5 ms·

Graphene is clearly bullish on Android, but I have no idea why. The writing is on the wall, Google is slowly asphyxiating AOSP.

palata 28d ago
They may as well get ready for an eventual hard fork, then?
NewJazz 28d ago
Yes RCS is barely a standard worth implementing, let alone the best one. Make SMS/MMS and XMPP work together seamlessly in one app, forget RCS.
- wolvoleo 28d ago
  Yes RCS is a pig with lipstick. Invented by the carriers to recoup some control over instant messaging, then abandoned and picked up by Google for the same reason. They're the ones that added encryption to it. It was always meant to be a walled garden. Exactly what an open system shouldn't be.
  - grapheneos 28d ago
    RCS is important because it provides end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for contacts with Google Messages and iOS. That means having E2EE for the vast majority of smartphone users since Google Messages is the standard GMS Android carrier-based messaging app. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49593026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49593026
- Geezus_42 28d ago
  Remember Pidgin and Trillium?
  - DANmode 28d ago
    I remember who forced me to consider other options.
  - NewJazz 28d ago
    I use cheogram daily.
    - Geezus_42 21d ago
      Seems neat. Do you write your own connectors or have you found ones written by others? It looks like first party is very limited and I didn't see a link to any community listing.
- grapheneos 28d ago
  It's important for us to provide out-of-the-box end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) messaging for contacts on Google Messages and iOS. Both Google Messages and iOS provide RCS with end-to-end encryption via Messaging Layer Security (MLS). Google Messages is the standard text messaging app on Google Mobile Services Android and iOS now also supports RCS with MLS. The vast majority of people have an E2EE messaging app on their smartphone and it's important for us to provide compatibility with it. Currently, a growing number of our users are installing Google Messages to have better usability and privacy for texting with contacts on Google Messages and iOS. People can already install the messaging apps of their choice on GrapheneOS. It would go against our approach to choose specific messaging apps and protocols to bundle with the OS beyond SMS/MMS/RCS. We shouldn't be the ones choosing Signal vs. SimpleX vs. Element or other options but rather that's up to users to decide. We need a messaging app to handle carrier-based messaging in the OS including providing end-to-end encryption for it and the rest is up to other open source developers.
  - NewJazz 28d ago
    It would go against our approach to choose specific messaging apps and protocols to bundle with the OS beyond SMS/MMS/RCS. We shouldn't be the ones choosing Signal vs. SimpleX vs. Element or other options but rather that's up to users to decide. I disagree with this somewhat. Apple and Google make these sweeping decisions for their users and in effect promote one tech over another. Adopting RCS and integrating it natively, but shunning open protocols and leaving them for third party apps (with probably worse OS integration) means you are following, not leading. I would at least consider shifting approaches somewhere down the line. Yes, there are a plethora of open messaging protocols out there, but adopting one for first party integration doesn't prevent the others from being used.
    - Cider9986 28d ago
      I agree. The OS maker has a ton of power with the default apps and putting SMS and phone calls as the default communication platform of the OS is contrary to the goals of giving people more privacy. And the OS should come with a GrapheneOS Monero wallet to compete with Google Wallet/Apple Pay.
- Walf 28d ago
  Unless one wants interoperability with other people who use Apple and "Samsung" (because they don't know the word Android refers to an OS). It's a de facto standard now, whether you like it or not.
ConceitedCode 28d ago
What's the concern? They are working with Motorola as a manufacturer. It'll probably be a hard fork eventually but why not make it work in the meantime.
- matheusmoreira 28d ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 28d ago
    [deleted]
  - wolvoleo 28d ago
    They basically have opposite goals to Google so I don't imagine there will every be good feelings there. There shouldn't be. Yes Google wants android to be secure, but the problem is that to be truly secure it should be secure from Google too. And they don't want that. They want it to be their personal datamine and walled garden. Just like Apple with ios.
    - grapheneos 28d ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49593405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49593405
      - wolvoleo 27d ago
        Google staff might follow you but their actions speak otherwise. Closing off AOSP, convincing OEMs to lock their bootloaders. They really want to consolidate control over Android.
  - Cider9986 28d ago
    One AOSP engineer. Google is the one making bad actions, which it makes sense to complain about. They moved to building in private so forks don't get features as they come and more recently they stopped providing certain source code in a timely manner.
dataflow 28d ago
Perhaps they're hoping to get significant market share before they lose the opportunity for good?
DANmode 28d ago
> Graphene is clearly bullish on Android, but I have no idea why. Their resources are historically better spent hardening vs literally reinventing the wheel. Multiple variables in that equation have changed - so it could be interesting where we end up. Someone (else!) may yet arise chasing their stated model without Android, as well.
kllrnohj 28d ago
So what should they do instead? Just give up? Assume that it's simply inevitable that Google will cancel AOSP entirely and so Graphene should hurry up and die?
tgsovlerkhgsel 28d ago
There is no alternative. Apple isn't going to let them build on top of iOS, and anything except those two is dead in the water because it'll never have users because it is missing a bunch of critical apps, and will never have those apps because it doesn't have users.
- wolvoleo 28d ago
  Remember when we thought IE's monopoly could never be broken? Or windows? Anything can and will go down. Nothing is forever.
  - ryan_lane 28d ago
    IE's monopoly was replaced by Chrome and Safari's, and Safari only exists because Apple gives you no choice but to use it on iOS. Firefox had a brief spot on top, but it really didn't last that long. Windows still has the vast majority share of desktop.
    - wolvoleo 28d ago
      Yes but that's my point. Monopolies don't last. We have other ones now yes. But that's because the earlier ones died. And yes we still have windows as the major desktop OS but don't forget, in the 90s/early 2000s windows was equivalent to computing. These days the desktop OS is much less relevant than it was and many people don't even own a laptop or desktop anymore. They just do everything on their phone. And Microsoft totally and completely lost that race.
    - mitxela 28d ago
      Chrome is the outlier there. It didn't come with any desktop OS and still got near 100% market share, even before Android contributed to that. How? It's worth studying.
      - unrented7977 28d ago
        The made the best browser on the planet in Google's Bell Labs era and then they used it as leverage during their "do evil" era.
mitxela 28d ago
Apps are written for android. Graphene can run all the apps because it's android. If it couldn't run apps, you wouldn't use it. Are you posting today from a pinephone?
- Crestwave 28d ago
  Their post history has several posts related to PostmarketOS on the Fairphone, so kind of, possibly? pmOS does have Waydroid to run Android apps, though, which also relies on AOSP.
  - grapheneos 28d ago
    Waydroid can't run nearly as many Android apps as AOSP on bare metal or especially GrapheneOS with the compatibility features it provides. It's an approach with far more limited compatibility. Waydroid has very poor privacy and security due to disabling most of the app sandbox. It's also based on an old version of LineageOS so it's missing many important privacy/security updates, but it's much more relevant that it doesn't have SELinux and exposes much more kernel attack surface to apps. SELinux is not an extra layer of security for Android but rather is used in a far more deeply integrated way than any typical desktop/server usage. It's a huge portion of the security model including the app sandbox and protecting the Linux kernel. We greatly prefer virtual machines over a half-baked container approach disabling most of the privacy/security model. There's already hardware accelerated virtualization on all of the supported devices for GrapheneOS and we plan to make a lot more use of that in the future.
Cider9986 28d ago
Have you used GrapheneOS? It's fantastic UX[1] and while probably being one of if not the most secure and private OS available. [1] thanks to Android (once you replace some of the worse default apps, but they are doing that as we can see)
numpad0 28d ago
A scratch built mobile operating system have zero chances unless it would be straight up adopted by a cellular carrier, or at least blessed by one. There's quite a list of mobile operating systems on Wikipedia[1]. Most of them are long dead. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system

palata 28d ago

They may as well get ready for an eventual hard fork, then?

NewJazz 28d ago

Yes RCS is barely a standard worth implementing, let alone the best one. Make SMS/MMS and XMPP work together seamlessly in one app, forget RCS.

wolvoleo 28d ago
Yes RCS is a pig with lipstick. Invented by the carriers to recoup some control over instant messaging, then abandoned and picked up by Google for the same reason. They're the ones that added encryption to it. It was always meant to be a walled garden. Exactly what an open system shouldn't be.
- grapheneos 28d ago
  RCS is important because it provides end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for contacts with Google Messages and iOS. That means having E2EE for the vast majority of smartphone users since Google Messages is the standard GMS Android carrier-based messaging app. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49593026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49593026
Geezus_42 28d ago
Remember Pidgin and Trillium?
- DANmode 28d ago
  I remember who forced me to consider other options.
- NewJazz 28d ago
  I use cheogram daily.
  - Geezus_42 21d ago
    Seems neat. Do you write your own connectors or have you found ones written by others? It looks like first party is very limited and I didn't see a link to any community listing.
grapheneos 28d ago
It's important for us to provide out-of-the-box end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) messaging for contacts on Google Messages and iOS. Both Google Messages and iOS provide RCS with end-to-end encryption via Messaging Layer Security (MLS). Google Messages is the standard text messaging app on Google Mobile Services Android and iOS now also supports RCS with MLS. The vast majority of people have an E2EE messaging app on their smartphone and it's important for us to provide compatibility with it. Currently, a growing number of our users are installing Google Messages to have better usability and privacy for texting with contacts on Google Messages and iOS. People can already install the messaging apps of their choice on GrapheneOS. It would go against our approach to choose specific messaging apps and protocols to bundle with the OS beyond SMS/MMS/RCS. We shouldn't be the ones choosing Signal vs. SimpleX vs. Element or other options but rather that's up to users to decide. We need a messaging app to handle carrier-based messaging in the OS including providing end-to-end encryption for it and the rest is up to other open source developers.
- NewJazz 28d ago
  It would go against our approach to choose specific messaging apps and protocols to bundle with the OS beyond SMS/MMS/RCS. We shouldn't be the ones choosing Signal vs. SimpleX vs. Element or other options but rather that's up to users to decide. I disagree with this somewhat. Apple and Google make these sweeping decisions for their users and in effect promote one tech over another. Adopting RCS and integrating it natively, but shunning open protocols and leaving them for third party apps (with probably worse OS integration) means you are following, not leading. I would at least consider shifting approaches somewhere down the line. Yes, there are a plethora of open messaging protocols out there, but adopting one for first party integration doesn't prevent the others from being used.
  - Cider9986 28d ago
    I agree. The OS maker has a ton of power with the default apps and putting SMS and phone calls as the default communication platform of the OS is contrary to the goals of giving people more privacy. And the OS should come with a GrapheneOS Monero wallet to compete with Google Wallet/Apple Pay.
Walf 28d ago
Unless one wants interoperability with other people who use Apple and "Samsung" (because they don't know the word Android refers to an OS). It's a de facto standard now, whether you like it or not.

ConceitedCode 28d ago

What's the concern? They are working with Motorola as a manufacturer. It'll probably be a hard fork eventually but why not make it work in the meantime.

matheusmoreira 28d ago
[flagged]
- deleted 28d ago
  [deleted]
- wolvoleo 28d ago
  They basically have opposite goals to Google so I don't imagine there will every be good feelings there. There shouldn't be. Yes Google wants android to be secure, but the problem is that to be truly secure it should be secure from Google too. And they don't want that. They want it to be their personal datamine and walled garden. Just like Apple with ios.
  - grapheneos 28d ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49593405 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49593405
    - wolvoleo 27d ago
      Google staff might follow you but their actions speak otherwise. Closing off AOSP, convincing OEMs to lock their bootloaders. They really want to consolidate control over Android.
- Cider9986 28d ago
  One AOSP engineer. Google is the one making bad actions, which it makes sense to complain about. They moved to building in private so forks don't get features as they come and more recently they stopped providing certain source code in a timely manner.

dataflow 28d ago

Perhaps they're hoping to get significant market share before they lose the opportunity for good?

DANmode 28d ago

> Graphene is clearly bullish on Android, but I have no idea why. Their resources are historically better spent hardening vs literally reinventing the wheel. Multiple variables in that equation have changed - so it could be interesting where we end up. Someone (else!) may yet arise chasing their stated model without Android, as well.

kllrnohj 28d ago

So what should they do instead? Just give up? Assume that it's simply inevitable that Google will cancel AOSP entirely and so Graphene should hurry up and die?

tgsovlerkhgsel 28d ago

There is no alternative. Apple isn't going to let them build on top of iOS, and anything except those two is dead in the water because it'll never have users because it is missing a bunch of critical apps, and will never have those apps because it doesn't have users.

wolvoleo 28d ago
Remember when we thought IE's monopoly could never be broken? Or windows? Anything can and will go down. Nothing is forever.
- ryan_lane 28d ago
  IE's monopoly was replaced by Chrome and Safari's, and Safari only exists because Apple gives you no choice but to use it on iOS. Firefox had a brief spot on top, but it really didn't last that long. Windows still has the vast majority share of desktop.
  - wolvoleo 28d ago
    Yes but that's my point. Monopolies don't last. We have other ones now yes. But that's because the earlier ones died. And yes we still have windows as the major desktop OS but don't forget, in the 90s/early 2000s windows was equivalent to computing. These days the desktop OS is much less relevant than it was and many people don't even own a laptop or desktop anymore. They just do everything on their phone. And Microsoft totally and completely lost that race.
  - mitxela 28d ago
    Chrome is the outlier there. It didn't come with any desktop OS and still got near 100% market share, even before Android contributed to that. How? It's worth studying.
    - unrented7977 28d ago
      The made the best browser on the planet in Google's Bell Labs era and then they used it as leverage during their "do evil" era.

mitxela 28d ago

Apps are written for android. Graphene can run all the apps because it's android. If it couldn't run apps, you wouldn't use it. Are you posting today from a pinephone?

Crestwave 28d ago
Their post history has several posts related to PostmarketOS on the Fairphone, so kind of, possibly? pmOS does have Waydroid to run Android apps, though, which also relies on AOSP.
- grapheneos 28d ago
  Waydroid can't run nearly as many Android apps as AOSP on bare metal or especially GrapheneOS with the compatibility features it provides. It's an approach with far more limited compatibility. Waydroid has very poor privacy and security due to disabling most of the app sandbox. It's also based on an old version of LineageOS so it's missing many important privacy/security updates, but it's much more relevant that it doesn't have SELinux and exposes much more kernel attack surface to apps. SELinux is not an extra layer of security for Android but rather is used in a far more deeply integrated way than any typical desktop/server usage. It's a huge portion of the security model including the app sandbox and protecting the Linux kernel. We greatly prefer virtual machines over a half-baked container approach disabling most of the privacy/security model. There's already hardware accelerated virtualization on all of the supported devices for GrapheneOS and we plan to make a lot more use of that in the future.

Cider9986 28d ago

Have you used GrapheneOS? It's fantastic UX[1] and while probably being one of if not the most secure and private OS available. [1] thanks to Android (once you replace some of the worse default apps, but they are doing that as we can see)

numpad0 28d ago

A scratch built mobile operating system have zero chances unless it would be straight up adopted by a cellular carrier, or at least blessed by one. There's quite a list of mobile operating systems on Wikipedia[1]. Most of them are long dead. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_operating_system