrorists and protect the children," and Apple will obviously comply.
        stackghost 8mo ago
        I don't need a condescending lecture on software freedom, thanks.
    - microtonal 8mo ago
      Having just gone from an iPhone as my main phone to a Pixel with GrapheneOS, GrapheneOS is such a breath of fresh air. No constant push of AI, iCloud services, etc. plus I actually feel owner of my phone and not living on some feudal landlord's plot. GrapheneOS is great!
hparadiz 8mo ago
I would caution the decision makers on this. The line between a secure device and a useless toy is perforated and hard to see.
- 0x1ch 8mo ago
  If I can't use banking or my NFC wallets on my phone, it has become 90% useless. The other 10% of usefulness is texting and calls, which every other phone can do. Unfortunately, this mostly means using the closed android ecosystem.
  - hparadiz 8mo ago
    No idea why you are even bringing this up. It works just fine right now.
    - 0x1ch 8mo ago
      It verifiably does not on open source and free android roms like Graphene. Unsure where you're getting your info.
      - hparadiz 8mo ago
        No one even brought that up. We're discussing being able to install unsigned/self signed APKs. Please stay on topic and take your strawman elsewhere.
        0x1ch 8mo ago
        The ability to install signed and unsigned APKs directly correlates to the financial institution policy regarding mobile devices and banking apps. Unsure how you've separated these two.
      - Pfhortune 8mo ago
        [citation needed] I run GrapheneOS and use several US-based banking apps. I'll not name them since I don't really want my HN account associated with my financials in any way, but I've got a mix of well-known national bank apps and smaller local credit union apps working. I'll admit there is a single institution's app I've found that doesn't work, but that is just one of several that I use.
zb3 8mo ago
Android was never open. User apps are limited, only system apps can do X which means third party apps can't compete with Google and this is not a coincidence. Let's focus on making it possible to use really open Linux systems on smartphones.
- gf000 8mo ago
  There are some functionality limited to google play services, but it really is not too much in my opinion.
  - vsviridov 8mo ago
    The amount of open stuff that was migrated into the Play Services closed source blob over the years just keeps growing.
    - tadfisher 8mo ago
      I still can't comprehend why they implemented FIDO/WebAuthn support in Play Services. Passkeys are extremely difficult to support in apps that don't depend on Play Services client libraries.
      - RealStickman_ 8mo ago
        Because they don't want you using Google-free Android
  - zb3 8mo ago
    I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I was talking about the whole permissions system where the user is a third class citizen. Device manufacturers are second class citizens (restricted by Google via CDD/CTS) and the only true winner on that system is Google. Regarding some concrete examples - Google can deeply integrate Gemini, but a competitor can't do this and users get no final say here either. Competitors are restricted by the permission system, Google is not restricted at all. While rooting can alleviate this to some extent, Play Integrity is there to make sure the user regrets that decision to break free..
tadfisher 8mo ago
Just to put out what Google actually said in their blog post [0]: > We appreciate the community's engagement and have heard the early feedback – specifically from students and hobbyists who need an accessible path to learn, and from power users who are more comfortable with security risks. We are making changes to address the needs of both groups. > We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. > Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months. It is also true that they have not updated their developer documentation site and still assert that developer verification will be "required" in September 2026 [1]. Which might be true by some nonsensical definition of "required" if installing unverified apps requires an "advanced flow", but let's not give too much benefit of the doubt here. 0: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-developer-verification-early.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-de... 1: https://developer.android.com/developer-verification https://developer.android.com/developer-verification
- yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
  > We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. In classic Google fashion, they hear the complaint, pretend that it's about something else, and give a half baked solution to that different problem that was not the actual issue. Any solution that disadvantages F-Droid compared to the less trustworthy Google Play is a problem.
ruuda 8mo ago
I contacted the EU DMA team about my concerns and got a real reply within 24 hours. Not just an automated message, it looked like a real human read my message and wrote a reply. I'd urge other EU citizens to do the same.
- mzajc 8mo ago
  For posterity, what was their sentiment?
- microtonal 8mo ago
  Great idea, I just did the same. I encourage other EU citizens to do the same. Keeping at least one of the two major mobile ecosystems open is important. (And install GrapheneOS, the more successful open Android becomes, the better.)
  - stratom 8mo ago
    GrapheneOS is great. But that currently means you have to buy a phone from Google to work around Google looking down Android.
    - microtonal 8mo ago
      True. I'm really happy that they are working with an OEM to bring an alternative in 2027. Until then: - A refurbished Pixel works (except some weird Verizon locking that I heard about the other day). - Pixels get really heavily discounted near the end of the cycle (e.g. 9a currently). Google probably doesn't make much on it if you are opting out of your ecosystem.
    - palata 8mo ago
      They say they will announce a partnership with a major OEM manufacturer in March 2026!
    - troyvit 8mo ago
      When I do this for family I buy a used pixel. Then no dollar goes directly back to Google.
notorandit 8mo ago
We ("you") have no power to keep android open. Unfortunately it is in the hands of a company that is building it for profit, in a way or the other. It's been our choice to drink this glass of wishful thinking while giving that company a solid dominant position in the market. We ("you") can only make choices that will overturn that trend. Fully opensource hardware with fully opensource software? Maybe, but also this is wishful thinking.
- colordrops 8mo ago
  If they close things up with no alternative, the free open source software will likely start to catch up. it will take a few years though. This could be a blessing in disguise.
  - encom 8mo ago
    Somehow, Stallman returned.
  - RussianCow 8mo ago
    There is just no reasonable way that the open source community can compete with a $3.8T company. And before you say something along the lines of, "But they don't need to compete, they just need to be good enough", that still requires business to put their apps on some open source app store and make them compatible with the open source OS, and there is close to zero incentive for them to do so.
    - mistercheph 8mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux MSFT Market cap: 2.951T AAPL Market cap: 3.883T
      - RussianCow 8mo ago
        You've made my point. How many people use Linux as their primary desktop or mobile OS? And that's arguably the world's largest open source project.
nimbius 8mo ago
This isnt going to be a popular post because the HN crowd is very much a "China bad" crowd but I hypothesize China will likely step in and offer a fork that's compatible with open ecosystems not under the direct control of the us state department. This might be in the form of commits and investment in fdroid and pinephone, or a tiktok like alternative to the wests walled garden. Edit: this will likely exist "uncensored" in other markets but conform to the PRCs standards and practices domestically, similarly to how tiktok operated prior to selling a version specifically taylored to US censorship and propaganda.
- encom 8mo ago
  I would rather put my phone in the microwave than run Chinese Communist Party OS.
  - lm28469 8mo ago
    Half, or more, of the world thinks exactly the same in regards to the US
    - Ir0nMan 8mo ago
      If 50% of the world started running the CCP backed fork and 50% of the world ran the US backed fork, which one would you choose for your phone?
      - Miner49er 8mo ago
        Whatever one that lets me install what I want
      - bodge5000 8mo ago
        If there were truly no other choice, CCP without a doubt. At least they claim to have good intentions, whether that's true or not
      - otabdeveloper4 8mo ago
        The Chinese one, obviously.
b00ty4breakfast 8mo ago
The Control Society is way lamer than I could have imagined. Deleuze! I demand a refund!
oybng 8mo ago
>F-Droid Basic Great, now they can spread themselves even thinner. Just revert the entire trash rewrite from years ago. Problem solved
Atlas667 8mo ago
Capitalism is the privatization of human needs. As long as these tech platforms are owned privately they will be used to police and make money. This view NEEDS to be central to the tech freedom rhetoric, else the whole movement is literally just begging politicians and hoping corporations do the right thing... useless.
- mistercheph 8mo ago
  Copyleft fixes this.
  - Atlas667 8mo ago
    They have the incentive to never chose this. If we force it upon them by begging politicians, corporations still have the incentive to find a way to remove it or circumvent it. Youre playing the cat and mouse game because you've been taught that solving it is too extreme (thats not a coincidence). We dont need to endlessly fight a whole class of people, capitalists, for them not to use the things we require against us. Only socialism can solve that.
- nazgulsenpai 8mo ago
  Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned? Why would state control lead to less policing? What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets? (these are honest questions and not "gotcha")
  - Atlas667 8mo ago
    > Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned? Well that would be true under a capitalist government. > Why would state control lead to less policing? Its not just "the state runs it", its "we actively become the state". Collective ownership through peoples councils, peoples courts with a world view that keeps it all open: socialism. The world view of not allowing individual ownership over collective goods, the world view of socialism, is the life line of the movement. The actual practice of daily democracy, of running production and of deciding social functions is everyones responsibility and it should not be left to what has become a professional class of liars. Public office members, which should only exist where absolutely necessary, should be locals and serve as messengers with 0 decision making power. All power should be in the local councils. We can mathematically implement this today (0 knowledge proofs). Every single book on socialism is on theory and practices of acheiving this. Thats what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is", the dictatorship of working people, collectively. > What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets? We've been innovating for hundreds of thousands of years before capitalism. You dont need to generate money to innovate, the innovation itself is the driver, AKA a better life. No need to lock and limit production behind the attaining of profits of those who lead it.
boberoni 8mo ago
The link is to the f-droid blog. The official "Keep Android Open" site is at https://keepandroidopen.org/ https://keepandroidopen.org/, and contains good information on how you can contribute by contacting regulators.
- redbell 8mo ago
  Discussed here four months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742488
fermigier 8mo ago
It is a disgrace how Google has managed this situation. To recap the storyline, as far as I understand it: last August, Google announced plans to heavily restrict sideloading. Following community pushback, they promised an "advanced flow" for power users. The media widely reported this as a walk-back, leading users to assume the open ecosystem was safe. But this promised feature hasn't appeared in any Android 16 or 17 betas. Google is quietly proceeding with the original lockdown. The impact is a direct threat to independent AOSP distributions like Murena's e/OS/ (which I'm personally using). If installing a basic APK eventually requires a Google-verified developer ID, maintaining a truly de-Googled mobile OS becomes nearly impossible.
- microtonal 8mo ago
  The impact is a direct threat to independent AOSP distributions like Murena's e/OS/ (which I'm personally using). I don't think this is true, right? An AOSP build can just decide to still allow installing arbitrary APKs. Also see this post from the GrapheneOS team: https://mastodon.social/@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social/116103732808311135 https://mastodon.social/@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social/116103...
  - akdev1l 8mo ago
    You can’t really do that long-term as Google will change code that will not match however you are not enforcing this policy So at the very least you’d have to keep patches up to date. Long term divergence could be enough that’s it’s just a hard fork and/or Google changes so much that the maintainer can’t keep the patches working at the same pace I couldn’t read your link as it asks to join mastodon.social
    - buckle8017 8mo ago
      The patch set for graphene is substantial, this is a relatively minor change.
    - gizmo686 8mo ago
      All distributions involve maintaining patch sets. The question is what the marginal burden of this particular patch is.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 8mo ago
> We see a battle of PR campaigns and whomever has the last post out remains in the media memory as the truth You must find truth. Lies will find you.
paxys 8mo ago
The fundamental problem is that we are relying on the good graces of Google to keep Android open, despite the fact that it often runs run contrary to their goals as a $4T for-profit behemoth. This may have worked in the past, but the "don't be evil" days are very far behind us. I don't see a real future for Andrioid as an open platform unless the community comes together and does a hard fork. Google can continue to develop their version and go the Apple way (which, funny enough, no one has a problem with). Development of AOSP can be controlled by a software foundation, like tons of other successful projects.
- microtonal 8mo ago
  A hard fork is not needed. Non-Google Android do not have to enforce this requirement. It's more important to get as many people on alternatives like GrapheneOS as possible. And fund them by donating to them. If every ~0.5 million GrapheneOS users donated 10 Euro per month, they would be very well-funded.
  - paxys 8mo ago
    There is no such thing as non-Google Android. At most you have people applying tiny patches on top of AOSP, but 100% of the code in the underlying project is still Google-approved, and none of the alternatives have control over that. It's the same as the situation with Chrome/Chromium. There are a million "de-Googled"/"privacy focused" alternatives to Chrome all using the same engine, and when Google pushed manifest v3 changes to block ad-blockers every single one of them was affected.
    - microtonal 8mo ago
      At most you have people applying tiny patches on top of AOSP, but 100% of the code in the underlying project is still Google-approved, and none of the alternatives have control over that. You are making an orthogonal point. Yes, Google maintains AOSP. No, that does not mean that AOSP OSes that are not in Google's Android program (calling it that to avoid semantics games) have to adopt this change. If you want to hear it from the experts: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116103732687045013 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116103732687045013
WarmWash 8mo ago
The judge told Google that Apple is not anti-competitive because Apple has no competitors on it's platform (this all stemming from the Epic lawsuits). Google listened. Blame the judge for one of the worst legal calls in recent history. Google is a monopoly and Apple is not. Simple fix for Google...
- madeofpalk 8mo ago
  Google lost because they have all the emails colluding to prevent competition. If Google had not done that, they wouldn't have lost.
  - hmry 8mo ago
    The lesson? Only discuss illegal activity in auto-delete Slack channels
    - throwaway94275 8mo ago
      Or via phone calls.
- antback 8mo ago
  Apple has not competitors and it is not a monopoly? This is exactly the definition of monopoly.
dvh 8mo ago
EU should fork Android
fredgrott 8mo ago
What people forget is that the real monopoly is in how the AOSP hardware OEM contract is written.... Remember how hard Amazon had it to attempt an Android fork? I was due to OEM SOC access being locked out due to those contracts.... Any open source mobile OS attempting to complete with AOSP needs access to mobile OEM soc providers not touched by AOSP contracts and currently that is somewhat hard.
mistercheph 8mo ago
https://postmarketos.org/ https://postmarketos.org/ It's time to say goodbye.
- beeflet 8mo ago
  I love postmarketos, but there is not even one "Main" phone with all of the hardware feature supported. https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices Fairphone 4 looks close, hopefully fairphone 4 support will continue to improve at this rate. Pinephone is another close one, but underpowered hardware and camera support kills it. I am not even that intensive of a phone user. but there is no way I could daily drive pmOS.
- mrsssnake 8mo ago
  I wish.
- meatjuice 8mo ago
  I wish I could. There are many proprietary apps for banks and governments, which are definitely not available for Linux based phones. Maybe I can run them through waydroid though, I don't want to risk my fully working Pixel to try it out.
gethly 8mo ago
Just like Microsoft screwed up Windows, Google will screw up Android and people will move to Linux on PCs and some open version of Android, or Harmony, or whatever new mobile system comes up, on their phones. Nothing lasts for ever. The sooner you make the switch, the better off you will be.
- foobiekr 8mo ago
  What is the advantage of moving sooner vs. moving later when rough spots have been smoothed over?
  - gethly 8mo ago
    You keep hoping things won't get too bad, but they will. You just keep delaying the inevitable. So it's better to switch now to get the initial hurdles of such a big change over with as soon as possible. It's not easy, getting used to completely strange behaviours and new things in general. Abandoning what worked for you for years for something completely foreign. You have to force yourself to withstand the first few days or week(s), but then it becomes the new normal and you'll be fine. Personally, I am still on W10 and and delaying the move, so i'm not holier than thou. It's tough. But I also am a programmer/power user and am on my PC 24/7, sort of, so this disruption must be timed properly for me to make the move, which is not necessarily the case for most people/average users. Phone on the other hand, as long as it works and does not limit me, I have no need to use different ROM, it's more of a want. But i do not see me doing anything until the system stops being supported or it breaks or something else. So it depends on how you use it.
- keeda 8mo ago
  I wouldn't hold my breath: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/windows-11-has-hit-1-billion-users-just-a-hair-faster-than-windows-10-did/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/windows-11-has-hit-1... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/
  - gethly 8mo ago
iugtmkbdfil834 8mo ago
Amusingly, if Microsfot didn't have a such an awful reputation ( both recent and old ), their newly announced phones could have actually been a viable competitor.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
Nugfle 8mo ago
[dead]
CodeBit26 8mo ago
Good thing
RosaIsela 8mo ago
https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/ https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/ .htmlhttps://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/twif.html https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/twif.html
RosaIsela 8mo ago
https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/twif.html https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/twif.html
jajuuka 8mo ago
>But Google said… Said what? That there’s a magical “advanced flow”? Did you see it? Did anyone experience it? When is it scheduled to be released? Was it part of Android 16 QPR2 in December? Of 16 QPR3 Beta 2.1 last week? Of Android 17 Beta 1? No? That’s the issue A bit ironic to not believe Google is doing this. The same questions have same answers when asked about when Google is locking down side loading. A bit self-serving to pick and choose which things you want to believe are happening.
- Macha 8mo ago
  Google made the first move with their initial plan to lock it down, so the onus is on Google to calm the fears they caused if they don't want people to distrust them.
  - jajuuka 8mo ago
    But they did. That was the announcement that they would still allow sideloading. If you are still afraid then that's kind of on you. Seems silly to expect Google to put out info about enabling sideloading for a system they haven't even released yet. It could very well be in there day 1. Nobody knows.
    - okanat 8mo ago
      Google needs to put hard evidence that they are doing it. Sorry but just saying something isn't enough proof. Talk is cheap show us the code.
Seattle3503 8mo ago
Should device manufacturers be worried about this direction? Could they eventually be locked out too?
cadamsdotcom 8mo ago
What would it take for Linux phones to gain the ability to run Android apps?
hungryhobbit 8mo ago
I question whether an OS that has always been controlled by Google has ever been open. Sure parts of it were, but Google has always remained in control of Android. Anyone who expected that to change (in favor of more openness) hasn't been paying attention to the actions of tech companies for the past several decades.
aagha 8mo ago
This is where I wish someone like MKBHD and others with big Android followings would speak up and say they will both blast this practice and not review any new Android phones/(Google) apps unless there's a full walk-back of this position.
davidw 8mo ago
The relative openness is the reason I gravitated towards Android and Google. I've never really taken advantage of it, but it's nice knowing it's there and that my phone (a Google Pixel) is something I have more control over than with other vendors.
DesaiAshu 8mo ago
The biggest surprise I had in attempting to distribute my first Android app is how difficult it is to get beta-testers through the "standard" channels. It requires a 1 week review and 25 beta-users invited by email addresses In contrast, Apple has a ~48 hour turnaround for reviews before you can upload to TestFlight and distribute a beta with a link Not sure if I am in some "trusted developer" cohort on iOS but not Android - but the difference was enough for me to stop trying on Android
emsign 8mo ago
Since smartphone apps are often times required to do banking or identifying yourself now and there's tons of special apps in order to use appliances, and by that I mean really the only way to use modern appliances is by a smartphone app, emulating an Android environment on a laptop or PC with a bluetooth dongle is essential if you want to leave that smartphone era behind you for good, but still be able to function in this society.
martin-t 8mo ago
Crazy idea: when companies change their product, they have to change the name. Do you ever feel like the same food item doesn't taste the same it did 10 years ago? Maybe it's your memory being faulty or maybe the company got new management which decided to cut costs while keeping prices, extract the differential value from customer inertia and move on when the product stops being profitable. Android is the same. Certain freedoms were a part of the offering - a part of the brand name. They no longer are. Not only should lose their trademark[0], they should be legally forced to change the name. [0]: The purpose of which is to identify genuine product from counterfeits - in this case, the counterfeit just happens to be by the same company which released the original product.
qiine 8mo ago
The number one problem is locked hardware
quentindanjou 8mo ago
I remember not long ago arguing that having Chromium become a monopoly was a bad thing, as it would mean Google could totally twist the web standard in something much more closed. I think this is a prime example.
snowhale 8mo ago
[dead]
flaburgan 8mo ago
Could anyone provide me some clarifications? If I understood correctly, to "protect" users, Google wants to control what is installed on Android phones. I guess it means the Play store will be the only way to install an app, which in turn means: - That users won't be able to install what they want and that they would need a google account to install apps - That app developers have to go through google to distribute their apps, with identity verification etc. Obviously this is awful and would mean the end of F-droid and Aurora store etc. However, I'm also reading here and there that it is a threat to alternative ROMs. To me it sounds at the contrary as an amazing opportunity, as they can strip this verification and be the only truly open Android, or am I missing something? Why do people link this app verification thing with a possible closing of AOSP? Also, Mozilla was already saying it 10years ago with Firefox OS but... The web is the platform. 90% of the apps out there could be websites. We have all technologies needed for this including offline with service workers. And it works on every damn platform, even the most obscure OS has a web browser. Don't want to be locked to an ecosystem? Just target the web!
- slumberlust 8mo ago
  90% of apps are just websites with a wrapper UI.
- blueg3 8mo ago
  There's a lot of misinformation here. > I guess it means the Play store will be the only way to install an app No, non-Play stores will still work, but developers will need to register a developer account with Google that is tied to some real identity. They already need to do this to distribute through the Play store, but now it'll apply regardless. This is to make it harder for scam apps to churn app signatures. Kind of like requiring code-signing, but with only one CA. > That users won't be able to install what they want No, sideloading will still work, but it won't work if the APK isn't signed by someone in the Google developer registry. > and that they would need a google account to install apps Nope. > That app developers have to go through google to distribute their apps, with identity verification etc. They don't need to distribute through Google, but they will need to be involved with Google and do identity verification. > However, I'm also reading here and there that it is a threat to alternative ROMs. To me it sounds at the contrary as an amazing opportunity, as they can strip this verification and be the only truly open Android, or am I missing something? You're being misinformed. They won't even need to strip the verification. The verification is only for certified Android -- OEMs that partner with Google. Custom ROMs and the OEMs that aren't certified (Amazon, some Chinese manufacturers) won't have verification. The target audience for verification and who would ever use a custom ROM has basically zero overlap.
knowitnone3 8mo ago
[dead]
rrix2 8mo ago
it's becoming ever more clear to me that i'll have at least two devices: one running software i trust, one running software corporates trust, with a very narrow pipeline connecting the two, if it all. my demon-haunted device can stay offline in my bag and get hotspot'd in to my trustworthy device as necessary. not happy about it, but i don't see a path forward that lets one participate in the wider ecosystem and maintain their own sovereignty and sanity.
knowitnone3 8mo ago
[dead]
306bobby 8mo ago
Looks like I'm staying in my custom ROM lol
0xbadcafebee 8mo ago
I want Google to lock down their platform. Hardcore locked down. So locked down you can't do anything with it at all. Because people need motivation to do something hard. Android has been a bloated walled garden for years. It should have been like a PC w/Windows or Linux: anyone should be able to make an app (any way they want), publish it, let anyone who wants to download it & run it. But that was never the plan. The plan was to provide a moat to allow mobile telephone operators (& Google) to dictate what users were allowed to do with their phones. Imagine your ISP having total control over your desktop computer. Or killing a website, or program, because the ISP doesn't like it. It is insane that we, the people giving them the money and agency to do this, that we've allowed this to be the status quo. We need to do something about it. We need to kill Android. And from the ashes, make a new platform that works for us, and not for a corporation's profits and anti-competition.
- bigyabai 8mo ago
  > Imagine your ISP having total control over your desktop computer. Or killing a website, or program, because the ISP doesn't like it. It's not very hard to imagine? Most people don't expect that level of control anymore; their desktop just updates with whatever corporate slopware is pushed out seasonally. Websites come-and-go. It's not a hugely motivating rally-cry for average person. > We need to kill Android. And from the ashes, make a new platform that works for us, and not for a corporation's profits and anti-competition. Android is the best-working part of that equation. Microsoft supported Android apps on Windows Phone. Jolla supports Android apps on Sailfish OS. Linux supports Android apps in Waydroid. You don't have to "kill" Android as a runtime or smartphone OS; just force Google to compete with 3rd party ROMs.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - 0xbadcafebee 8mo ago
    > just force Google to How exactly are you going to force Google to do something?
anon_anon12 8mo ago
APKs were the only reason why I was using android in the first place
ddxv 8mo ago
I've finally started de-googling and removing google from my life as much as I can. It's difficult with how much of everything is soaked in Google. I'm sure other's here have gotten much further, but everything you do to reduce their monopoly control helps.
keeda 8mo ago
Periodic reminder (note, originaly posted in 2013): https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... At the risk of posting memes to HN: https://imgflip.com/i/akp488 https://imgflip.com/i/akp488
CodeBit26 8mo ago
The shift towards locked-down ecosystems is concerning for developers. Openness isn't just about freedom; it's about the longevity of the hardware we own. If we can't side-load or audit, we're just renting the device
ameen 8mo ago
Does this block something like Obtainium? https://f-droid.org/packages/dev.imranr.obtainium.fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/packages/dev.imranr.obtainium.fdroid/ This is sad as there’s been a real resurgence of gaming devices (Ayn Thor/Odin, Retroid pocket devices, Ayaneo, etc) moving to Android from Linux variants (Batocera, Arc, Garlic/OnionOS). It’s sad but more of an incentive for folks to finally take Linux as a viable alternative, and build on efforts made by Valve with SteamOS.
Catagris 8mo ago
If they go through with this I am switching to iPhone because there at least I am told up front and am tried less like the a product to be sold to advertisers.
G_o_D 8mo ago
Whats Andy Rubins take on this ? The original developer/contributor to android os itself
largbae 8mo ago
Does the AI boom help with this? Can we donate enough token-budget for GrapheneOS to maintain a fully functional fork?
- cube00 8mo ago
  Good luck, no bank will touch a non-Google blessed platform with a 10 ft pole.
- okanat 8mo ago
  You are overinflating how useful AI is. Moreover most FOSS people actually don't want any AI written code unless the human driving it has done equivalent amount of work understanding and designing it from scratch.
budududuroiu 8mo ago
Maybe stupid question, we keep seeing "LLM figures out math problem humans couldn't, LLM finds security vulnerability by looking at hexdumps for 6 months straight. How hard or expensive would it be to let some LLMs loose on reverse engineering all the proprietary driver binary blobs? People mentioning forking Android is hard, how easy do LLMs make this?
amarant 8mo ago
So how is Ubuntu touch doing these days? I keep meaning to try it, but never get around to it!
- fsflover 8mo ago
  Mobian and postmarketOS are more advanced and work more like GNU/Linux.
jackyard86 8mo ago
I visited change.org to sign the petition for them, only to get spammed by far-right extremist propagandas supporting nazism like this: https://imgur.com/a/E6LMUcB https://imgur.com/a/E6LMUcB I regret giving my real name and e-mail address to that website now.
mindaslab 8mo ago
Never has evil yielded when you appeal to it.
aussieguy1234 8mo ago
We need viable Linux on phones now more than ever. I'll keep using GrapheneOS in the meantime.
skue 8mo ago
How do Google and Apple plan to deal with the immense influx of personal apps that AI will help non developers build? Recently, I was thinking that AI might force Apple to open their devices, because if Apple’s competitor allows sideloading, then the creatives and builders most likely to build their own apps will migrate to the platform providing less friction to getting custom apps onto their device. But apparently THIS is the time that Google has chosen to start locking down their devices as well?!
- IshKebab 8mo ago
  AI is not yet at the point where non-developers could use it to build useful apps. I've tried. It gave me a good start that saved me a ton of time setting things up but the result was buggy and had a lot of bad code, so I still had to read and understand it all and fix the issues.
briandear 8mo ago
Why doesn’t the market respond? If people don’t like Android, it seems like a market opportunity to make another OS. People love to complain about Apple and Google’s “monopoly,” but doesn’t that present an opportunity for someone to build their own thing and if enough people want it, they will be able to sell it?
xvilka 8mo ago
A good opportunity to donate[1] to the GrapheneOS[2]. [1] https://grapheneos.org/donate https://grapheneos.org/donate [2] https://grapheneos.org/ https://grapheneos.org/
- shrx 8mo ago
  As long as it will be pixel-exclusive, it will remain useless to the vast majority of android-capable phone users.
  - wiredpancake 8mo ago
    [dead]
edg5000 8mo ago
I want Google as an app, not OS. Hear me out. Imagine an open device where you can run Google as just another sandboxed app. Inside, they can exert all the control they want. My bank and government can force me to use Google. Then, at least I control my hardware and my OS. It's just nasty to have your device and OS controlled by an antagonistic entity. I see this in people why have used antagonistic software for decades and have become zombified and shellshocked; the idea that software could be on your side is to alien to them. They hate software and technology and just want to get some work done. They tolerate the abuse because they can't fight Google alone; it's pointless to resist.
- elAhmo 8mo ago
  But Google doesn't want you running their app and not their OS, this is the whole idea behind Android and their hardware in general :)
  - Synaesthesia 8mo ago
    Well yeah that's the problem. The Google monopoly. Google and Apple are the only one out there, in the West at least. It's a huge problem. We have given all the power to two giant corporations. Really the only institution which can compel a change is the state.
- intrasight 8mo ago
  You have that. Run Chrome browser on Linux. We should be thankful we have Linux.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- allddd 8mo ago
  GrapheneOS is as close as you can get to something like this.
  - fsflover 8mo ago
mhher 8mo ago
I need to check if Aurora Store still exists/works.
Synaesthesia 8mo ago
The government has to step in and regulate. In China the regulation specify that Google cannot preload a whole bunch of apps on the device. It's perfectly reasonable. The government is picking the side of huge corporations ahead of people. So the people need to make some kid if a mass movement to rebel.
- pessimizer 8mo ago
  > The government has to step in and regulate. The government supports this, and might have demanded it through backchannels. The government loves the concentration of media, because it usually limits the people who can own information flows to a very few people who are already deeply connected to government, or at the very least it limits the number of people you have to threaten or bribe to get what you want. > So the people need to make some kid if a mass movement to rebel. The point of controlling media is that people are isolated and can't do anything like this. They have no idea what is going on other than what they are told by massive corporations, and have all interpersonal communication mediated and regulated. They're even convinced to demand this, or evil people from other countries might take over their minds and molest their children. If they advertise these beliefs as often as possible, they will see this reflected in better, easier jobs with far higher salaries. People who ever publicly contradict these beliefs will be put on many, many lists and their friends, family, random strangers, current or potential employers, providers of credit or banking services, and people who rent housing will be encouraged to also mock, threaten and isolate the people on the lists, or be mocked, threatened and isolated themselves. When you're isolated, it doesn't matter if you're right and if what has been done to you is obviously unfair. Nobody will notice.
dhayabaran 8mo ago
[flagged]
- Hrun0 8mo ago
  I have literally never thought about it like this, but I think you are right. In my mind mobile phones were always separate from other devices, kinda like consoles.
  - trekz 8mo ago
    Right. Consoles shouldn't be doing it either, but here we are...
  - fsflover 8mo ago
    This is actually the main idea of Purism, company producing phones and computers: https://puri.sm/posts/foreshadowing-why-the-purism-logo-is-a-rectangle/ https://puri.sm/posts/foreshadowing-why-the-purism-logo-is-a...
- linuxhansl 8mo ago
  > Android sideloading should be the same In fact we should not even call it "sideloading", as if we are sneaking anything in "from the side". It is simply installing something I like on a device that I own. My device can warn me about security consequences and let me be the one who decides what to do (with my device).
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 8mo ago
  "Android sideloading should be the same: download an APK, verify the signature, install." Download source code from mirror, verify signature, compile, install If the target OS is under the control of a giant surveillance and online advertising services company, then what is the probability of the company allowing mobile hardware buyers to control their hardware using software of their own choosing. Is it non-zero The entire debate around "Android" already concedes that mobile hardware requires an OS controlled by a giant surveillance and online advertising services company
LePetitPrince 8mo ago
[dead]
ollybrinkman 8mo ago
Openness at the OS level matters less if the platform layer above it is closed. Even on Android you're dependent on Google Play Services for payments, push notifications, and maps — all closed. The real battle is at the API and payments layer. The web had a brief moment of openness there, but we ended up with Stripe, Twilio, etc. as de facto monopolies. The next round will be interesting with AI agents that can programmatically switch providers based on price.
erelong 8mo ago
we really need to build up a third party linux mobile ecosystem as an alternative to the ios / android duopoly
linuxhansl 8mo ago
+1000 I donated a few $100's to the petition. With 23,623 (as of today) signatures I doubt anybody really cares, and we'd all rather be cheeple doing the tech companies' bidding as long as we can flop on our couches and consume. Clearly Google wants to make money off their monopoly (created in part from initial openness) and they are disguising it as some security/safety enhancement bullsh*t. Shameful! My main question: I chose Android over Apple because of the extra freedoms it affords me. When that goes away, what reason do I have continuing with Android?
ece 8mo ago
If signing apps is required, then self-signing with your own key should be an option, in addition to a virus scan. Signing authorities have gotten things wrong, which is forgivable as long as they are learning from mistakes, but not letting people run and auto update the apps they want on the device they bought because of device restrictions, scare screens, or other roadblocks is the main complaint here.
pino83 8mo ago
I'm always baffled why there are obviously enough people (not only here in particular; but also here; and sure, it's not a majority, but it's enough people to actually have some influence) who can formulate all these claims, but the actual movement is quite disappointing. As long as everybody knows that you are just talking, but in the end you are basically fine with everything and declare "pragmatism" and all those lame excuses from the last ~20 years, there will never be any actual movement for the better. So why taking care and constantly having those lengthy debates? Is it just your way to deal with frustration? Or what are these discussions actually for? I'm really just asking, because I'm actually asking that myself since quite some time now. I just don't get it. The same for some other yet similar topics, e.g. having these dependencies to corporate social media, ..., ... Additional thought: I also constantly find people somewhere, fighting some decades old fight, e.g. against Windows and Microsoft, and how bad it is in terms of privacy, sovereignty, freedom, ..., and Recall, etc.; but if you ask them "Do you use WhatsApp?", they don't even have a clue why you ask... IMHO, if the community isn't able to recognize that entire mindset as problematic AND find some actual solutions for it, there is no value in all these discussions.
- ece 8mo ago
  The value is in awareness, it's easier to switch for some than others, but that comes after awareness.
  - pino83 8mo ago
    The thing is: If it takes so long for you to get awareness, then better stop everything. It makes no sense at all in that velocity.
    - ece 8mo ago
      Well, mistakes like iPhones being closed have existed for decades, enshittification on modern computers is still relatively new. What makes no sense is people who should know better giving into fear based locked down computing for idiotic reasons.
Kalpaka 8mo ago
[dead]
david3289 8mo ago
Android is code-only "open source" but not actually open since if you make an app and put it in apk it automatically makes the file look dangerous making developers pay for Google Play store
david3289 8mo ago
Android is open source if you can customize it and even now you can't install apk files anyway It might work I actually don't know
david3289 8mo ago
It's just google making money again...
ruhith 8mo ago
[dead]
DavidKFriedman 8mo ago
I'm not a developer, but happened to see the banner when downloading an app from F-Droid and looked into the issue a bit. Discussed it with the AI chatbot Claude. And sort of ran two trials. First, just discussed with Claude based on the read I got from KeepAndroidOpen. For that first one, it was just kind of ad hoc, and just discussed it freely, asking questions, getting responses, etc. But then I wanted to see if Claude might respond differently if different sources were provided. So as each new conversation is different, could start a new conversation, and included three sources. One being what Google has at developer.android.com at developer-verification. Second being a MSN story titled "Google Claims Android App Sideloading Won't Die, But Change". Third being a story at The Register with the title "'Keep Android Open' movement fights back against Google sideloading restrictions". Did the best I could to make the prompt balanced and informed, and basically just asked Claude what it thought of the overall situation. In both cases though, it seems that Claude is raising the question of whether security is a bit of a cover story to the objective of consolidation and control. For the first run I asked it about what Prud'hommeaux who created KeepAndroidOpen said as quoted in The Register article: ""I'd say it's conceivably possible that there is some glimmer of merit," Prud'hommeaux told The Register when asked about Google's security claims. "A more convincing explanation, of course, is that they feel like they have enough of a lock on the ecosystem that they can assert complete control over every application that's distributed in the world to Android-certified devices, which is more than 95 percent of devices outside of China."" and it responded with: "The strongest version of Prud'hommeaux's argument isn't really that Google is lying about security. It's that security is the cover story that makes a control-consolidation move publicly defensible, and that Google has structured the policy in a way that maximally serves control even where that comes at the expense of actual security (like doing nothing about Play Store malware). That reads as pretty plausible to me." Though Claude did say the corporate motivation is rarely entirely one sided: "That said, I'd push back slightly on the idea that it's purely cynical. Corporate motivations are rarely that clean. Google probably has genuine internal anxiety about Android's malware reputation — it's bad for the brand, it creates regulatory exposure, and it gives critics ammunition. So the security rationale is probably sincerely held by at least some people inside Google, even if the effect of the policy has more to do with control than protection. The two motivations — tightening control and improving security optics — are so conveniently aligned here that it would be almost impossible to disentangle them, even in good faith." And then for the second run it said something similar: "My overall read is that this feels like a policy where the stated reason (security) and the structural effect (consolidating control) are both real, but the latter should be scrutinized more carefully than Google's framing invites. The backlash is justified in flagging the antitrust and openness dimensions — those concerns deserve regulatory attention regardless of whether one accepts Google's security logic. But I wouldn't call it a straightforward "power grab" with no legitimate basis either. It's more like a policy with genuine security merit that happens to also serve Google's competitive interests rather conveniently." And also said in the second run: "That said, the critics raise concerns I find substantive. The most compelling to me isn't really about hobbyists or the $25 fee — it's the structural power question. Google would essentially become the arbiter of who gets to distribute software on Android-certified devices, which covers the vast majority of Android hardware globally. That's an enormous gatekeeping role for a company that also runs the dominant app store and competes commercially with alternative distribution platforms like F-Droid. Even if Google's stated intentions are entirely benign, concentrating that much control in a single private company creates obvious long-term risks for competition and openness — risks that are harder to undo once established." It's interesting though. I said to Claude that the thought crossed my mind that I could include what it said in a message to regulators, but on the other hand, what Claude or any other AI chatbot says to a single user in a single conversation isn't in any way a kind of broader public stance that an AI is taking on an issue. And so Claude agreed with that. "You've identified the real issue precisely. The problem with quoting me isn't really about weight or credibility — it's about the nature of what I produce. When you quote Prud'hommeaux, you're quoting a person who holds that view, will defend it if challenged, has staked his reputation on it, and can be contacted for clarification. When you quote me, you're quoting something more like a well-reasoned response that was generated for your particular conversation, that I won't remember having said, that I might phrase differently in another conversation, and that I can't be held to as a public position." But then suggested that I could just summarize what it had said, and could just express it in my own words. But there is a big difference. Claude knows a lot more about a lot more stuff than I do. So, the fact that Claude said it, even if it's just in one conversation with one user is rather a different thing than if I said it. So those have been a few of my thoughts. Sorry, if this is way too long. :-)
TrailingArbutus 8mo ago
How can one expect anything for free from a mega corporation handling a product? The "free" software and tools are for indirectly a way for the community to improve the thing for them, however android is a product, which has incentives to be closed source. Especially since the Chinese ROMs era where there exist forks which are too far away from base android already (which will benefit from improvements of android but will not give back the benefits they have in their closed-source flavors)
StacyRawls 8mo ago
[dead]
echii12 8mo ago
wagbanyas!!!

2258 points by LorenDB 8mo ago

From a marketing standpoint it seems like a baffling decision on Google's part. I own a Pixel and while the hardware seems decent, I've had a buggy and annoying experience with Android, and it's been getting worse lately. Are Google so high on their own supply that they think people use their phones out of preference for the OS? Because frankly it's not very good. That's like Microsoft thinking people use Teams because of its merits. People buy Android phones because they can be had cheaper than an equivalent iPhone and because in spite of the buggy and inconsistent mess of an OS, you aren't beholden to Apple's regimented UX. Locking down Android will not give it a "premium experience"... It'll always just be "Temu iOS" at best.

StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
> Are Google so high on their own supply that they think people use their phones out of preference for the OS? Because frankly it's not very good Honestly having gone back and forth between iOS and Android every three years or so, both OS are the same. It's not like the grass is really greener on the Apple side. The UX is virtually identical for anything that matters. Personally I put material Android above liquid glass iOS. The alleged polish of the Apple UX was lost on me when I had my last iphone. The reason Google's moves are surprising has more to do with them embracing being a service player more and more with the arrival of Gemini and them having regulators breathing down their necks everywhere. I guess they did it after the truly baffling US decision in the Epic trial but it's very likely to go against them in the EU.
- tadfisher 8mo ago
  The rumors that I have heard (and one government document I read that was poorly translated from Thai) is that there are some countries who are pressuring Google on this to combat info-stealing malware. Apparently, account-takeover/theft is very prevalent in SE Asia where most banking is done via Android phones.
  - StopDisinfo910 8mo ago
    Maybe but lobbying is extremely strong in SE Asia. It's hard to distinguish from governments putting pressure for something and companies suggesting it would be a good idea.
gf000 8mo ago
> "Temu iOS" Come on, that's absolutely laughable. There are several topics where Android is significantly ahead to the point that iOS is just a toy, and there are areas where the reverse is true. And I say that as a recent convert, so it's not like I have a decade out of date view of any of the OSs. In my experience I had more visual bugs in case of iOS than android (volume slider not displaying correctly in certain cases when the content was rotated as a very annoying example).
- stackghost 8mo ago
  >Come on, that's absolutely laughable. It's not, though. Google phones are not going to suddenly become luxury devices. It's going to remain at the same level of polish (i.e. mediocre), except now without the major selling point of being able to run your own apps and have alternative app stores, etc. Back around Ice Cream Sandwich or thereabouts they got rid of "phone calls only mode" and forced us to rely on their half-baked "priority mode" that's an opaque shitshow. When my wife is on call she gets random whatsapp notifications dinging all night, whereas when I had an iphone I could set Focus mode and achieve proper "phone calls only". Android is not good. I use it despite its flaws, because of the trade-offs, not because it's better.
  - gf000 8mo ago
    I'm talking about the OS though.
    - stackghost 8mo ago
      Me too. The OS sucks.
  - malfist 8mo ago
    > Google phones are not going to suddenly become luxury devices Pixel Fold disagrees. > When my wife is on call she gets random whatsapp notifications dinging all night, whereas when I had an iphone I could set Focus mode and achieve proper "phone calls only". You can do that with do not disturb. > Android is not good. I use it despite its flaws, because of the trade-offs, not because it's better. That is your opinion. My opinion is different.
drnick1 8mo ago
Have you considered Graphene since you own a Pixel? It's a huge upgrade over the stock OS in terms of security, privacy and general reduction of bloat.
- stackghost 8mo ago
  Yep it's definitely on my list but my Pixel is on its last legs and I'm considering going back to iOS.
  - drnick1 8mo ago
    I urge you not too. iOS is fully locked down -- Apple won't allow you to exert control over the hardware that you bought and own, it's shocking.
    - stackghost 8mo ago
      I've owned iPhones before, they're fine.
      - drnick1 8mo ago
        If by fine you mean "they work," then sure. But since it is a closed platform controlled by Apple, you are always one law away from client-side scanning of your conversations, emails and any other content on your Phone. Of course, this will be done to "catch terrorists and protect the children," and Apple will obviously comply.
        stackghost 8mo ago
        I don't need a condescending lecture on software freedom, thanks.
  - microtonal 8mo ago
    Having just gone from an iPhone as my main phone to a Pixel with GrapheneOS, GrapheneOS is such a breath of fresh air. No constant push of AI, iCloud services, etc. plus I actually feel owner of my phone and not living on some feudal landlord's plot. GrapheneOS is great!

hparadiz 8mo ago

I would caution the decision makers on this. The line between a secure device and a useless toy is perforated and hard to see.

0x1ch 8mo ago
If I can't use banking or my NFC wallets on my phone, it has become 90% useless. The other 10% of usefulness is texting and calls, which every other phone can do. Unfortunately, this mostly means using the closed android ecosystem.
- hparadiz 8mo ago
  No idea why you are even bringing this up. It works just fine right now.
  - 0x1ch 8mo ago
    It verifiably does not on open source and free android roms like Graphene. Unsure where you're getting your info.
    - hparadiz 8mo ago
      No one even brought that up. We're discussing being able to install unsigned/self signed APKs. Please stay on topic and take your strawman elsewhere.
      - 0x1ch 8mo ago
        The ability to install signed and unsigned APKs directly correlates to the financial institution policy regarding mobile devices and banking apps. Unsure how you've separated these two.
    - Pfhortune 8mo ago
      [citation needed] I run GrapheneOS and use several US-based banking apps. I'll not name them since I don't really want my HN account associated with my financials in any way, but I've got a mix of well-known national bank apps and smaller local credit union apps working. I'll admit there is a single institution's app I've found that doesn't work, but that is just one of several that I use.

zb3 8mo ago

Android was never open. User apps are limited, only system apps can do X which means third party apps can't compete with Google and this is not a coincidence. Let's focus on making it possible to use really open Linux systems on smartphones.

gf000 8mo ago
There are some functionality limited to google play services, but it really is not too much in my opinion.
- vsviridov 8mo ago
  The amount of open stuff that was migrated into the Play Services closed source blob over the years just keeps growing.
  - tadfisher 8mo ago
    I still can't comprehend why they implemented FIDO/WebAuthn support in Play Services. Passkeys are extremely difficult to support in apps that don't depend on Play Services client libraries.
    - RealStickman_ 8mo ago
      Because they don't want you using Google-free Android
- zb3 8mo ago
  I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I was talking about the whole permissions system where the user is a third class citizen. Device manufacturers are second class citizens (restricted by Google via CDD/CTS) and the only true winner on that system is Google. Regarding some concrete examples - Google can deeply integrate Gemini, but a competitor can't do this and users get no final say here either. Competitors are restricted by the permission system, Google is not restricted at all. While rooting can alleviate this to some extent, Play Integrity is there to make sure the user regrets that decision to break free..

tadfisher 8mo ago

Just to put out what Google actually said in their blog post [0]: > We appreciate the community's engagement and have heard the early feedback – specifically from students and hobbyists who need an accessible path to learn, and from power users who are more comfortable with security risks. We are making changes to address the needs of both groups. > We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. > Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months. It is also true that they have not updated their developer documentation site and still assert that developer verification will be "required" in September 2026 [1]. Which might be true by some nonsensical definition of "required" if installing unverified apps requires an "advanced flow", but let's not give too much benefit of the doubt here. 0: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-developer-verification-early.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-de... 1: https://developer.android.com/developer-verification https://developer.android.com/developer-verification

yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
> We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements. In classic Google fashion, they hear the complaint, pretend that it's about something else, and give a half baked solution to that different problem that was not the actual issue. Any solution that disadvantages F-Droid compared to the less trustworthy Google Play is a problem.

ruuda 8mo ago

I contacted the EU DMA team about my concerns and got a real reply within 24 hours. Not just an automated message, it looked like a real human read my message and wrote a reply. I'd urge other EU citizens to do the same.

mzajc 8mo ago
For posterity, what was their sentiment?
microtonal 8mo ago
Great idea, I just did the same. I encourage other EU citizens to do the same. Keeping at least one of the two major mobile ecosystems open is important. (And install GrapheneOS, the more successful open Android becomes, the better.)
- stratom 8mo ago
  GrapheneOS is great. But that currently means you have to buy a phone from Google to work around Google looking down Android.
  - microtonal 8mo ago
    True. I'm really happy that they are working with an OEM to bring an alternative in 2027. Until then: - A refurbished Pixel works (except some weird Verizon locking that I heard about the other day). - Pixels get really heavily discounted near the end of the cycle (e.g. 9a currently). Google probably doesn't make much on it if you are opting out of your ecosystem.
  - palata 8mo ago
    They say they will announce a partnership with a major OEM manufacturer in March 2026!
  - troyvit 8mo ago
    When I do this for family I buy a used pixel. Then no dollar goes directly back to Google.

notorandit 8mo ago

We ("you") have no power to keep android open. Unfortunately it is in the hands of a company that is building it for profit, in a way or the other. It's been our choice to drink this glass of wishful thinking while giving that company a solid dominant position in the market. We ("you") can only make choices that will overturn that trend. Fully opensource hardware with fully opensource software? Maybe, but also this is wishful thinking.

colordrops 8mo ago
If they close things up with no alternative, the free open source software will likely start to catch up. it will take a few years though. This could be a blessing in disguise.
- encom 8mo ago
  Somehow, Stallman returned.
- RussianCow 8mo ago
  There is just no reasonable way that the open source community can compete with a $3.8T company. And before you say something along the lines of, "But they don't need to compete, they just need to be good enough", that still requires business to put their apps on some open source app store and make them compatible with the open source OS, and there is close to zero incentive for them to do so.
  - mistercheph 8mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux MSFT Market cap: 2.951T AAPL Market cap: 3.883T
    - RussianCow 8mo ago
      You've made my point. How many people use Linux as their primary desktop or mobile OS? And that's arguably the world's largest open source project.

nimbius 8mo ago

This isnt going to be a popular post because the HN crowd is very much a "China bad" crowd but I hypothesize China will likely step in and offer a fork that's compatible with open ecosystems not under the direct control of the us state department. This might be in the form of commits and investment in fdroid and pinephone, or a tiktok like alternative to the wests walled garden. Edit: this will likely exist "uncensored" in other markets but conform to the PRCs standards and practices domestically, similarly to how tiktok operated prior to selling a version specifically taylored to US censorship and propaganda.

encom 8mo ago
I would rather put my phone in the microwave than run Chinese Communist Party OS.
- lm28469 8mo ago
  Half, or more, of the world thinks exactly the same in regards to the US
  - Ir0nMan 8mo ago
    If 50% of the world started running the CCP backed fork and 50% of the world ran the US backed fork, which one would you choose for your phone?
    - Miner49er 8mo ago
      Whatever one that lets me install what I want
    - bodge5000 8mo ago
      If there were truly no other choice, CCP without a doubt. At least they claim to have good intentions, whether that's true or not
    - otabdeveloper4 8mo ago
      The Chinese one, obviously.

b00ty4breakfast 8mo ago

The Control Society is way lamer than I could have imagined. Deleuze! I demand a refund!

oybng 8mo ago

>F-Droid Basic Great, now they can spread themselves even thinner. Just revert the entire trash rewrite from years ago. Problem solved

Atlas667 8mo ago

Capitalism is the privatization of human needs. As long as these tech platforms are owned privately they will be used to police and make money. This view NEEDS to be central to the tech freedom rhetoric, else the whole movement is literally just begging politicians and hoping corporations do the right thing... useless.

mistercheph 8mo ago
Copyleft fixes this.
- Atlas667 8mo ago
  They have the incentive to never chose this. If we force it upon them by begging politicians, corporations still have the incentive to find a way to remove it or circumvent it. Youre playing the cat and mouse game because you've been taught that solving it is too extreme (thats not a coincidence). We dont need to endlessly fight a whole class of people, capitalists, for them not to use the things we require against us. Only socialism can solve that.
nazgulsenpai 8mo ago
Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned? Why would state control lead to less policing? What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets? (these are honest questions and not "gotcha")
- Atlas667 8mo ago
  > Aren't the politicians or their appointed bureaucrats who'd be making all the decisions if these needs were government owned? Well that would be true under a capitalist government. > Why would state control lead to less policing? Its not just "the state runs it", its "we actively become the state". Collective ownership through peoples councils, peoples courts with a world view that keeps it all open: socialism. The world view of not allowing individual ownership over collective goods, the world view of socialism, is the life line of the movement. The actual practice of daily democracy, of running production and of deciding social functions is everyones responsibility and it should not be left to what has become a professional class of liars. Public office members, which should only exist where absolutely necessary, should be locals and serve as messengers with 0 decision making power. All power should be in the local councils. We can mathematically implement this today (0 knowledge proofs). Every single book on socialism is on theory and practices of acheiving this. Thats what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is", the dictatorship of working people, collectively. > What incentive structure would lead to innovation without a profit motive, when even the modern communist world relies on capital markets? We've been innovating for hundreds of thousands of years before capitalism. You dont need to generate money to innovate, the innovation itself is the driver, AKA a better life. No need to lock and limit production behind the attaining of profits of those who lead it.

boberoni 8mo ago

The link is to the f-droid blog. The official "Keep Android Open" site is at https://keepandroidopen.org/ https://keepandroidopen.org/, and contains good information on how you can contribute by contacting regulators.

redbell 8mo ago
Discussed here four months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742488

fermigier 8mo ago

It is a disgrace how Google has managed this situation. To recap the storyline, as far as I understand it: last August, Google announced plans to heavily restrict sideloading. Following community pushback, they promised an "advanced flow" for power users. The media widely reported this as a walk-back, leading users to assume the open ecosystem was safe. But this promised feature hasn't appeared in any Android 16 or 17 betas. Google is quietly proceeding with the original lockdown. The impact is a direct threat to independent AOSP distributions like Murena's e/OS/ (which I'm personally using). If installing a basic APK eventually requires a Google-verified developer ID, maintaining a truly de-Googled mobile OS becomes nearly impossible.

microtonal 8mo ago
The impact is a direct threat to independent AOSP distributions like Murena's e/OS/ (which I'm personally using). I don't think this is true, right? An AOSP build can just decide to still allow installing arbitrary APKs. Also see this post from the GrapheneOS team: https://mastodon.social/@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social/116103732808311135 https://mastodon.social/@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social/116103...
- akdev1l 8mo ago
  You can’t really do that long-term as Google will change code that will not match however you are not enforcing this policy So at the very least you’d have to keep patches up to date. Long term divergence could be enough that’s it’s just a hard fork and/or Google changes so much that the maintainer can’t keep the patches working at the same pace I couldn’t read your link as it asks to join mastodon.social
  - buckle8017 8mo ago
    The patch set for graphene is substantial, this is a relatively minor change.
  - gizmo686 8mo ago
    All distributions involve maintaining patch sets. The question is what the marginal burden of this particular patch is.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 8mo ago

> We see a battle of PR campaigns and whomever has the last post out remains in the media memory as the truth You must find truth. Lies will find you.

paxys 8mo ago

The fundamental problem is that we are relying on the good graces of Google to keep Android open, despite the fact that it often runs run contrary to their goals as a $4T for-profit behemoth. This may have worked in the past, but the "don't be evil" days are very far behind us. I don't see a real future for Andrioid as an open platform unless the community comes together and does a hard fork. Google can continue to develop their version and go the Apple way (which, funny enough, no one has a problem with). Development of AOSP can be controlled by a software foundation, like tons of other successful projects.

microtonal 8mo ago
A hard fork is not needed. Non-Google Android do not have to enforce this requirement. It's more important to get as many people on alternatives like GrapheneOS as possible. And fund them by donating to them. If every ~0.5 million GrapheneOS users donated 10 Euro per month, they would be very well-funded.
- paxys 8mo ago
  There is no such thing as non-Google Android. At most you have people applying tiny patches on top of AOSP, but 100% of the code in the underlying project is still Google-approved, and none of the alternatives have control over that. It's the same as the situation with Chrome/Chromium. There are a million "de-Googled"/"privacy focused" alternatives to Chrome all using the same engine, and when Google pushed manifest v3 changes to block ad-blockers every single one of them was affected.
  - microtonal 8mo ago
    At most you have people applying tiny patches on top of AOSP, but 100% of the code in the underlying project is still Google-approved, and none of the alternatives have control over that. You are making an orthogonal point. Yes, Google maintains AOSP. No, that does not mean that AOSP OSes that are not in Google's Android program (calling it that to avoid semantics games) have to adopt this change. If you want to hear it from the experts: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116103732687045013 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116103732687045013

WarmWash 8mo ago

The judge told Google that Apple is not anti-competitive because Apple has no competitors on it's platform (this all stemming from the Epic lawsuits). Google listened. Blame the judge for one of the worst legal calls in recent history. Google is a monopoly and Apple is not. Simple fix for Google...

madeofpalk 8mo ago
Google lost because they have all the emails colluding to prevent competition. If Google had not done that, they wouldn't have lost.
- hmry 8mo ago
  The lesson? Only discuss illegal activity in auto-delete Slack channels
  - throwaway94275 8mo ago
    Or via phone calls.
antback 8mo ago
Apple has not competitors and it is not a monopoly? This is exactly the definition of monopoly.

dvh 8mo ago

EU should fork Android

fredgrott 8mo ago

What people forget is that the real monopoly is in how the AOSP hardware OEM contract is written.... Remember how hard Amazon had it to attempt an Android fork? I was due to OEM SOC access being locked out due to those contracts.... Any open source mobile OS attempting to complete with AOSP needs access to mobile OEM soc providers not touched by AOSP contracts and currently that is somewhat hard.

mistercheph 8mo ago

https://postmarketos.org/ https://postmarketos.org/ It's time to say goodbye.

beeflet 8mo ago
I love postmarketos, but there is not even one "Main" phone with all of the hardware feature supported. https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices Fairphone 4 looks close, hopefully fairphone 4 support will continue to improve at this rate. Pinephone is another close one, but underpowered hardware and camera support kills it. I am not even that intensive of a phone user. but there is no way I could daily drive pmOS.
mrsssnake 8mo ago
I wish.
meatjuice 8mo ago
I wish I could. There are many proprietary apps for banks and governments, which are definitely not available for Linux based phones. Maybe I can run them through waydroid though, I don't want to risk my fully working Pixel to try it out.

gethly 8mo ago

Just like Microsoft screwed up Windows, Google will screw up Android and people will move to Linux on PCs and some open version of Android, or Harmony, or whatever new mobile system comes up, on their phones. Nothing lasts for ever. The sooner you make the switch, the better off you will be.

foobiekr 8mo ago
What is the advantage of moving sooner vs. moving later when rough spots have been smoothed over?
- gethly 8mo ago
  You keep hoping things won't get too bad, but they will. You just keep delaying the inevitable. So it's better to switch now to get the initial hurdles of such a big change over with as soon as possible. It's not easy, getting used to completely strange behaviours and new things in general. Abandoning what worked for you for years for something completely foreign. You have to force yourself to withstand the first few days or week(s), but then it becomes the new normal and you'll be fine. Personally, I am still on W10 and and delaying the move, so i'm not holier than thou. It's tough. But I also am a programmer/power user and am on my PC 24/7, sort of, so this disruption must be timed properly for me to make the move, which is not necessarily the case for most people/average users. Phone on the other hand, as long as it works and does not limit me, I have no need to use different ROM, it's more of a want. But i do not see me doing anything until the system stops being supported or it breaks or something else. So it depends on how you use it.
keeda 8mo ago
I wouldn't hold my breath: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/windows-11-has-hit-1-billion-users-just-a-hair-faster-than-windows-10-did/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/01/windows-11-has-hit-1... https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/
- gethly 8mo ago

iugtmkbdfil834 8mo ago

Amusingly, if Microsfot didn't have a such an awful reputation ( both recent and old ), their newly announced phones could have actually been a viable competitor.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

Nugfle 8mo ago

[dead]

CodeBit26 8mo ago

Good thing

RosaIsela 8mo ago

https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/ https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/ .htmlhttps://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/twif.html https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/twif.html

RosaIsela 8mo ago

https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/twif.html https://archive.is/https://f-droid.org/2026/02/20/twif.html

jajuuka 8mo ago

>But Google said… Said what? That there’s a magical “advanced flow”? Did you see it? Did anyone experience it? When is it scheduled to be released? Was it part of Android 16 QPR2 in December? Of 16 QPR3 Beta 2.1 last week? Of Android 17 Beta 1? No? That’s the issue A bit ironic to not believe Google is doing this. The same questions have same answers when asked about when Google is locking down side loading. A bit self-serving to pick and choose which things you want to believe are happening.

Macha 8mo ago
Google made the first move with their initial plan to lock it down, so the onus is on Google to calm the fears they caused if they don't want people to distrust them.
- jajuuka 8mo ago
  But they did. That was the announcement that they would still allow sideloading. If you are still afraid then that's kind of on you. Seems silly to expect Google to put out info about enabling sideloading for a system they haven't even released yet. It could very well be in there day 1. Nobody knows.
  - okanat 8mo ago
    Google needs to put hard evidence that they are doing it. Sorry but just saying something isn't enough proof. Talk is cheap show us the code.

Seattle3503 8mo ago

Should device manufacturers be worried about this direction? Could they eventually be locked out too?

cadamsdotcom 8mo ago

What would it take for Linux phones to gain the ability to run Android apps?

hungryhobbit 8mo ago

I question whether an OS that has always been controlled by Google has ever been open. Sure parts of it were, but Google has always remained in control of Android. Anyone who expected that to change (in favor of more openness) hasn't been paying attention to the actions of tech companies for the past several decades.

aagha 8mo ago

This is where I wish someone like MKBHD and others with big Android followings would speak up and say they will both blast this practice and not review any new Android phones/(Google) apps unless there's a full walk-back of this position.

davidw 8mo ago

The relative openness is the reason I gravitated towards Android and Google. I've never really taken advantage of it, but it's nice knowing it's there and that my phone (a Google Pixel) is something I have more control over than with other vendors.

DesaiAshu 8mo ago

The biggest surprise I had in attempting to distribute my first Android app is how difficult it is to get beta-testers through the "standard" channels. It requires a 1 week review and 25 beta-users invited by email addresses In contrast, Apple has a ~48 hour turnaround for reviews before you can upload to TestFlight and distribute a beta with a link Not sure if I am in some "trusted developer" cohort on iOS but not Android - but the difference was enough for me to stop trying on Android

emsign 8mo ago

Since smartphone apps are often times required to do banking or identifying yourself now and there's tons of special apps in order to use appliances, and by that I mean really the only way to use modern appliances is by a smartphone app, emulating an Android environment on a laptop or PC with a bluetooth dongle is essential if you want to leave that smartphone era behind you for good, but still be able to function in this society.

martin-t 8mo ago

Crazy idea: when companies change their product, they have to change the name. Do you ever feel like the same food item doesn't taste the same it did 10 years ago? Maybe it's your memory being faulty or maybe the company got new management which decided to cut costs while keeping prices, extract the differential value from customer inertia and move on when the product stops being profitable. Android is the same. Certain freedoms were a part of the offering - a part of the brand name. They no longer are. Not only should lose their trademark[0], they should be legally forced to change the name. [0]: The purpose of which is to identify genuine product from counterfeits - in this case, the counterfeit just happens to be by the same company which released the original product.

qiine 8mo ago

The number one problem is locked hardware

quentindanjou 8mo ago

I remember not long ago arguing that having Chromium become a monopoly was a bad thing, as it would mean Google could totally twist the web standard in something much more closed. I think this is a prime example.

snowhale 8mo ago

[dead]

flaburgan 8mo ago

Could anyone provide me some clarifications? If I understood correctly, to "protect" users, Google wants to control what is installed on Android phones. I guess it means the Play store will be the only way to install an app, which in turn means: - That users won't be able to install what they want and that they would need a google account to install apps - That app developers have to go through google to distribute their apps, with identity verification etc. Obviously this is awful and would mean the end of F-droid and Aurora store etc. However, I'm also reading here and there that it is a threat to alternative ROMs. To me it sounds at the contrary as an amazing opportunity, as they can strip this verification and be the only truly open Android, or am I missing something? Why do people link this app verification thing with a possible closing of AOSP? Also, Mozilla was already saying it 10years ago with Firefox OS but... The web is the platform. 90% of the apps out there could be websites. We have all technologies needed for this including offline with service workers. And it works on every damn platform, even the most obscure OS has a web browser. Don't want to be locked to an ecosystem? Just target the web!

slumberlust 8mo ago
90% of apps are just websites with a wrapper UI.
blueg3 8mo ago
There's a lot of misinformation here. > I guess it means the Play store will be the only way to install an app No, non-Play stores will still work, but developers will need to register a developer account with Google that is tied to some real identity. They already need to do this to distribute through the Play store, but now it'll apply regardless. This is to make it harder for scam apps to churn app signatures. Kind of like requiring code-signing, but with only one CA. > That users won't be able to install what they want No, sideloading will still work, but it won't work if the APK isn't signed by someone in the Google developer registry. > and that they would need a google account to install apps Nope. > That app developers have to go through google to distribute their apps, with identity verification etc. They don't need to distribute through Google, but they will need to be involved with Google and do identity verification. > However, I'm also reading here and there that it is a threat to alternative ROMs. To me it sounds at the contrary as an amazing opportunity, as they can strip this verification and be the only truly open Android, or am I missing something? You're being misinformed. They won't even need to strip the verification. The verification is only for certified Android -- OEMs that partner with Google. Custom ROMs and the OEMs that aren't certified (Amazon, some Chinese manufacturers) won't have verification. The target audience for verification and who would ever use a custom ROM has basically zero overlap.

knowitnone3 8mo ago

[dead]

rrix2 8mo ago

it's becoming ever more clear to me that i'll have at least two devices: one running software i trust, one running software corporates trust, with a very narrow pipeline connecting the two, if it all. my demon-haunted device can stay offline in my bag and get hotspot'd in to my trustworthy device as necessary. not happy about it, but i don't see a path forward that lets one participate in the wider ecosystem and maintain their own sovereignty and sanity.

knowitnone3 8mo ago

[dead]

306bobby 8mo ago

Looks like I'm staying in my custom ROM lol

0xbadcafebee 8mo ago

I want Google to lock down their platform. Hardcore locked down. So locked down you can't do anything with it at all. Because people need motivation to do something hard. Android has been a bloated walled garden for years. It should have been like a PC w/Windows or Linux: anyone should be able to make an app (any way they want), publish it, let anyone who wants to download it & run it. But that was never the plan. The plan was to provide a moat to allow mobile telephone operators (& Google) to dictate what users were allowed to do with their phones. Imagine your ISP having total control over your desktop computer. Or killing a website, or program, because the ISP doesn't like it. It is insane that we, the people giving them the money and agency to do this, that we've allowed this to be the status quo. We need to do something about it. We need to kill Android. And from the ashes, make a new platform that works for us, and not for a corporation's profits and anti-competition.

bigyabai 8mo ago
> Imagine your ISP having total control over your desktop computer. Or killing a website, or program, because the ISP doesn't like it. It's not very hard to imagine? Most people don't expect that level of control anymore; their desktop just updates with whatever corporate slopware is pushed out seasonally. Websites come-and-go. It's not a hugely motivating rally-cry for average person. > We need to kill Android. And from the ashes, make a new platform that works for us, and not for a corporation's profits and anti-competition. Android is the best-working part of that equation. Microsoft supported Android apps on Windows Phone. Jolla supports Android apps on Sailfish OS. Linux supports Android apps in Waydroid. You don't have to "kill" Android as a runtime or smartphone OS; just force Google to compete with 3rd party ROMs.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- 0xbadcafebee 8mo ago
  > just force Google to How exactly are you going to force Google to do something?

anon_anon12 8mo ago

APKs were the only reason why I was using android in the first place

ddxv 8mo ago

I've finally started de-googling and removing google from my life as much as I can. It's difficult with how much of everything is soaked in Google. I'm sure other's here have gotten much further, but everything you do to reduce their monopoly control helps.

keeda 8mo ago

Periodic reminder (note, originaly posted in 2013): https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on... At the risk of posting memes to HN: https://imgflip.com/i/akp488 https://imgflip.com/i/akp488

CodeBit26 8mo ago

The shift towards locked-down ecosystems is concerning for developers. Openness isn't just about freedom; it's about the longevity of the hardware we own. If we can't side-load or audit, we're just renting the device

ameen 8mo ago

Does this block something like Obtainium? https://f-droid.org/packages/dev.imranr.obtainium.fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/packages/dev.imranr.obtainium.fdroid/ This is sad as there’s been a real resurgence of gaming devices (Ayn Thor/Odin, Retroid pocket devices, Ayaneo, etc) moving to Android from Linux variants (Batocera, Arc, Garlic/OnionOS). It’s sad but more of an incentive for folks to finally take Linux as a viable alternative, and build on efforts made by Valve with SteamOS.

Catagris 8mo ago

If they go through with this I am switching to iPhone because there at least I am told up front and am tried less like the a product to be sold to advertisers.

G_o_D 8mo ago

Whats Andy Rubins take on this ? The original developer/contributor to android os itself

largbae 8mo ago

Does the AI boom help with this? Can we donate enough token-budget for GrapheneOS to maintain a fully functional fork?

cube00 8mo ago
Good luck, no bank will touch a non-Google blessed platform with a 10 ft pole.
okanat 8mo ago
You are overinflating how useful AI is. Moreover most FOSS people actually don't want any AI written code unless the human driving it has done equivalent amount of work understanding and designing it from scratch.

budududuroiu 8mo ago

Maybe stupid question, we keep seeing "LLM figures out math problem humans couldn't, LLM finds security vulnerability by looking at hexdumps for 6 months straight. How hard or expensive would it be to let some LLMs loose on reverse engineering all the proprietary driver binary blobs? People mentioning forking Android is hard, how easy do LLMs make this?

amarant 8mo ago

So how is Ubuntu touch doing these days? I keep meaning to try it, but never get around to it!

fsflover 8mo ago
Mobian and postmarketOS are more advanced and work more like GNU/Linux.

jackyard86 8mo ago

I visited change.org to sign the petition for them, only to get spammed by far-right extremist propagandas supporting nazism like this: https://imgur.com/a/E6LMUcB https://imgur.com/a/E6LMUcB I regret giving my real name and e-mail address to that website now.

mindaslab 8mo ago

Never has evil yielded when you appeal to it.

aussieguy1234 8mo ago

We need viable Linux on phones now more than ever. I'll keep using GrapheneOS in the meantime.

skue 8mo ago

How do Google and Apple plan to deal with the immense influx of personal apps that AI will help non developers build? Recently, I was thinking that AI might force Apple to open their devices, because if Apple’s competitor allows sideloading, then the creatives and builders most likely to build their own apps will migrate to the platform providing less friction to getting custom apps onto their device. But apparently THIS is the time that Google has chosen to start locking down their devices as well?!

IshKebab 8mo ago
AI is not yet at the point where non-developers could use it to build useful apps. I've tried. It gave me a good start that saved me a ton of time setting things up but the result was buggy and had a lot of bad code, so I still had to read and understand it all and fix the issues.

briandear 8mo ago

Why doesn’t the market respond? If people don’t like Android, it seems like a market opportunity to make another OS. People love to complain about Apple and Google’s “monopoly,” but doesn’t that present an opportunity for someone to build their own thing and if enough people want it, they will be able to sell it?

xvilka 8mo ago

A good opportunity to donate[1] to the GrapheneOS[2]. [1] https://grapheneos.org/donate https://grapheneos.org/donate [2] https://grapheneos.org/ https://grapheneos.org/

shrx 8mo ago
As long as it will be pixel-exclusive, it will remain useless to the vast majority of android-capable phone users.
- wiredpancake 8mo ago
  [dead]

edg5000 8mo ago

I want Google as an app, not OS. Hear me out. Imagine an open device where you can run Google as just another sandboxed app. Inside, they can exert all the control they want. My bank and government can force me to use Google. Then, at least I control my hardware and my OS. It's just nasty to have your device and OS controlled by an antagonistic entity. I see this in people why have used antagonistic software for decades and have become zombified and shellshocked; the idea that software could be on your side is to alien to them. They hate software and technology and just want to get some work done. They tolerate the abuse because they can't fight Google alone; it's pointless to resist.

elAhmo 8mo ago
But Google doesn't want you running their app and not their OS, this is the whole idea behind Android and their hardware in general :)
- Synaesthesia 8mo ago
  Well yeah that's the problem. The Google monopoly. Google and Apple are the only one out there, in the West at least. It's a huge problem. We have given all the power to two giant corporations. Really the only institution which can compel a change is the state.
intrasight 8mo ago
You have that. Run Chrome browser on Linux. We should be thankful we have Linux.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
allddd 8mo ago
GrapheneOS is as close as you can get to something like this.
- fsflover 8mo ago

mhher 8mo ago

I need to check if Aurora Store still exists/works.

Synaesthesia 8mo ago

The government has to step in and regulate. In China the regulation specify that Google cannot preload a whole bunch of apps on the device. It's perfectly reasonable. The government is picking the side of huge corporations ahead of people. So the people need to make some kid if a mass movement to rebel.

pessimizer 8mo ago
> The government has to step in and regulate. The government supports this, and might have demanded it through backchannels. The government loves the concentration of media, because it usually limits the people who can own information flows to a very few people who are already deeply connected to government, or at the very least it limits the number of people you have to threaten or bribe to get what you want. > So the people need to make some kid if a mass movement to rebel. The point of controlling media is that people are isolated and can't do anything like this. They have no idea what is going on other than what they are told by massive corporations, and have all interpersonal communication mediated and regulated. They're even convinced to demand this, or evil people from other countries might take over their minds and molest their children. If they advertise these beliefs as often as possible, they will see this reflected in better, easier jobs with far higher salaries. People who ever publicly contradict these beliefs will be put on many, many lists and their friends, family, random strangers, current or potential employers, providers of credit or banking services, and people who rent housing will be encouraged to also mock, threaten and isolate the people on the lists, or be mocked, threatened and isolated themselves. When you're isolated, it doesn't matter if you're right and if what has been done to you is obviously unfair. Nobody will notice.

dhayabaran 8mo ago

[flagged]

Hrun0 8mo ago
I have literally never thought about it like this, but I think you are right. In my mind mobile phones were always separate from other devices, kinda like consoles.
- trekz 8mo ago
  Right. Consoles shouldn't be doing it either, but here we are...
- fsflover 8mo ago
  This is actually the main idea of Purism, company producing phones and computers: https://puri.sm/posts/foreshadowing-why-the-purism-logo-is-a-rectangle/ https://puri.sm/posts/foreshadowing-why-the-purism-logo-is-a...
linuxhansl 8mo ago
> Android sideloading should be the same In fact we should not even call it "sideloading", as if we are sneaking anything in "from the side". It is simply installing something I like on a device that I own. My device can warn me about security consequences and let me be the one who decides what to do (with my device).
1vuio0pswjnm7 8mo ago
"Android sideloading should be the same: download an APK, verify the signature, install." Download source code from mirror, verify signature, compile, install If the target OS is under the control of a giant surveillance and online advertising services company, then what is the probability of the company allowing mobile hardware buyers to control their hardware using software of their own choosing. Is it non-zero The entire debate around "Android" already concedes that mobile hardware requires an OS controlled by a giant surveillance and online advertising services company

LePetitPrince 8mo ago

[dead]

ollybrinkman 8mo ago

Openness at the OS level matters less if the platform layer above it is closed. Even on Android you're dependent on Google Play Services for payments, push notifications, and maps — all closed. The real battle is at the API and payments layer. The web had a brief moment of openness there, but we ended up with Stripe, Twilio, etc. as de facto monopolies. The next round will be interesting with AI agents that can programmatically switch providers based on price.

erelong 8mo ago

we really need to build up a third party linux mobile ecosystem as an alternative to the ios / android duopoly

linuxhansl 8mo ago

+1000 I donated a few $100's to the petition. With 23,623 (as of today) signatures I doubt anybody really cares, and we'd all rather be cheeple doing the tech companies' bidding as long as we can flop on our couches and consume. Clearly Google wants to make money off their monopoly (created in part from initial openness) and they are disguising it as some security/safety enhancement bullsh*t. Shameful! My main question: I chose Android over Apple because of the extra freedoms it affords me. When that goes away, what reason do I have continuing with Android?

ece 8mo ago

If signing apps is required, then self-signing with your own key should be an option, in addition to a virus scan. Signing authorities have gotten things wrong, which is forgivable as long as they are learning from mistakes, but not letting people run and auto update the apps they want on the device they bought because of device restrictions, scare screens, or other roadblocks is the main complaint here.

pino83 8mo ago

I'm always baffled why there are obviously enough people (not only here in particular; but also here; and sure, it's not a majority, but it's enough people to actually have some influence) who can formulate all these claims, but the actual movement is quite disappointing. As long as everybody knows that you are just talking, but in the end you are basically fine with everything and declare "pragmatism" and all those lame excuses from the last ~20 years, there will never be any actual movement for the better. So why taking care and constantly having those lengthy debates? Is it just your way to deal with frustration? Or what are these discussions actually for? I'm really just asking, because I'm actually asking that myself since quite some time now. I just don't get it. The same for some other yet similar topics, e.g. having these dependencies to corporate social media, ..., ... Additional thought: I also constantly find people somewhere, fighting some decades old fight, e.g. against Windows and Microsoft, and how bad it is in terms of privacy, sovereignty, freedom, ..., and Recall, etc.; but if you ask them "Do you use WhatsApp?", they don't even have a clue why you ask... IMHO, if the community isn't able to recognize that entire mindset as problematic AND find some actual solutions for it, there is no value in all these discussions.

ece 8mo ago
The value is in awareness, it's easier to switch for some than others, but that comes after awareness.
- pino83 8mo ago
  The thing is: If it takes so long for you to get awareness, then better stop everything. It makes no sense at all in that velocity.
  - ece 8mo ago
    Well, mistakes like iPhones being closed have existed for decades, enshittification on modern computers is still relatively new. What makes no sense is people who should know better giving into fear based locked down computing for idiotic reasons.

Kalpaka 8mo ago

[dead]

david3289 8mo ago

Android is code-only "open source" but not actually open since if you make an app and put it in apk it automatically makes the file look dangerous making developers pay for Google Play store

david3289 8mo ago

Android is open source if you can customize it and even now you can't install apk files anyway It might work I actually don't know

david3289 8mo ago

It's just google making money again...

ruhith 8mo ago

[dead]

DavidKFriedman 8mo ago

I'm not a developer, but happened to see the banner when downloading an app from F-Droid and looked into the issue a bit. Discussed it with the AI chatbot Claude. And sort of ran two trials. First, just discussed with Claude based on the read I got from KeepAndroidOpen. For that first one, it was just kind of ad hoc, and just discussed it freely, asking questions, getting responses, etc. But then I wanted to see if Claude might respond differently if different sources were provided. So as each new conversation is different, could start a new conversation, and included three sources. One being what Google has at developer.android.com at developer-verification. Second being a MSN story titled "Google Claims Android App Sideloading Won't Die, But Change". Third being a story at The Register with the title "'Keep Android Open' movement fights back against Google sideloading restrictions". Did the best I could to make the prompt balanced and informed, and basically just asked Claude what it thought of the overall situation. In both cases though, it seems that Claude is raising the question of whether security is a bit of a cover story to the objective of consolidation and control. For the first run I asked it about what Prud'hommeaux who created KeepAndroidOpen said as quoted in The Register article: ""I'd say it's conceivably possible that there is some glimmer of merit," Prud'hommeaux told The Register when asked about Google's security claims. "A more convincing explanation, of course, is that they feel like they have enough of a lock on the ecosystem that they can assert complete control over every application that's distributed in the world to Android-certified devices, which is more than 95 percent of devices outside of China."" and it responded with: "The strongest version of Prud'hommeaux's argument isn't really that Google is lying about security. It's that security is the cover story that makes a control-consolidation move publicly defensible, and that Google has structured the policy in a way that maximally serves control even where that comes at the expense of actual security (like doing nothing about Play Store malware). That reads as pretty plausible to me." Though Claude did say the corporate motivation is rarely entirely one sided: "That said, I'd push back slightly on the idea that it's purely cynical. Corporate motivations are rarely that clean. Google probably has genuine internal anxiety about Android's malware reputation — it's bad for the brand, it creates regulatory exposure, and it gives critics ammunition. So the security rationale is probably sincerely held by at least some people inside Google, even if the effect of the policy has more to do with control than protection. The two motivations — tightening control and improving security optics — are so conveniently aligned here that it would be almost impossible to disentangle them, even in good faith." And then for the second run it said something similar: "My overall read is that this feels like a policy where the stated reason (security) and the structural effect (consolidating control) are both real, but the latter should be scrutinized more carefully than Google's framing invites. The backlash is justified in flagging the antitrust and openness dimensions — those concerns deserve regulatory attention regardless of whether one accepts Google's security logic. But I wouldn't call it a straightforward "power grab" with no legitimate basis either. It's more like a policy with genuine security merit that happens to also serve Google's competitive interests rather conveniently." And also said in the second run: "That said, the critics raise concerns I find substantive. The most compelling to me isn't really about hobbyists or the $25 fee — it's the structural power question. Google would essentially become the arbiter of who gets to distribute software on Android-certified devices, which covers the vast majority of Android hardware globally. That's an enormous gatekeeping role for a company that also runs the dominant app store and competes commercially with alternative distribution platforms like F-Droid. Even if Google's stated intentions are entirely benign, concentrating that much control in a single private company creates obvious long-term risks for competition and openness — risks that are harder to undo once established." It's interesting though. I said to Claude that the thought crossed my mind that I could include what it said in a message to regulators, but on the other hand, what Claude or any other AI chatbot says to a single user in a single conversation isn't in any way a kind of broader public stance that an AI is taking on an issue. And so Claude agreed with that. "You've identified the real issue precisely. The problem with quoting me isn't really about weight or credibility — it's about the nature of what I produce. When you quote Prud'hommeaux, you're quoting a person who holds that view, will defend it if challenged, has staked his reputation on it, and can be contacted for clarification. When you quote me, you're quoting something more like a well-reasoned response that was generated for your particular conversation, that I won't remember having said, that I might phrase differently in another conversation, and that I can't be held to as a public position." But then suggested that I could just summarize what it had said, and could just express it in my own words. But there is a big difference. Claude knows a lot more about a lot more stuff than I do. So, the fact that Claude said it, even if it's just in one conversation with one user is rather a different thing than if I said it. So those have been a few of my thoughts. Sorry, if this is way too long. :-)

TrailingArbutus 8mo ago

How can one expect anything for free from a mega corporation handling a product? The "free" software and tools are for indirectly a way for the community to improve the thing for them, however android is a product, which has incentives to be closed source. Especially since the Chinese ROMs era where there exist forks which are too far away from base android already (which will benefit from improvements of android but will not give back the benefits they have in their closed-source flavors)

StacyRawls 8mo ago

[dead]

echii12 8mo ago

wagbanyas!!!