HN Reader

Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models.

The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writable memory, you should be able to load your own program and manufacturer may not use technical measures to stop you. The goal of regulation would be preventing of creating digital waste, vendor locks and allow reusing the hardware.

Of course, features like theft prevention won't work, so the user should be able to waive this right.

No matter how this turns out, I'm sure GrapheneOS will make a smart effort. https://grapheneos.org/

But long-term, Android is such a massive code base, and was designed more for surveillance and consumption, than for privacy&security and the user's interests.

I think getting mainline Linux on viable and sustainable on multiple hardware devices is warmer, fuzzier foundation. (Sort of a cross between Purism's work on the Librem 5, and PostmarketOS's work on trying to get mainline Linux viable on something else.)

This is doubleplusungood. The war on General Purpose Computing is the death of innovation and a direct attack on digital freedom.

If you're in the US, UK or EU, please contact your government.

As I said in the other thread:

Australian users of alternative app stores should make a complaint to the ACCC: https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/contact-us-or-report-an-iss...

In the past, they forced Steam to implement proper refund policies, and they are currently suing Microsoft about the way subscribers were duped into paying more for "AI features" they didn't want.

Back in the 2007 or when it came out in Sweden I bought the iPhone and started developing for it. This was cool, new and exciting and it was fine as long as my company was paying the $100 fee every year. But then I switched jobs and worked at a company which produced mostly open source code. Suddenly I would have to pay $100 every year just to be able to put my own software on the phone ...

This is why I switched to Android, just for Google now to pull the rug from under my feet again ...

Oh, the irony. I still remember how in the early days of Android vs iOS discussions, the main point was "but it's OPEN!". The word "open" was used as a comma by Google people. It was The Thing. The Difference. Good vs Evil and all that.

Android has not been really open for a long time now.

- Many APIs have been moved to Google Play Services (which is not open source), and many apps have come to rely on them. You can emulate it partially but not fully, see second point below.

- Some features like device attestation / SafetyNet fail on non-"official" devices, for example many banking or government ID apps refuse to work on open source os like GrapheneOS

This feels similar to Sony and their OtherOS feature.[0]

Many people bought Android phones because of the open capability. Even if you don't use it, just knowing you have an out is important.

And now Google is "altering the terms".

[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS

I'm going to say something that probably will get me down votes:

Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open? Seriously. So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives.

A new platform needs to rise that breaks out completely from Google. I've given PostmarketOS a go (with a PinePhone) and while today I can't say it isn't a daily driver for everyone it is certainly the route that needs to be taken.

I'm still unable to use it because is not easy to break away from Android, but is a platform that I think about almost every day, because I do not want to use Android anymore and I'm willing to sacrifice certain aspects to have an open and friendly platform on my hands. And if it is not PostmarketOS then let it be another project.

We need these kind of projects, not kneeling down to a company like Google and begging for Android to be open. Effort needs to be put elsewhere. That's how major projects like Linux, BSDs and open source projects have flourished and taken the world.

JBQ redeemed: https://www.greenbot.com/jbq-is-quitting-aosp/ (yes, 2013)

I regret having wasted a good part of my career supporting Google with the Android enterprise. They had some very good (technically and intentionally) people there, but it all got thoroughly corrupted.

With hindsight the only thing that kept them remotely honest was the Andy Rubin vs Sundar Pichai turf war, which at the time manifested as Android vs Chrome. Once that had a decided winner it was a recipe for serious trouble.

The only viable way forward for an open mobile OS is to fork Android as is. This is the only way to carry over anything resembling existing app support or all the work that goes into making a mobile OS actually work up to the level users expect. i.e. cameras through to hardware media CODECs and total system stability.

While I understand the reasons behind this campaign, I have mixed feelings about it.

As an iPhone user, I find it frustrating that deploying my own app on my own device requires either reinstalling it every 7 days or paying $100 annually. Android doesn't have this limitation, which makes it simpler and more convenient for personal use.

However, when it comes to publishing apps to the store, I take a different view. In my opinion, stricter oversight is beneficial. To draw an analogy: NPM registry has experienced several supply chain attacks because anyone can easily publish a library. The Maven Central registry for Java libraries, by contrast, requires developers to own the DNS domain used as a namespace for their library. This additional requirement, along with a few extra security checks, has been largely effective in preventing—or at least significantly reducing—the supply chain attacks seen in the NPM ecosystem.

Given the growing threat of such attacks, we need to find ways to mitigate them. I hope that Google's new approach is motivated by security concerns rather than purely economic reasons.

It's a lost cause. We need to focus on pmOS: https://postmarketos.org/

With both Android and Chromium, we're ultimately at Google's mercy.

btw, does anyone know if Huawei is following along with this in their fork?

Between this and a growing number of oems not permitting bootloader unlocking (latest being Samsung with OneUI 8) Android's "open" future is pretty bleak.

A direct link to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority, in case you don't want to go via a blog post:

https://contact-the-cma.service.gov.uk/wizard/classify

It's very simple to submit a complaint.

It’s funny how the “Google doesn’t control it it’s open source” crowd has gotten very quiet as of late. See also chromium and manifest 3

Stallman was right.

The issue of android being open is not a developer issue. I do not mean, it does not affect developers, rather that the wrong that must be righted is to the user.

The F-droid article states: "You, the consumer, purchased your Android device believing in Google’s promise that it was an open computing platform and that you could run whatever software you choose on it. "

This is an actionable issue. I believe this is a legally reasonable issue. If you buy a car and then the car manufacturer changes the car so you can only buy gas from them, or parts, that is an offense.

If you accept that users are wronged by googles action, the problem is what can be done about it?

Wrongs committed by companies like Google, Apple, Amazon are difficult to fix because of failures in our legal system. The typical legal action is a class action suit. These typically result in large "settlements" with little real effect. Users get a notice that they are entitled to $40 but only if they jump through seven hoops. Lawyers on both sides make out like bandits. The offenders have little incentive not to be repeat offenders, just not to get caught again. This is an acceptable risk for corporations and so does not act as a deterrent.

There are states Attorney Generals who can file anti-trust actions. The US government (ha ha) could file an anti-trust action. In my opinion neither of these are likely. And even if it happens, it will take years. And years.

A problem with these two legal solutions is that they rely on someone else. The result is that users are victims. We are all used to that by now.

Since we, as android users, are legally entitled to compensation - is there another way to take a legal action.

In most states the limits on small claims actions is between $3000 and $10,000. Well above the cost of an android phone. If there is one class action legal suit against google they can easily spend the money to defend it. And the time. They have the resources to do this.

However, what would happen if 1000 people filed small claims action, asking for a refund for the cost of their phone? Google is declaring war on users. They have their big legal tanks. Small claims are the equivalent of drones in the legal world.

We have the internet. We have AI. Can we generate reasonable and fair legal small claims court filings for each of the 50 states and put them online to help people.

We, the people, have learned helplessness. We need to learn something else or resign ourselves to simply being fodder for predatory actions by corporations.

Does it also mean that developers in "bad" countries will not be able to create installable Android apps?

> please big corpo overlord do not do what is most profitable for you, pretty pretty please please

This is likely the result of one of the most idiotic and bad rulings to come out of recent tech lawsuits. It's so painfully brain damaged and yet somehow has seemed to largely fly under the radar.

Google was found to have a monopoly on android with the play store (even though you can side load other stores), Apple was found to not have a monopoly with the app store.

OK. But that is not the really bad part, the really bad part came from the appellate court this past July. Google pointed out that the Apple app store was ruled not a monopoly, but somehow Google's more open system was..

The judge, I am not shitting you, said that because Apple doesn't allow competitors on their phones, they cannot be anti-competitive. Google lost the appeal.

So now, clear as day, Google needs to kick out competition to be competitive. Good job legal system.

I wish¹ the page would also raise awareness for all the other stuff that's been going on w.r.t. Google & Android recently:

- AOSP is no longer developed in the open (if it ever was) – source releases & security patches have been severely delayed lately.

- Pixel devices will no longer be the reference devices for AOSP, and it seems Google will no longer release their device trees in the future. In addition, Google could also lock down the Pixel's boot loader and thereby prevent installation of custom ROMs.

¹) Of course focus is important, so I get why they kept the page short & sweet. Besides, while the side-loading topic is an issue that might be interpreted as anti-competitive and that institutions like the EU might be able to do something about, with the other issues it's not as clear-cut, I think.

You can't even develop without the paid dev account? I thought it'd just be for distribution. Like, you can build and run whatever you want on an iPhone without a paid account.

I wonder if it's possible for a consortium led by major phone manufacturers to "libreoffice" Android away from Google's control.

Android (to a lesser extend iOS) has become deeply embedded in the infrastructure of modern society. It is essentially a public utility and should be managed as such.

Whats also an issue is that Android seemingly has stopped publishing the source code for Android (AOSP). Android 16 QPR1 has been out for months but still no source code released.

I don't understand the Google's move. Google uses Android as a platform to collect virtually everyone's personal info and build the profile to benefit its ad business. If there is an extremely tiny chance that people (or a sizble population) may walk away from the platform, it's not worth the risk.

Has anyone seen Andy Rubin publicly comment on Google's stewardship of Android? I wonder what he thinks about his creation and the way its evolving.

never been a better time to donate to postmarket os, mobian or friends.

Google got a minor slap on the wrist for their last antitrust case so now they know they're invincible and can get away with anything.

A year ago I built a React Native Android app for my wife called "Pimp daddy", which she uses to track her earnings as an independent contractor.

The whole concept is meant to poke fun at the idea of me "checking up on her" (I file her tax returns) and the entire theme is 80s pimp styled.

Every time she submits something, she'll get a random pimp remark, like "Go get that money for me, girl!". She just rolls her eyes and ignores it, but it's what made it fun for me to work on it.

Edgy stuff like that could jeopardize my account in the near future. It might just be security now, but an automated "naughty words detector" will be an obvious next step.

I doubt I will invest any more time in hobby app development if I have to deal with some humorless overbearing watchdog telling me what I can and cannot install on my own device. Very sad to see Android following Microsofts anti power user direction.

I've only been interested in Android phones particularly Pixels because I can just flash another OS and do whatever but if Google goes through with this I might consider iphones this time

Are there any alternative mobile OSes actively developed? I remember Ubuntu Touch was the thing and something from Firefox, but not sure if they are continued?

This site is blocked by the UK National Cyber Security Centre via CloudFlare:

>This site may be associated with malicious activity or malware. Access to this site has been blocked by the Protective DNS Service Site: keepandroidopen.org Please contact your local Network Administrator or IT support if you require further assistance

It's disturbing enough that many gadgets these days only stay usable as long as their cloud backend stays working.

But many more gadgets, while not cloud dependent, depend on an app. Think about any number of remote-controlled toys where the remote control is a phone app. Think, for example, about very expensive bicycle derailer systems that can only be configured via app.

Already I've found very neat objects whose app has long faded from the app stores, but for Android at least, you can usually find a .apk and even ancient ones often still load and run. A recent example was that for an ancient parrot ar.drone that I got at a garage sale.

Since these gadgets and their apps precede this attestation thing, newer Android devices will no longer be able to run them. Then what? Keep an old Android device around and hope that it stays working as long as your expensive gadget?

Given the apple v epic ruling about in payment commision outside the app store, I don't understand this. I assume Google would get the same ruling if they tried what apple did, so why bother with walling off if you can't get paid?

At least with 3p app stores they could have Gpay if the app developer wanted to, but now they will be pissed and can't build a 3p app anyway since users can't install it via 3p app stores.

I think the main ask should not be limited to android/ios but similarly to the rules and regs of previous decades around agressive interop and standardisation. Asks for piecemeal carveouts whenever a monopoliist tightens the noose allows the can to be kicked downn the road when the outrage has subsided and allows for entrenchment of the status quo by stealth. Chipping away until the stated goal is reached. Just like the car/gas monopolies were not alowed to get away with locking users into their own cartels - similar efforts should (but probably wont) be taken to preserve the ability of users to do with their devices as they see fit.

If you leave under a dictatorship you definitely don't want to reveal your identity to develop and distribute an app that fights the government.

Please, just give users the ability to say whether they want this "extra safety" control on. (If it even is extra safety, but whatever.)

If they don't, they can sideload, and use F-Droid, and etc.

And then we can debate whether it should be default on, or default off, and how hard it should be to turn off.

Remember when Apple removed the signature of the dev of iTorrent, distributed via an 'alternative' app store?

Exactly the same.

GAFAM are controlling what you can and cannot install on your computer.

It's time for a broader law that goes beyond what is in the DMA (bootloader, OS, etc...).

Every company is open when they gain from it and closed when they gain from it. The idea of free general computing needs a different sponsor. Like a country or regulations. I don’t think open source projects and private companies can defend this idea adequately.

It is a story I heard way too often. Big Tech creates something which is so convenient, you don't want to miss it. Then Big Tech breaks that something, makes it more expensive or uses any other means of rent-seeking just pissing of its customers. We as consumers are by far the biggest lobbying-group, but nobody really gives an f. I'm trying my way with /e/OS but thats not for everybody. It also shows me how deeply dependencies on google services are woven into the whole ecosystem - even on open source apps.

The idea of offering something for free then later deliberately restricting and or reducing its scope after securing enough takers to maximize benefits and advantages for those making the offer ought to be unlawful as they are knowingly and deliberately manipulating human nature. Those who accept such seemingly appealing offers often end up disadvantaged or harmed. And here with Google's latest Android edict we have yet another instance.

Manipulation and deception tactics are particularly relevant in internet age and they are Big Tech's standard modus operandi because its found them to be such financially successful business models. Laws need to enacted to prevent such exploitation as it is unreasonable and unacceptable for the psyche/reasoning of ordinary citizens to be pitched against such psychological might.

As so often happens with such authoritarian and manipulative dictates, this Google edict comes wrapped in the usual paltry excuse of security. Even Blind Freddy knows this excuse to be bullshit and that the real beneficiary is Google. The time has come for Android to be decoupled completely from Google.

It's tragic that despite a monopolistic finding against Google the Law didn't recognize the fact.

These things simply do not work. Things that work: legislation (when enforced); lawsuits (when successful and very costly to the company); physical violence of course; people collectively refusing to buy the product because now it has zero advantage over Apple or because someone comes out with a new better competitor; forced interoperability via reverse engineering.

The nice thing about laws in the EU is: if Google locks it down, like iOS, we just enforce that it needs to be more open again.

But for iOS, that did not work well so far, as I have zero apps installed via AltStore PAL (iOS), yet some apps via F-Droid (Android).

I just bought a fairphone6 hoping this phone would last me a decade with security patches and lineageos support. Naively I was assuming Google would keep Android open for that period. Now I might as well switch to Apple so I'm in sync with the rest of my family. Ugh.

I've got my Linux smartphone running and ready to go. VWYF, folks. I'll take shitty software and poor battery life over digital authoritarianism every single time.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

What's the best resource to keep track of all efforts to make open source phone OSes?

I'm looking for a new phone and it's tough with the current state of things.

Also about contacting your government, what's the best approach? I'm in EU.

I love this and I'll support it, but I know that in the end it won't make a difference. Consumers decided they only wanted 2 choices, and these are the consequences.

Let's not forget Google was legally forced to open up distribution to alternative app stores and direct downloads. This gives them some baseline security/accountability that applies to even side-loaded apps.

How about linuxonphone.org and just dump all your financial/auth related apps to an old Android phone?

Actually, better, dumbphone.org and dump all financial/auth/chat apps to an old Android phone that costs some $200.

Kill it so we get a chance to see a new competitor.

This battle was lost a looong time ago. The effort it takes to keep up with all the shenanigans of Google and that play store is way worse than these new changes.

in https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-... install an app via adb is not affected, seems that means the wrapper software of adb will prosper.

I think this might be an opportunity for runner-up mobile hardware manufacturers to build their models so alternate OSes can be loaded.

What makes me depressed the most is that Google made this decision knowing full well how much pushback they are going to receive.

And still.

Perhaps Android could run sideloaded apps in a container. I know Android apps are already somewhat contained by userid.

We need hardware. Why aren't there 5G RF modules that connect via some standard interface like PCIe?

top comment seems to be on point, it's time for more of a focus on linux mobile (or mobile linux)... this has been known to be needed for years and some progress has been made on it and more can be made with more people getting involved (postmarketos, mobian, ubuntu touch, etc.)

Keep Android open.

Google is evil. Every single one on here arguing "but muh security improves" is against freedom of computing, plain and simple. There's no middle ground.

Google & others have slowly turned down the freedom dial over the years and we let it happen. People working for Google let it happen. I'm not aware of any inside movement protesting this like they protested against various social issues.

Security that you can't turn off is basically a prison.

Seriously, is this launched by Google to keep people from doing something real? Kindergarten...

It's finally the time for Sailfish OS / Linux Smartphone OSes!

You should have all embrace Windows Phone with all of its early issues.

The play store ID process is ridiculous, their AI is making up BS why it wouldn't let your documents pass, clearly no human in the loop.

In the EU we can report this to: comp-market-information@ec.europa.eu

State that: Google is abusing its dominant position on the market for Android-app distribution by “denial of access to an essential facility”. Google is not complying with their "gatekeeper" DMA obligations (Article 5(4), Article 6(12), Article 11, Article 15)

Attach evidence.

Financial penalty is the only way to pressure this company to abide law.

Will this impact forks od AOSP? Like lineage os or graphene os?

Well I’m sure these comments will be rational and balanced…

Unfortunately the feedback period for the European Digital Fairness Act has been closed since October 24th. Does anyone know of another way to appeal to my European overlords^H representatives?

I've seen this website before haha

Don't be a jerk, if you sign this, you should sign "Make iOS Open" first

For what it is worth, I submitted a (totally, different, "handwritten", personal) complaint to the UK's CMA about this a few weeks ago, when it was first announced.

I received _the_ most boilerplate "Thanks, bog off" response imaginable, which I presume is a good thing...

  Dear $NAME, 
  
  Thank you for your correspondence.
  
  We value people contacting us with information. This helps us to tackle anti-competitive behaviour and protect people and businesses from being disadvantaged by unfair practices.  
  
  What happens now?
  
  Our Digital Markets Team will now analyse your enquiry using our published prioritisation principles (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cma-prioritisation-principles). The Digital Markets Unit (DMU) will oversee a new regulatory regime, promoting greater competition and innovation in digital markets and protecting consumers and businesses from unfair practices.
   
  The CMA will continue to use its existing powers, where appropriate, to investigate harm to competition in digital markets. Please be aware that the CMA has no powers to take action or open a case on behalf of an individual customer or business (for example; to pursue compensation, refunds, or to intervene or adjudicate in disputes).
  
  We prioritise the cases that are most likely to make a real difference for people and the UK economy based on our available resources and the likelihood of a successful outcome.
  
  Can I get an update on my enquiry? 
  
  We are unable to give you an update on your enquiry.
  
  We find all enquiries useful to inform our current and future work. However, we offer no guarantee as to where or how your enquiry may be used.
  
  We do publish details of our cases on our website. You can subscribe to email alerts which will inform you when new information has been added.
  
  Will the CMA investigate my enquiry?
  
  We review all the enquiries that we receive. This helps us to understand:
  whether different industries in the UK economy are competitive
  if competition law is being broken
  if shoppers or businesses are being disadvantaged.
  
  Even if we don’t immediately investigate your enquiry, it may lead to us taking further action in the future.
  
  Do I need to do anything else?
  
  You do not need to do anything. If we need further information, we will contact you.
  
  Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
  
  Yours sincerely
   
  Carol Sampson (she/her) | Enquiries Admin Officer | Strategy, Communications and Advocacy | Competition and Markets Authority
  The Cabot | 25 Cabot Square | London | E14 4QZ

So, I naïvely think one way to push this higher up the priority list and get the UK's regulator to act at least would be to look at those prioritisation principles and make the point that it falls high up them. One of them is "The CMA’s work should ensure that competitive markets provide choice and variety and drive lower prices"; another is "the CMA’s actions should empower competitive, fair-dealing businesses to compete, including by addressing the behaviour of a small minority of businesses that try to harm consumers, restrict competition, or prevent markets from functioning properly".

It's pretty clear to me that Google's direction won't be going down this route, and in many ways I wish I knew about these before submitting my complaint. If you're reading this in the UK, consider looking at those guidance points and hamming home explicitly how this move by Google breaks those points – which, frankly, it clearly does (it is going to reduce choice and variety; it is also explicitly restricting competition and harming consumers!)

The European Commission public consultation is closed. Maybe that would be worth adding a note.

EDIT: apologies I misunderstood that this is limiting third-party distribution. I am of course, in favour of this.

Original comment:

I don't want this. The App Store on iOS has its flaws, but it's a curated system that has a lot of checks in place to prevent malware. I have never felt unsafe on iOS and it's the primary reason I've not joined Android and the Play Store's wild west.

I wonder if filing a complaint at the FTC is a waste of time due to the current government shutdown?

Google is killing Android. Along with the side-loading changes, I'm losing the desire to keep using it, as it's no longer an open OS.

What's the point of those changes? Does Google want to maintain its revenue from Play Store? Feels like a bad long-term decision, especially when Apple is releasing excellent phones.

If people working for Google had a conscience, they would be working to break the system from within. At this point it's leaving the confines of anti-consumerism and entering into a gray area of basic human rights abuse. It's clearly a cartel market with the other big players (Apple and others to a lesser extend) that needed to be broken 10 years ago(if it were possible).

It reminds me a bit of the book "The Constant Soldier", depicting Auschwitz guards and staff enjoying their carefree holiday at a nearby lake resort, before going back to burning people. Might seem like hyperbole, but I think we're rushing towards an ugly plutocracy.

Related question, is Modern Android as good if not better than iOS? Or does iOS still have an edge?

Considering that Google has stated their intent that Chrome OS and Android are moving toward a single unified platform, they will essentially be fucking up the laptop/desktop market as well.

The only remaining good thing about Google is their Project Zero. They have become the same shit as every greedy company.

It's time for a new non-Google OS frankly. Not sure if HarmonyOS would be the one, but I don't see a lot of Mobile OS development going on anymore

I've been using Android phones since the OG Droid (2009) because I could install software on it. My next phone will be an iPhone if this doesn't change.

This is worst thing ever happened to humankind.

that's cool and all, but I would just like to sign the letter from a form on the same page instead of having to email someone

If you care about it, then buy Android phones that will support sideloading. Financially reward companies that are doing what you want.

99% of malware with real world consequences of people losing much or all of their money is from unverified developers.

This is a step in the right direction to keep people safe in my opinion. Most people around the world don’t understand the risks.

Just installed Lineage OS 23 (androind 16) on my Motorola g84. Works like a charm. Banking apps work. Do I need to say fuck google? Like it's not obvious?

reminder that stallman was cancelled from the eff with adhominem attacks. and we are back to calling free software (which would prevent things like the article) as Open-Source (which ia just donations to google and meta)

The discussion between open-source and closed-source is essentially a discussion between communism and capitalism.

Anything that reaches a certain threshold of value to society and requires enormous effort to build and maintain has to fall back to a capitalist, for-profit, closed-source structure. That's all that's happening here.

Of course, small stuff like a software library that doesn't require much effort to build and doesn't provide much value can remain open-source. I personally think this obsession with open-source software is simply an obsession with communism and getting things for free, and not wanting getting rewarded for the value of the stuff you build, etc.