17 ms·

Android 17 is the first since 3.x to add new APIs without releasing to the AOSP

1170 points by theanonymousone 8d ago

xnx 8d ago
The world needs a Steam Phone.
- fsflover 8d ago
  If you mean GNU/Linux phones, they already exist and can be used as daily drivers by technical people. Sent from my Librem 5.
  - xnx 8d ago
    Yes, but a popular one that's usable by regular people and with a very wealthy organization behind it.
    - lanfeust6 8d ago
      I miss my blackberry
      - xethos 7d ago
        It's not the same, it does not run BBOS10, and de-Googled LineageOS will have to do for now (for me). But at least we can get updated internals for the Q20 (and soon the Passport). It'll be the closest we can get to carrying a BlackBerry for some time, if ever, and I'm happy enough with mine that I picked up a spare mainboard https://zinwa.com/ https://zinwa.com/
        degamad 7d ago
        While it's not exactly blackberry-alike, a hopefully soon-to-be-released option is the clicks communicator[0] phone. I just ordered their bluetooth keyboard attachment for androids/iphones with magsafe backs, but if it's any good, I may shell out for their phone as well. I was also a backer for the Mecha Comet[1] earlier in the year, which I'm hopeful about, although that's a couple of steps away from a daily driver phone at this stage, I guess. I never owned a blackberry, but for me, the ultimate winner would be for someone to copy or licence the layout and form of the dopod838pro[2] (a.k.a. HTC Hermes 100) and pop some newer internals in it... If I had 100 million dollars, that's what I'd be doing... [0] https://www.clicks.tech/en https://www.clicks.tech/en [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mecha-systems/mecha-comet-modular-linux-handheld-computer https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mecha-systems/mecha-com... [2] https://kaitech.hk/2006/10/dopod-838pro-htc-hermes/ https://kaitech.hk/2006/10/dopod-838pro-htc-hermes/
    - fsflover 8d ago
      This can be achieved if more people support the effort. If you expect megacorps to offer you a device respecting your freedom, think again.
    - TheBicPen 7d ago
      Why GNU? I get the appeal of Linux, but Android has that angle covered. What makes GNU a better userspace than Android for phone use? I actually think the Andoid userspace is very good for what it is. If Google's influence were magically removed, Android would be more or less the ideal OS, at least for me.
      - altermetax 7d ago
        It's not GNU itself that's appealing, it's the fact that it's not controlled by a company.
      - drdaeman 7d ago
        [dead]
    - etatester 7d ago
      How do you expect things to be popular without a company with self-interest? Producing a linux phone that people want requires immense capital, they're not just spending that and then releasing as open source forever. By the time the product becomes "popular", it's then just one more platform that needs to follow investor interest and laws.
      - LelouBil 7d ago
        Valve is kinda doing that with SteamOS ? It's primarily made for their own hardware, but they also use work time to add features for installs on non valve hardware, and all of their components are open source.
        fsflover 6d ago
        That is exactly what Purism is doing with their Librem 5 phone. Valve didn't offer great experience immediately, too.
  - hagbard_c 8d ago
    They exist but they need more polish and support from device vendors to be a viable alternative to the duopoly. It should be just as easy for the average phone buyer to get and use a 'Linux phone' as it is to get an Android or fruit phone. This is more or less true now for Linux distributions no matter what the naysayers keep on repeating, the next step is to make it true for mobile devices. There will still be naysayers but... who cares? Let them listen to themselves in their echo chambers like they've been doing w.r.t. 'Linux on the desktop'.
    - fsflover 6d ago
      > They exist but they need more polish and support Which is why we should support them today and not wait until the walled gardens become inescapable.
  - MrDrMcCoy 7d ago
    Wake me when they get modern hardware.
    - pizzaiolo 7d ago
      Wake up, babe: https://forgejo.catcrafts.net/Catcrafts/fp6-img https://forgejo.catcrafts.net/Catcrafts/fp6-img
    - fsflover 7d ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45312326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45312326
      - MrDrMcCoy 7d ago
        I have a Furiphone. Despite the hardware being plenty decent, the software is unbearably slow due to Phosh and libhybris.
        deleted 6d ago
        [deleted]
        fsflover 6d ago
        Can you install SXMo or something else on it?
        MrDrMcCoy 5d ago
        My attempts to get Plasma mobile working, which is the shell I actually want, failed miserably. I can't imagine sxmo to be in any way pleasant.
- deleted 8d ago
  [deleted]
- crossroadsguy 7d ago
  It sure needs a large enough push from one of few big companies (with their explicit backing) that can bring businesses to support other app store(s). But imho that has to happen in a way that it doesn't create a need to write and publish apps in yet another language to yet another platform. Because if businesses have to do that as well that will be a good way to ensuring it becomes a DoA effort. I've a feeling companies like Meta, Amazon, Steam are well placed to do this (esp. Meta and Steam). But not sure it will be helpful to them in any way, besides they'd want to ensure their own control and locks.
  - xnx 7d ago
    Facebook tried doing a phone in 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First Amazon did one in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Phone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Phone
  - fsflover 6d ago
    Do you really hope to get a phone respecting your freedoms from a megacorp? This is incredibly naive in 2026.
- fschuett 7d ago
  Does the Brax Phone fit?
  - skorp01 7d ago
    Robert Braxman's provisions have ranged from highly insecure devices, EOL devices, charging for TOR as a service, an "e2e encrypted" chatroom that sends the key in plain text, etc. He is a serial fabricator and charlatan. https://nitter.space/GrapheneOS/status/1894511926962446670#m https://nitter.space/GrapheneOS/status/1894511926962446670#m https://forum.f-droid.org/t/brax2-alternatives/22469/6 https://forum.f-droid.org/t/brax2-alternatives/22469/6
Onavo 8d ago
So...if you vibe code API shims Google can't sue your right? It would be clean room implementation by definition.
- MrDrMcCoy 7d ago
  Oracle enters the chat
- NateEag 7d ago
  There's a crucial distinction between "can't sue you" and "would likely lose the case". You need to have enough money to actually survive the lawsuit, even if it's a slam-dunk to win (and they almost never are).
deleted 7d ago
[deleted]
ahmd-sh 8d ago
i despise where Google is going with this. it's a duopoly in the smartphone OS space and we need (for lack of a better analogy, spare the technicals) open-source distros like we have with Linux on desktop. Graphene is reaching that status for me every day and i'm looking forward to switching to it as my daily driver.
- pojntfx 8d ago
  GrapheneOS is pretty neat, https://postmarketos.org/ https://postmarketos.org/ is also pretty damn polished out of the box these days. I'd argue the "mobile desktop Linux systems" are actually a bit more polished than Graphene, esp. when it comes to default apps (no AOSP abandonware dialer, contacts etc. apps to fight with, it's all just maintained, responsive GNOME/KDE apps)
  - spijdar 8d ago
    I want to believe this, but it's hard for me to take this at face value. It's been about 4 years since I've run pmOS, so my experience IS very out of date, but I also have a hard time believing that the experience has radically changed in the meantime. The short is that yes the GNOME/KDE apps do often look more impressive, but they suffer the same sort of malaise which seems to have infected Linux desktops sometime since Eternal September, and between the sporadic crashing and "this doesn't feel right", it's really hard for me to accept "It's more polished than AOSP!". pmOS's installation page opening with a warning: Make sure you read state of postmarketOS before installing postmarketOS. Which leads to a page that opens with: The goal is to make postmarketOS usable for everyone, but we are not there yet. Usability and most importantly stability issues need to be worked out first. If you are looking for an OS that is as usable as iOS or Android, this project is currently not for you. Does not do a lot to dissuade my skepticism. I know you said the apps specifically, but even there, it's like... I dunno.
    - grapheneos 7d ago
      GrapheneOS provides drastically better usability, robustness, overall functional and app compatibility. Privacy and security are also drastically better in AOSP and especially GrapheneOS than that desktop Linux software stack ported to mobile. All of the default apps in GrapheneOS are being rapidly overhauled or replaced. It wasn't a priority due to the incredibly good open source app ecosystem with many existing alternatives available. There isn't a similarly large and high quality open source mobile app ecosystem available for what's being promoted.
VCFundedGenYer 8d ago
Android has been so thoroughly disappointing through the years. Started as a great open free form alternative to iOS, to becoming the very thing it sought to combat.
- josteink 8d ago
  If Android wants to be the inferior not-open-source mobile OS, why would I not just buy an iPhone instead then? It’s closed too, sure, but at least it’s more consistent.
  - pimeys 8d ago
    Android has free and open artificial pancreas that is still easy to install and keeps us with complex type 1 diabetes alive. Google may just want to kill us and Apple don't even let this kind of software exist without massive hurdles...
  - subscribed 8d ago
    Because it's much worse (for me). However at this point, as a GrapheneOS user if I couldn't use it for any reason I'll go to iOS (even though I used it for a couple of years and I've been fed up).
  - add-sub-mul-div 8d ago
    Because (1) you'd be rewarding the entity that originated and normalized the loss of freedom that Google much later adopted, and (2) as Apple restricts more freedoms you'll still be able to enjoy them on Android for a few more years as Google remains (comparatively) more user friendly.
  - mitxela 7d ago
    Because it still allows installing apps with some hoops, and iOS doesn't allow it at all.
- fgonzag 7d ago
  I had never considered using lineageos and the like, but honestly the writing is on the wall. Google is going straight into a closed AI device. I'm going to start donating to a few free android distros I guess, I'm probably going to be trying them sooner rather than later, and without AOSP support the dev burden is going to be much higher, and it probably means they'll end up diverging and incompatible at some point (not in both directions, lineage will probably always have to have Android app support)
wps 8d ago
The amount of roadblocks Google is putting up for GrapheneOS is just ridiculous. None of their decisions make any sense, from the delayed source patches upstream, to the embargos, attestation issues, etc. Google simply regrets android being open source.
- monomania 8d ago
  There's a non-zero chance that three-letter agencies are lobbying for at least some of this.
  - jasonfarnon 7d ago
    Yeah. Which doesn't mean Google isn't happy to comply for its own profit motivations.
- bebeirjd848r 8d ago
  GrapheneOS does not even register on Google scale! It does not even manufacture its own devices! Bigger problem is HarmonyOS and similar devices, compatible with Android. Opensource threat from china! And no NSA backdoors or honeypots!
  - subscribed 8d ago
    If the hardware security is on par with iPhone / pixel 8+, then sure. Otherwise there's no need for NSA backdoors (as Cellebrite matrix shows) :)
  - ChickeNES 8d ago
    Sure, let's just trade the NSA for the CCP, no issues there.
    - anonym29 7d ago
      One poses an active, unchecked threat to the constitutional rights of US citizens, has a chartered mission to subvert and undermine the very field of cryptography itself - going so far as to bribe standards bodies to adopt backdoored algorithms (using taxpayer funds to do so), has plotted to mass-violate the constitutional rights of their own citizens and lie about it to the national legislature (which they carried out successfully, committing perjury in the process and facing zero consequences for it), secretly cooperates with the criminal justice system via parallel construction to target nonviolent, law-abiding political activists with fabricated criminal charges as retaliation for politically disfavored speech, while the other is about 6500 miles away, has negligible presence in / reach into the US, and is generally unconcerned with the domestic political activities of US citizens.
petcat 8d ago
Does anyone contribute to AOSP besides Google? Does Google actually accept any patches into "upstream" and ultimately into their own commercial distro?
- nzeid 8d ago
  The phrasing of your first question is ironic given GrapheneOS has upstreamed a ton of their security hardening. You're probably asking if they're able contribute anymore?
  - izacus 8d ago
    Can you link to patches or commits they upstteamed? I'm not aware Google ever accepted any.
    - PhilippGille 7d ago
      https://grapheneos.org/faq#upstream https://grapheneos.org/faq#upstream https://android-review.googlesource.com/q/status:merged+author:%22Daniel%20Micay%22 https://android-review.googlesource.com/q/status:merged+auth...
      - HJain13 7d ago
        Nothing in last 5 years; and if we ignore the last one, Nothing in almost 9-10 years. I am not sure how much weight it holds. Now if that's on Google on not accepting stuff that's different matter
        izacus 7d ago
        Most of it is one liner config changes too, not much of actual code.
        ysnp 7d ago
        What about issue tracker discussions, mailing list discussions, security vulnerability reports etc.?
vkaku 8d ago
Many developers will likely be developing at Android 16 APIs only. Will rely on Aptoide+AOSP exclusively. This is likely the timeline we'll see a decline in Play Store and Pixel usage.
- DaSHacka 8d ago
  You vastly overestimate how many people care (developers included) outside of FOSS and HN circles. Nothing will happen, as it never does.
- tiagod 8d ago
  Pixel market share is and always has been absolutely tiny, and the people that care about this are a rounding error.
- oleksii_kpi 7d ago
  [flagged]
Ajedi32 8d ago
Important details further down: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117282129725629495 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117282129725629495 So it seems like the problem isn't that the new API is Pixel exclusive, but that the first and third quarterly release patches each year are Pixel exclusive?
- grapheneos 8d ago
  QPR1 and QPR3 are now Pixel exclusive since Android 16. That means the new APIs for app developers added in Android 17 QPR1 are Pixel exclusive until Android 17 QPR2. There hasn't been a case of new APIs for apps not being open source or not being available to every OEM since Android Honeycomb (3.x).
  - iAMkenough 7d ago
    Seems like that's anti-competitive behavior, holding back security updates except for Google's own stock users. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117282190165630051 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117282190165630051 > It would be interesting to know if Google's legal team is aware they're giving Pixels months of early access to new Android features and bug fixes including certain important security patches. Pixels being given this competitive edge over Google's OEM partners is very dubious.
    - NetMageSCW 7d ago
      That might be valid (but not really) if those other OEMs actually didn’t delay the features and bug fixes themselves.
    - Ajedi32 6d ago
      Is Google under any legal obligation to continue releasing software updates to their competitors in the first place? Maybe there are some contractual obligations in place (I remember back when Google first started making their own hardware, other Android OEMs got very, very nervous, and Google was bending over backwards to appease them, so it wouldn't surprise me), but aside from that I don't see why they'd be under any obligation to keep releasing code to others for free. Android isn't GPL, and even if it were I believe Google owns the copyright, right? The only way to fully free Android from Google's hands is a hard fork. Graphene OS probably doesn't have the resources for that on its own, but all the other Android OEMs put together might. Frankly I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happened yet, but I do seem to remember Google having some anticompetitive clauses in their license terms for GMS which may be preventing this... not sure if those are still in place.
Velocifyer 8d ago
This is confirming my belies that Google is trying to block OEMs that don't pay them to be part of GMS, with the goal of eventually being the only android phone maker.
hagbard_c 8d ago
Fine, whatever but no Android 17-derived Google-free AOSP distribution for me if these APIs are in any way essential to the functioning of the device or required by one or more of the government/bank-mandated applications which are sometimes needed. If they are in any way related to some Google service I don't care since I don't use those anyway.
barbazoo 8d ago
I'm on GrapheneOS and I will never go back to Google Android or iOS. The amount of control you get is just liberating. I hope Google doesn't crush them.
- deleted 7d ago
  [deleted]
- ls-a 7d ago
  [dead]
- alt227 7d ago
  They already are.
natterangell 8d ago
I get the sense Android is going the way of MacOS and Darwin. At some point Google will release something non-free end users experience as an absolutely integral part of OS, and it won't be possible to continue as an equivalent alternative. AOSP will still be free and underlying the whole thing, but slowly rot away as anything more than a code base.
IronWolve 8d ago
I'm going to guess that google is afraid of the age of AI, they should be, those API's will be reverse engineered pretty quick. Lots of bad actors will using AI. We live in a time, if you want to build an android app, you easily can, but installing will be harder due to google concerns.
largbae 8d ago
Alright AI maximalists, what's the estimated token budget to remove the Google dependency? GrapheneOS has the bootable AOSP and will have Google-alternative device support. We probably need an equivalent to Play Services, app signing/porting/publishing tools. With these in hand could we talk Valve into providing the scalable alternative to the play store?
- z3ratul163071 7d ago
  exactly
- IshKebab 7d ago
  A lot. But I don't think you can do it with just tokens. Android without the Play store and Google Play Services is just not very useful (in the West anyway).
  - mitxela 7d ago
    Which is why Grapheme runs them in a sandbox. You can too.
- alightsoul 7d ago
  The token budget isn't to remove Google it's to create drivers for individual phone hardware, which phone and chip manufacturers keep closed source. Also it would be used to find exploits to unlock permanently locked bootloaders
  - MrDrMcCoy 7d ago
    GrapheneOS won't be interested in other hardware support, since the only devices that meet their hardware security standards are Pixels and the upcoming Motorola phone.
- the_real_cher 7d ago
  What's the token budget to build a new phone OS?
teekert 8d ago
Installed GrapheneOS on my Pixel 10 yesterday, only used the stock rom to start the installer... Am feeling a little unconfortable due to this situation: [0]. Hope this gets better. Really feeling the dislike for Google on this one. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741510
- microtonal 7d ago
  https://grapheneos.org/releases#2026091700 https://grapheneos.org/releases#2026091700 Fixes/updates the modem firmware.
  - teekert 7d ago
    Ah that's great news! Do you know how to force an upgrade?
    - fph 7d ago
      It's in the alpha channel for now, you have to join the alpha channel to get it immediately (at your risk).
      - teekert 5d ago
        FWIW, I installed it on the Stable channel yesterday. It's impressive given the situation.
- grapheneos 7d ago
  It was shipped in the latest GrapheneOS release. It's currently in the Alpha channel due to reports of carrier compatibility issues for calls which are fixed in today's release. Today's release should be able to reach Beta in a couple hours and then Stable in under 24 hours.
  - teekert 7d ago
    Great work! Thanx!!
exabrial 8d ago
Someone please make a linux-based, using proper cgroups/containers for app isolation, where programs are one of: regular JVM ByteCode, or WASM. APIs follow a JEP-style Process with multiple incubators until we got it right.
- NetMageSCW 7d ago
  Feel free!
  - exabrial 6d ago
    How do I get started though? :/ I feel like I need a couple mil in seed funding and a team that understands the mission.
bri3d 7d ago
So, the real thing that's happening here is: * Google drop "real" Android source-code updates to OEMs _and_ the public every half. * But they ship four Pixel updates, including documentation + SDKs. * Now they added new APIs in a Pixel-only update. * Google also drop security update backports to "trusted" OEMs monthly (which GrapheneOS have had access to for years). So, there are now Pixel-exclusive app features on the Pixel SDK version which isn't available to OEMs - but, it's highly unlikely any app developer would actually depend on these new APIs, since Pixel marketshare is tiny to begin with. This in essence just makes Pixels a weird beta-testing device for what will come out a quarter later to "normal" devices, which is sort of an odd business decision, but also a weird thing to get really mad about, in my opinion (I do see what GrapheneOS are trying to do, with having OEMs saber-rattle about not getting features on the same cadence as Pixels, it just doesn't resonate very loudly for me). However, the API headline seems to bury a deeper lede; in the thread, GrapheneOS also claim that the quarterly Pixel releases contain security content which is not appearing in the monthly backports. This is quite bad and very sloppy if true, since the Pixel releases can easily be patch-diffed and exploits backed out of them. I'd be interested in seeing this enumerated in more depth.
- fluidcruft 7d ago
  I don't really see what the Pixel-only early API releases achieve except for allowing developers to work on Pixels ahead of time, but Pixels are such a small sliver of the universe that it basically just gives Google a leg up, I would assume. And if you're on Graphene why would you care about Google's beta edge apps?
  - grapheneos 7d ago
    Exclusive access to QPR1 and QPR3 releases gives Pixels an unfair advantage over other Android OEMs. They get an extra 2 major updates per year. Introducing new APIs for third party app developers as part of these updates means third party apps will now run best on the Pixel OS. Google apps already run best on the Pixel OS due to many exclusive features. It's Google's standard overall approach to propping up parts of their business with their monopolies in other markets. It's not legal.
shevy-java 7d ago
One can not simply trust Google. While I personally like the MIT licence more, I think it is time that the GPL or variants of it (Affero etc...) get used a lot more. It worked very well with the Linux kernel. Corporations keep on abusing this.
- grapheneos 7d ago
  GPL is not working for getting us access to what we need. Google often takes weeks or even months to respond to our GPL source requests. Other companies are far worse. What good is it to us if companies can introduce arbitrary delays for months or even years? There are permissively licensed alternatives to most copyleft projects and they're increasingly the better options. You aren't going to reverse that by licensing niche projects as copyleft. Companies wanting to avoid copyleft can make permissively licensed replacements more easily than ever.
dingdong2026 7d ago
Google is a cancer on humanity.
- mitxela 7d ago
  Google is just one symptom of late stage capitalism.
  - fithisux 7d ago
    100% Capitalism is transforming to feudalism.
    - mitxela 7d ago
      Has transformed. Landlords are literally feudalism, and so is the mobile phone duopoly now that mobile phones aren't optional. So are the banks now that banks aren't optional.
- izacus 7d ago
  Why do you so desperately want to use their software then? This whole topic is basically people demanding that Google continues giving them their code for free for their operating system. If it's really such a cancer, why whine and demand the continued work then?
  - kuschku 7d ago
    That's always been the deal: they can build their OS on the work of many volunteers, and we in turn can build our projects on top of the OS. Google is trying to take from the community potluck without giving anything back.
    - jeroenhd 7d ago
      The community is providing Google with nothing. A fraction of a sliver of market share running GrapheneOS isn't going to make Google care. The community potluck has been replaced with a Google Play-shaped stock exchange over a decade ago.
ironqcold 7d ago
Google is increasingly locking down Android. I wouldn't be surprised if they killed off AOSP entirely in a few years...
palata 7d ago
Google managing to get worse every day.
claudiojulio 7d ago
Forget Android. The future is Plasma Mobile.
- d3Xt3r 7d ago
  Agreed. Linux is the future, fk Android. GrapheneOS should stop wasting their efforts on Android, when they could've contributed towards PostmarketOS or similar, or even made their own distro. Working on Android is a complete and utter waste of time and effort.
  - microtonal 7d ago
    Yes, let's abandon a very mature OS that is still open source, has millions of apps, and billions of users by one one that was designed for desktops, with a security posture fitting the 90s, virtually no phone apps unless you emulate said very mature OS, and which will have all the same problems with remote attestation, etc. </s>
    - d3Xt3r 7d ago
      Yes, I'm sure the billions of people will read the advice of a random commentor on a niche site and throw away all their handsets running a "very mature OS" and cause a crisis. </s>
  - well_ackshually 7d ago
    The future is an inappropriate OS with catastrophic battery management, zero software available, no sandboxing or proper security measures, and the oh so stable kernel ABI & Gnome APIs to develop for, yep yep yep.
    - d3Xt3r 7d ago
      The future is an inappropriate OS which spies on you and harvests your data, gets more and more locked down with every release restricting user freedom, and prioritises corporate interests over end user interest, yep yep yep.
matheusmoreira 7d ago
I wonder how low Google will sink next time. Respect for the GrapheneOS for pushing through regardless, even if they have to reverse engineer stuff. Can't wait to buy their phone.
- zb3 7d ago
  > I wonder how low Google will sink next time. Oh, the possibilities are endless and they're just getting started. Besides stopping releases of AOSP completely they could also mandate that any "certified" Android device should not allow bootloader unlocking (albeit OEMs will disallow that anyway)..
- dingaling 7d ago
  > Can't wait to buy their phone. Good phrasing. It's certainly not _your_ phone, you're just an untrusted user who is extended the privilege of using it.
  - matheusmoreira 7d ago
    Isn't GrapheneOS rootable?
  - skorp01 7d ago
    It absolutely is. You can fork GrapheneOS, modify it, and sign the images with your own key; all to your heart's content. Exposing root to userspace does not make you the owner of it, and serves to erode the guarantee that the OS is enforcing the rules you set. The way it is used is a hacky shortcut to achieving functionality that should be written into the OS itself so that the security model can be maintained.
jokoon 7d ago
I mean, even if android is/was open source, it was always fastidious to build a de-googled android image for a phone model. Of course it's not great for their business model. Not to mention, no more trustworthy app distribution. I don't see the EU really being able to forcing them to de-google android phones. I am also curious how much those phones would cost, BTW, since the cost calculation to release such an OS would be a bit complicated.
- izacus 7d ago
  EU was very clear that closing down the OS (Apple) is how they avoid fines with their latest rulings. They punished Google for open sourcing the OS and left Apple get away free with explicit explanation that closed OS doesn't need to adhere to same rules. So yeah, don't expect EU to defend you here.
jauntywundrkind 7d ago
Worth reminding folks that the EU DMA Act is forcing Google to start unlocking some of their APIs, such as the AI services AI. Right now a bunch of the apis for digital assistants/chat stuff are kind of proprietary, and this is demanding interoperation. August 1, 2027 is the deadline for most of this (but open access to hotword listening capabilities is slated for Aug 1, 2028). https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/interoperability/alphabet-specification-proceedings-interoperability-ai-services_en?prefLang=hu https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/in... Side note, that API here is HID. USB HID is so cool. There's so much stuff in this spec! Chargers and batteries can both communicate all kinds of status, which, well, afaik no one does, there's all kinds of sensors. It's this ancient spec that has so much, and weirdly is just so far ahead of where we are. More HID on Android will be great. Wish they'd played with others to make this so though!
- seb1204 7d ago
  Hm, I have little interest in Google's AI API and more in a streamlined flow of security updates and not an obscure prolonged waiting time.
HumblyTossed 7d ago
GrapheneOS scares them.
- dingaling 7d ago
  There are about 3.9 billion Android phones currently in use globally. I don't think a niche fork with 0.00025 billion users will worry them.
  - HumblyTossed 7d ago
    k
QuantumGood 7d ago
AOSP = "Android Open Source Project"
publlus_enigma 7d ago
As someone who went through similar challenges with Google making it impossibly hard for BlackBerry to provide an Android runtime on BBOS10, and now running GrapheneOS, I trust Google exactly zero to do the right thing by any open source project it stewards. Combined with their other practices, and lack of ongoing support for their commercial offerings, means that my perception of them is irreparably damaged and I minimise my usage of their products as much as practicably possible.
- GranPC 7d ago
  Did you work on BB10?
  - publlus_enigma 6d ago
    No, I was a lowly consumer who still laments the demise of BB10. It was one of the best mobile operating systems I have ever used. Fast, stable, with a refined UI that prioritised efficiency.
charcircuit 7d ago
Thank god that AI is progressing well enough that agents can figure out most of the changes and do the reverse engineering to get this stuff, but it's introducing a lot of inefficiency to the ecosystem that doesn't change the final outcome.
DrewADesign 7d ago
Look at that dev productivity go! The continually softening job market means c-suites everywhere care less than ever about their company’s image among developers. They’re surely thrilled to stop pretending to give a shit about anything beyond the next few quarters’ stock prices and their bonuses.
rustcleaner 7d ago
Android is irrelevant to me, there is only GrapheneOS. Go bankrupt, Alphabet!
- fithisux 7d ago
  They have partnerships with almost everyone. That is why they can win. Still I am mostly interested about GrapheneOS or a RaspberryPi5 with an Android 17 build. But they seem to even own the RAM market.
Ritewut 7d ago
I would love to know what alternative phone OSes exist. I would happily throw money and my engineering weight behind a promising project.
- jeroenhd 7d ago
  Sailfish has a Linux-based OS with some Android compatibility. Ubuntu Touch has left behind UBPorts which uses Android's hardware layer to provide a usable UI on existing Android devices. There's the Librem phone with an open source stack, though its hardware doesn't come close to a cheap Android phone these days. There are projects like PostmarketOS which work to get mainline Linux on phones. From there, you can run Linux on phones through desktop environments such as Phosh and Plasma Mobile which are touch optimized. FirefoxOS died but was forked into KaiOS, though the modern iteration of KaiOS is an Android fork. Samsung has TizenOS but I don't think any phones run it anymore. It's probably the closest equivalent to Android in the way it has been developed. If you want to throw money at something, Sailfish may be the project to keep an eye on. All the other volunteer-run operating systems are worth donating to, of course, but Sailfish is actually trying to be a real third option rather than an open source proof of concept or alternative for shitty vendors stopping updates.
  - Andrex 6d ago
    > There are projects like PostmarketOS which work to get mainline Linux on phones. From there, you can run Linux on phones through desktop environments such as Phosh and Plasma Mobile which are touch optimized. Gnome is undertaking some mobile work in-house (no need for a different DE like Phosh or Plasma). My ideal would be a "Fedora Mobile" spin (based on ARM Silverblue). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6vCWFleBHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6vCWFleBHk It's looking good! Wish this would get the momentum it deserves.
- d3Xt3r 7d ago
  Plenty. The ones you want to donate to are postmarketOS, Alpine Linux (the distro postmarketOS is based on) and Plasma Mobile (the main DE used by postmarketOS and other distros like Mobian). In terms of usability, SailfishOS is the most usable, but it has some proprietary components and is commercially backed by Jolla, so there's no need to donate to them. I do encourage you to buy their devices if you can though. Speaking of devices, Furilabs and Volla also make practical, decent spec Linux phones (based on Debian and Ubuntu Touch), so they're worth checking out as well.
hacker_homie 7d ago
I'm so glad we stopped microsoft from shipping a browser with their OS in the 90s, <sarcasm/>. Regulate them! that is the only way. Their should be a path for an AOSP build to be just as privileged as a google signed build.
- sixothree 7d ago
  They just walked away from an antitrust case with what can only be considered a huge win for them. I don't think regulating them is going to happen any time soon.
- NetMageSCW 7d ago
  Not everything is antitrust and regulation is always the worst choice.
  - Andrex 6d ago
    Sometimes market forces fail and it becomes the only choice.
fithisux 7d ago
Google is a for profit company. It does what it needs to stay profitable. Are the actions of Google moral? No! Governments are paid out to not intervene. They should have stepped in decades ago. They should have made Google to release source code and interoperate with public services. They already make profit from their services.
soleil-colza 7d ago
Feels like the "Pixel = reference implementation of AOSP" relationship is starting to erode.
- TiredOfLife 7d ago
  Pixel never was a reference aosp. You are thinkin of nexus.
escanor 7d ago
[flagged]
- chrismartin 7d ago
  Which "other, shady (imo)" interests? This feels like innuendo. Just say what you think actually motivates them.
  - escanor 7d ago
    [flagged]
    - ysnp 7d ago
      GrapheneOS have discussed and explored replacing Google Play/Google Mobile Services functionality with equivalent or open source replacements. See: eSIM management, location services, push notifications et cetera. What they have refused is bundling a privileged component (for full Google Services functionality/compatibility) and enabling signature spoofing support. GrapheneOS also heavily promote the use of open source Android apps. What they refuse is having app stores that reuse app package names, centralise the signing of app packages, perform reproducible builds on outdated infrastructure, significantly delay app updates et cetera. I cannot deny your opinion, but just want to suggest that from my understanding GrapheneOS are not against microG and F-Droid as concepts, just against their current implementations.
  - TeMPOraL 7d ago
    [flagged]
- Sent1n3l 7d ago
  Says people should take a critical stance on GrapheneOS while providing no actual basis other than 'my feels' 'I've got a tingling' or 'my stomach made an unusual noise when I thought about it' as their position to smear it. If I was reading this critically I'd say you have an axe to grind and want to continue to show why HN is a useless source of news or content.
m4rtink 7d ago
Android really going for the gutter recently.
linzhangrun 7d ago
How surprising.
cton 7d ago
Out of curiosity, do closed APIs mean OEMs can’t fuck them up or at least limit how much they can?
- grapheneos 7d ago
  No, it means Pixels will have exclusive features in third party apps for 2 separate spans of 3 months every year.
VerifiedReports 7d ago
The fraud of Android just gets worse. The great "open-source" OS that was supposed to free us all from vendor and telco tyranny has... not.
solarkraft 7d ago
I jumped ship to iOS a few years ago. Android is a strictly worse experience on all accounts with clear ambitions to be just as unfree as iOS, so there is just no point.
tomaskafka 7d ago
Embrace, extend, extinguish, and old playbook.
tyrabound 7d ago
Ah, the classic con job is starting to close its cycle. Get who-knows-how-many-millions-of-dollars of free work and thought, and then when the free labor has finally elevated you above it and your power is overwhelming, you simply just crush the gullible peasants beneath you and act like they never existed. People thought they were part of some collaborative, good of the world type effort, when the reality is that there were always ulterior and hidden motives to manipulate and exploit that gullible and rather foolish nature of Americans in particular; a foolishness that has long, if not always existed in the genuine American core character, but at the very least was cultivated and even selected for a long time ago. How do you motivate people in modern times to do free labor for you as the parasitic ruling class without the threat or resort to violence? You of course trick them into believing that what they are doing or support makes them a good boy, regardless of all the evidence and proof to the contrary.
LelouBil 7d ago
Still waiting on the Motorolas with grapheneOS support to ditch my 7 years old phone.
- teekert 7d ago
  Will be somewhere in 2027 afaik.
- Peacefulz 5d ago
  I'm hopeful for the Motorola partnership, as well. I'm following grapheneOS wherever it ends up.
pino83 7d ago
The next cat and mouse game you are going to lose.
saidnooneever 7d ago
its kind of amusing in a wag degoggling requires pretty much a phone from google :') by the comments on those post. bit unrelated to this post ofc but thought and wondered if they do that on purpose and how far these devices really get reverse engineered to see if they are actually de-googled down to the chips. just having a different OS doesnt have to mean anything in that regard if the entire device is owned by them -_-. especially since its radio and thats not too easy to determine if a device is or isnt sending weird stuff. (dont come with the lte or wifi sniffers or such things. u'd need thorough spectrum analysis during operations on a quite broad spectrum too to rule that out. the antennae in the devices can produce a lot of types of signals... or do they decap the chips and reverse those to see whats in it? i doubt it would be possible at the right scale but theres options i guess. people in certain regions/ high assurance security work roles will do this to hundreds of devices that are identical to try and determine if a supplier is compromised or not. order a full batch, take em all apart. taking x-rays, dissolving chips package, etching layers one by one, taking pictures with electron microscopes etc, probing bond wires in the packages as they run etc etc. somehow i dont see some OS creator do all of this, but ofc i could be very wrong :). interested to find out why people think google while with a different OS is truly de-googled or if they kinda just hope for the best...
- skorp01 7d ago
  There is a nice little post here from one of the GrapheneOS project members/moderators. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/10150-not-your-average-why-pixel-thread/7 https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/10150-not-your-average-why-... the tl;dr: - There has never been any evidence found of any hardware backdoors in Pixel devices. - Those would be quickly noticed. - Those are poor and inefficient methods for any sort of data collection. To answer your question they are not "just hoping for the best".
TeMPOraL 7d ago
Graphene OS is the odd one, I don't know what to make of it. It seems to be the only entrant in the mobile OS space that has a remote chance to work as alternative OS for daily use - but it's optimizing directly for the philosophy opposite to what I hoped it would be, I.e. it's focusing on privacy and security. Which AIUI means also securing the device against its owner, much like the big players do. I hoped we'll get an OS more amenable to opening up the device, exposing its capabilities to the owner, but alas, I fear there is no way for an OS to survive in this space unless it acts the same way the Big Two do. As it is, I can't help to think that Graphene is just the same as Google and Apple: just another security-maximizing vendor owning your computer.
- skorp01 7d ago
  You are expecting and hoping that it will act the same as desktop environments do. Desktop environments can't/don't because there is an inherent expectation of users that they should work a certain way and they are built upon decades of neglectful security practices. Mobile OSes are the attempt to change that and provide better security models from the ground up. AOSP being open-source is what gives you the actual control to modify your platform as you see fit, not having runtime root access exposed to the user. The idea of "control" that you are describing is illusory and only serves to actually undermine your real control. If you expose root access in that way, you have a much lower guarantee that the rules and permissions that you set are going to be able to be enforced by the system, because you have allowed the system to be modified. If something malicious gains that access, you have lost that guarantee.
  - TeMPOraL 6d ago
    > You are expecting and hoping that it will act the same as desktop environments do. Pretty much. > Desktop environments can't/don't because there is an inherent expectation of users that they should work a certain way Yes, and many of those expectations are exactly how computers are supposed to behave in general. > and they are built upon decades of neglectful security practices. That is true, but: > Mobile OSes are the attempt to change that and provide better security models from the ground up I strongly disagree with unqualified "better" here. Better for whom is what matters, and mobile OSes are security-maxxing in the direction that's - IMO - bad for users. They're optimizing for market ecosystem. > AOSP being open-source is what gives you the actual control to modify your platform as you see fit, not having runtime root access exposed to the user. That I vehemently disagree with, in two dimensions: - Open-source as panacea to everything is a bullshit belief techies overindex on. OSS has long been defeated, SaaS killed it. Whether code is open source or not is immaterial, what matters whether this particular code executing on this particular machine I use is open to me, which is not - and I can't even guarantee it's the same code that's supposedly "open" on some repository somewhere. - "having runtime root access exposed to the user" is precisely what freedom of computing means. That is the one thing that matters. > If you expose root access in that way, you have a much lower guarantee that the rules and permissions that you set are going to be able to be enforced by the system, because you have allowed the system to be modified. If something malicious gains that access, you have lost that guarantee. Wrong. I have a much higher guarantee, because the alternative is that I cannot set any rules at all. Per basic math, "very little" is still greater than 0.
jauntywundrkind 7d ago
Oh! These are HID! I wonder if this is for Pixel, or if this is something they had to shoehorn in fast to make Chromebooks work?
varispeed 7d ago
At this point there is no point buying into Android if it becomes the same walled garden as iOS.
cromka 7d ago
I don't get why this is a discussion around Open Source, they also seem to have f*caked over other OEMs? Can't imagine Samsung will be OK with it.
- mahboi 7d ago
  Samsung would be hypocritical to complain about proprietary extensions to Android.
deleted 7d ago
[deleted]
mahboi 7d ago
This news in particular seems similar to the other Android phonemakers like Samsung. They have their own custom Android forks that aren't open source. Maybe Google is wearing two hats here, Android and Pixel? But if Pixels are getting early access to security patches too, that's more like one hat.
julio2445 7d ago
Jsjsjsksk
jonesn11 7d ago
Android 17 is swagged out lol
bithammerthunde 7d ago
Google - be evil.
sharktheone 6d ago
Ouch, this seems so bad. Just another punch into AOSP and custom ROMs like GrapheneOS

xnx 8d ago

The world needs a Steam Phone.

fsflover 8d ago
If you mean GNU/Linux phones, they already exist and can be used as daily drivers by technical people. Sent from my Librem 5.
- xnx 8d ago
  Yes, but a popular one that's usable by regular people and with a very wealthy organization behind it.
  - lanfeust6 8d ago
    I miss my blackberry
    - xethos 7d ago
      It's not the same, it does not run BBOS10, and de-Googled LineageOS will have to do for now (for me). But at least we can get updated internals for the Q20 (and soon the Passport). It'll be the closest we can get to carrying a BlackBerry for some time, if ever, and I'm happy enough with mine that I picked up a spare mainboard https://zinwa.com/ https://zinwa.com/
      - degamad 7d ago
        While it's not exactly blackberry-alike, a hopefully soon-to-be-released option is the clicks communicator[0] phone. I just ordered their bluetooth keyboard attachment for androids/iphones with magsafe backs, but if it's any good, I may shell out for their phone as well. I was also a backer for the Mecha Comet[1] earlier in the year, which I'm hopeful about, although that's a couple of steps away from a daily driver phone at this stage, I guess. I never owned a blackberry, but for me, the ultimate winner would be for someone to copy or licence the layout and form of the dopod838pro[2] (a.k.a. HTC Hermes 100) and pop some newer internals in it... If I had 100 million dollars, that's what I'd be doing... [0] https://www.clicks.tech/en https://www.clicks.tech/en [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mecha-systems/mecha-comet-modular-linux-handheld-computer https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mecha-systems/mecha-com... [2] https://kaitech.hk/2006/10/dopod-838pro-htc-hermes/ https://kaitech.hk/2006/10/dopod-838pro-htc-hermes/
  - fsflover 8d ago
    This can be achieved if more people support the effort. If you expect megacorps to offer you a device respecting your freedom, think again.
  - TheBicPen 7d ago
    Why GNU? I get the appeal of Linux, but Android has that angle covered. What makes GNU a better userspace than Android for phone use? I actually think the Andoid userspace is very good for what it is. If Google's influence were magically removed, Android would be more or less the ideal OS, at least for me.
    - altermetax 7d ago
      It's not GNU itself that's appealing, it's the fact that it's not controlled by a company.
    - drdaeman 7d ago
      [dead]
  - etatester 7d ago
    How do you expect things to be popular without a company with self-interest? Producing a linux phone that people want requires immense capital, they're not just spending that and then releasing as open source forever. By the time the product becomes "popular", it's then just one more platform that needs to follow investor interest and laws.
    - LelouBil 7d ago
      Valve is kinda doing that with SteamOS ? It's primarily made for their own hardware, but they also use work time to add features for installs on non valve hardware, and all of their components are open source.
      - fsflover 6d ago
        That is exactly what Purism is doing with their Librem 5 phone. Valve didn't offer great experience immediately, too.
- hagbard_c 8d ago
  They exist but they need more polish and support from device vendors to be a viable alternative to the duopoly. It should be just as easy for the average phone buyer to get and use a 'Linux phone' as it is to get an Android or fruit phone. This is more or less true now for Linux distributions no matter what the naysayers keep on repeating, the next step is to make it true for mobile devices. There will still be naysayers but... who cares? Let them listen to themselves in their echo chambers like they've been doing w.r.t. 'Linux on the desktop'.
  - fsflover 6d ago
    > They exist but they need more polish and support Which is why we should support them today and not wait until the walled gardens become inescapable.
- MrDrMcCoy 7d ago
  Wake me when they get modern hardware.
  - pizzaiolo 7d ago
    Wake up, babe: https://forgejo.catcrafts.net/Catcrafts/fp6-img https://forgejo.catcrafts.net/Catcrafts/fp6-img
  - fsflover 7d ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45312326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45312326
    - MrDrMcCoy 7d ago
      I have a Furiphone. Despite the hardware being plenty decent, the software is unbearably slow due to Phosh and libhybris.
      - deleted 6d ago
        [deleted]
      - fsflover 6d ago
        Can you install SXMo or something else on it?
        MrDrMcCoy 5d ago
        My attempts to get Plasma mobile working, which is the shell I actually want, failed miserably. I can't imagine sxmo to be in any way pleasant.
deleted 8d ago
[deleted]
crossroadsguy 7d ago
It sure needs a large enough push from one of few big companies (with their explicit backing) that can bring businesses to support other app store(s). But imho that has to happen in a way that it doesn't create a need to write and publish apps in yet another language to yet another platform. Because if businesses have to do that as well that will be a good way to ensuring it becomes a DoA effort. I've a feeling companies like Meta, Amazon, Steam are well placed to do this (esp. Meta and Steam). But not sure it will be helpful to them in any way, besides they'd want to ensure their own control and locks.
- xnx 7d ago
  Facebook tried doing a phone in 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_First Amazon did one in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Phone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Phone
- fsflover 6d ago
  Do you really hope to get a phone respecting your freedoms from a megacorp? This is incredibly naive in 2026.
fschuett 7d ago
Does the Brax Phone fit?
- skorp01 7d ago
  Robert Braxman's provisions have ranged from highly insecure devices, EOL devices, charging for TOR as a service, an "e2e encrypted" chatroom that sends the key in plain text, etc. He is a serial fabricator and charlatan. https://nitter.space/GrapheneOS/status/1894511926962446670#m https://nitter.space/GrapheneOS/status/1894511926962446670#m https://forum.f-droid.org/t/brax2-alternatives/22469/6 https://forum.f-droid.org/t/brax2-alternatives/22469/6

Onavo 8d ago

So...if you vibe code API shims Google can't sue your right? It would be clean room implementation by definition.

MrDrMcCoy 7d ago
Oracle enters the chat
NateEag 7d ago
There's a crucial distinction between "can't sue you" and "would likely lose the case". You need to have enough money to actually survive the lawsuit, even if it's a slam-dunk to win (and they almost never are).

deleted 7d ago

[deleted]

ahmd-sh 8d ago

i despise where Google is going with this. it's a duopoly in the smartphone OS space and we need (for lack of a better analogy, spare the technicals) open-source distros like we have with Linux on desktop. Graphene is reaching that status for me every day and i'm looking forward to switching to it as my daily driver.

pojntfx 8d ago
GrapheneOS is pretty neat, https://postmarketos.org/ https://postmarketos.org/ is also pretty damn polished out of the box these days. I'd argue the "mobile desktop Linux systems" are actually a bit more polished than Graphene, esp. when it comes to default apps (no AOSP abandonware dialer, contacts etc. apps to fight with, it's all just maintained, responsive GNOME/KDE apps)
- spijdar 8d ago
  I want to believe this, but it's hard for me to take this at face value. It's been about 4 years since I've run pmOS, so my experience IS very out of date, but I also have a hard time believing that the experience has radically changed in the meantime. The short is that yes the GNOME/KDE apps do often look more impressive, but they suffer the same sort of malaise which seems to have infected Linux desktops sometime since Eternal September, and between the sporadic crashing and "this doesn't feel right", it's really hard for me to accept "It's more polished than AOSP!". pmOS's installation page opening with a warning: Make sure you read state of postmarketOS before installing postmarketOS. Which leads to a page that opens with: The goal is to make postmarketOS usable for everyone, but we are not there yet. Usability and most importantly stability issues need to be worked out first. If you are looking for an OS that is as usable as iOS or Android, this project is currently not for you. Does not do a lot to dissuade my skepticism. I know you said the apps specifically, but even there, it's like... I dunno.
  - grapheneos 7d ago
    GrapheneOS provides drastically better usability, robustness, overall functional and app compatibility. Privacy and security are also drastically better in AOSP and especially GrapheneOS than that desktop Linux software stack ported to mobile. All of the default apps in GrapheneOS are being rapidly overhauled or replaced. It wasn't a priority due to the incredibly good open source app ecosystem with many existing alternatives available. There isn't a similarly large and high quality open source mobile app ecosystem available for what's being promoted.

VCFundedGenYer 8d ago

Android has been so thoroughly disappointing through the years. Started as a great open free form alternative to iOS, to becoming the very thing it sought to combat.

josteink 8d ago
If Android wants to be the inferior not-open-source mobile OS, why would I not just buy an iPhone instead then? It’s closed too, sure, but at least it’s more consistent.
- pimeys 8d ago
  Android has free and open artificial pancreas that is still easy to install and keeps us with complex type 1 diabetes alive. Google may just want to kill us and Apple don't even let this kind of software exist without massive hurdles...
- subscribed 8d ago
  Because it's much worse (for me). However at this point, as a GrapheneOS user if I couldn't use it for any reason I'll go to iOS (even though I used it for a couple of years and I've been fed up).
- add-sub-mul-div 8d ago
  Because (1) you'd be rewarding the entity that originated and normalized the loss of freedom that Google much later adopted, and (2) as Apple restricts more freedoms you'll still be able to enjoy them on Android for a few more years as Google remains (comparatively) more user friendly.
- mitxela 7d ago
  Because it still allows installing apps with some hoops, and iOS doesn't allow it at all.
fgonzag 7d ago
I had never considered using lineageos and the like, but honestly the writing is on the wall. Google is going straight into a closed AI device. I'm going to start donating to a few free android distros I guess, I'm probably going to be trying them sooner rather than later, and without AOSP support the dev burden is going to be much higher, and it probably means they'll end up diverging and incompatible at some point (not in both directions, lineage will probably always have to have Android app support)

wps 8d ago

The amount of roadblocks Google is putting up for GrapheneOS is just ridiculous. None of their decisions make any sense, from the delayed source patches upstream, to the embargos, attestation issues, etc. Google simply regrets android being open source.

monomania 8d ago
There's a non-zero chance that three-letter agencies are lobbying for at least some of this.
- jasonfarnon 7d ago
  Yeah. Which doesn't mean Google isn't happy to comply for its own profit motivations.
bebeirjd848r 8d ago
GrapheneOS does not even register on Google scale! It does not even manufacture its own devices! Bigger problem is HarmonyOS and similar devices, compatible with Android. Opensource threat from china! And no NSA backdoors or honeypots!
- subscribed 8d ago
  If the hardware security is on par with iPhone / pixel 8+, then sure. Otherwise there's no need for NSA backdoors (as Cellebrite matrix shows) :)
- ChickeNES 8d ago
  Sure, let's just trade the NSA for the CCP, no issues there.
  - anonym29 7d ago
    One poses an active, unchecked threat to the constitutional rights of US citizens, has a chartered mission to subvert and undermine the very field of cryptography itself - going so far as to bribe standards bodies to adopt backdoored algorithms (using taxpayer funds to do so), has plotted to mass-violate the constitutional rights of their own citizens and lie about it to the national legislature (which they carried out successfully, committing perjury in the process and facing zero consequences for it), secretly cooperates with the criminal justice system via parallel construction to target nonviolent, law-abiding political activists with fabricated criminal charges as retaliation for politically disfavored speech, while the other is about 6500 miles away, has negligible presence in / reach into the US, and is generally unconcerned with the domestic political activities of US citizens.

petcat 8d ago

Does anyone contribute to AOSP besides Google? Does Google actually accept any patches into "upstream" and ultimately into their own commercial distro?

nzeid 8d ago
The phrasing of your first question is ironic given GrapheneOS has upstreamed a ton of their security hardening. You're probably asking if they're able contribute anymore?
- izacus 8d ago
  Can you link to patches or commits they upstteamed? I'm not aware Google ever accepted any.
  - PhilippGille 7d ago
    https://grapheneos.org/faq#upstream https://grapheneos.org/faq#upstream https://android-review.googlesource.com/q/status:merged+author:%22Daniel%20Micay%22 https://android-review.googlesource.com/q/status:merged+auth...
    - HJain13 7d ago
      Nothing in last 5 years; and if we ignore the last one, Nothing in almost 9-10 years. I am not sure how much weight it holds. Now if that's on Google on not accepting stuff that's different matter
      - izacus 7d ago
        Most of it is one liner config changes too, not much of actual code.
      - ysnp 7d ago
        What about issue tracker discussions, mailing list discussions, security vulnerability reports etc.?

vkaku 8d ago

Many developers will likely be developing at Android 16 APIs only. Will rely on Aptoide+AOSP exclusively. This is likely the timeline we'll see a decline in Play Store and Pixel usage.

DaSHacka 8d ago
You vastly overestimate how many people care (developers included) outside of FOSS and HN circles. Nothing will happen, as it never does.
tiagod 8d ago
Pixel market share is and always has been absolutely tiny, and the people that care about this are a rounding error.
oleksii_kpi 7d ago
[flagged]

Ajedi32 8d ago

Important details further down: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117282129725629495 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117282129725629495 So it seems like the problem isn't that the new API is Pixel exclusive, but that the first and third quarterly release patches each year are Pixel exclusive?

grapheneos 8d ago
QPR1 and QPR3 are now Pixel exclusive since Android 16. That means the new APIs for app developers added in Android 17 QPR1 are Pixel exclusive until Android 17 QPR2. There hasn't been a case of new APIs for apps not being open source or not being available to every OEM since Android Honeycomb (3.x).
- iAMkenough 7d ago
  Seems like that's anti-competitive behavior, holding back security updates except for Google's own stock users. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117282190165630051 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117282190165630051 > It would be interesting to know if Google's legal team is aware they're giving Pixels months of early access to new Android features and bug fixes including certain important security patches. Pixels being given this competitive edge over Google's OEM partners is very dubious.
  - NetMageSCW 7d ago
    That might be valid (but not really) if those other OEMs actually didn’t delay the features and bug fixes themselves.
  - Ajedi32 6d ago
    Is Google under any legal obligation to continue releasing software updates to their competitors in the first place? Maybe there are some contractual obligations in place (I remember back when Google first started making their own hardware, other Android OEMs got very, very nervous, and Google was bending over backwards to appease them, so it wouldn't surprise me), but aside from that I don't see why they'd be under any obligation to keep releasing code to others for free. Android isn't GPL, and even if it were I believe Google owns the copyright, right? The only way to fully free Android from Google's hands is a hard fork. Graphene OS probably doesn't have the resources for that on its own, but all the other Android OEMs put together might. Frankly I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happened yet, but I do seem to remember Google having some anticompetitive clauses in their license terms for GMS which may be preventing this... not sure if those are still in place.

Velocifyer 8d ago

This is confirming my belies that Google is trying to block OEMs that don't pay them to be part of GMS, with the goal of eventually being the only android phone maker.

hagbard_c 8d ago

Fine, whatever but no Android 17-derived Google-free AOSP distribution for me if these APIs are in any way essential to the functioning of the device or required by one or more of the government/bank-mandated applications which are sometimes needed. If they are in any way related to some Google service I don't care since I don't use those anyway.

barbazoo 8d ago

I'm on GrapheneOS and I will never go back to Google Android or iOS. The amount of control you get is just liberating. I hope Google doesn't crush them.

deleted 7d ago
[deleted]
ls-a 7d ago
[dead]
alt227 7d ago
They already are.

natterangell 8d ago

I get the sense Android is going the way of MacOS and Darwin. At some point Google will release something non-free end users experience as an absolutely integral part of OS, and it won't be possible to continue as an equivalent alternative. AOSP will still be free and underlying the whole thing, but slowly rot away as anything more than a code base.

IronWolve 8d ago

I'm going to guess that google is afraid of the age of AI, they should be, those API's will be reverse engineered pretty quick. Lots of bad actors will using AI. We live in a time, if you want to build an android app, you easily can, but installing will be harder due to google concerns.

largbae 8d ago

Alright AI maximalists, what's the estimated token budget to remove the Google dependency? GrapheneOS has the bootable AOSP and will have Google-alternative device support. We probably need an equivalent to Play Services, app signing/porting/publishing tools. With these in hand could we talk Valve into providing the scalable alternative to the play store?

z3ratul163071 7d ago
exactly
IshKebab 7d ago
A lot. But I don't think you can do it with just tokens. Android without the Play store and Google Play Services is just not very useful (in the West anyway).
- mitxela 7d ago
  Which is why Grapheme runs them in a sandbox. You can too.
alightsoul 7d ago
The token budget isn't to remove Google it's to create drivers for individual phone hardware, which phone and chip manufacturers keep closed source. Also it would be used to find exploits to unlock permanently locked bootloaders
- MrDrMcCoy 7d ago
  GrapheneOS won't be interested in other hardware support, since the only devices that meet their hardware security standards are Pixels and the upcoming Motorola phone.
the_real_cher 7d ago
What's the token budget to build a new phone OS?

teekert 8d ago

Installed GrapheneOS on my Pixel 10 yesterday, only used the stock rom to start the installer... Am feeling a little unconfortable due to this situation: [0]. Hope this gets better. Really feeling the dislike for Google on this one. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741510

microtonal 7d ago
https://grapheneos.org/releases#2026091700 https://grapheneos.org/releases#2026091700 Fixes/updates the modem firmware.
- teekert 7d ago
  Ah that's great news! Do you know how to force an upgrade?
  - fph 7d ago
    It's in the alpha channel for now, you have to join the alpha channel to get it immediately (at your risk).
    - teekert 5d ago
      FWIW, I installed it on the Stable channel yesterday. It's impressive given the situation.
grapheneos 7d ago
It was shipped in the latest GrapheneOS release. It's currently in the Alpha channel due to reports of carrier compatibility issues for calls which are fixed in today's release. Today's release should be able to reach Beta in a couple hours and then Stable in under 24 hours.
- teekert 7d ago
  Great work! Thanx!!

exabrial 8d ago

Someone please make a linux-based, using proper cgroups/containers for app isolation, where programs are one of: regular JVM ByteCode, or WASM. APIs follow a JEP-style Process with multiple incubators until we got it right.

NetMageSCW 7d ago
Feel free!
- exabrial 6d ago
  How do I get started though? :/ I feel like I need a couple mil in seed funding and a team that understands the mission.

bri3d 7d ago

So, the real thing that's happening here is: * Google drop "real" Android source-code updates to OEMs _and_ the public every half. * But they ship four Pixel updates, including documentation + SDKs. * Now they added new APIs in a Pixel-only update. * Google also drop security update backports to "trusted" OEMs monthly (which GrapheneOS have had access to for years). So, there are now Pixel-exclusive app features on the Pixel SDK version which isn't available to OEMs - but, it's highly unlikely any app developer would actually depend on these new APIs, since Pixel marketshare is tiny to begin with. This in essence just makes Pixels a weird beta-testing device for what will come out a quarter later to "normal" devices, which is sort of an odd business decision, but also a weird thing to get really mad about, in my opinion (I do see what GrapheneOS are trying to do, with having OEMs saber-rattle about not getting features on the same cadence as Pixels, it just doesn't resonate very loudly for me). However, the API headline seems to bury a deeper lede; in the thread, GrapheneOS also claim that the quarterly Pixel releases contain security content which is not appearing in the monthly backports. This is quite bad and very sloppy if true, since the Pixel releases can easily be patch-diffed and exploits backed out of them. I'd be interested in seeing this enumerated in more depth.

fluidcruft 7d ago
I don't really see what the Pixel-only early API releases achieve except for allowing developers to work on Pixels ahead of time, but Pixels are such a small sliver of the universe that it basically just gives Google a leg up, I would assume. And if you're on Graphene why would you care about Google's beta edge apps?
- grapheneos 7d ago
  Exclusive access to QPR1 and QPR3 releases gives Pixels an unfair advantage over other Android OEMs. They get an extra 2 major updates per year. Introducing new APIs for third party app developers as part of these updates means third party apps will now run best on the Pixel OS. Google apps already run best on the Pixel OS due to many exclusive features. It's Google's standard overall approach to propping up parts of their business with their monopolies in other markets. It's not legal.

shevy-java 7d ago

One can not simply trust Google. While I personally like the MIT licence more, I think it is time that the GPL or variants of it (Affero etc...) get used a lot more. It worked very well with the Linux kernel. Corporations keep on abusing this.

grapheneos 7d ago
GPL is not working for getting us access to what we need. Google often takes weeks or even months to respond to our GPL source requests. Other companies are far worse. What good is it to us if companies can introduce arbitrary delays for months or even years? There are permissively licensed alternatives to most copyleft projects and they're increasingly the better options. You aren't going to reverse that by licensing niche projects as copyleft. Companies wanting to avoid copyleft can make permissively licensed replacements more easily than ever.

dingdong2026 7d ago

Google is a cancer on humanity.

mitxela 7d ago
Google is just one symptom of late stage capitalism.
- fithisux 7d ago
  100% Capitalism is transforming to feudalism.
  - mitxela 7d ago
    Has transformed. Landlords are literally feudalism, and so is the mobile phone duopoly now that mobile phones aren't optional. So are the banks now that banks aren't optional.
izacus 7d ago
Why do you so desperately want to use their software then? This whole topic is basically people demanding that Google continues giving them their code for free for their operating system. If it's really such a cancer, why whine and demand the continued work then?
- kuschku 7d ago
  That's always been the deal: they can build their OS on the work of many volunteers, and we in turn can build our projects on top of the OS. Google is trying to take from the community potluck without giving anything back.
  - jeroenhd 7d ago
    The community is providing Google with nothing. A fraction of a sliver of market share running GrapheneOS isn't going to make Google care. The community potluck has been replaced with a Google Play-shaped stock exchange over a decade ago.

ironqcold 7d ago

Google is increasingly locking down Android. I wouldn't be surprised if they killed off AOSP entirely in a few years...

palata 7d ago

Google managing to get worse every day.

claudiojulio 7d ago

Forget Android. The future is Plasma Mobile.

d3Xt3r 7d ago
Agreed. Linux is the future, fk Android. GrapheneOS should stop wasting their efforts on Android, when they could've contributed towards PostmarketOS or similar, or even made their own distro. Working on Android is a complete and utter waste of time and effort.
- microtonal 7d ago
  Yes, let's abandon a very mature OS that is still open source, has millions of apps, and billions of users by one one that was designed for desktops, with a security posture fitting the 90s, virtually no phone apps unless you emulate said very mature OS, and which will have all the same problems with remote attestation, etc. </s>
  - d3Xt3r 7d ago
    Yes, I'm sure the billions of people will read the advice of a random commentor on a niche site and throw away all their handsets running a "very mature OS" and cause a crisis. </s>
- well_ackshually 7d ago
  The future is an inappropriate OS with catastrophic battery management, zero software available, no sandboxing or proper security measures, and the oh so stable kernel ABI & Gnome APIs to develop for, yep yep yep.
  - d3Xt3r 7d ago
    The future is an inappropriate OS which spies on you and harvests your data, gets more and more locked down with every release restricting user freedom, and prioritises corporate interests over end user interest, yep yep yep.

matheusmoreira 7d ago

I wonder how low Google will sink next time. Respect for the GrapheneOS for pushing through regardless, even if they have to reverse engineer stuff. Can't wait to buy their phone.

zb3 7d ago
> I wonder how low Google will sink next time. Oh, the possibilities are endless and they're just getting started. Besides stopping releases of AOSP completely they could also mandate that any "certified" Android device should not allow bootloader unlocking (albeit OEMs will disallow that anyway)..
dingaling 7d ago
> Can't wait to buy their phone. Good phrasing. It's certainly not _your_ phone, you're just an untrusted user who is extended the privilege of using it.
- matheusmoreira 7d ago
  Isn't GrapheneOS rootable?
- skorp01 7d ago
  It absolutely is. You can fork GrapheneOS, modify it, and sign the images with your own key; all to your heart's content. Exposing root to userspace does not make you the owner of it, and serves to erode the guarantee that the OS is enforcing the rules you set. The way it is used is a hacky shortcut to achieving functionality that should be written into the OS itself so that the security model can be maintained.

jokoon 7d ago

I mean, even if android is/was open source, it was always fastidious to build a de-googled android image for a phone model. Of course it's not great for their business model. Not to mention, no more trustworthy app distribution. I don't see the EU really being able to forcing them to de-google android phones. I am also curious how much those phones would cost, BTW, since the cost calculation to release such an OS would be a bit complicated.

izacus 7d ago
EU was very clear that closing down the OS (Apple) is how they avoid fines with their latest rulings. They punished Google for open sourcing the OS and left Apple get away free with explicit explanation that closed OS doesn't need to adhere to same rules. So yeah, don't expect EU to defend you here.

jauntywundrkind 7d ago

Worth reminding folks that the EU DMA Act is forcing Google to start unlocking some of their APIs, such as the AI services AI. Right now a bunch of the apis for digital assistants/chat stuff are kind of proprietary, and this is demanding interoperation. August 1, 2027 is the deadline for most of this (but open access to hotword listening capabilities is slated for Aug 1, 2028). https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/interoperability/alphabet-specification-proceedings-interoperability-ai-services_en?prefLang=hu https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/in... Side note, that API here is HID. USB HID is so cool. There's so much stuff in this spec! Chargers and batteries can both communicate all kinds of status, which, well, afaik no one does, there's all kinds of sensors. It's this ancient spec that has so much, and weirdly is just so far ahead of where we are. More HID on Android will be great. Wish they'd played with others to make this so though!

seb1204 7d ago
Hm, I have little interest in Google's AI API and more in a streamlined flow of security updates and not an obscure prolonged waiting time.

HumblyTossed 7d ago

GrapheneOS scares them.

dingaling 7d ago
There are about 3.9 billion Android phones currently in use globally. I don't think a niche fork with 0.00025 billion users will worry them.
- HumblyTossed 7d ago
  k

QuantumGood 7d ago

AOSP = "Android Open Source Project"

publlus_enigma 7d ago

As someone who went through similar challenges with Google making it impossibly hard for BlackBerry to provide an Android runtime on BBOS10, and now running GrapheneOS, I trust Google exactly zero to do the right thing by any open source project it stewards. Combined with their other practices, and lack of ongoing support for their commercial offerings, means that my perception of them is irreparably damaged and I minimise my usage of their products as much as practicably possible.

GranPC 7d ago
Did you work on BB10?
- publlus_enigma 6d ago
  No, I was a lowly consumer who still laments the demise of BB10. It was one of the best mobile operating systems I have ever used. Fast, stable, with a refined UI that prioritised efficiency.

charcircuit 7d ago

Thank god that AI is progressing well enough that agents can figure out most of the changes and do the reverse engineering to get this stuff, but it's introducing a lot of inefficiency to the ecosystem that doesn't change the final outcome.

DrewADesign 7d ago

Look at that dev productivity go! The continually softening job market means c-suites everywhere care less than ever about their company’s image among developers. They’re surely thrilled to stop pretending to give a shit about anything beyond the next few quarters’ stock prices and their bonuses.

rustcleaner 7d ago

Android is irrelevant to me, there is only GrapheneOS. Go bankrupt, Alphabet!

fithisux 7d ago
They have partnerships with almost everyone. That is why they can win. Still I am mostly interested about GrapheneOS or a RaspberryPi5 with an Android 17 build. But they seem to even own the RAM market.

Ritewut 7d ago

I would love to know what alternative phone OSes exist. I would happily throw money and my engineering weight behind a promising project.

jeroenhd 7d ago
Sailfish has a Linux-based OS with some Android compatibility. Ubuntu Touch has left behind UBPorts which uses Android's hardware layer to provide a usable UI on existing Android devices. There's the Librem phone with an open source stack, though its hardware doesn't come close to a cheap Android phone these days. There are projects like PostmarketOS which work to get mainline Linux on phones. From there, you can run Linux on phones through desktop environments such as Phosh and Plasma Mobile which are touch optimized. FirefoxOS died but was forked into KaiOS, though the modern iteration of KaiOS is an Android fork. Samsung has TizenOS but I don't think any phones run it anymore. It's probably the closest equivalent to Android in the way it has been developed. If you want to throw money at something, Sailfish may be the project to keep an eye on. All the other volunteer-run operating systems are worth donating to, of course, but Sailfish is actually trying to be a real third option rather than an open source proof of concept or alternative for shitty vendors stopping updates.
- Andrex 6d ago
  > There are projects like PostmarketOS which work to get mainline Linux on phones. From there, you can run Linux on phones through desktop environments such as Phosh and Plasma Mobile which are touch optimized. Gnome is undertaking some mobile work in-house (no need for a different DE like Phosh or Plasma). My ideal would be a "Fedora Mobile" spin (based on ARM Silverblue). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6vCWFleBHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6vCWFleBHk It's looking good! Wish this would get the momentum it deserves.
d3Xt3r 7d ago
Plenty. The ones you want to donate to are postmarketOS, Alpine Linux (the distro postmarketOS is based on) and Plasma Mobile (the main DE used by postmarketOS and other distros like Mobian). In terms of usability, SailfishOS is the most usable, but it has some proprietary components and is commercially backed by Jolla, so there's no need to donate to them. I do encourage you to buy their devices if you can though. Speaking of devices, Furilabs and Volla also make practical, decent spec Linux phones (based on Debian and Ubuntu Touch), so they're worth checking out as well.

hacker_homie 7d ago

I'm so glad we stopped microsoft from shipping a browser with their OS in the 90s, <sarcasm/>. Regulate them! that is the only way. Their should be a path for an AOSP build to be just as privileged as a google signed build.

sixothree 7d ago
They just walked away from an antitrust case with what can only be considered a huge win for them. I don't think regulating them is going to happen any time soon.
NetMageSCW 7d ago
Not everything is antitrust and regulation is always the worst choice.
- Andrex 6d ago
  Sometimes market forces fail and it becomes the only choice.

fithisux 7d ago

Google is a for profit company. It does what it needs to stay profitable. Are the actions of Google moral? No! Governments are paid out to not intervene. They should have stepped in decades ago. They should have made Google to release source code and interoperate with public services. They already make profit from their services.

soleil-colza 7d ago

Feels like the "Pixel = reference implementation of AOSP" relationship is starting to erode.

TiredOfLife 7d ago
Pixel never was a reference aosp. You are thinkin of nexus.

escanor 7d ago

[flagged]

chrismartin 7d ago
Which "other, shady (imo)" interests? This feels like innuendo. Just say what you think actually motivates them.
- escanor 7d ago
  [flagged]
  - ysnp 7d ago
    GrapheneOS have discussed and explored replacing Google Play/Google Mobile Services functionality with equivalent or open source replacements. See: eSIM management, location services, push notifications et cetera. What they have refused is bundling a privileged component (for full Google Services functionality/compatibility) and enabling signature spoofing support. GrapheneOS also heavily promote the use of open source Android apps. What they refuse is having app stores that reuse app package names, centralise the signing of app packages, perform reproducible builds on outdated infrastructure, significantly delay app updates et cetera. I cannot deny your opinion, but just want to suggest that from my understanding GrapheneOS are not against microG and F-Droid as concepts, just against their current implementations.
- TeMPOraL 7d ago
  [flagged]
Sent1n3l 7d ago
Says people should take a critical stance on GrapheneOS while providing no actual basis other than 'my feels' 'I've got a tingling' or 'my stomach made an unusual noise when I thought about it' as their position to smear it. If I was reading this critically I'd say you have an axe to grind and want to continue to show why HN is a useless source of news or content.

m4rtink 7d ago

Android really going for the gutter recently.

linzhangrun 7d ago

How surprising.

cton 7d ago

Out of curiosity, do closed APIs mean OEMs can’t fuck them up or at least limit how much they can?

grapheneos 7d ago
No, it means Pixels will have exclusive features in third party apps for 2 separate spans of 3 months every year.

VerifiedReports 7d ago

The fraud of Android just gets worse. The great "open-source" OS that was supposed to free us all from vendor and telco tyranny has... not.

solarkraft 7d ago

I jumped ship to iOS a few years ago. Android is a strictly worse experience on all accounts with clear ambitions to be just as unfree as iOS, so there is just no point.

tomaskafka 7d ago

Embrace, extend, extinguish, and old playbook.

tyrabound 7d ago

Ah, the classic con job is starting to close its cycle. Get who-knows-how-many-millions-of-dollars of free work and thought, and then when the free labor has finally elevated you above it and your power is overwhelming, you simply just crush the gullible peasants beneath you and act like they never existed. People thought they were part of some collaborative, good of the world type effort, when the reality is that there were always ulterior and hidden motives to manipulate and exploit that gullible and rather foolish nature of Americans in particular; a foolishness that has long, if not always existed in the genuine American core character, but at the very least was cultivated and even selected for a long time ago. How do you motivate people in modern times to do free labor for you as the parasitic ruling class without the threat or resort to violence? You of course trick them into believing that what they are doing or support makes them a good boy, regardless of all the evidence and proof to the contrary.

LelouBil 7d ago

Still waiting on the Motorolas with grapheneOS support to ditch my 7 years old phone.

teekert 7d ago
Will be somewhere in 2027 afaik.
Peacefulz 5d ago
I'm hopeful for the Motorola partnership, as well. I'm following grapheneOS wherever it ends up.

pino83 7d ago

The next cat and mouse game you are going to lose.

saidnooneever 7d ago

its kind of amusing in a wag degoggling requires pretty much a phone from google :') by the comments on those post. bit unrelated to this post ofc but thought and wondered if they do that on purpose and how far these devices really get reverse engineered to see if they are actually de-googled down to the chips. just having a different OS doesnt have to mean anything in that regard if the entire device is owned by them -_-. especially since its radio and thats not too easy to determine if a device is or isnt sending weird stuff. (dont come with the lte or wifi sniffers or such things. u'd need thorough spectrum analysis during operations on a quite broad spectrum too to rule that out. the antennae in the devices can produce a lot of types of signals... or do they decap the chips and reverse those to see whats in it? i doubt it would be possible at the right scale but theres options i guess. people in certain regions/ high assurance security work roles will do this to hundreds of devices that are identical to try and determine if a supplier is compromised or not. order a full batch, take em all apart. taking x-rays, dissolving chips package, etching layers one by one, taking pictures with electron microscopes etc, probing bond wires in the packages as they run etc etc. somehow i dont see some OS creator do all of this, but ofc i could be very wrong :). interested to find out why people think google while with a different OS is truly de-googled or if they kinda just hope for the best...

skorp01 7d ago
There is a nice little post here from one of the GrapheneOS project members/moderators. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/10150-not-your-average-why-pixel-thread/7 https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/10150-not-your-average-why-... the tl;dr: - There has never been any evidence found of any hardware backdoors in Pixel devices. - Those would be quickly noticed. - Those are poor and inefficient methods for any sort of data collection. To answer your question they are not "just hoping for the best".

TeMPOraL 7d ago

Graphene OS is the odd one, I don't know what to make of it. It seems to be the only entrant in the mobile OS space that has a remote chance to work as alternative OS for daily use - but it's optimizing directly for the philosophy opposite to what I hoped it would be, I.e. it's focusing on privacy and security. Which AIUI means also securing the device against its owner, much like the big players do. I hoped we'll get an OS more amenable to opening up the device, exposing its capabilities to the owner, but alas, I fear there is no way for an OS to survive in this space unless it acts the same way the Big Two do. As it is, I can't help to think that Graphene is just the same as Google and Apple: just another security-maximizing vendor owning your computer.

skorp01 7d ago
You are expecting and hoping that it will act the same as desktop environments do. Desktop environments can't/don't because there is an inherent expectation of users that they should work a certain way and they are built upon decades of neglectful security practices. Mobile OSes are the attempt to change that and provide better security models from the ground up. AOSP being open-source is what gives you the actual control to modify your platform as you see fit, not having runtime root access exposed to the user. The idea of "control" that you are describing is illusory and only serves to actually undermine your real control. If you expose root access in that way, you have a much lower guarantee that the rules and permissions that you set are going to be able to be enforced by the system, because you have allowed the system to be modified. If something malicious gains that access, you have lost that guarantee.
- TeMPOraL 6d ago
  > You are expecting and hoping that it will act the same as desktop environments do. Pretty much. > Desktop environments can't/don't because there is an inherent expectation of users that they should work a certain way Yes, and many of those expectations are exactly how computers are supposed to behave in general. > and they are built upon decades of neglectful security practices. That is true, but: > Mobile OSes are the attempt to change that and provide better security models from the ground up I strongly disagree with unqualified "better" here. Better for whom is what matters, and mobile OSes are security-maxxing in the direction that's - IMO - bad for users. They're optimizing for market ecosystem. > AOSP being open-source is what gives you the actual control to modify your platform as you see fit, not having runtime root access exposed to the user. That I vehemently disagree with, in two dimensions: - Open-source as panacea to everything is a bullshit belief techies overindex on. OSS has long been defeated, SaaS killed it. Whether code is open source or not is immaterial, what matters whether this particular code executing on this particular machine I use is open to me, which is not - and I can't even guarantee it's the same code that's supposedly "open" on some repository somewhere. - "having runtime root access exposed to the user" is precisely what freedom of computing means. That is the one thing that matters. > If you expose root access in that way, you have a much lower guarantee that the rules and permissions that you set are going to be able to be enforced by the system, because you have allowed the system to be modified. If something malicious gains that access, you have lost that guarantee. Wrong. I have a much higher guarantee, because the alternative is that I cannot set any rules at all. Per basic math, "very little" is still greater than 0.

jauntywundrkind 7d ago

Oh! These are HID! I wonder if this is for Pixel, or if this is something they had to shoehorn in fast to make Chromebooks work?

varispeed 7d ago

At this point there is no point buying into Android if it becomes the same walled garden as iOS.

cromka 7d ago

I don't get why this is a discussion around Open Source, they also seem to have f*caked over other OEMs? Can't imagine Samsung will be OK with it.

mahboi 7d ago
Samsung would be hypocritical to complain about proprietary extensions to Android.

deleted 7d ago

[deleted]

mahboi 7d ago

This news in particular seems similar to the other Android phonemakers like Samsung. They have their own custom Android forks that aren't open source. Maybe Google is wearing two hats here, Android and Pixel? But if Pixels are getting early access to security patches too, that's more like one hat.

julio2445 7d ago

Jsjsjsksk

jonesn11 7d ago

Android 17 is swagged out lol

bithammerthunde 7d ago

Google - be evil.

sharktheone 6d ago

Ouch, this seems so bad. Just another punch into AOSP and custom ROMs like GrapheneOS