Most active commenters
  • palata(8)
  • worldsavior(3)
  • Telaneo(3)

←back to thread

751 points akyuu | 32 comments | | HN request time: 0.426s | source | bottom
Show context
walterbell ◴[] No.46174679[source]
https://tbot.substack.com/p/grapheneos-new-oem-partnership

> GrapheneOS has officially confirmed a major new hardware partnership—one that marks the end of its long-standing Pixel exclusivity. According to the team, work with a major Android OEM began in June and is now moving toward the development of a next-generation smartphone built to meet GrapheneOS’ strict privacy and security standards.

replies(9): >>46175172 #>>46176080 #>>46176141 #>>46176211 #>>46176273 #>>46176996 #>>46177060 #>>46178884 #>>46178901 #
1. joelthelion ◴[] No.46176996[source]
This is really cool, but, longer term, what happens if Google makes android closed source? I feel this is a very real risk.
replies(4): >>46177068 #>>46177758 #>>46185354 #>>46185853 #
2. worldsavior ◴[] No.46177068[source]
They won't because they literally control the mobile market by having Android open source.
replies(2): >>46177328 #>>46179086 #
3. joelthelion ◴[] No.46177328[source]
Now that their market is established, I don't think open-source is a requirement anymore. They would of course share with hardware vendors strategically.
replies(2): >>46177690 #>>46179830 #
4. wkat4242 ◴[] No.46177690{3}[source]
True. All the big OEMs are in too deep with Android now, there's no going back. They could easily make it code share under NDA instead of open source.
replies(2): >>46177747 #>>46181323 #
5. palata ◴[] No.46177747{4}[source]
Huawei proved that they can move away from Android... unfortunately they did not go for a hard fork of AOSP but for a proprietary, new OS.
replies(1): >>46178433 #
6. palata ◴[] No.46177758[source]
Not sure if the big manufacturers would want to depend on a proprietary Google OS. Samsung does make a lot of changes to the OS, for instance.
replies(4): >>46178279 #>>46178430 #>>46178441 #>>46178771 #
7. WhyNotHugo ◴[] No.46178279[source]
> Not sure if the big manufacturers would want to depend on a proprietary Google OS.

They already do; Google's flavour of Android adds plenty of proprietary components on top of AOSP.

replies(1): >>46180576 #
8. tonyhart7 ◴[] No.46178430[source]
"Not sure if the big manufacturers"

thats the thing, they would supply android os to these major manufacturer, but for the rest??? need vetted applications

9. tonyhart7 ◴[] No.46178433{5}[source]
"they can move away from Android"

nah, it still android

replies(2): >>46178685 #>>46186160 #
10. Telaneo ◴[] No.46178441[source]
What's the alternative? I doubt even someone as big as Samsung will be willing or able to develop their own alternative OS (atleast one that can actually grab marketshare enough that critical apps get ported), and I can't imagine them wanting to hitch their wagon to the Linux alternatives.
replies(2): >>46178667 #>>46178774 #
11. berdario ◴[] No.46178667{3}[source]
> I doubt even someone as big as Samsung will be willing or able to develop their own alternative OS

Huawei pulled it out with HarmonyOS (I don't know how good/bad is it, and if it'll have staying power, but other companies are putting in the effort)

PS: btw, Samsung already had its own, non-Android OS with Bada (of course, developing a new OS is only the first step, getting it to be successful wouldn't be easy)

replies(1): >>46178740 #
12. berdario ◴[] No.46178685{6}[source]
Since 2024, it isn't

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarmonyOS_NEXT

replies(1): >>46178695 #
13. BenjiWiebe ◴[] No.46178730{8}[source]
Looks like HarmonyOS no longer uses the Linux kernel, and removed all Android code.

Pretty different from Android then.

14. Telaneo ◴[] No.46178740{4}[source]
Huawei has a whole-ass Chinese government behind it with quite a lot of incentives to move away from Google. Samsung does not. Heck, China's making its own GPUs and x86 CPUs. They're not great, but when the incentives over there are that strong, the market forces are clearly in a whole different universe compared to the rest of the world.

Bada lasted, what, 3 years? So it did better than Firefox OS (unless you want to count KaiOS as the same thing), but not by much? Not a great look I'd say. And things haven't gotten any easier during the past 15 years, with Apple and Google's positions being more entrenched than ever.

replies(1): >>46180601 #
15. ranger_danger ◴[] No.46178771[source]
They could still be given the sources, for a hefty license fee.
replies(1): >>46186152 #
16. ranger_danger ◴[] No.46178774{3}[source]
Why would they be forced to develop their own OS? They could just license this theoretical future proprietary Android OS.
replies(1): >>46178858 #
17. Telaneo ◴[] No.46178858{4}[source]
The comment I responded to was:

> Not sure if the big manufacturers would want to depend on a proprietary Google OS.

If a manufacturer doesn't want to depend on a proprietary Google OS, licencing that Google OS is not an alternative.

18. array_key_first ◴[] No.46179086[source]
More and more functionality is locked behind closed-source play services. AOSP is basically useless at this point, it can't do much of anything without Google Play Services.
19. worldsavior ◴[] No.46179830{3}[source]
What would they gain from making it closed source? There isn't any distribution of AOSP that competes with Android.

If they would close-source it, the community for sure will pick up the pieces.

replies(1): >>46181514 #
20. palata ◴[] No.46180576{3}[source]
They depend on the Play Service and Play Store, that's for sure. But I'm pretty sure they know it's a risk already.

Don't get me wrong: they are locked-in, that's a fact. And to be fair they benefit from all the work of Google on the OS. But that's not a reason to desire to go further and lose even more control.

replies(1): >>46180684 #
21. palata ◴[] No.46180601{5}[source]
> Huawei has a whole-ass Chinese government behind it

I don't like how Chinese companies systematically get reduced to "it's because the government can help them". The US TooBigTech get a ton of help from the US government, starting with political pressures when other countries want to regulate them.

Huawei have really good technology and very competent engineers. It's not the Chinese government that does the engineering.

DJI is years ahead of everybody else technologically, and that's again not the Chinese government doing the engineering. Let's stop believing that the US are superior in every single way and that someone else doing better means that they must be cheating.

replies(1): >>46181504 #
22. fsflover ◴[] No.46180684{4}[source]
What exactly are they going to do? Support GNU/Linux?
replies(1): >>46186099 #
23. goku12 ◴[] No.46181323{4}[source]
Those OEMs are responsible for the Android lock-in situation, and they do profit off it. They have the power to break that dependency easily with any alternative platform of choice.

Consider a GNU flavored Linux distro (includes busybox+musl also) or a BSD as an example. The difficulty that their devs face on smartphones is the driver set. Everything above it is open and free for anyone to implement any functionality without the need for any reverse engineering. All that the OEMs need to make them work is to release the hardware drivers for the platform - especially of the RF baseband. Open source drivers are preferable, but even proprietary driver blobs work to some extend (like the nvidia proprietary drivers on PCs).

But if the OEMs do that, then people would do a lot more with their smartphones. No more OEM blot/malware, infinite customizability and app options and the biggest of all - endless updates. People would use them till something in it dies, and then use it for something else that doesn't need the dead part. For example, how many smartphones are thrown out because their screens died? How many kubernetes clusters could you build with them? Naturally, that would affect the phone sales and OEMs certainly don't want that.

So then, what happens instead? Have you noticed how Graphene and Lineage struggle to support devices that already run Android? Obviously the drivers for AOSP exist. Google and the OEMs enter into a direct partnership where Google supplies the Android part with all its proprietary and play components, while OEMs convert it into the final blobs after adding their drivers and malware. The only way an external party is going to get those drivers is if somebody manages to extract them from those blobs. The OEMs supply updates for them for a few years and conveniently drop them after that. The consumer is forced to buy a new phone eventually, because their software becomes hopelessly outdated.

In addition to this, similar restrictions are imposed by manufacturers of subsystems like SoCs and RF baseband. Make no mistake about it. No matter how open any of it seems, the entire group of companies involved in this is a racket that's out to squeeze out every penny and bit of personal information from you. The OEMs are very willing participants in this scam.

24. Xss3 ◴[] No.46181504{6}[source]
Equally lets not forget that china sees this as a key strategic necessity for a forced reunification attempt on taiwan, both for national security and the ability to produce chips solo.

Two things can be true. They can have great engineers and government money. Theyre not mutually exclusive.

replies(1): >>46186110 #
25. Xss3 ◴[] No.46181514{4}[source]
GrapheneOS is the community picking up the pieces.
replies(1): >>46182387 #
26. worldsavior ◴[] No.46182387{5}[source]
They're not. They're heavily dependent on Google, especially CVEs.
27. ysnp ◴[] No.46185354[source]
Well, in the much longer term they have usually mentioned they would like to use a more secure/private foundation (more in the direction of Qubes/Redox/Fuchsia) with a compatibility layer for Android apps if they have the resources to do so.
28. jhasse ◴[] No.46185853[source]
Then Android gets forked.
29. palata ◴[] No.46186099{5}[source]
If Google goes proprietary with AOSP? They could fork AOSP, or go with their own proprietary system (like Huawei is successfully doing).

Linux distros (including non-GNU/Linux distros, e.g. busybox/Linux distros) are way behind for smartphones. I don't think they would switch to that.

30. palata ◴[] No.46186110{7}[source]
Governments all over the world try to support their economies. It's not just a Chinese thing. How much does the western world invest in LLMs? But for some reason, we only call it "cheating" when China does it and is more successful than us.
31. palata ◴[] No.46186152{3}[source]
Pretty sure that Google sells the Android licence for as much as they think they can. Make it too expensive and the manufacturers will try to move away.
32. palata ◴[] No.46186160{6}[source]
You don't know what you're talking about.