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!

  • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    Offering licenses means they could take back their permissions at any time.

    OEMs want open source for the same reasons as everyone else.

        • Cricket [he/him]@lemmy.zipEnglish
          0·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
            0·
            2 days ago

            How does it have nothing to do with Google, if Google did it, even if it was by order of the US government?

            Because Google has zero control over it. You’re REALLY reaching here…

            • Cricket [he/him]@lemmy.zipEnglish
              0·
              2 days ago

              We seem to be having a communication problem. I was originally addressing this specific statement:

              It was open source so it could be run by Samsung, Motorola, LG, etc. while Google collected all the data.

              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.

              • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
                0·
                2 days ago

                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.

                regardless of whether it were open-sourced or licensed

                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.

                and the Huawei case demonstrated that “Android” is licensed

                Again, only as much as every other open source project is “licensed”, as in it’s susceptible to legal regulation.

                • Cricket [he/him]@lemmy.zipEnglish
                  0·
                  1 day ago

                  It’s either failure to understand or you’re intentionally twisting my words. I’m not challenging the definition of open source and I’m not claiming open source and proprietary software is the same.

                  Let me restate and clarify what I’m saying:

                  • For giant corporate OEMs like you listed, all else being equal, it makes not much difference to them in their choice to use Android on their phones whether Android is open source or proprietary. The only significant difference between the two is that open source allows them to further customize and perhaps contribute back to the OS source, if they desire to do so. If Android were proprietary and had the same market and lack of fees (or even reasonable fees to allow them to still be profitable), they would still use it.
                  • The complete Android system has a unique vulnerability to attacks like the one on Huawei (compared to another open source OS like Linux), because of its deep dependence on Google’s (proprietary) play services and mobile services. The Huawei case illustrated that GPS and GMS are proprietary, are licensed, the licenses can be pulled, and Android is pretty useless to a giant corporate OEM without those two proprietary components. That’s why I’m sometimes using “open source” in quotes, because Android being open source is only useful to an OEM as long as they agree to Google’s GPS/GMS licensing.

                  I hope you understand my points now. If you still want to argue either of them, I think we’ve reached a dead end.

                  • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
                    0·
                    1 day ago

                    I’m not challenging the definition of open source

                    Yes you are. You are claiming that open source and “licensed” are the same thing, because the government can get involved and take away someone’s right to open source.

                    The Huawei case illustrated that GPS and GMS are proprietary, are licensed, the licenses can be pulled

                    GPS and GMS are not components of AOSP. They are proprietary Google apps.

                    and Android is pretty useless to a giant corporate OEM without those two proprietary components

                    1. It doesn’t matter if it’s useless or not, because it’s not part of Android

                    2. Its obviously not useless because Huawei continued using using Android, minus GPS and GMS, as does Amazon.