What do you mean by true OSS?

Android is more of an open core project. AOSP is technically fully open source but when people say Android they mean the Android version of Google with the play store and play services.

The naming is confusing because what people call Android is not actually Android like what people call Linux is not actually Linux but a distribution.

Even with ASOP it tends to be more of a code dump than an open source development process. If you're an OEM you get to see it earlier in development (and get to dump your own OEM patches in there) but for most people the actual development is done behind closed doors.

Android style is true open source. I presume you mean "is Google going to work closely with non-Googlers to develop it" and I doubt it.

AOSP style is true open source, not Android. There are not too many phones sold with AOSP, and Android is a closed platform built on top of open AOSP core.

A phone is frankly unusable with just AOSP with today's apps

Today's open source apps?

Not saying I agree with the state of things, but very few people use open source apps other than a few high-profile ones (Chrome, Firefox, Telegram, et Al).

We need open source alternatives to everything for AOSP to be truly viable again.

LineageOS with F-Droid practically achieves this, but Google's contracts stop OEM from distributing this. The same situation from Microsoft and Linux a while back.

You or I may be able and willing to buy OSS phones, but the average consumer never would common proprietary software (FB, YouTube).

OEMs would never bother selling them in the first place, obligations or not.

Can't you redistribute NewPipe, and the whole shebang? I agree that selling phones with AOSP/LineageOS only is worthless.

For Facebook, you can make a custom Firefox bookmark, or one of those WebViews hard-coded to Facebook.

You need to add microG to the mix, otherwise a lot of Android apps (including many open ones) won't work at all on your "Android".

I think it is more if they will encourage any use outside of the control of Google. Or if they, like with Android where they illegally obstructed companies from doing so, will even discourage it.

That, plus they actively deprecated open source part in favor of their closed-source alternatives, and basically made the Android operating system useless (especially with regards to compatibility with the android SDK) without their closed-source parts.

So, it is technically "Open Source", but I am not sure I would call it "Free software" in the spirit. Especially the permissive license, which gives developers free reign over their forks.

I really like being able to get kernel sources from various phone vendors, and that's what enables projects such as postmarketos or lineage (though lineage is less concerned about getting the kernel sources/upstreaming, it seems). I just wish there was an anti-tivoization clause in the Linux kernel license.

I've always been conflicted about that. They started down that path in response to intransigent OEMs leaving people with year old phones full of vulnerabilities, but it's turned into a justification to load all the important userspace into apps they control.

On the one hand, it's great that old phones see some updates. On the other, it's terrible that Google used it as an excuse to reject and weaken the very ecosystem that propelled them to where they are.

They've made some efforts to improve the ease of updating older phones for both OEMs and users, but they keep key components locked down.