Google has been trying to make Android proprietary for a few years now, and that’s not news, as many AOSP default apps have been abandoned over time in favor of proprietary Google ones. This was never a huge problem for me, as you can still use those apps without network access or use open source alternatives like Fossify on a custom ROM.
However, the situation is quickly getting worse, now that Google is actively trying to prevent the development of custom ROMs and taking a page from Apple’s book by forcing developers to beg them for permission to release apps on the Android platform, even outside of the Play Store - giving Google full control.
Is there still any hope left for privacy respecting Android ROMs? What do you think will happen next? And what would be your suggestions for those looking for a phone in 2025?
If you have a different perspective on the situation, also please comment below!
I mean it can be both? Android has been awesome for many years precisely because it was open source. It’s the reason we have had and continue to have so many custom ROMs. It was open source so it could be run by Samsung, Motorola, LG, etc. while Google collected all the data. It also meant that independent developers could create their own OSs without any of Google’s BS in it. And that was fine, because us nerds are not even 1% of the market. But something seems to have changed because they’re very suddenly clawing back control of the entire OS. Pretty much the beginning of the end for private mobile devices. This trend is likely to continue faster than the community can create workarounds.
The open source thing is largely a myth, though. AOSP is what’s open source. The version of Android on Pixel phones and Nexus before them was forked from that and bundles a lot of closed source stuff, like Google Play Services, Gmail, and more. But it’s close enough to AOSP that devs can target it and it should run on most/all Android forks.
So then Samsung and others take AOSP and they fork it and make their own OS that is based on Android. They are required per licensing to use Android branding if they want Play Store access. There are other rules, like Chrome and/or Google has to be on the main launcher page, Play Services has to be included… if they don’t play by the rules, they can still fork Android, they just can’t use the name Android… like Fire OS and Switch OS. (It’s unclear if modern Switches use any Android code. Before they were released they were rumored to have forked Android. Switches absolutely do not run Android apps, but the OS borrows several cues from Android design language.)
You say it’s a myth, then say it’s not a myth. Which one is it? Is it open source or not?
AOSP and production versions of Android (what’s on the Pixel) are not the same thing.
Yes, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.
Wait, it being open source should have no effect on this? It could just as easily be closed source as long as Google offered licenses for manufacturers to use it.
Offering licenses means they could take back their permissions at any time.
OEMs want open source for the same reasons as everyone else.
OK, but Google essentially still has that power, despite the OS being “open-source”.
That has nothing to do with Google, that has to do with the US government.
How does it have nothing to do with Google, if Google did it, even if it was by order of the US government? Regardless, this still clearly demonstrates that AOSP being open-source has no bearing on an OEM being able to use the full Android system or even the name “Android”.
Contrast that with a fully open system like Linux, where this wouldn’t be possible. No OEM would get banned from using Linux, even if the US government ordered it.
Because Google has zero control over it. You’re REALLY reaching here…
We seem to be having a communication problem. I was originally addressing this specific statement:
Those OEMs could run Android and let Google collect all the data regardless of whether it were open-sourced or licensed, and the Huawei case demonstrated that “Android” is licensed. It’s only AOSP minus Google services that is open-sourced. I don’t understand what’s so controversial about what I’m saying.
We are not having a communication problem. We have a failure to understand. If you want to challenge the entire definition of open source, that’s not something that I’m going to entertain. You can take that up with OSI. Every other open source project is susceptible to the same legal shitfuckery.
These are not the same. And it’s preposterous to suggest such a thing. It’s like saying licensing movies from Amazon is the same as owning them. The implications are completely different.
Again, only as much as every other open source project is “licensed”, as in it’s susceptible to legal regulation.