Aggregates

Evidence: High: 5 Medium: 11 Low: 15 No Data: 0

Theme Radar

hparadiz 2026-02-20 18:12 UTC link

I would caution the decision makers on this. The line between a secure device and a useless toy is perforated and hard to see.

zb3 2026-02-20 18:12 UTC link

Android was never open. User apps are limited, only system apps can do X which means third party apps can't compete with Google and this is not a coincidence.

Let's focus on making it possible to use really open Linux systems on smartphones.

tadfisher 2026-02-20 18:14 UTC link

Just to put out what Google actually said in their blog post [0]:

> We appreciate the community's engagement and have heard the early feedback – specifically from students and hobbyists who need an accessible path to learn, and from power users who are more comfortable with security risks. We are making changes to address the needs of both groups.

> We heard from developers who were concerned about the barrier to entry when building apps intended only for a small group, like family or friends. We are using your input to shape a dedicated account type for students and hobbyists. This will allow you to distribute your creations to a limited number of devices without going through the full verification requirements.

> Based on this feedback and our ongoing conversations with the community, we are building a new advanced flow that allows experienced users to accept the risks of installing software that isn't verified. We are designing this flow specifically to resist coercion, ensuring that users aren't tricked into bypassing these safety checks while under pressure from a scammer. It will also include clear warnings to ensure users fully understand the risks involved, but ultimately, it puts the choice in their hands. We are gathering early feedback on the design of this feature now and will share more details in the coming months.

It is also true that they have not updated their developer documentation site and still assert that developer verification will be "required" in September 2026 [1]. Which might be true by some nonsensical definition of "required" if installing unverified apps requires an "advanced flow", but let's not give too much benefit of the doubt here.

0: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/11/android-de...

1: https://developer.android.com/developer-verification

ruuda 2026-02-20 18:14 UTC link

I contacted the EU DMA team about my concerns and got a real reply within 24 hours. Not just an automated message, it looked like a real human read my message and wrote a reply. I'd urge other EU citizens to do the same.

notorandit 2026-02-20 18:16 UTC link

We ("you") have no power to keep android open. Unfortunately it is in the hands of a company that is building it for profit, in a way or the other.

It's been our choice to drink this glass of wishful thinking while giving that company a solid dominant position in the market.

We ("you") can only make choices that will overturn that trend.

Fully opensource hardware with fully opensource software? Maybe, but also this is wishful thinking.

nimbius 2026-02-20 18:37 UTC link

This isnt going to be a popular post because the HN crowd is very much a "China bad" crowd but I hypothesize China will likely step in and offer a fork that's compatible with open ecosystems not under the direct control of the us state department. This might be in the form of commits and investment in fdroid and pinephone, or a tiktok like alternative to the wests walled garden.

Edit: this will likely exist "uncensored" in other markets but conform to the PRCs standards and practices domestically, similarly to how tiktok operated prior to selling a version specifically taylored to US censorship and propaganda.

boberoni 2026-02-20 18:59 UTC link

The link is to the f-droid blog. The official "Keep Android Open" site is at https://keepandroidopen.org/, and contains good information on how you can contribute by contacting regulators.

fermigier 2026-02-20 19:02 UTC link

It is a disgrace how Google has managed this situation.

To recap the storyline, as far as I understand it: last August, Google announced plans to heavily restrict sideloading. Following community pushback, they promised an "advanced flow" for power users. The media widely reported this as a walk-back, leading users to assume the open ecosystem was safe.

But this promised feature hasn't appeared in any Android 16 or 17 betas. Google is quietly proceeding with the original lockdown.

The impact is a direct threat to independent AOSP distributions like Murena's e/OS/ (which I'm personally using). If installing a basic APK eventually requires a Google-verified developer ID, maintaining a truly de-Googled mobile OS becomes nearly impossible.

paxys 2026-02-20 19:08 UTC link

The fundamental problem is that we are relying on the good graces of Google to keep Android open, despite the fact that it often runs run contrary to their goals as a $4T for-profit behemoth. This may have worked in the past, but the "don't be evil" days are very far behind us.

I don't see a real future for Andrioid as an open platform unless the community comes together and does a hard fork. Google can continue to develop their version and go the Apple way (which, funny enough, no one has a problem with). Development of AOSP can be controlled by a software foundation, like tons of other successful projects.

WarmWash 2026-02-20 19:13 UTC link

The judge told Google that Apple is not anti-competitive because Apple has no competitors on it's platform (this all stemming from the Epic lawsuits).

Google listened.

Blame the judge for one of the worst legal calls in recent history. Google is a monopoly and Apple is not. Simple fix for Google...

fredgrott 2026-02-20 19:22 UTC link

What people forget is that the real monopoly is in how the AOSP hardware OEM contract is written....

Remember how hard Amazon had it to attempt an Android fork?

I was due to OEM SOC access being locked out due to those contracts....

Any open source mobile OS attempting to complete with AOSP needs access to mobile OEM soc providers not touched by AOSP contracts and currently that is somewhat hard.

quentindanjou 2026-02-20 22:40 UTC link

I remember not long ago arguing that having Chromium become a monopoly was a bad thing, as it would mean Google could totally twist the web standard in something much more closed. I think this is a prime example.

flaburgan 2026-02-20 22:48 UTC link

Could anyone provide me some clarifications?

If I understood correctly, to "protect" users, Google wants to control what is installed on Android phones. I guess it means the Play store will be the only way to install an app, which in turn means: - That users won't be able to install what they want and that they would need a google account to install apps - That app developers have to go through google to distribute their apps, with identity verification etc. Obviously this is awful and would mean the end of F-droid and Aurora store etc. However, I'm also reading here and there that it is a threat to alternative ROMs. To me it sounds at the contrary as an amazing opportunity, as they can strip this verification and be the only truly open Android, or am I missing something? Why do people link this app verification thing with a possible closing of AOSP?

Also, Mozilla was already saying it 10years ago with Firefox OS but... The web is the platform. 90% of the apps out there could be websites. We have all technologies needed for this including offline with service workers. And it works on every damn platform, even the most obscure OS has a web browser. Don't want to be locked to an ecosystem? Just target the web!

0xbadcafebee 2026-02-21 01:06 UTC link

I want Google to lock down their platform. Hardcore locked down. So locked down you can't do anything with it at all. Because people need motivation to do something hard.

Android has been a bloated walled garden for years. It should have been like a PC w/Windows or Linux: anyone should be able to make an app (any way they want), publish it, let anyone who wants to download it & run it. But that was never the plan. The plan was to provide a moat to allow mobile telephone operators (& Google) to dictate what users were allowed to do with their phones. Imagine your ISP having total control over your desktop computer. Or killing a website, or program, because the ISP doesn't like it.

It is insane that we, the people giving them the money and agency to do this, that we've allowed this to be the status quo. We need to do something about it. We need to kill Android. And from the ashes, make a new platform that works for us, and not for a corporation's profits and anti-competition.

keeda 2026-02-21 01:50 UTC link

Periodic reminder (note, originaly posted in 2013): https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

At the risk of posting memes to HN: https://imgflip.com/i/akp488

budududuroiu 2026-02-21 03:40 UTC link

Maybe stupid question, we keep seeing "LLM figures out math problem humans couldn't, LLM finds security vulnerability by looking at hexdumps for 6 months straight. How hard or expensive would it be to let some LLMs loose on reverse engineering all the proprietary driver binary blobs?

People mentioning forking Android is hard, how easy do LLMs make this?

xvilka 2026-02-21 09:27 UTC link

A good opportunity to donate[1] to the GrapheneOS[2].

[1] https://grapheneos.org/donate

[2] https://grapheneos.org/

edg5000 2026-02-21 10:00 UTC link

I want Google as an app, not OS. Hear me out. Imagine an open device where you can run Google as just another sandboxed app. Inside, they can exert all the control they want. My bank and government can force me to use Google.

Then, at least I control my hardware and my OS.

It's just nasty to have your device and OS controlled by an antagonistic entity.

I see this in people why have used antagonistic software for decades and have become zombified and shellshocked; the idea that software could be on your side is to alien to them. They hate software and technology and just want to get some work done. They tolerate the abuse because they can't fight Google alone; it's pointless to resist.

linuxhansl 2026-02-21 20:19 UTC link

+1000

I donated a few $100's to the petition.

With 23,623 (as of today) signatures I doubt anybody really cares, and we'd all rather be cheeple doing the tech companies' bidding as long as we can flop on our couches and consume.

Clearly Google wants to make money off their monopoly (created in part from initial openness) and they are disguising it as some security/safety enhancement bullsh*t. Shameful!

My main question: I chose Android over Apple because of the extra freedoms it affords me. When that goes away, what reason do I have continuing with Android?

pino83 2026-02-21 23:33 UTC link

I'm always baffled why there are obviously enough people (not only here in particular; but also here; and sure, it's not a majority, but it's enough people to actually have some influence) who can formulate all these claims, but the actual movement is quite disappointing.

As long as everybody knows that you are just talking, but in the end you are basically fine with everything and declare "pragmatism" and all those lame excuses from the last ~20 years, there will never be any actual movement for the better. So why taking care and constantly having those lengthy debates?

Is it just your way to deal with frustration? Or what are these discussions actually for?

I'm really just asking, because I'm actually asking that myself since quite some time now. I just don't get it. The same for some other yet similar topics, e.g. having these dependencies to corporate social media, ..., ...

Additional thought: I also constantly find people somewhere, fighting some decades old fight, e.g. against Windows and Microsoft, and how bad it is in terms of privacy, sovereignty, freedom, ..., and Recall, etc.; but if you ask them "Do you use WhatsApp?", they don't even have a clue why you ask...

IMHO, if the community isn't able to recognize that entire mindset as problematic AND find some actual solutions for it, there is no value in all these discussions.