Google have slid back on this from day one. A pure-AOSP build of Android is borderline unusable, to the point that the dialer UI, various essential apps such as contacts and the like are now proprietary Google code, stripped out of AOSP. Additionally, AOSP has gone to a source-dump release pattern, rather than an open build. Last I knew, even basic things like the Camera and clock app had been made Google-Properietary.
You have to go to a completely independent distribution like LineageOS, which has maintained a step by step fork of Android, in order to have a "google free" environment that is vaguely useful.
However, the thing the courts have gotten very angry with is that in order to use the Android trademark, you have to get certification, which requires you to exclusively ship a series of Google applications (Chrome, Gmail, Youtube, the Google Photos app, etc) even if you have your own replacement (e.g. Samsung's browser, a native photo app, email client, etc.) and you Must ship with the Google account system up front.
> Install apps from any source on Android vs. total restriction on iOS
Going with the previous one: The apps you install then are going to require the Google services that may or may not have been shipped with your phone. Additionally, the hoops that an application must go through to get the same level privileges as a Google application -- even for things on the local phone -- are far and above what most people would be willing to go through: Since Google apps are installed on the system software end, they are given privileges that no other application could have.
> Switch default app for browser (and many other things!) vs. No choice but Safari tech on iOS
See previous: If you want to ship with Google's blessed market, you must ship with Chrome and it must be the default. The power of defaults is strong here.
APIs themselves are hard to make, but why is a camera one especially so? The language is well understood, the math and science are well understood. There are only a few ways that cameras themselves work, and even few ways that cell phone cameras work.
Why is it hard?
In advance -- No, Sony/Panasonic/Toshiba/Apple/Whoever locking functions behind magic numbers and proprietary blobs and other 'un-Gentlemanly' things shouldn't count as difficulty in making a Camera API; that's just shit companies being shit to people, not an API problem.
Have an infrared camera that augments the image from a normal camera?
Have a rotationally pop up camera that allows using the same 3 cameras for back and selfie, but also use it to take panoramas. (I miss my Asus ZenPhone flip)
Create photos that allow users to change focus when viewing?
Have two cameras back to back and allow capturing simultaneously to create 360 photos/videos?
Have two cameras side by side and allow stereo vision?
If you have a 0.7x, 1x, and 4x camera, and the user is zooming at 3, use the 1x to fill the frame, but the 5x to have better image quality at the center?
Use the optical stabilizer to take several shots with micro shifts and do super resolution?
We can go on and on. Cameras and even smartphone cameras allow a lot of possibilities. Some of them are already explored by some manufacturers.
The Daylight Computer doesn't ship with Google applications like this from what I can remember, and I noticed it doesn't actually mention Android on their home page, just that it can "run your favorite apps". It only mentions Android on the specs page under software. I wonder if they did that because of this.
i.e. a given manufacturer would not be able to sell Google based Android devices and separate non-Google based Android devices.
It's as if being able to bundle Windows OEM licenses was reliant on not selling any models with Linux.
The action was based partially on the Anti-Fragmentation Agreements (AFAs) mentioned above: https://www.clearyantitrustwatch.com/2022/09/the-general-cou...
IMO there should be mechanisms that prevent this kind of thing from ever occurring, but regulating this in a way that doesn't meaningfully impede other (benign) certification programs is a complex design space indeed!
Huawei sell both. Not in the same market, but they sell both.
Back around the Nexus 6P they probably got an exception as Google tried to promote more competition for what was rapidly turning into a Samsungopoly. Samsung later themselves negotiated a position where they could make other changes in ways Google didn't approve of, and that was by leveraging the threat of going all-in on Tizen.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...
This article lays out in painstaking detail in one place most of the criticisms about Android you'll find in this comment thread.
And this was published in 2018! That Google still maintains "a better actor" aura despite all that we know now is the greatest trick they ever pulled.
Also, that article was published in 2013 and only received light updates in 2018 -- and its core arguments haven't really aged even with the additional five years.
> Open source Android vs. closed iOS
Almost no one outside specific tech circles cares, and even if they understood what it meant, still wouldn't care.
> Install apps from any source on Android vs. total restriction on iOS
That's one of the primary reasons I suggest that my relatives buy iPhones. I have older family who would absolutely install an APK from hackerz.ru if they got a phishing email claiming they won the Facebook Lottery and that's how they claim the prize. For that matter, I'm glad my bank has to publish their app through the App Store, because otherwise they'd almost certainly be hosting it on sketchysounding.bankservices.biz if no one made them.
The walled garden is an enormous advantage for a huge chunk of the world. I understand why it's a PITA for others. I'd love to install unsanctioned software from GitHub on my iPhone, but I'll happily accept that tradeoff in exchange for my uncle not being able to install "Real Actual Gmail.apk" from god knows where.
> Switch default app for browser (and many other things!) vs. No choice but Safari tech on iOS
I might agree with that, although part of me is glad that there's at least one major platform that Chrome hasn't taken over.
> Easy switch of search provider in Chrome vs. countless dark patterns pushing Edge and Bing on Windows
Five years ago, I'd have agreed. Today Chrome seems like the King of Dark Patterns because it can get away with it. It's the one single app on my Mac that makes me specially configure cmd-Q to quit it. Manifest v3. Web Integrity API. Etc., etc., etc. Google does this because they can. They haven't been the better actor in ages.
But yes, the App Store is a shit show
You're right. It's not "safe" in the sense that things clearly, demonstrably make it through that shouldn't. I do believe those are the exceptions that stand out, though. It doesn't mean that scammers can't still get malware into the store. It does mean they have to work harder for it than most scammers are willing or able to.
By analogy, Fremont, CA isn't "safe". They still have robberies and thefts and assaults and murders. But with a crime rate literally 1/10th that of St. Louis, I'd forgive people for describing it that way.
> Five years ago, I'd have agreed. Today Chrome seems like the King of Dark Patterns because it can get away with it. It's the one single app on my Mac that makes me specially configure cmd-Q to quit it. Manifest v3. Web Integrity API. Etc., etc., etc. Google does this because they can. They haven't been the better actor in ages.
One of my biggest fears with the EU coming down on Apple is that they'll force Apple to allow "real" Blink-powered Chrome (vs. the current shell around WebKit), and that we'll wind up with another late-90s/early-00s browser monopoly. Blink is already at something like 90% market share on desktop and 60% on mobile (basically everything not iOS/macOS), and Google is already acting near-unilaterally on new features.
Chrome: Our new feature lets websites write files directly to your desktop without user intervention!
Users: Yay, I can get daily newsletters right where I want them!
Safari: That's a terrible idea. Now any website can write ads or malware to your desktop.
Users: Why is Safari so outdated? Chrome's had this new feature for a week now!
a week later
Users: Why is my desktop filled with ads?
Chrome: It's a mystery unto the ages! Hey, did I tell you about our new API for allowing advertisers to watch you while you sleep?
Users: LOL, Safari is so far behind that they'll probably never even implement this.
> I'd love to install unsanctioned software from GitHub on my iPhone
You can, but Apple won't like it:
Google used to be more permissive with OEM "customization" and the result was lots of Bad Product Differentiation. Phone OEMs suck at software.
Huawei has a phone OS not based on AOSP, but you can't easily get it in the US.
Making a coherent OS product that doesn't get horribly mutated by OEM licensees is not easy. Vide Windows bloatware.
Google flexing in this way, arguably for the benefit of the user, is nonetheless anticompetitive and the courts are reaming them for it.
Isn't the source fully open?
Edit:
If I made a movie, and made the files freely available after I make it and let you do whatever you want with it
.. would you insist that it isn't "open" because you didn't see me argue with my editor or the 100 times I iterates on the end scene or whether your idea for chase sequence was not incorporated?
So no, Google made sure there is no open source Android. There are just some (incomplete) source dumps.
Are you saying because Google Maps isn't open source, the operating system is useless?
Simply said probably none of the apps you installed on your phone are going to work without Google Play services installed. Google Play services are closed source. Which is why manufactures like Samsung need to sign a contract with Google and can't simply "install opensource Android". Samsung could live without Google Maps being installed and they could even live without the Google play store but they can't live with none of your apps (like your bank app, your Netflix app, etc.) working.
I don't see how this is relevant for this discussion? The whole point is that Android is only opensource in name. You must license Google Play services from Google otherwise Android is practically useless since you can't run 99.9% of the Android apps. When you license Google Play services Google will also impose all kinds of other restrictions on you which have nothing to do with Google Play services. Like for example mandating you don't set Perplexity AI as the default...
Imagine Microsoft "open-sourcing" Windows (by doing some source drops at regular intervals) but you wouldn't be able to run all the existing Windows applications on it without licensing closed source software and online services from Microsoft.
Or building your own services, presumably?
In case of Android and Google Play services that is never going to work reliably. Your users will experience breakage on a regular interval and you will make yourself wildly unpopular with app developers (since they will be getting the bug reports of the subtle incompatibilities). Probably to a point where they might just block their app from running on your phone.
All this stuff works on paper but it is going to be a constant up hill battle which you will loose in the end because your users will become fed-up with the constant needling of broken stuff and having to wait for you to fix it. It similar to using Wine on Linux. It works _a lot_ of the time but not all the time.
If you want to experience using reverse engineered Google play services, try an Android phone (or emulator) with microG on it [1].
Why can’t I as a laptop manufacturer decide to install a different default browser on Windows for my devices? Or change the start menu?
The phone manufacturer can choose to ship another OS.
Now sure there is absolutely an argument about their monopoly causing other apps to not be compatible on your own custom os but the same argument applies to windows and the only way to make apps run on linux is through an emulation/compatibility layer and even then it might not work.
So by that argument Microsoft should also be taken up for antitrust, which Im all for but I doubt thats going to happen.
Incidentally, version 8 was vastly superior to current iOS or Android, even after those OS’s stole a few UI innovations.
If only the team responsible for that got to run Windows, and not the other way around!
Because it is exactly what is going on.
Taking the original claim at face value, viz "No they changed their development process to do it behind closed doors and release the code after final release" (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43778333>), then no, the process isn't Open Source.
The argument then becomes not one of definition (law) but of the facts of the case. Again: I cannot make a determination here, but your haranging wordofx appears misdirected and weakens your case. That's not saying you're not correct, but you're coming across poorly and unpersuasively.
Do you think Google is compiling the OS for these folks, and releasing to them?
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43788459>
You're continuing to argue fact as if you're arguing law, which again, greatly weakens your overall argument, in addition to being needlessly confrontational and aggressive.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html>
That's generally interpreted to mean that the build environment or build system is included in the requirements of the licence. This is included in FSF's Free Software Definition as well:
<https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
OSI's Open Source Definition includes substantively similar language:
The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program.
Answering your question then, no, source absent build prerequisites / systems does not satisfy either FSF's Free Software Definition or the subsequent Open Source Definition by the Open Source Initiative.
iOS is a package deal: you use our OS on our phones with our App Store and browser. Very straightforward and honest, even if we rightly hate the deal. This all relies on basic protections of IP law that the state is so far unwilling to roll back.
Android is a confusopoly[0]. For every point you mentioned, Google has a hidden deal or catch that subverts the intention of the words in question and makes it as bad as iOS.
Yes, Android is FOSS, but the app store everyone uses is proprietary; and Google's licensing terms for the proprietary store contravene the licenses on the FOSS portion. You specifically agree not to ship devices with "Android forks", even if you don't put the proprietary store on those specific devices. And what's actually released in AOSP shrinks every time a Google engineer puts a Google client in an app. Let us also not forget Android Honeycomb, which actually was not released to AOSP. There is no legal requirement for Google to ship source, and they've already tried out a fully-proprietary release of Android in the past.
Yes, you could install non-Google-Play apps on Android, but updating them required you to manually approve every update. Third-party app stores were a nightmare to use until Epic sued about it and Google provided APIs to actually deliver updates in the same way that Google Play can.
Yes, Google Play lets Mozilla ship Gecko. But Google is also paying phone manufacturers lots of money to make Chrome the default. Oh, and to not ship any third-party app stores. Combined with Google Play not letting you distribute other app stores through itself, it makes actually finding and using an app store a pain.
And Chrome is specifically designed to make you use Google Search with the same dark patterns Edge uses.
Please do not fool yourself into thinking that any actor in this industry is good. They all suck, and you should be happy when any of them get their noses bloodied.
[0] A term coined by the writer of Dilbert, Hatsune Miku, for deliberately confusing marketing intended to make you sigh in frustration, open your wallet, and let the sales guy decide what product you buy.
As for my comment being LLM slop, it's not. LLMs are way too corporatized - yes, even the local ones - to put in-jokes or references in citations.
Vouch. (modulo Chrome aping Edge dark patterns)
And it's not an accident, or just an unthinking corporation with big divisions accidentally working at opposites, or just something looks bad when someone writes it up from the outside.
Google makes the OS, but not the hardware. Why should they be able to decide what another company puts on the hardware.
This is exactly the same playbook Microsoft tried in the 90s, and it is going to court for the exact same reason. It's using your market power to prevent competition.
We've decided that just because you are the maker of a piece of software does not mean you get to decide what runs on someone else's hardware.
This seems like a far worst path than today, and to OP's point, though Google isn't perfect, they're doing better than their competitor in providing options. Pushing Google to only offer Android on their own phones is not a win for consumers.
I'm proposing that Google can't decide what other hardware companies include in their devices just because they are including Android.
I think it is fine for Google to say you have to include the Play store, or you have to include Chrome, but to say you can't include firefox, or you can't include instagram, etc. etc. That shouldn't be up to Google.
This is what got Microsoft in anti-trust trouble in the 90s. They included Internet Explorer with the OS, and said that it had to be the default and only browser included by vendors. They weren't allowed to include competing browsers.
How can you possibly know that? Traditionally, competition + standards for interoperability has been a big win for consumers.
In a world without Google-android, maybe Samsung & Huawei get together and put in the polish to make https://postmarketos.org/ into a consumer-usable system? Maybe each fork LineageOS or KaiOS but collaborate on a standard apk format so developers can easily ship on different app stores?
I'm really struggling to see where the consumer harm is.
> I'm really struggling to see where the consumer harm is.
Imagine a world where it's illegal to grow crops unless you use a particular brand of seeds. Nobody is forcing you to make cereal, but you're going to have a bad time if you can't get the needed components for it.
It's not that far off base, either. Heard of Monsanto? Google is basically going down the same path.
E..g. Google recently announced that it will be moving Android development entirely to its private internal branch, no more development sharing. They say they'll still be open source, but Google has been caught lying about a lot of things lately.
(Sent from my Android.)
https://9to5google.com/2025/03/26/google-android-aosp-develo...
> This does not mean that Google is making Android a closed-source platform, but rather that the open-source aspect will only be released when a new branch is released to AOSP with those changes, including when new full versions or maintenance releases are finished.
Similarly the EU forced Apple to allow alternative browser engines and to add a default browser selector.
Doesn't mean much in a duopoly. Anyway, there's no real alternative to using google services which basically ruins the phone.
Open source Android vs. closed iOS
Install apps from any source on Android vs. total restriction on iOS
Switch default app for browser (and many other things!) vs. No choice but Safari tech on iOS
Easy switch of search provider in Chrome vs. countless dark patterns pushing Edge and Bing on Windows