[liendolucas]

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.

[TeMPOraL]

Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...).

Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing.

It's not that a new mobile platform couldn't possibly succeed. It's an open platform that cannot, because aforementioned players don't want it, and without them, mobile devices lose 90%+ of their usefulness, dooming them to become mere gadgets instead of (crappy, toylike) tools for everyday use.

[state_less]

Back in '99 Linux didn't run Excel/Word/Powerpoint or most games, but I ran it anyway. What others call showstoppers are for me inconveniences.

I have a motorolla edge 2024 that I'll load whatever open source phone OS will work well enough to place calls and browse the web. I'll keep another phone for the rare times some corporate/government overlord requires it. Many folks who refuse to use smartphones, similarly own a smartphone they rarely use for systems that require them.

My recommendation is to put as little time and energy into closed, locked down platforms as you can. Feel free to complain, but don't forget you can make choices.

[BeetleB]

This.

Most of us do not want to carry two phones around. The reality is that there is strong utility for those non-open apps and they will never be replaced by open ones.

In some parts of the world, WhatsApp is as necessary as the phone itself. Official business is conducted via it.

[liendolucas]

Webapps solve this completely. You login to a service as we have been doing forever. And the control is still on their side when you use a webapp. Almost every single app that is on my phone can be a webapp.

[t_mann]

Stupid question: couldn't we work around that with some VM/container-style solution? They could probably find ways to lock it down with TPM/TEE and similar, but in today's landscape it should be possible if you're willing to accept the performance and battery cost. And if it does get traction, there'll also be more push to keep open alternatives viable. Giving in without a fight is the only way to ensure you'll lose.

[txrx0000]

It's not that an open platform can't succeed, but rather people are accustomed to closed platforms, so more resources went into perfecting them. The aforementioned players pushing for control aren't invincible. Whether we can move to open platforms depends on the choices people make.

I can choose to use a bank that allows me to access all of their online banking features via the browser. I can choose to work for a company that doesn't want to surveil my personal device. I can deal with the government via snail mail, or in the browser. I can use third-party YouTube clients and torrent movies and games, or simply don't engage with DRM'd media because there's plenty of entertainment out there.

Count the percentage of software you use that are open-source compared to 10 years ago. I bet it's more. It's only a matter of time before we make hardware open-source, too.

When the mainstream is evil, being an outcast is the right thing to do. Every big change begins as a small movement.

[ulrikrasmussen]

This is why we need laws and regulation. And the most important thing we need is not governments forcing Android to be open, but laws requiring governments to not force their citizens to use locked down hardware.

My government, Denmark, is one of the most digitized societies in the world. While the government has allocated money to a committee to investigate how the country can become less dependent on American big tech corporations, at the same time they are planning on launching a mandatory age verification solution in 2026 where the only possibly anonymous way of verifying your age to access e.g. social media will be through a smartphone app running on either Google Android or Apple iOS. These nincompoops do not realize that this move will effectively put every open source alternative at a permanent and severe disadvantage, thus handing Apple and Google, which are already duopolies in the smartphone market, a huge moat that will lock out all future competitors form entering the market.

I have written to the relevant government agencies, and while they are nice enough to actually answer questions, their answers reveal that they act as if they are a commercial business and not a government agency that is supposed to act in the interest of the people and preserve their freedom. They argue that they are releasing a solution that will work for the vast majority of platforms and that they are continuously monitoring the market to assess whether they need to add support for other platforms. This is a cost-cutting measure which is maybe okay for a commercial entity targeting a specific market demographic, but it is an absurd way for a government to think.

Before the upcoming age verification we already had a national digital identity solution, MitID, which also comes as an app running on Android and iOS, and which is locked down to require strong integrity using Google Play Integrity. But at least here they also offer hardware tokens so people can use their digital identity without owning a smartphone and running an open source OS like Linux on their desktops. But with age verification this is apparently over, all the while the government is lying about actually making an effort to free us from American big tech - they are instead basically forcing us to be their customers now.

[EchoReflection]

I think, even though the ideas aren't "perfect"/"complete", Nietzche's "Will to Power" does a pretty good job of explaining "why" animals/ideologies/organizations/systems "unfold" the way they do. Everything (mostly) tries to protect/strengthen/replicate itself.(viruses being the most obvious example) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52915/52915-h/52915-h.htm

[utopiah]

Yes and to be honest it's not necessarily unjustified BUT it should ONLY be done when the parts, hardware, software, or both, are not linked to a single proprietary actor.

Need security before doing a $1000 transaction because everything so far was $10? Sure, ask for a physical token 2FA, NOT a YubiKey implementation.

Obviously though if I was working at Google or Apple and paid for the success of my company via incentives, e.g. stock, I would fight tooth and nail to let banks know that only MY solution is secure.

[drnick1]

> Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...).

The only real issue here is banks that don't offer an equivalent website or require the "app" as authentication factor. I couldn't care less about copyrighted media. It's only fair that I source my media from the high seas when the only options that respect their "rights" infringe my own right to run free software on my devices.

[Chipshuffle]

I wonder, if there were an open platform to exist that people use increasingly, maybe that would be incentive enough for at least one bank/financial app to permit that platform just to get a competitive advantage.

In the meantime probably the best that can be done is having a regular phone and a banking phone.

[1gn15]

Bank apps: Use an ATM, or a second phone. Enterprise apps: Use a second phone, preferably paid for by work. Government apps: Use a second phone, or refuse to use it (since there's likely elderly whom are not on board yet). Copyrighted media: Piracy.

[rodolphoarruda]

So the last possible community response is to bring back "responsive web apps"(tm) in the browser. And make sure a privacy first mobile web browser is installed.

[kuhsaft]

I would add that end-users are OK with this because they expect their devices to not be compromised when installing an app. The majority of users are OK with trusted computing and are OK with trusting Google, Apple, Microsoft because it’s easier to trust one of those companies than having to trust each app developer. In the end, you have to trust someone and it’s better if that someone can be held accountable by some legal system.

[CuriouslyC]

I'm fine with using bank/financial services/media via the web. Other stuff can be emulated.

Hopefully I'll never have to buy another closed phone.

[oytis]

Yeah, I would absolutely get rid of my smartphone if I could do banking and all the numerous authentication processes without it. While I sympathise with all the Linux phone projects, I just don't have a use case for a Linux phone.

[beanjuiceII]

relative of mine has t1d and they use their phone app to monitor and give insulin, also alarm them when they are low..trusting outside the reliability of apple and google for this type of stuff i imagine would be difficult.

[GuB-42]

This is the reason I have given up on thinking of smartphones as general purpose computers. I used to root my phone on day one, play with custom ROMs, etc...

But then, it became more and more annoying with apps blocking root access, features being unavailable to custom ROMs, etc... There are workarounds (is Magisk still a thing?), but I got tired of them.

So now, I just buy an entry level Samsung, which is well supported, runs all the apps I need (browser, financial, maps, chat, ...) and takes recognizable pictures. It is just a boring tool, like a credit card, I need one because that's the world we live in, but the object itself is of no importance.

If I want to play with a computer, I have a "real" computer. If, at some point, I get interested in smartphones as a platform, I will buy one just for this, in the same way that I have no intention of using the credit card I buy stuff with should I want to play with smartcards.

It has also killed my desire to spend money on a smartphone. What's the point of a $1000 device? What's to point of upgrading unless forced to by planned obsolescence? Why should I pay more than $200 every 5 year or so? They are all the same to me. They even all have the same form factor, besides overpriced and fragile foldables.

[marcosdumay]

IMO, we should be demanding more from the banks and governments, not that they keep android open.

We should demand that they support every platform. Or at least every platform that adopts some sandboxing model.

[SergeAx]

The web is an open platform, and most, if not all, aforementioned applications are happily working on the web.

[troyvit]

> Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing.

But they don't demand the same control over laptops and desktops. Only phones. Why is that? Granted I can't deposit a check with my laptop but I can do any other banking I wish to do.

So to me it's more that they see the chance to gain this control where they didn't see it before. Phone providers are only too happy to get on that bandwagon because they get to deploy all kinds of surveillance capitalism in the name of security ("hey the banks want it!").

Granted these freedoms are slowly leaching away from laptops and desktop too with stuff like TPM, so I don't know. I've about had it though.

[panta]

that's true only for as long as we allow that to be true. Users can live without Spotify (to cite just one representative of the mentioned categories), but Spotify can't live without users. We could (and should) stop behaving as powerless victims.

[zouhair]

This and also phone manufacturers lock us with Google.

[phendrenad2]

And yet I can open my bank's website on my Linux desktop, using Firefox. The "players" are not all-powerful, and defeatism serves no one.

[krzyk]

And yet Linux and to lesser extent Windows and even lesser macos exist. They don't have that excessive control and we still can use bank/financial goverment and (if we enable DRM) also copyrighted media webpages (and sometimes apps).

Aside from music/video there are no obstacles for other apps to exist in open system.

[viktorcode]

> Answer: bank/financial apps, enterprise apps, government apps and copyrighted media (music, video, games, books, ...). Those are the players that demand excessive control over end-user devices, and thus the ultimate driver behind the problem we're discussing.

Those work perfectly via a browser, on any platform where the browser can run. As long as a hypothetical open OS has a browser capable with bog standard modern capabilities, it will be fine

[smaudet]

> Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open? Seriously.

Because the market has failed, and we have a duopoly. There are many reasons for that, but, this is the exact sort of time a govt must step in - when something becomes a utility, it needs to be regulated as such.

I agree, I don't really want to enshrine Google/Apple into law, however if they are makers of an operating system that is used like a common utility, they should be regulated as such.

[ulrikrasmussen]

Unfortunately western governments are moving to impose more and more control over our digital life, and I think they see a locked down commercial platform as a convenient means to that end because they can regulate it. If the EU commission ever succeeds in passing Chat Control, which requires client side scanning on all devices, then it is very convenient for them if people do not use open source operating systems where they can just run clients that don't send data to a third party.

[zouhair]

Samsung can cut ties with Google if they want to, they have market share to go on their own.

[hedora]

Legislation is required at this point. Infrastructure companies (including finance and transportation) should be required to provide web apps that have feature parity with proprietary apps. (Enforcement is simple: ban distribution of the proprietary app for 5 years).

I think we going the other way though.

For instance, this recently proposed bipartisan bill would force all (even locally installed) AI apps to repeatedly run age checks on end users, and also adds $100,000 penalties each time the AI screws up when a minor is involved, even for bugs. I don’t see any safe harbor provisions, or carve outs for locally installed / open source / open weight projects, so it’d end up handing a monopoly to ~ 1 provider that’s too big to prosecute:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45741862

The most important thing you can do right now is get the democrats to actually field a candidate in 2028 that will restore the rule of law and free markets in the US.

[overfeed]

> Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open?

We don't! Instead, we go to regulators. Though I suspect your question really is "Why bother with salvaging Android at all?"

Mobile platforms are hard - famously, Microsoft failed to make Windows phone a viable platform, and John Carmack successfully argued that Meta didn't need a custom OS. Mozilla's Mobile OS that had OEM partners making real phones spluttered out, and nor for the lack of trying. Both Firefox OS and Postmarket rely on an Android foundation for HAL/drivers, IIRC. Device bring-up is hard, and negotiating with OEMs is harder still, and that comes "free" with Android-supporting devices.

Logistically, the vast majority of people who install apps from non-Play-Store sources do so ok their daily-driver phone, which is running the stock operating system. They are not tech savvy at all

[hajile]

> Mozilla's Mobile OS that had OEM partners making real phones spluttered out, and nor for the lack of trying.

Firefox OS had serious issues.

* Web standards 2013-2017 weren't ready enough.

* 2013-2017 phones still weren't powerful enough for complex JS apps to feel fast.

* asm.js was de-facto proprietary (a new FFOS with wasm would be be another story)

* The UI wasn't so great.

* Their launch devices were slow, cheap, and sucked.

* Their launch devices weren't readily available to developers.

* Their OS provided no real advantages over iOS or Android

The OS is still around as KaiOS (with a couple hundred million devices shipped IIRC) and I believe it still powers Panasonic TVs.

Interestingly, I think a FirefoxOS of today with good React Native and Flutter integration and cutting-edge WASM support could have a shot at success if not completely mis-managed.

[izacus]

A lot of these pushes for attestation are coming from regulators and security audits though.

[jraph]

> Why do we have to beg Google to keep Android open?

Because Google and Apple have put themselves between us and everything else.

Until we manage to replace them (by lobbying to everything including governments against them, and by working towards making the alternatives usable), we unfortunately have to resort to this. I'd even say we are entitled to this because we never asked for Google and Apple to become compulsory, they decided this.

I would personally be able to switch to Linux mobile today because I don't rely on anything proprietary (except the interrail app occasionally, damn them - but possibly waydroid would work for this)… if only there was usable and reliable hardware that could run the mainline kernel: decent battery life, decent picture quality, decent GPS, decent calls (especially emergency calls even if I haven't needed to actually make one so far, finger crossed, and Signal would do for most other situations actually).

I've daily-driven the PinePhone for a year. Call quality is awful and calls are awfully unreliable, and SMS are quite unreliable as well. Too bad for a phone. Unfortunately the phone took a big rain and now its modem is unreliable and doesn't come back up very often, but that's something a phone will likely endure in its life. Pictures are awful. GPS never worked well on my regular PinePhone. It somewhat worked on the Pinephone Pro until it died because it overheated. Linux hardware support is okayish, it was nice to run completely free software which was my main motivation for trying it but the hardware is crap to the point of being unusable serious.

The FP5 can apparently run PostmarketOS quite well. It would make an awesome Linux mobile. Camera and calls only partially work though [1]. And that's the main features of a phone.

Linux mobile itself it becoming quite decent (if one can do without the proprietary apps), what we really need is good hardware running it. Then we can begin to imagine a world with it having a decent usage share.

[1] https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp...

[fsflover]

Did you consider Librem 5? The hardware is much better, calls etc work fine.

> I've daily-driven the PinePhone for a year.

Which OS? Did you try SXMo?

[ElectricSpoon]

For another platform to rise, there needs to be some heavy market shift. There already were opensource mobile OS: Maemo/meego/Tizen. Heck! I'd even throw phosh and ubports in the pot. But those are about as rare a sight in the wild as lightphones.

Phones have become essential to daily lives and the catch22 is: companies won't support niche platforms for their apps and users won't switch until the apps are there. Android happened to get adopted before everyone started relying on mobile devices as computer substitutes. Unless a major player pulls out a Valve move and does with waydroid what Valve did with wine, I can't imagine the market changing significantly.

[MarsIronPI]

One of the benefits of mobile GNU/Linux distros is that it is possible to run Android apps on them. Waydroid works well. The one catch is that it can be difficult to trick certain picky apps into running on an "unsecured" device.

[dTal]

>Unless a major player pulls out a Valve move and does with waydroid what Valve did with wine

Sailfish sort of did.

[aNoob7000]

I don't understand why individuals expect a corporation like Google, driven by profits, to give a sh*t. I would expect no less of Apple with IOS.

Individuals should look for and support alternatives. I'm currently working on a desktop running Ubuntu because I want an alternative to the duopoly of Windows and macOS.

Additionally, we should support open-source alternatives with our donations. I personally donate money every year to Ubuntu, the Gnome foundation, and Tor.

[bigfishrunning]

If you're worried about a for-profit company having sway over your computer, Ubuntu is not really the choice to make. Please consider running upstream Debian; there are very few downsides, but the upside is that it is run by an organization that is not (and never will be) driven by profits. Also, it seems a little silly to donate to Ubuntu, which is maintained by a for-profit company.

[agile-gift0262]

The OS on desktop situation isn't comparable to the OS on mobile situation. You can buy any PC and expect being able to replace its OS. On phones, you have to look for the ones where it's possible, and depending on the phone, it's possible despite the efforts from the manufacturers for not allowing it.

Also in PC OSs, there isn't a corporation dictating what programs you are allowed to install. In iOS there is, and soon in Android too.

IMO, these corporations have managed to amass an amount of power where there's no longer consumer freedom. Therefore, there's no free market. We have reached a point where the law must intervene to restore capitalism.

[franga2000]

Because we can't install that on phones and even if we did, we need to use Android apps to do basic daily things.

Phones are not like PCs, you can't "just install a different OS". You also can't just build a phone from parts like you can with a PC, it comes locked in with the OS, with proprietary drivers and advanced cryptographic DRM measures.

And even if we did get things to the level of desktop Linux, we can't run any of the apps we need for everyday life. Most of these things on desktop are web-based, so you can use them on Linux, but this isn't the case for mobile and many things only come in mobile. Bank apps, government services, digital identification, mandatory companion apps for other devices...

If nothing else, we need to keep Android as open as possible because it makes it easier to port those things to other platforms and maybe one day have a proper alternative.

Oh, and it's not like we have a good alternative. The current Linux stack is completely inadequate for mobile use. An average phone has something like 50 apps the need to be able to react to any of a few dozen different local or remote events at any moment, yet also need to use approximately zero CPU cycles to do that. We need a brand new app paradigm if we want mobile Linux to succeed and it's not looking like that's going to happen any time soon.

[rewgs]

> Phones are not like PCs, you can’t “just install a different OS.”

This right here is the root of the problem.

[fsflover]

> Phones are not like PCs, you can't "just install a different OS"

They should be. Mine is exactly like that.

[cwyers]

The short version is: the PC is a historical accident. By "the PC" I mean "the Windows-Intel platform on which most consumer PCs were built." Linux and BSD were both able to exist in the form they did because there was a commodity hardware platform that was standardized (ad-hoc standardization, mind you) and _somewhat_ open. IBM, Microsoft and Intel were all best frenemies, able to exert enough power to standardize the PC platform but also able to exert enough power against each other to prevent them from locking the platform down too much. There is no standard "smartphone" platform like there is with the PC, really the only standard is Android AOSP. Because of this, it's a lot harder to do a third-party phone platform without adopting large parts of Android's code.

[t_mahmood]

I agree with you completely.

The point we are all missing, Google is not going to pull back, they have already invested in this change, it's in rollout phase, infrastructure is in place. It's not going to be rolled back. The ship has sailed. Keep Android Open is unfortunately dead on arrival, IF we are going to depend on Google.

And, are we going to keep depending on a profit oriented company to follow our bid? If so, then, we are very well have lost already.

[figmert]

The problem is that a new project and even a fork would need buy in buy companies like Samsung. Otherwise a project LineageOS would be much more popular. This is hard to do without serious money.

[liendolucas]

Yes, agree 100%. It's not only Android the problem. It's the cartelization between them and hardware manufacturers. But then that means that we will be doomed to the current duopoly between Google and Apple.

The very first step I believe needs to be taken is to pass strict laws to allow devices to be reflashed with whatever we want. Until we do not have that in place we will always be stucked like this. Once people can truly install from scratch whatever they want then the game should change completely.

[seba_dos1]

Why is popularity a concern? I'm writing this on a Librem 5 with PureOS that I've been daily driving for the last few years and which gives me a much better experience than Android could. Why would it matter to me as a user whether it's popular or not? The only thing I can think of is availability of native applications, but this would just hide the actual problem with interoperability and pass it down for the next underdog project to worry about.

Popularity is important when we consider whole societies, but it's not particularly relevant for individuals. I don't need a buy in of Samsung to use GNU/Linux on my phone.

[mrasong]

True, if a new system ever wants to rise, it’s gonna need backing from a major player. But once it takes over the market, it might just become the next “Android.”

[spankibalt]

> "We need these kind of projects, not kneeling down to a company like Google and begging for Android to be open."

Indeed.

> "Effort needs to be put elsewhere."

Also correct. Outside of offering (an) alternative product(s), one also needs to fight the inevitable pushback of industry dinosaurs and their political toadies.

In other words: One needs to invest in massive lobbying efforts on the same playing field of corporations as well, e. g. in the EU or the US. For without sound organizing all efforts will be relegated to hobbyist spaces with an assortment of "Are we there yet?" products.

Smartphones and function-alikes are an entirely different breed of device, or at least can be: the general-purpose computing platform for your pocket. In this market, "somewhat different" rules apply.

[thomastjeffery]

Drivers and firmware blobs.

The real problem was never solved to begin with: all mobile devices require proprietary drivers to function at all. Because these drivers are proprietary, the only people in a position to make them compatible with an OS are the manufacturer's dev team; and they are only interested in compatibility with Google's proprietary Android fork.

When Google starts to release versions of its proprietary Android fork, any open Android fork (or other alternative OS) will have to reverse engineer that proprietary Android fork in order to match its compatibility with proprietary firmware blobs. This will need to be done for every device.

Imagine trying to find your way through a building while wearing a blindfold. It's much easier if you are able to study the original floor plan that building was modeled after, even if the building itself has a modified design. Google is taking away that floor plan.

The situation is already medium-bad: it would be trivial to use an alternative OS if drivers and firmware were open source. It would be relatively easy if drivers and firmware had open specifications. It's difficult, but feasible in the current situation, where drivers and firmware are closed spec, but designed to be compatible with a close fork of an open source codebase. It will be extremely difficult (and technically illegal in the US) to do when drivers and firmware are closed spec, and designed to be compatible with a closed source codebase.

[shaneqful]

I used to have a Jolla phone which ran a pretty cool linux OS on it but it only worked because it had an alien dalvik android vm so I could still run apps like those from my bank, whatsapp etc..

It's nearly impossible to live in the modern world without either an iphone or android without making some major sacrifices e.g. I'd love to not use whatsapp but it's not an option because all of my friends and family use it

[dagurp]

Why did you stop using it? Asking because I was wondering if I should get one.

[9cb14c1ec0]

If people have to put the tiniest bit of effort into using a different platform, they won't. This is the sole problem with alternative platforms. I agree with you that the ideal solution would be to break away from Google entirely, either with a hard fork of Android, or something completely different. But you'll have to make the transition absolutely seamless for the masses, or it won't happen.

[CivBase]

Because smartphones are designed such that I cannot put whatever OS I want on them. I'm stuck with whatever proprietary flavor of Android the manufacturer loaded it with.

If I'm really lucky one of the opem source Android forks will support my device. But my current phone is not supported by postmarketOS or GrapheneOS.

I don't want a world where the market can only support a dozen devices across 4 or 5 manufacturers.

[MisterTea]

> So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives.

Ironic because the foundation of Android itself is built on open source.

[Ajedi32]

Most if not all large, successful open source projects are funded by commercial interests, not just consumers. The resources it takes to maintain something like Android far exceeds what can be funded solely by donations and volunteers.

[scheeseman486]

It's better to have a billion dollar corp footing the bill for the massive amount of work it takes to maintain Android. If it comes to needing a fork so be it, but if they can be convinced (or strongarmed) to be more supportive of an open ecosystem and FOSS Android projects, everyone wins.

[symbogra]

This comment nails it. There was an an article about how the FSF got funding for exactly one dude to work on free phone software https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45586339

That's great and all but it's just a drop in the bucket of the amount of work needed.

[immibis]

Systems with less maintainers require less maintenance because they are made in ways that require less maintenance. They also tend to be less good systems, but not in linear proportion to their reduced maintenance.

[drnick1]

Why would you want to start over with a new platform when Android (as a FOSS project) is already most of the way there in terms of freedom and usability? The only problem are "apps" that depend on proprietary Google libraries. This only concerns a minority of apps, but notably includes some foreign banks that require the "app" as second authentication factor.

Perhaps this could be regulated by law or executive power, but considering that governments themselves have created apps that depend on proprietary software, I am not too hopeful. But as long as the same "app" is accessible through a browser, this remains a minor inconvenience.

[qwytw]

> So many open source projects have risen out of real and concrete needs and successfully made their way into our every day lives.

When it comes to consumer hardware or software targeted at end users? I think such cases are pretty rare and far in between. Firefox had a brief stint of being popular in the late 2000s, Valve is doing some cool stuff with SteamOS/Proton but I can't think of much else of the the top of my head.

Otherwise it's usually companies like Google or Apple which use OSS as a base layer for their closed down and proprietary platforms.

PostmarketOS is cool but its a product niche targeted a very tiny subset of consumers (just like Linux on desktop for that matter).

[paulnpace]

Likely there just aren't enough of the right people to support such a project, sans a sustained revenue model.

[ptero]

The equivalent of dual-booting would, IMO, be a big step towards Google-independence.

In my grad school days in the mid-90s I set up Linux because it let me write programs in a modern way, accessing all the available memory without jumping through hoops, etc. I would still switch to Windows for playing games, using Quicken, checking Usenet and email and browsing the web.

AOL not even being available on Windows and modem drivers for cheap-er hardware being Windows-only meant I had to switch back and forth (download on Windows, copy to a floppy, reboot, etc.). This sounds crazy today, but it worked "somewhat OK" for me to keep experimenting.

If we could somehow provide a similar environment for the phone, even jumping through hoops, this will enable enthusiasts to start seriously tinkering with their devices. But this is not easy -- both the hardware and the Android today place way more restrictions than much-vilified Microsoft and Intel did 30 years ago. And Microsoft tried very hard to snuff Linux out, wiping boot sectors and partition tables giving half a chance; Google will be much more successful killing any dual-boot attempts now. My 2c.

[glitchc]

The difference is hardware. A large part of the explosion around Linux in desktop computing is based on the fact that IBM's patents for desktop architecture expired and IBM clones proliferated in the marketplace. Also, busses like ISA/PCI/AGP and ports (serial, parallel, ethernet, USB) were all standardized.

In short, Linux was possible because the underlying hardware was open and standard.

[kmeisthax]

IBM had very little patentable subject matter in the original 5150 design, and anything they could patent would have been subject to an antitrust decree that legally required them to, in Tim Kulak[0]'s words, "work for free". That's why they focused on copyright in the BIOS so heavily.

Also, none of this impacts Linux, beyond the fact that IBM clones were ubiquitous by the time Linus started writing the kernel. If IBM clones weren't around, Linux probably would have originally ran on an Amiga. It was very much expected that personal computers would run anything compiled for the CPU, mainly because the companies making them shipped very little software. I guess you could say that Linux was possible because there were PCs to buy - otherwise we'd be stuck with BSD or GNU running on computers we had to rent. But even then, what IBM did here was not directly open the floodgates to a Free OS, they just accidentally opened the floodgates to a bunch of companies entering the PC market by blatantly and legally ripping them off.

[0] Kulak is a Russian word for owners of rural land that refused to join the Soviet collectivization regime, which was then later applied to basically anyone accused of not meeting the hilariously awful production quotas Stalin put on shit. Despite this awful history, I'm appropriating the term because A) it's a good pejorative for land-owning nobility and B) it almost rhymes with Cook.

[chrisweekly]

Agreed w the sentiments. Minor nit: "I can't say it isn't a daily driver for everyone" - double negative

[asim]

> A new platform needs to rise that breaks out completely from Google

After many many years and many forks, yes. This is still clearly the right answer. Google didn't succumb to Apple and just accept things, they acquired Android and invested heavily in it. We are all grateful for that. BUT, we must also acknowledge that the time of the two horse race is over. And while OpenAI and many others are attempting to do various things, we can continue to invest and back alternatives that create a more fragmented market. Maybe they will not replace Android, that's fine, but you're not going to fix Android's problems without suing Google, which people are doing, or actively working on alternatives, which again people are doing. Change is coming.

[paxys]

Because money. Yes Android is open source, but Google is spending billions of dollars a year paying engineers to develop it. If you want Android to be "free" find alternate funding, with no strings attached.

[mistercheph]

See: linux

[AbraKdabra]

Why? Because I want to run bank, OTP, streaming, and other crap apps that requires certain level of trust that a 100% open source version of AOSP made by some guy in a basement doesn't provide, that's why.

[superkuh]

Because you cannot own or operate a cellphone. The cell phone modem is not licensed or controlled by you. It cannot be, it is the telecommunication company's. And this reality is intruding more and more into everyday life. You will not be allowed to control your smartphone. They are terrible computers because of this. A smartphone's legal purpose is now basically just banking, shopping, and navigation. Other things that interfere with commerce will not be allowed.

Just use your phone as a hotspot with a real computer for computing that you can and do own.

[keepamovin]

You're right. Especially with the rise of agentic AI. You could have hundreds of contributors, all using agents, working on different modules, according to existing spec and tests, create a new OS, or Web Browser or anything. It's the end of monopolistic control of software.

But, I think the giants already know and accept this. The moat now is compute. A centralization of power back to the server, the rise of thin clients, and fat services.

So, it is a revolution but there's also counterbalancing forces. Still, we should ride that wave :)

[Flere-Imsaho]

> You could have hundreds of contributors, all using agents, working on different modules, according to existing spec and tests

The current problem with "Linux on phones" is the locked down nature of the hardware. For example, looking at PostmarketOS's support device list [0], sensors, Wifi, even phone calls don't work. Would what you're saying enable faster implementation of those support modules? (This would be really cool if possible).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostmarketOS#Supported_device_...

[buildfocus]

The way to make this work for real is with a smooth migration path, which means a way to keep running Android apps on your new system.

If you want to sponsor Waydroid to help make that happen, you can do so right now: https://opencollective.com/Waydroid (I'm not affiliated, just a fan, and it's the only realistic route to this I see).

[codexb]

I agree with you, but that only works if people value it and are willing to pay for it.

Look at email. It’s technically open, but in reality there are a few large players who control the majority of it.

The only way open source phone software succeeds is if there is real money behind it and there is an attractiveness to it that makes people pay for it.

[qwertox]

Does Qualcomm support the use of their hardware in "raw" Linux phone and tablet use? Where I can be root?

[jayd16]

The short answer is its a huge costly chaotic mess to be in a standards/compatibility battle we don't have to be in.

It's far easier for everyone if Google plays nice than to put in the work to unseat them and still keep app devs and users happy.

[elif]

Simple answer, no open source project can have the keys that sign play store access.

[spacechild1]

We need both. Open source alternatives are great, but they don't replace tight regulation of large corporations. Just because Linux exists doesn't mean we can give Microsoft, Apple and Google free reign.

[raxxorraxor]

Problem is the hardware vendors often very much like closed systems. And banking apps too. We sadly have a much less open hardware ecosystem compared to the PC landscape. And even here driver problems are more pronounced the more exotic the OS platform.

For me mobile OS are a broken mess, irrespective of Apple or Google, so I would love to have an alternative. Mobile phones are powerful devices that are severely handicapped by bad software. Restrictions are sold as security and there are a lot of people that even buy into these crap argument. So much so that even legislation has adopted them to some degree.

But for hardware vendors to jump on another train, a new OS must probably offer something shiny. And the average user has no idea how easy it could be to interface your smartphone with other devices without needing some ad riddled vendor specific apps. I mean you can install an ssh client on your phone, but meh... That is more or less the only app I install these days.

[grigio]

I agree, F** Android, the website should me MakeLinuxSmartphoneReady.org and PostmarkeOS + Gnome Mobile is in good shape but a few smartphones support it.

[alfiedotwtf]

What are your current bugbears with it to not be a daily driver? I’ve been curious for a while but haven’t pulled the trigger

[Fnoord]

I completely agree.

Google has been gradually becoming more restrictive on Android openness, slowly but surely strengtening the thumb screws.

On the long term, the best thing to happen is for them to bang make it proprietary [1] while it is still free and liberal. The shock effect will be big, and the initial changes big, too. Such will motivate the right people. Open source devs, governments, legislators, people with executive powers within other companies.

But Google is too sneakily clever for that. So they go slowly, gradually. There won't be a shock effect, or if it happens it'll be a done deal.

This is how you turn a country into fascism, too. Slowly but surely, and then bang. It is all the small steps beforehand which matter, and this is why the Execute Order 66 quote from Star Wars is so such a beautiful example in popular movie SF.

You can see how failed efforts for coups in democracies have failed recently because of checks and balances. South Korea is a recent example, but looking at the details it was a close call. In my opinion, the same was true for USA, and I don't know enough about the Brazil example.

[1] Yes, I realize Android is proprietary and AOSP is FOSS.

[echelon_musk]

Good luck funding the development of a competing mobile OS by FLOSS nerds that can compete with Google's trillion dollar market cap.

Even if you could get some traction, you're gonna have a bad time getting banks to support this OS, at which point it will be useless for most users, preventing you from ever becoming profitable.

[cesarb]

> Even if you could get some traction, you're gonna have a bad time getting banks to support this OS

This already happened. Banks here in Brazil like to require an invasive piece of software (a browser "plugin", though it installs system services) to access their online banking websites. For a long time, this invasive software was Windows-only, so those of us using Linux had to either beg the banks to enable a flag to bypass that "security software" for our accounts, or do without online banking. The same for the government-developed tax software, which was initially DOS-only and then became Windows-only.

But nowadays, there is a Linux variant of that invasive banking "security" software, and that tax software became Java-only (with Windows, Linux, and MacOS installers, plus a generic archive for other operating systems). So things can change.

[mistercheph]

Linux, linux, linux, if you’re blackpilled keep it to yourself, contributes nothing.

[hn_saver]

For some reason the awful orange app Materialistic does not have down vote so i leave this message instead.

[jrm4]

I'm going to say something that should get upvotes.

YOU CAN, AND SHOULD, DO BOTH.

[profsummergig]

This is the correct take.

Let's say we beg Google to keep it open now, and they acquiesce.

So what?

Do you think this same drama won't repeat in the future?

[ksec]

I also don't think it is right for Goverment to force companies give up their properties, in this case it is like forcing Google to continue to fund Android.

May be Goverment world wide could all fund the same OSS OS which benefits everyone. But right now I see zero incentives for any government to do it.