Thread

Android 17 is the first since 3.x to add new APIs without releasing to the AOSP

1180 points · 721 comments · theanonymousone

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

ahmd-sh · 1789760365 · focus · HN ↗
i despise where Google is going with this. it's a duopoly in the smartphone OS space and we need (for lack of a better analogy, spare the technicals) open-source distros like we have with Linux on desktop.
Graphene is reaching that status for me every day and i'm looking forward to switching to it as my daily driver.
1. pojntfx · 1789760661 · focus · HN ↗
  GrapheneOS is pretty neat, <a href="https://postmarketos.org/" rel="nofollow">https://postmarketos.org/ is also pretty damn polished out of the box these days. I'd argue the "mobile desktop Linux systems" are actually a bit more polished than Graphene, esp. when it comes to default apps (no AOSP abandonware dialer, contacts etc. apps to fight with, it's all just maintained, responsive GNOME/KDE apps)
  1. spijdar · 1789761353 · focus · HN ↗
    I want to believe this, but it's hard for me to take this at face value. It's been about 4 years since I've run pmOS, so my experience IS very out of date, but I also have a hard time believing that the experience has radically changed in the meantime.
    The short is that yes the GNOME/KDE apps do often look more impressive, but they suffer the same sort of malaise which seems to have infected Linux desktops sometime since Eternal September, and between the sporadic crashing and "this doesn't feel right", it's really hard for me to accept "It's more polished than AOSP!".
    pmOS's installation page opening with a warning:
    Make sure you read state of postmarketOS before installing postmarketOS.
    Which leads to a page that opens with:
    The goal is to make postmarketOS usable for everyone, but we are not there yet. Usability and most importantly stability issues need to be worked out first. If you are looking for an OS that is as usable as iOS or Android, this project is currently not for you.
    Does not do a lot to dissuade my skepticism. I know you said the apps specifically, but even there, it's like... I dunno.
    grapheneos · 1789842343 · focus · HN ↗
    GrapheneOS provides drastically better usability, robustness, overall functional and app compatibility. Privacy and security are also drastically better in AOSP and especially GrapheneOS than that desktop Linux software stack ported to mobile.
    All of the default apps in GrapheneOS are being rapidly overhauled or replaced. It wasn't a priority due to the incredibly good open source app ecosystem with many existing alternatives available. There isn't a similarly large and high quality open source mobile app ecosystem available for what's being promoted.
  2. cobertos · 1789761505 · focus · HN ↗
    I tried getting it to run on a Pixel 3a and struggled for hours, eventually gave up (albeit I tried running it with Niri).
    brnt · 1789762473 · focus · HN ↗
    I recently installed pmos on two 3a's and it was as simple as a Lineage image. Works well too!
    grapheneos · 1789842412 · focus · HN ↗
    GrapheneOS provides drastically better usability, robustness, overall functional and app compatibility. Privacy and security are also drastically better in AOSP and especially GrapheneOS than that desktop Linux software stack ported to mobile.
    All of the default apps in GrapheneOS are being rapidly overhauled or replaced. It wasn't a priority due to the incredibly good open source app ecosystem with many existing alternatives available. There isn't a similarly large and high quality open source mobile app ecosystem available for what's being promoted.
  3. MrDrMcCoy · 1789777024 · focus · HN ↗
    PMOS doesn't run with full support and performance on any decent hardware. Would love to be proven wrong.
    grapheneos · 1789842506 · focus · HN ↗
    GrapheneOS provides drastically better usability, robustness, overall functional and app compatibility. Privacy and security are also drastically better in AOSP and especially GrapheneOS than that desktop Linux software stack ported to mobile.
    All of the default apps in GrapheneOS are being rapidly overhauled or replaced. It wasn't a priority due to the incredibly good open source app ecosystem with many existing alternatives available. There isn't a similarly large and high quality open source mobile app ecosystem available for what's being promoted.
  4. fungi · 1789782174 · focus · HN ↗
    2nd vote for postmarket. have put it on an old tablet i pulled out of ewaste and it is excellent.
    there is clearly no future for android for anyone wanting an open and spyware free platform. its time to invest out efforts elsewhere.
    grapheneos · 1789841912 · focus · HN ↗
    GrapheneOS provides drastically better usability, robustness, overall functional and app compatibility. Privacy and security are also drastically better in AOSP and especially GrapheneOS than that desktop Linux software stack ported to mobile.
    All of the default apps in GrapheneOS are being rapidly overhauled or replaced. It wasn't a priority due to the incredibly good open source app ecosystem with many existing alternatives available. There isn't a similarly high quality open source mobile app ecosystem for the operating systems you're promoting.
  5. grapheneos · 1789841846 · focus · HN ↗
    That's extraordinarily inaccurate.
    GrapheneOS provides drastically better usability, robustness, overall functional and app compatibility. Privacy and security are also drastically better in AOSP and especially GrapheneOS than that desktop Linux software stack ported to mobile.
    All of the default apps in GrapheneOS are being rapidly overhauled or replaced. It wasn't a priority due to the incredibly good open source app ecosystem with many existing alternatives available. There isn't a similarly high quality open source mobile app ecosystem available there.
    NetMageSCW · 1789844556 · focus · HN ↗
    “rapidly” - how long has it been?
    grapheneos · 1789845659 · focus · HN ↗
    We hired 3 experienced app developers a few months ago. That's now our app development team working on overhauling these apps. They've already replaced the entire Messaging app user interface with a new modern Compose UI. Messaging v13 is currently in the Alpha channel and v14 is on the way with a bunch of additional fixes needed for it to reach Beta and Stable. Multiple other apps including Contacts are well into the same overhaul process.
2. kenhwang · 1789761174 · focus · HN ↗
  I just wish Graphene had better support for non-Google hardware.
  1. armadyl · 1789761282 · focus · HN ↗
    More like OEMs need to take security more seriously and add in the capable hardware and commit to firmware updates long term.
    dessimus · 1789763322 · focus · HN ↗
    Unless there is a real market advantage to it, they won't. Consumers prove over and over again they are willing to trade security to save a few dollars. Furthermore, why commit to providing hardware and software support for a device to last 5+ years, when ~25% of Americans report damaging their device each year[0]. Most of a device's population will have been replaced in 3 years.
    [0]: <a href="https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2024/03/15/322486.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2024/03/15/32248...
    armadyl · 1789764094 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah unfortunately this is the case. Privacy and security in general are things most average consumers don’t necessarily care for, and especially don’t care for when it provides inconveniences. Even in more tech enthusiast crowds you see this reflected most obviously in people wanting to use Firefox over any Chromium variant of a browser.
    Not to mention to reach GOS’ requirements the cost of the phone would have to significantly increase which I imagine only hurts Android phones even more for no real gain since GOS users are minuscule overall.
    And the long term support is definitely not the norm yeah. It’s pretty much just Apple and Google doing it for their own devices. Motorola will be a newcomer to this concept with GOS. But we can only wait and see if they actually stick to it, given their track record prior to the collaboration.
    Google probably got away with it cause they made the chips and security chips themselves. I read something like Tensor costing $70 vs. a Qualcomm chip with MTE costing $250.
  2. vkaku · 1789761545 · focus · HN ↗
    Those Razr phone updates need to start landing sooner ....
  3. subscribed · 1789761603 · focus · HN ↗
    They can't due to the shortcomings of the hardware (why develop a hardened os to the grossly insecure hardware) or the vendor (no/slow updates, etc).
    Anyone is free to fork, add the desired hardware support and flash.
    (that's aside of some Moto flagships in 2027)
    tcfhgj · 1789778698 · focus · HN ↗
    they can, but don't want to
    subscribed · 1789785608 · focus · HN ↗
    OK, I'm confused, explain how they can deliver comparable security on a hardware that does not offer the same capabilities, from a vendor who doesn't provide patches.
    You say they can. How?
    tredre3 · 1789790430 · focus · HN ↗
    The hardware capability that GrapheneOS loves to use as a shield to deny support for other devices is the ability to use custom AVB keys. Without custom keys you can't relock the bootloader after installing a custom OS on most phones. The consequences of having an unlocked bootloader are that you are susceptible to an evil maid attack.
    This is a real threat, but the reality is that the average person is more likely to be hacked/spied on from the software side, which Graphene would protect you from as effectively as it does on Pixel.
    subscribed · 1789815576 · focus · HN ↗
    So you're saying that being unable to prove the provenance of the image (whether it's original or not), becoming immediately exposed to downgrade attack, to someone injecting malware to /sys and you being unable to detect it.... That's not a big deal?
    :)
    Well, go for it, fork and "provide support" to the hardware hostile to non-stock OS, be a hero :)
    tcfhgj · 1789834611 · focus · HN ↗
    hostile to non-tock OS - where are you getting this from?
    subscribed · 1789863930 · focus · HN ↗
    If the bootloader cannot be unlocked, relocked, or doesn't provide timely updates to firmware/hardware, it's hostile.
    The rest is not (might be lazy, insecure or just silly but not hostile)
    It's surprising some vendors still don't support unlocking and/or relocking.
    tcfhgj · 1789925048 · focus · HN ↗
    smartphones aside pixel like Fairphone do explicitly allow alternative OS, definitely cannot pretend they are hostile
    subscribed · 1789939219 · focus · HN ↗
    Fairphone?
    Delayed patches (they don't keep up with AOSP), missing secure element (makes disk encryption key cracking trivial in comparison).
    Fairphone 6/6+ (the latest), is based on..... It's pretty hard to find the Android version it's based on... Got it. They ship phones based on Android 16 half of the year after the release of 17 (9 since public beta).
    Many security patches are NOT backported to 16, which makes Fairphone insecure by design.
    They allow relocking the bootloader, which is nice, If they also support custom AVB keys, I'd say this is a fine example of the example of the vendor that is not hostile, just not good enough.
    I wouldn't say they're hostile - Samsung is hostile for example.
    So, what's your angle here? Do you want me to go through every vendor you bring up or what?
    tcfhgj · 1789958660 · focus · HN ↗
    I didn't insinuate hostility of every vendor except Google.
    subscribed · 1789977447 · focus · HN ↗
    You're not engaging with my words but you're instead twisting them. I'll stop wasting my time on you.
    tcfhgj · 1790003428 · focus · HN ↗
    I am pretty sure I understood quite well.
    > Well, go for it, fork and "provide support" to the hardware hostile to non-stock OS, be a hero :)
    subscribed · 1790018887 · focus · HN ↗
    No, you're maliciously extending my words about some vendors to all vendors.
    In the comment about issues with software and hardware, that somehow is being painted as GrapheneOS fault, I mentioned (among other things) hardware hostile to non-stock OS.
    I didn't say it's Nothing, I didn't name them.
    You brought them up, so I addressed that, explained why I don't consider Nothing hostile but just vulnerable by default and inadequate. I even provided an example of the vendor I actually consider hostile (Samsung).
    So if you understood quite well, you're trolling now and not discussing in the good faith.
    The alternative is you didn't understand and thought I consider ALL vendors as hostile, which is putting claims in my mouth, which would be fine if you asked, but you keep discussing with strawman.
    So please go bother someone else; this is the second time you're doing that and I wasted enough time on that.
    skorp01 · 1789859567 · focus · HN ↗
    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what AVB is used for.
    Fully supporting and using AVB grants protection against persistence of *all* kinds. If an attacker gains privilege escalation through a remote attack, persistence become much easier if the system is not cryptographically verified every time the device boots.
    Keystore and Attestation also rely on the bootloader being locked. If the hardware root of trust reports the device as untrusted, there is a broken chain of trust for biometrics, encrypted app data that uses the hardware keystore, and any form of attestation checks (like AOSP's Hardware Attestion API) will report the device as untrusted.
    Going back to the first point, if it is possible to modify the system and gain persistence, there is also the possibility of modifying the kernel, which would allow an attacker to rewrite or patch the kernel, rendering AOSP's sandbox useless.
    This would also make it more vulnerable to downgrade attacks because rollback protection is tied to a locked bootloader and AVB.
    This could all be accomplished through remote exploitation. The "software side" you speak of is built atop AVB as a minimum requirement to assure that the software you're running is unmodified and intact.
3. b112 · 1789761282 · focus · HN ↗
  If Google doesn't smarten up, it will no longer be in control of Android.
  Oracle was a mighty powerhouse when it bought MySQL, StarOffice, and more. It lost defacto control of all of them, due to its stupidity. In the world of open source, the tighter you hold on, the less likely you'll retain control.
  And yet, here we are, with Google playing games.
  Google, a note: there are far more relying upon Android than you, and now there are forced alternative stores in the mix. If Samsung and everyone else said "sorry Google', or even a large majority, you're out. Gone. Nada.
  They can now fork, and force old Android to have their new fancy pants 'Play' store too.
  Google is also getting more and more pushy with Chrome. What if everyone depending upon that backend, shrugs and says "Sorry Google, we're hard-forking Chrome and we'll all maintain it".
  1. anonzzzies · 1789761863 · focus · HN ↗
    > Oracle was a mighty powerhouse
    It definitly still is. We run Postgres when we host our banking / financial stuff, but when we talk with banks and say that, they demand Oracle not that 'open source amateur stuff'. We have a version of our software for Oracle (and MSSQL) as well so no biggy, but still, we always try if we know it's not a complete immediate kill (which it will be if we put it in our documentation as only option). Oracle is still everywhere at the big guys.
    mrlonglong · 1789762120 · focus · HN ↗
    Are they still forbidding benchmarking the Oracle database in their T&C's? I laugh. Such litigious losers.
    Postgres ftw. Long may it eat their lunch.
    LooseMarmoset · 1789764905 · focus · HN ↗
    as someone who is associated with “the big guys”, I can tell you this is changing.
    Our Oracle license licensing went up so dramatically that the team I work with is moving some very large databases to postgres from Oracle because it doesn’t make financial sense anymore.
    now, if we could only stop eating at the trough of Broadcom…
    anonzzzies · 1789765233 · focus · HN ↗
    I hope so, I see some changes; far less than many seem to think here though.
    cyberax · 1789766802 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm advising a startup doing software for banks, and the overall attitude of their clients is: "We want to get away from the #&I$*@&^#$ Oracle, but we're stuck for now".
    Oracle used to be a must-have because it was one of the few products that could handle transactions on a scale of a bank, with all the requirements for backups, redundancy, etc.
    A fun anecdote. Back in 2000, I was present at negotiations (as a note-taker) where database vendors were bidding for a project for a factory control system. Vendors submitted benchmark results for various DB sizes up to 40Gb, and Oracle's rep hautingly said something like: "Our minimal size for benchmarks is 80Gb, so here are our results for that size".
    And this was a _lot_ for that time. Now? It's so ridiculously tiny that you can host it on a smartwatch. So why would you pay Oracle?
    anonzzzies · 1789806462 · focus · HN ↗
    Agreed, I had the same talks around 2000 but at the time it was still very much mssql/db2/oracle for 'real companies'. Yet i'm still surprised how much pushback we get, especially in Asian countries (India) but we do get it, a lot. And we have conversations with financial partners in the US as they advice our VCs; those calls go the same way 'ah, you are using that hipster open source stuff, yeah we don't do that here'.
    cyberax · 1789809587 · focus · HN ↗
    Hint: a lot of time, the real answer is "kickbacks". Find a commercial Postgres provider (EnterpriseDB) and partner with them.
  2. linuxftw · 1789762191 · focus · HN ↗
    Google's Android customers are phone OEMs. The major ones seem to like how things are going. Until Samsung and whomever start the OpenHandset Foundation or some such and fork Android, there's never going to be the Mariadb of Android.
  3. tredre3 · 1789762203 · focus · HN ↗
    > it will no longer be in control of Android
    Who will step up to maintain it? Keep in mind that it has to be somebody that every other OEM trust. In other words it would likely have to be an alliance of manufacturers. And they'd inevitably treat OEMs outside the alliance poorly and we'd be back to the current situation, but worse.
  4. murderfs · 1789762249 · focus · HN ↗
    > If Samsung and everyone else said "sorry Google', or even a large majority, you're out. Gone. Nada.
    The OEMs are incapable of writing a competent operating system, and don't particularly care to.
    > Google is also getting more and more pushy with Chrome. What if everyone depending upon that backend, shrugs and says "Sorry Google, we're hard-forking Chrome and we'll all maintain it".
    With what maintainers?
    <a href="https://chrome-commit-tracker.arthursonzogni.com/organizations/commits?repositories=blink,chromium,v8&organizations=all&grouping=quarterly&colors=organizations&kind=both&metric=commit&chart=line&dates=2016-01-02,2026-09-18" rel="nofollow">https://chrome-commit-tracker.arthursonzogni.com/organizatio...
  5. wvenable · 1789775863 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think so. Google's customers are phone OEMs and as long as they are happy, things will continue as is. The precedents here are Microsoft with Windows and maybe Apple with iOS.
    Anything Oracle doesn't have much relevance. They were not really interested in growing any marketshare of those products for anyone.
  6. qlte · 1789777442 · focus · HN ↗
    Google and Samsung have a closer relationship than ever these days, with cross-branded Google features even featured in advertisements for the last couple Galaxy models which would have been unthinkable back in 2012 or so.
    They have their private own agreements with Google to secure whatever access they need to maintain their OneUI fork and are not the one making any public complaints. Samsung did have a love/hate relationship with Google during the early years of Android that was openly simmering with resentment but those days are long past.
    Samsung already includes their own Galaxy store alongside the Play Store on all their devices, and have for 10+ years. But during that time have actually moved the opposite direction from your hypothetical fork scenario and both clearly companies evidently view their current relationship as mutually beneficial.
    Even though GrapheneOS and Samsung both maintain their own Android fork their views on AOSP/Google are not aligned.
  7. surajrmal · 1789875822 · focus · HN ↗
    The scale of engineering to compete with Android is an order of magnitude or two larger than that necessary to compete with those other products you mentioned. Not to mention the challenges of getting the developer market to follow you to your fork. It seems like any phone vendor even capable of giving it a go is okay with the current arrangement. Chinese firms can definitely do it and I guess Huawei has, but that's not entirely relevant to Western markets.
4. austinthetaco · 1789762048 · focus · HN ↗
  i so desperately wish we were still in the days of manufacturers making their own OS. It's why I moved to iphone: when the hardware company makes the software and vice-versa the integration is much better and less error-prone/bloated. It never made sense to me for android to be shoehorned into thousands of devices, instead of a fork being made and for thorough OS rework to happen to support the device.
  1. qlte · 1789775624 · focus · HN ↗
    That is definitely not how I remember the feature phone era. The OS was an afterthought seemingly whipped together a couple months before the device hit the shelves and nothing was ever consistent even across recent models from the same manufacturer.
    Back then the primary goal was checkboxes for the carrier to advertise and UI/UX was a distant second priority at most. Sometimes an advertised feature would just flat out be unusable (such as MP3 players), but good luck waiting for any kind of update because by then those developers had already been reassigned to the next handset model they promised to carriers.
    Also, Samsung extensively customizes their OneUI fork of Android, with its own UI look and feel that evolves independently from Android based on their own priorities. Plus Samsung's Android maintains hundreds of features that either don't exist at all on AOSP/Pixels or later get folded into mainline Android.
    (Including the little known killer app suite "Good Lock" available on Samsung's Galaxy store which gives power users an almost obscene amount of additional niche options and customizations that would give UX minimalist designers at Google or Apple a heart attack)
    But despite how different Pixel vs. OneUI look and feel, I can use the exact same apps whether on a Pixel or Galaxy or $100 trash phone. Interoperability is very easy to take for granted and Android app ecosystem is (still) paradise compared to the lowest common denominator J2ME "app" era of the 2000s.
5. aftbit · 1789762257 · focus · HN ↗
  Graphene has been my daily driver for the past year or so. The only thing I miss is the ability to do contactless payments. Otherwise, it's been awesome. I don't run any games nor do I care about any of the AI features. YMMV.
  1. dlahoda · 1789763001 · focus · HN ↗
    for some people contactless payments are essential for their lifes
    eppp · 1789763312 · focus · HN ↗
    That seems a little excessive.
    aftbit · 1789850788 · focus · HN ↗
    Those people will never be able to use Graphene or any other privacy-preserving smartphone. They'll be stuck with Apple or approved Android. At least that's how it looks today.
    Or they can get a Garmin watch with contactless payment, or do what I do - stick a credit card in their phone case.
  2. edent · 1789763521 · focus · HN ↗
    Contactless payments do work on Graphene - but only with the Curve app. It also requires the card-holder to be from the UK or EU.
    aftbit · 1789850730 · focus · HN ↗
    Alas I'm from the US so that doesn't help me.
    velocity3230 · 1789853642 · focus · HN ↗
    Not "only" the Curve app. Some banks provide NFC payments directly from their own app.
6. [deleted] · 1789762268 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
VCFundedGenYer · 1789760630 · focus · HN ↗
Android has been so thoroughly disappointing through the years. Started as a great open free form alternative to iOS, to becoming the very thing it sought to combat.
1. josteink · 1789760742 · focus · HN ↗
  If Android wants to be the inferior not-open-source mobile OS, why would I not just buy an iPhone instead then?
  It’s closed too, sure, but at least it’s more consistent.
  1. pimeys · 1789760918 · focus · HN ↗
    Android has free and open artificial pancreas that is still easy to install and keeps us with complex type 1 diabetes alive.
    Google may just want to kill us and Apple don't even let this kind of software exist without massive hurdles...
  2. subscribed · 1789761902 · focus · HN ↗
    Because it's much worse (for me).
    However at this point, as a GrapheneOS user if I couldn't use it for any reason I'll go to iOS (even though I used it for a couple of years and I've been fed up).
  3. add-sub-mul-div · 1789763389 · focus · HN ↗
    Because (1) you'd be rewarding the entity that originated and normalized the loss of freedom that Google much later adopted, and (2) as Apple restricts more freedoms you'll still be abke to enjoy them on Android for a few more years as Google remains (comparatively) more user friendly.
  4. mitxela · 1789780108 · focus · HN ↗
    Because it still allows installing apps with some hoops, and iOS doesn't allow it at all.
2. fgonzag · 1789766958 · focus · HN ↗
  I had never considered using lineageos and the like, but honestly the writing is on the wall. Google is going straight into a closed AI device.
  I'm going to start donating to a few free android distros I guess, I'm probably going to be trying them sooner rather than later, and without AOSP support the dev burden is going to be much higher, and it probably means they'll end up diverging and incompatible at some point (not in both directions, lineage will probably always have to have Android app support)
wps · 1789760710 · focus · HN ↗
The amount of roadblocks Google is putting up for GrapheneOS is just ridiculous. None of their decisions make any sense, from the delayed source patches upstream, to the embargos, attestation issues, etc. Google simply regrets android being open source.
1. monomania · 1789761036 · focus · HN ↗
  There's a non-zero chance that three-letter agencies are lobbying for at least some of this.
  1. jasonfarnon · 1789772787 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah. Which doesn't mean Google isn't happy to comply for its own profit motivations.
2. bebeirjd848r · 1789761215 · focus · HN ↗
  GrapheneOS does not even register on Google scale! It does not even manufacture its own devices!
  Bigger problem is HarmonyOS and similar devices, compatible with Android. Opensource threat from china!
  And no NSA backdoors or honeypots!
  1. subscribed · 1789762176 · focus · HN ↗
    If the hardware security is on par with iPhone / pixel 8+, then sure.
    Otherwise there's no need for NSA backdoors (as Cellebrite matrix shows) :)
  2. ChickeNES · 1789762526 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, let's just trade the NSA for the CCP, no issues there.
    anonym29 · 1789763749 · focus · HN ↗
    One poses an active, unchecked threat to the constitutional rights of US citizens, has a chartered mission to subvert and undermine the very field of cryptography itself - going so far as to bribe standards bodies to adopt backdoored algorithms (using taxpayer funds to do so), has plotted to mass-violate the constitutional rights of their own citizens and lie about it to the national legislature (which they carried out successfully, committing perjury in the process and facing zero consequences for it), secretly cooperates with the criminal justice system via parallel construction to target nonviolent, law-abiding political activists with fabricated criminal charges as retaliation for politically disfavored speech, while the other is about 6500 miles away, has negligible presence in / reach into the US, and is generally unconcerned with the domestic political activities of US citizens.
    ChickeNES · 1789767238 · focus · HN ↗
    > has negligible presence in / reach into the US, and is generally unconcerned with the domestic political activities of US citizens.
    lmao
    075326899532 · 1789770586 · focus · HN ↗
    + 3 social credits, comrade
    Cider9986 · 1789774456 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  3. mitxela · 1789779780 · focus · HN ↗
    GrapheneOS does, however, register on the FBI's radar because a lot of criminals know to use it, and the FBI can't crack it.
3. 7734128 · 1789761296 · focus · HN ↗
  It's not a regret. Android would never have been popular in the first place if it had not been open source. If phone makers had been able to anticipate how much the demons at Google would be able to lock down the Android then they would never had used the OS back in ~2009.
  1. mrpippy · 1789761624 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s possible (never underestimate the bad decision-making of phone makers), but what would they have done instead? Windows Mobile 6 was the only licensable alternative, but it was a known quantity and obviously a generation behind Android and iOS.
    pmlnr · 1789761958 · focus · HN ↗
    Maemo.
    michaelmior · 1789762172 · focus · HN ↗
    I remember using a Maemo device circa 2009. I recall overall really liking the OS.
    thomasahle · 1789762364 · focus · HN ↗
    Also Bada
    SoftTalker · 1789763003 · focus · HN ↗
    Windows Phone was pretty nice, too bad Microsoft didn't follow their DOS and Windows strategy of getting it preinstalled on every consumer PC sold. There was really only the Nokia Lumia line that I recall, but everyone I knew who had one loved it.
    Grombobulous · 1789764605 · focus · HN ↗
    I swear Windows Phone 8.1 was getting really good, picking up some actual momentum (something like 10% marketshare in Europe? And my bank even made an app for a while) and the only roadblock was that Microsoft suddenly stopped making flagship phones easily available, at least in the US.
    Getting a flagship Windows phone was confusing and each carrier had different models.
    I had a Lumia 1020 then my upgrade path after that was to switch carriers. Then after that when the Nokia brand went away the first Windows 10 phones were mid-range and weren’t actually better than what I had.
    dpark · 1789764679 · focus · HN ↗
    That was Windows Phone 7. It didn’t ship until 2 years after Android. 2 years later Windows Phone 8 was released and it was a legitimate option but just too late.
    SoftTalker · 1789766581 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah I guess Apple set too high a bar and MS was caught flatfooted (again) and was too far behind.
    dpark · 1789769366 · focus · HN ↗
    I don’t have visibility into what happened with that team, but Android from what I understand saw immediately that they needed to follow Apple’s lead and pivoted (originally they were building something closer to a BlackBerry). The Windows phone team either didn’t believe they need to pivot initially or they just took too long to do so.
    Windows Phone is a case study of missed opportunity.
    hurfdurf · 1789805943 · focus · HN ↗
    Not doing any OS upgrades from 7 to 8 and only very few from 8.x to 10 certainly didn't help either.
    hobo123 · 1789820474 · focus · HN ↗
    I remember trying phones in stores (shortly before Windows phone died). On Android you'd touch the phone and get instant reactions, on Windows you'd touch and wait for a slow woosh animation, until a few seconds later a text only app would finally launch. embarrassing.
    LTL_FTC · 1789763317 · focus · HN ↗
    WebOS was pretty cool (Palm).
    edent · 1789763717 · focus · HN ↗
    Symbian and LiMo were both available at the time. It is hard to say they were good alternatives though. Windows 7 - even with the weight of Microsoft behind it - wasn't able to attract enough hardware manufacturers.
    cyberax · 1789765934 · focus · HN ↗
    There were several credible competitors: WebOS, Symbian, Maemo/MeeGo, Palm OS 6, and of course Windows Mobile. But they required cooperating with a single vendor and/or a lot of work to adapt.
    Android won because it was available "right now" and easy to hack. Vendors could get a BSP (Board Support Package) from a chip manufacturer, slap Android userspace on top of it, and ship a phone within half a year. It was a glorious mess for a while.
    Google then slowly tightened the reins and made the ecosystem more ordered.
    ezst · 1789793220 · focus · HN ↗
    Not even wearing rose tinted glasses right now, for having daily driven them back in the days, maemo and then WebOS had touch ergonomics and multitasking abilities which took Android/iOS decades to incompletely mimic. Maemo/Nokia N900's design principle seems to have been "let's provide the user with desktop-level productivity tools, and shrink the desktop into their pocket", the package was massive for the era's standards, but is tiny for today's, and those dumb-down/low density ergonomics we have now give us less capabilities for more screen estate and weight (even something like an iPod pro is a "dumb" content consumption device in comparison). WebOS on the other hand was not about "producing/delivering on the go" so much as it was about getting your digital must haves (booking an appointment, updating a contact details, moving a meeting, ...) done and out of the way with just a couple key presses and finger flips as so distract as little as possible from the present. Only some advanced Android launchers get close, but it's never the focused, well polished and distraction-free experience it was back then (and for the same reason, Android/iOS are addictive content delivery vehicules meant to sink your eyeballs and time as to sell you stuff or collect and merchandise your data).
    I'm interested and wishing to see a future mobile OS that does not pander to the "attention economy" like Android/iOS are, but with billions now addicted and trapped by it, I'm realistic that it won't be an overnight success.
    m4rtink · 1789804531 · focus · HN ↗
    Sailfish OS exists as a continuation of the Maemo project, even shipped their own phone recently.
    ezst · 1789805244 · focus · HN ↗
    Yup, I would love to try it in-hands (I looked it up on emulator many years ago, and that was frankly underwhelming). I'm also not sure about their open source situation, which was the premise of this thread.
    m4rtink · 1789982667 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, they really did some stupid decisions initially on not open sourcing some apps int eh OS. Thankfully they are now finally reversing that decision.
  2. thevillagechief · 1789761797 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think this is actually true. Phone makers seem happy to have the platform locked down even further. They're putting even more roadblocks, as evidenced by most of them making bootloaders unlockable.
    ardacinar · 1789762353 · focus · HN ↗
    They're happy that it is locked down. They're not happy that they're not the ones doing the locking down.
    pjmlp · 1789789812 · focus · HN ↗
    They can easily go back 30 years ago, when each one had their own proprietary in-house OS, using current Android as baseline, or something BSD like PlayStation.
    alightsoul · 1789862133 · focus · HN ↗
    This is what phone manufacturers do. Very few use vanilla AOSP with just Google mobile services and their own hardware drivers.
    lenerdenator · 1789762918 · focus · HN ↗
    This is what lots of people forget.
    Android is not a Linux desktop or server distro. It is not about you getting to put what you want on the hardware you bought for free.
    Operating systems are hellaciously expensive to maintain and that only gets worse in markets with rapid hardware improvements, as the smartphone market was up until maybe the late 2010s. Google is not a charity. SV did not come into national prominence for making investors $0. There is no money in giving maybe one in one-hundred smartphone users (and that's being generous) a bunch of code, for free, so that they can put it on their gizmo and talk to their nerd friends at their hacker meetup.
    When they pitched Android as "open", they meant that carriers and device makers could load it up with all of the revenue-enhancing bloat that they wanted. In return, Google got a device that would let them hoover up all of the data they could ever want in order to build better ad service profiles for those using the devices. That is, after all, their business.
    For a while, this could coexist with us screwing around with a real-life tricorder. At some point, though, the free stuff turned into a revenue opportunity that had to be exploited. And so, it will be.
    TeMPOraL · 1789773068 · focus · HN ↗
    > For a while, this could coexist with us screwing around with a real-life tricorder.
    Wish I could upvote you twice for that line alone. It perfectly sums up what I always wanted Android to be. Alas, the closer we are to this in hardware, the further away we are getting in software.
    mitxela · 1789779481 · focus · HN ↗
    Especially Android, which is an ever-growing pile of spaghetti almost as bad as Windows.
    sirjaz · 1789786268 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd say Android is already worse. It uses more ram and resources to run smoothly than Windows does. Especially now that Microsoft is actively trying to speed up Windows 11 and make it use less resources.
    mitxela · 1789788151 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a different axis from spaghetti Ness.
    free652 · 1789791842 · focus · HN ↗
    Haha and not true. You would need to provide objectively more than your experience. And for an example clicking on Android Contacts would be instant vs load time in Windows 11 (the one i have).
    TeMPOraL · 1789810022 · focus · HN ↗
    Did you try to scroll the list tho?
    (Did they fix that whole "store contacts in a linked list" problem in Android already?)
    alightsoul · 1789764021 · focus · HN ↗
    Any discussion about this is shut down. I just read an article <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckqxvy98x578o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckqxvy98x578o In the UK according to the BBC, politicians are pressing Samsung and apple to make stolen phones bricks. Samsung in response said that they have implemented several security features for this purpose. I think Samsung considers removing OEM unlocking a security feature according to the bootloader unlock hall of shame.
    Intel used to do the same with their anti theft technology aka Intel theft deterrent on their classmate PCs, so students had to enter unlock codes from an IT admin every 3 months or every say 200 boots to prevent the computer from being locked at the bios level preventing it from booting an OS, and there was an update which disabled that functionality permanently. And you would be warned when you had around 50 boots left to get the unlock code.
    alightsoul · 1789772515 · focus · HN ↗
    It could be disabled from the bios somehow if you knew the bios password or the bios could be reflashed with a programming Clip directly on the bios flash chip itself.
    mitxela · 1789779447 · focus · HN ↗
    Normally you have to unlock the phone before unlocking the bootloader, and that is the protection.
    alightsoul · 1789787099 · focus · HN ↗
    I would think they are guessing most people's passwords are weak or something. Like a screen pattern is weak, can be broken in just 300k attempts or maybe less because people use the same patterns and people can't be bothered to use passphrases.
    mitxela · 1789788659 · focus · HN ↗
    A screen pattern is a different way to enter a PIN with no duplicate digits. Both PINs and patterns rely upon the security processor to resist bruteforces.
    tancop · 1789837321 · focus · HN ↗
    PIN and patterns are secure because the security module enforces rate limits, you can't brute force effectively if every attempt after the first 10 takes a minute. Biometrics can be even better against brute force (more possible combinations) but they are vulnerable to cloning.
    With a 6 digit code cracking it will take close to a year on average. With your screen pattern example it's around 100 days. That's more than enough time for the owner to notice and turn on anti theft features. Maybe even for the police to find and return the phone.
    alightsoul · 1789861685 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the average person doesn't know they can use the find my phone feature on Android to lock their phone. When their phone is stolen they just get sad and call it a day and get another one. Maybe report it to police if they care in your country if they don't care, you just get a new one the day after.
    alightsoul · 1789787940 · focus · HN ↗
    Normally the codes would be downloaded automatically from a server but sometimes the server would go down due to negligence because it would be owned by the school and well, student's laptops would start getting locked and they would have to go to a specific office somewhere in the city to get an unlock code from the it admin
    alightsoul · 1789862292 · focus · HN ↗
    Also in other countries like Panama, people are pressing politicians to clamp down on theft and the most stolen things are wallets and phones. So by locking the bootloader the manufacturers avoid as much liability worldwide as possible.
    tosti · 1789764487 · focus · HN ↗
    Making the bootloaders unlockable is a good thing.
    0x1ch · 1789764735 · focus · HN ↗
    I think OP misspoke. He probably meant that they're not able to be unlocked by the consumers, usually.
  3. sublinear · 1789762151 · focus · HN ↗
    No, everyone knew what they were getting into with Android. It wasn't taken lightly by the power users of the time either. I still have a phone somewhere with Ubuntu Touch on it. I really was hoping that would be my phone OS by now. Not that Canonical isn't capable of similar, but that it would bring about acceptance of Linux phones.
    I think we're all more surprised by how long it took for Google to make these bad moves. For a period of time in the 2010s we actually started thinking maybe Google was alright.
    reedciccio · 1789763415 · focus · HN ↗
    It wasn't Canonical's limitation. Mozilla can confirm: the barriers to enter the phone manufacturing market are immense. Samsung, Ericsson, Sony, LG, etc, all had solid control of the deals with the network operators worldwide. It's a highly regulated market, you can't get in without Verizon, att, Vodafone etc to let you in. Canonical, Open Moko, Mozilla... Didn't have the strength to push through. Google and Apple did.
    numpad0 · 1789768004 · focus · HN ↗
    It's operators that have grips on manufacturers. Phone OEMs don't make any without the sales networks and financing structures of cellular carriers.
    This is to extent that some carriers still insist that they design phones and phone manufacturers are just factories. People need to understand that power dynamic before blaming those "mere factories" for not making Linux phones.
    There has to be like an SVP of SoandSo Wireless pushing like three pillar approach of iOS, Android and Linux. Otherwise the pitch decks for any alternative phones just go straight to trash(or into a motorized shredder if it is still physical).
    aboardRat4 · 1789779128 · focus · HN ↗
    >It's operators that have grips on manufacturers
    Only in the USA.
    numpad0 · 1789794729 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    mitxela · 1789779564 · focus · HN ↗
    Worst case we can buy phones and physically replace their Application Processors with liberated ones.
    NetMageSCW · 1789842375 · focus · HN ↗
    No, not really. It would be easier to build one from scratch.
    mitxela · 1789863414 · focus · HN ↗
    With a cell modem desoldered from another phone. Remember we're talking about the hypothetical case where cell modems are only available to approved phone manufacturers.
    NetMageSCW · 1789842326 · focus · HN ↗
    Apple didn’t initially - they shopped around before they found a small carrier (Cingular) willing to accept their demands. Their popularity forced all the other carriers to gradually come around.
  4. alightsoul · 1789763871 · focus · HN ↗
    Phone manufacturers had Symbian which became open source
    wwiinn · 1789825476 · focus · HN ↗
    And was burned to the ground by a trojan horse from microsoft.
    NetMageSCW · 1789842424 · focus · HN ↗
    Or was so bad compared to the others that it was no longer viable.
  5. ikiris · 1789790710 · focus · HN ↗
    It didn't become a major regret really until the antitrust treated android as a competitive space and iphone separate. That decision led to a lot of wtf and tactics changing. Because the platform had been made open it was then an issue of tying vs if it had just been closed like apple there wouldn't have been an issue was a pretty stupid take if you ever want to see an open platform again.
4. Retr0id · 1789761534 · focus · HN ↗
  Google is also seriously dropping the ball in terms of security. The CVE-2026-43499 root LPE (aka ghostlock) is still unpatched across all Pixel devices, on the latest """security""" update, despite weaponized exploits being public for months.
  1. [deleted] · 1789761719 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  2. jeroenhd · 1789762239 · focus · HN ↗
    I just ran <a href="https://github.com/CakesTwix/Android-CVE-2026-43499" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/CakesTwix/Android-CVE-2026-43499 on my Pixel 9 Pro and it seems to have been patched. I did get a system update not long ago, though.
    Retr0id · 1789763128 · focus · HN ↗
    Try <a href="https://github.com/alex193a/Root-My-Pixel" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/alex193a/Root-My-Pixel, worked on my 9a as of a few days ago (the version table in the readme is stale). I haven't checked the September update yet though (installing it now, to check).
    Edit: September update for 8a has a kernel build from July. I believe it's still vulnerable but the exploit will need its offsets adjusting etc.
  3. lenerdenator · 1789762314 · focus · HN ↗
    There's "dropping the ball" and then there's "not reaching out your glove to catch it to begin with".
    It'd be interesting to see which one is happening here.
  4. grapheneos · 1789763587 · focus · HN ↗
    Pixels used to have far better updates than any other Android devices but they stopped improving it years ago. It should have kept improving because it's not at all adequate. They need to be able to release OS updates more than once per month and it shouldn't take months for patches to make it into the OS. It currently takes them at least around 2 months to get even the most urgent patches into the OS. They could fix emergency calls being broken if the patch was made around 3 weeks before an OS release, but that's about as quick as they can go. It's not at all adequate for security and is a complete joke compared to Chromium's release cycle. They can get an emergency Chrome update released within a couple days. They should at least be able to do it for the Pixel OS in a week.
    GrapheneOS is often around 4 to 6 months ahead on merging Linux kernel LTS releases. We used to handle this ourselves but switched to the Android GKI LTS branch maintained by Greg KH. Unfortunately, it was often struggling to keep up even before the absolutely massive increase in Linux kernel security patches this year. AI models have rapidly accelerated vulnerability discovery and it's an ongoing crisis for the Linux kernel. We want to be on the latest LTS revision within days and want to be using the latest LTS branch within months of it being released. We're not at all happy with how Android is handling things and plan to fix that ourselves. We'll get things back to how they should be.
    We also ship all the AOSP userspace patches months before Pixels due to shipping all of the security preview patches as soon as possible. There are sometimes minor regressions but we find and fix them ourselves downstream. The security preview system has a terrible design especially considering that frontier AI models can reverse engineer the patches. There should at least only be a source embargo for around 24 to 72 hours rather than pretending as if it can work with the patches available 2 to 6 months in advance.
    izacus · 1789764864 · focus · HN ↗
    Let's see how fast you'll be able to ship official updates through US carrier testing with Motorola and come back then :)
    cyberax · 1789766073 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd love to use GrapheneOS on less secure devices, just for the sake of Google autonomy rather than privacy.
    Cider9986 · 1789767061 · focus · HN ↗
    GrapheneOS's goal is privacy for the world and that's achieved through secure devices. You can get a phone specifically for GrapheneOS just as you choose a new device when you're buying a new one. Soon there will be two different phone brands which you can install it on. There's already an estimated 500,000 users with Pixel exclusivity.
    <a href="https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117249893761790371" rel="nofollow">https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117249893761790371
    cesarb · 1789772193 · focus · HN ↗
    > GrapheneOS's goal is privacy for the world and that's achieved through secure devices.
    Perfect is the enemy of good. What's better for privacy, an old but inexpensive smartphone running Android 11, or the same smartphone running an up-to-date third-party rebuild of Android 16 or newer with as many privacy-improving bells and whistles as the hardware can support?
    > Soon there will be two different phone brands which you can install it on.
    ...will they be available in my country (Brazil)? I don't think I've ever seen a Google Pixel phone in person.
    Cider9986 · 1789773770 · focus · HN ↗
    Are all of these unsuitable [0]?
    Not sure if you have any experience with eBay. I looked it up and people had problems selling to Brazil [1] but there are various listings that offer to ship. So maybe not a great option.
    KaBuM!, Intec Store, Performance Solutions all charge significantly more with a 10a being more than double than from Google.
    Motorola officially sells the Signature in Brazil [2] at the same price or cheaper than in the UK. It will be supported by GrapheneOS in 2027 on the 2027 version. From then on, hopefully Qualcomm brings MTE to the non-flagship chips and Motorola and GrapheneOS support budget or midrange devices.
    >perfect is the enemy of good
    I don't consider that relevant when users deserve ≥ security than an iPhone. GrapheneOS is not purpose-built to avoid big-tech's services although it does that more completely than any other alternative mobile operating system, the focus is privacy.
    GrapheneOS on the state of privacy and security for their ethos: <a href="https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2044440381803069778" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2044440381803069778
    [0] <a href="https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=google+pixel+9" rel="nofollow">https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=google+pixel+9
    [1] <a href="https://reddit.com/r/Ebay/comments/1d92pyn/" rel="nofollow">https://reddit.com/r/Ebay/comments/1d92pyn/
    <a href="https://community.ebay.com/forum/shipping-57923/topic/difficulty-shipping-to-brazil-122414/" rel="nofollow">https://community.ebay.com/forum/shipping-57923/topic/diffic...
    [2] <a href="https://www.motorola.com.br/smartphone-motorola-signature/p?idsku=1802" rel="nofollow">https://www.motorola.com.br/smartphone-motorola-signature/p?...
    cesarb · 1789784893 · focus · HN ↗
    > Are all of these unsuitable [0]? [...] I looked it up and people had problems selling to Brazil [1] but there are various listings that offer to ship.
    Do these phones have ANATEL certification? Because if they don't, they will be rejected by customs. It's not simply a case of the item being held until you pay a 60% import tax.
    Cider9986 · 1789868145 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    microtonal · 1789796749 · focus · HN ↗
    What's better for privacy, an old but inexpensive smartphone running Android 11, or the same smartphone running an up-to-date third-party rebuild of Android 16 or newer
    I see your point, but it would be very misleading, since the phone would still have a lot of known holes. Only the OS would get updated, typically not the drivers, driver firmware, possibly not the kernel. The phone would still be easily compromised through all the known RCEs. So you tie up non-profit projects in a lot of extra work to get an improvement that does not really matter.
    This is a mess created by the OEMs and they will continue to create this mess until people will stop buying from OEMs that only give lip service to security updates (roll out Android Security Bulletins to show a high patch level, while in reality the phone the phone has many known CVEs).
    grapheneos · 1789839977 · focus · HN ↗
    Android Security Bulletins do list a tiny subset of firmware, Linux kernel, driver and HAL patches so they do require at least very minimal updates to those. Most non-Google-certified operating systems are setting an inaccurate Android security patch level by ignoring the non-AOSP portion of the patches. GrapheneOS doesn't do that but most of the other AOSP-based projects not being certified by Google are doing it. OEMs were caught doing it too but it's not clear if it was intentional in most cases as it is with the alternate operating systems.
    Android Security Bulletins set a very low bar since the AOSP patches are available to ship by OEMs 2-6 months prior to the bulletin being published. It's also only High/Critical severity patches being listed. Due to a recent policy change, it's also officially only a subset of the patches for AOSP. That's visible through the Android platform components having patches in the Pixel Update Bulletin for September 2026 despite those being applicable to other operating systems. It's because they no longer want to backport all High and Critical severity patches due to the high volume of issues discovered by AI models. It's similar to how they stopped backporting any Low and Moderate severity patches years ago due to high volume.
    grapheneos · 1789840252 · focus · HN ↗
    The purpose of GrapheneOS isn't providing a less bad operating system for insecure devices which still lacks anything close to reasonable security patches and protections. It would not be possible to provide the core GrapheneOS feature set on those devices. More importantly, they'd have many years of missing firmware, kernel, driver and HAL updates. Those are among the most important security updates and would not be available in practice. That would not be GrapheneOS and is not the purpose of GrapheneOS.
    drnick1 · 1789767562 · focus · HN ↗
    Same thing here I use Graphene for the sake of user control and privacy. All the security features and hardening of the Pixel phones of of the OS are good to have, but they not the main reason.
    ysnp · 1789815221 · focus · HN ↗
    What if GrapheneOS believe that privacy/security is what gives users real abuse-resistant agency and control over what happens on their device with their data?
    grapheneos · 1789768077 · focus · HN ↗
    GrapheneOS will be available on Motorola devices meeting all of our requirements for updates and security features in 2027. It will be starting out on a high end flagship and expanding down from there as devices improve to meet our requirements. We aren't going to support devices unable to provide a reasonable level of security.
    rrgok · 1789814286 · focus · HN ↗
    Why? Just release Graphene without those security requirements. It must be a user's choice and responsibility. You sound exactly the people you fight against.
    You understand that just having a firewall is a big step for security?
    ysnp · 1789814945 · focus · HN ↗
    GrapheneOS is permissively licensed so that people can do exactly that (and fork for different hardware platforms) if they want to. It is a donation-supported open source project with a small team, and it is not a crime or moral failing for them to put those resources into doing the best that they can, instead of spreading themselves thin on something they cannot be motivated or proud of.
    grapheneos · 1789839054 · focus · HN ↗
    Diverting a massive amount of resources to devices where we can never provide decent updates and our core security features doesn't interest us. It would reduce the privacy, security, usability, app compatibility and robustness of GrapheneOS for users on the officially supported devices. It would also result in many people getting insecure devices. Many people would get those devices and then realize they made a poor decision later. We already see this happen with devices approaching end-of-life and already have to put significant work into avoiding people getting those.
    hwj · 1790059865 · focus · HN ↗
    > a reasonable level of security
    Whould you recommend using a Pixel 6a in 2026 even though it has no hardware memory tagging (MTE)?
    mitxela · 1789779609 · focus · HN ↗
    You can dot his but it won't be Graphene but something else, like LineageOS. As long as Graphene's selling point is extreme privacy and not just more privacy, it will be this way.
    drnick1 · 1789798542 · focus · HN ↗
    There is no such thing as extreme privacy; it isn't something any phone can provide, especially if you are going to rely on third party software and services like email and instant messengers where the likes of Google and Facebook are dominant players. Even behind a VPN, Vanadium is fingerprintable by commercial trackers like fingerprint.com. Short of disabling Javascript, browsers leak enough information to basically follow anyone around the internet.
    mitxela · 1789822477 · focus · HN ↗
    How much do you know about Graphene? It literally disables JavaScript JIT for security.
    drnick1 · 1789926659 · focus · HN ↗
    > How much do you know about Graphene?
    Enough to know that it is just as fingerprintable as any other phone. Disabling Javascript JIT will not change that.
5. jeroenhd · 1789762670 · focus · HN ↗
  The thread states that Google is putting out patches that affect other Android vendors too.
  They're not treating GrapheneOS very differently from other vendors, except that Graphene isn't relevant enough to sign a contract with because they don't make phones (or money, really).
  Google should be putting out the code and patches like they used to, but the constant badgering of Google on this issue feels off. I don't see anyone complaining that Samsung isn't supporting their security-focused fork enough, or complain that Apple is delaying the bootloader unlock process by a day.
  Despite their very worst, selfish intentions, Google is the very best vendor of commercial open source software. While Google's open source project collapses, there's plenty of space for other vendors to step in.
  We should bemoan Google's fall from grace, but only because they're on the way to becoming just as bad as every vendor but Librem if they keep this up another decade.
  1. microtonal · 1789797075 · focus · HN ↗
    Librem seems as bad as a typical Android OEM. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong repository, but the barely seem to update driver firmware?
    <a href="https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/fw/firmware-librem5-nonfree" rel="nofollow">https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/fw/firmware-librem5-nonfree
    <a href="https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/arm-trusted-firmware" rel="nofollow">https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/arm-trusted-firmware
    I hope I'm looking in the wrong place.
    fsflover · 1789910504 · focus · HN ↗
    Purism don't really control the firmware of their modem and WiFi: the vendors do. However, Librem 5 has replaceable modem and WiFi card allowing to choose a different vendor. They did it for WiFi. A new modem is also being discussed, too.
6. alightsoul · 1789762922 · focus · HN ↗
  It's a net loss. Less data and in their view makes development harder.
7. curiousgal · 1789763444 · focus · HN ↗
  > Google
  Can we just stop saying "Google" as if it's same faceless org? No, it's not Google, one or two asshole execs are behind this policy.
  1. SahAssar · 1789776255 · focus · HN ↗
    The org takes responsibility. If you want to additionally name & blame an exec feel free.
8. godelski · 1789763541 · focus · HN ↗
  I hope people remember this when advocating for chromium. Just because it is open source doesn't mean they don't control it. We need to start the long process of hard forking now or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.
  > Google simply regrets android being open source.
  Android wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't open source. With all the work from outside Google. The same is true chrome.
  But they won't learn that on their own. They are breaking the deals. So we move. We force their hand
  1. nomel · 1789763674 · focus · HN ↗
    > So we move. We force their hand
    What do you have in mind?
    PaulCarrack · 1789763840 · focus · HN ↗
    > We need to start the long process of hard forking now or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.
    sieabahlpark · 1789764059 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    luqtas · 1789766571 · focus · HN ↗
    oh yes sure. just like we can shift the population into installing Debian into their machines so we also deter M$ and Apple abuse /s
    Rohansi · 1789769659 · focus · HN ↗
    It's so much easier to switch browsers than platform/OS. Unless you have an iPhone or iPad.
    olyjohn · 1789773426 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    mitxela · 1789779298 · focus · HN ↗
    How did that happen, anyway? Tabs? What's the next killer feature after tabs? Maybe sync?
    NOTanAlagent · 1789779988 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    grahamburger · 1789781587 · focus · HN ↗
    Haven't all the major browsers had sync for ages? I've been using Firefox's built-in sync for so long I don't even remember what it was like without it.
    epihelix · 1789791866 · focus · HN ↗
    Adblock, I would have thought. And Google can't compete in this space, by their very nature.
    This is the message that Firefox needs to push: Hate ads? Use Firefox.
    EbNar · 1789794451 · focus · HN ↗
    Considering that Firefox by itself doesn't block anything without extensions, that seemingly less than 10% of users use extensions and that tgere5are already quite a few snappier browsers that block ads by default...
    mitxela · 1789822576 · focus · HN ↗
    Ooh, I think you're right. Even better if it can bypass more annoyances, cookie popups, captchas and (if legal) paywalls. Maybe it should have Libredirect built in. It could be a user agent, instead of a site owner agent.
    godelski · 1789787894 · focus · HN ↗
    You act like it hasn't been done before.
    Also, switching browsers is trivial. I do it on my parents' machines and they don't notice
    nomel · 1789769045 · focus · HN ↗
    There are several comments mentioning Firefox. How is this related to the post or this comment chain?
    Are you indirectly saying we have the 4 billion users switch away from Android?
    shevy-java · 1789764032 · focus · HN ↗
    Well, it is time to realise that GPL and similar variants, are better in the long term. I like MIT too, but GPL worked so much better for the linux kernel. Google and others abuse the ecosystem of open source contributors here.
    microtonal · 1789764485 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean the Linux kernel that the GrapheneOS project has to request every update for and then has to wait up to weeks to get a Google Drive link?
    The GPL is worth nothing if nobody is enforcing it aggressively.
    dvdkon · 1789767729 · focus · HN ↗
    The GPL is the only reason they even get that. More enforcement would certainly be good, but it's not like the GPL is worthless without a legal team backing you up.
    nomel · 1789768045 · focus · HN ↗
    Could you quote the part of the GPL that they're not adhering to (which you seem to be implying), in this situation?
    microtonal · 1789796198 · focus · HN ↗
    There has been a long discussion about this a while ago on HN when these delays came up. The relevant blurb:
    Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
    Many people argued that 'customarily used for software interchange' is worded-as is to always be relevant to the times when the license is applied and that providing access to a Git repository is customary nowadays. In fact:
    - The upstream Linux tree is distributed through Git.
    - The relevant Pixel kernel sources used to be distributed through Git.
    IANAL, so I am not sure how this part of the license will hold up in court, but the spirit is clear. Providing a Google Drive link is not customarily used for software interchange.
    Also, I think it is fairly clear that the procedure is put in place to make everyone's life difficult, given that the relevant source used to be distributed through Git.
    mitxela · 1789779340 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, as opposed to the Fuchsia kernel where they wouldn't even get that. We're lucky Google is institutionally incapable of creating things.
    JumpCrisscross · 1789765710 · focus · HN ↗
    Donate to Ladybird <a href="https://ladybird.org/" rel="nofollow">https://ladybird.org/
    jm4 · 1789766369 · focus · HN ↗
    They have their own problems. They may be "open source", but they don't accept contributions. I'm skeptical it will ever become more than a hobby project.
    tech234a · 1789767198 · focus · HN ↗
    Commit activity actually increased after they blocked external contributions in June: <a href="https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/graphs/commit-activity" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/graphs/commit-ac...
    whimblepop · 1790112704 · focus · HN ↗
    Does "external" contributors effectively mean drive-by contributors? I assume there's still more than a single developer, and it's somehow possible to be admitted as a member of the project if you have some existing public reputation.
    tech234a · 1791253031 · focus · HN ↗
    Website says: "Ladybird is open source, developed by a small team in the open. You can help by filing bug reports, creating reductions, testing websites, reporting security issues, and sharing technical feedback." [1]
    [1]: <a href="https://ladybird.org/" rel="nofollow">https://ladybird.org/
    ragnese · 1789769020 · focus · HN ↗
    Is not accepting contributions the only/biggest issue you have with the project? I'm honestly becoming more and more okay with the "cathedral" style of open source. Depending on the project, catering to "the community" can lead a loss of focus, lack of a cohesive "vision" or scope, and just generally trying to be everything to everyone without the resources to maintain a giant beast.
    With something like a browser (engine), I'm totally okay with someone saying "I'm an expert and I'm trying something with my own vision/priorities. I don't want input from random people that I have to spend time evaluating."
    seb1204 · 1789774008 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes I can relate to this. Picking good, valuable feedback out of the noise has become a chore.
    takeda · 1789774295 · focus · HN ↗
    It's on BSD license, Google or someone else can again Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
    bigstrat2003 · 1789793371 · focus · HN ↗
    That is not possible. Google, or anyone else, can make a fork of the project. But they can't take away the original from the commons.
    akho · 1789813122 · focus · HN ↗
    This post is _about_ how that is both possible and common.
    Only GPL is somewhat immune, because Stallman was always right.
    takeda · 1790010293 · focus · HN ↗
    The reason why they can make Android close source but not the kernel used is because the former is has ASF 2.0 while the later has GPL license.
    soraminazuki · 1789788084 · focus · HN ↗
    Handing more control over the web to an all-out white replacement theorist is somehow even worse than the status quo. Ladybird is run by the kind of person I'd never want to financially contribute to.
    - <a href="https://nitter.example/awesomekling/status/1969350008538370216" rel="nofollow">https://nitter.example/awesomekling/status/19693500085383702... (archive: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250920103645/https://twitter.com/awesomekling/status/1969350008538370216" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250920103645/https://twitter.c...)
    - <a href="https://nitter.example/awesomekling/status/1874518295350837401" rel="nofollow">https://nitter.example/awesomekling/status/18745182953508374... (archive: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250101180923/https://twitter.com/awesomekling/status/1874518295350837401" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250101180923/https://twitter.c...)
    - <a href="https://nitter.example/awesomekling/status/1971287738268909576" rel="nofollow">https://nitter.example/awesomekling/status/19712877382689095... (archive: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250925185636/https://twitter.com/awesomekling/status/1971287738268909576" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250925185636/https://twitter.c...)
    - <a href="https://nitter.example/awesomekling/status/1967178708852097278" rel="nofollow">https://nitter.example/awesomekling/status/19671787088520972... (archive: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250914104847/https://twitter.com/awesomekling/status/1967178708852097278" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20250914104847/https://twitter.c...)
    GalaxyNova · 1789804382 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think he said anything factually incorrect though?
    soraminazuki · 1789806541 · focus · HN ↗
    And yet again comes someone pretending as if a far right rant embracing racism and white victimhood is some sort of objective truth seeking. It's unfortunate that this has become so normalized here.
    hobo123 · 1789819864 · focus · HN ↗
    Where in those comments is the "white replacement theorist"?
    soraminazuki · 1789822298 · focus · HN ↗
    > White males are actively discriminated against
    The words are unambiguous and not up for debate.
    hobo123 · 1789824423 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm assuming he was talking about a specific situation where discrimination occurred? Anyway that's two completely different things.
    simondotau · 1789831164 · focus · HN ↗
    “Not up for debate” is a much scarier string of words than anything that guy has said.
    soraminazuki · 1789862898 · focus · HN ↗
    Debating the meaning of words in order to avoid owning what you explicitly said or supported whenever it's inconvenient should be condemned. What kind of person would be scared by that over someone supporting an advocate of the ethnic cleansing of London?
    simondotau · 1790155535 · focus · HN ↗
    If someone says a word has a different meaning, then that necessarily affects the meaning of what they said. You are not in a position to assert that your interpretation of their words is more objective than theirs, unless you're explicitly intending to be intellectually dishonest, or come with further evidence proving their intellectual dishonesty.
    soraminazuki · 1790176988 · focus · HN ↗
    If you're being intellectually honest, you would explain which parts of the words I quoted is ambiguous instead of questioning my integrity with vague hypotheticals.
    simondotau · 1790651539 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't know anything about the specific statements you were referring to, nor did I ever claim to. It's entirely possible I might even agree with you on the specifics.
    None of that is necessary for my comments to be intellectually honest. My prior posts in this thread stand on their own as statements of principle: that declaring an interpretation "not up for debate" is intellectually empty. If you choose a normatively loaded assertion in place of a good-faith argument about meaning, you're not resolving the disagreement; you're simply declaring your own interpretation authoritative, to no end.
    That's literally how primary school children argue in the school yard.
    isityettime · 1789855023 · focus · HN ↗
    It seems to me like the more intellectually honest characterization of things like hiring quotas and admissions quotas is "discrimination in the interest of the good" or "compensatory discrimination" rather than "this isn't discrimination". It's not a little-known practice and it doesn't negatively affect only white men (it also negatively affects East Asian men, for instance).
    If you think those hiring practices are justified against a backdrop of ongoing white supremacy, patriarchy, etc., say that. If you think they're only a small adjustment in the big picture in a world where tacit norms of credibility, transgenerational wealth, and interpersonal connections still overwhelmingly favor white men, say that. But when someone says "hiring practices actively try to tell people apart by race and ethnicity in a way that disfavors my odds" and you reply amounts "nuh-uh, and you can't say that!", you frankly weaken the left. Stop it.
    s1artibartfast · 1789852615 · focus · HN ↗
    These tweets all seem extremely reasonable and resonates with my experience.
    White males don't have a monopoly on discrimination but it certainly exists.
    When I worked at a fortune 50 company my annual bonus was dependent on how many minorities I hired. When I was job shopping I was told directly by recruiters that white males should not apply, but if I know any minorities to send them their way
    soraminazuki · 1789862208 · focus · HN ↗
    Where is the data that shows there are a disproportionate number of white men among the unemployed population? Without that data, this kind of rhetoric can only be seen as a pretext for actual discrimination.
    Also, you think jumping to support someone who got backlash for claiming that only a third of the London population (aka white people) are "native" to the city and the rest should be driven out of their homes is "extremely reasonable"? It boggles my mind that people are lining up to say how normal this is. It's anything but.
    s1artibartfast · 1789869924 · focus · HN ↗
    No disproportionate number of men are required for their to discrimination going on. Its not a competition.
    Discrimination could occur at the individual level. If I fire someone the color of their skin, but the numbers balance out somewhere, I still committed an act of discrimination.
    Also,I dont care about their back story. I suspect you and I have very different understanding of truth if you think them having said something offensive means everything else they say is false.
    That sounds exhausting. I'll judge the truth of a given statement by its contents.
    soraminazuki · 1789875255 · focus · HN ↗
    None of that makes any sense whatsoever. In your hypothetical scenario where "the numbers balance out," that's by definition indiscriminate termination. You can't discriminate without it showing up in the numbers because that's how math works.
    It's also offensive that you accuse me of fallaciously bringing up an unrelated story. You said the "tweets all seem extremely reasonable," including the one where Kling viciously defended DHH's call for ethnic cleansing in London. There is no "backstory" here.
    s1artibartfast · 1789884896 · focus · HN ↗
    Then we have different definitions. Discrimination is a matter of bias and motive. Statistics are irrelevant.
    For some definitions of systemic discrimination, you may look for an effect, but even that doesn't rule out two way discrimination.
    If a black person is lynched by a racist for their skin color, and a white person is lynched by a racist for their skin color, there is still a hell of a lot of discriminatory behavior happening.
    If you personally hold that events themselves cannot be discriminatory, even if they are motivated by racial bias or malice, you will continually run into disagreement with others.
    The overwhelming majority of people and legal systems recognize that events can be discriminatory. If you fire someone and provide their skin color as the reason, you will lose that discrimination lawsuit in every state in the US, no matter your statistical fetish.
    soraminazuki · 1789917941 · focus · HN ↗
    Statistical fetish? That's one hell of a way to turn your lack of proof into an ad hominem attack.
    If people are being fired for being white and male, then the number of unemployed white men increases. It's that simple.
    s1artibartfast · 1789919080 · focus · HN ↗
    oh come on, at least try to engage with what I said
    s1artibartfast · 1789886013 · focus · HN ↗
    PS, I dont see anything I would call vicious, any mention of london, or any mention of ethnic cleansing
    soraminazuki · 1789918646 · focus · HN ↗
    The tweet clearly mentions that he "stands with @dhh" citing backlash against his "racist and transphobic views." You called that "extremely reasonable" and you should own it.
    saghm · 1789767221 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm reading your comment on Firefox. You can probably read mine and write a reply on it too!
    godelski · 1789787952 · focus · HN ↗
    That's crazy! I'm commenting from Firefox! What a crazy world! How is this even possible?!
  2. the_real_cher · 1789764994 · focus · HN ↗
    LOL "start" using Firefox. I've been using Firefox for half a decade. There's zero I miss about Chrome.
    OtomotO · 1789765406 · focus · HN ↗
    LOL half a decade.
    I've been using it for more than 20 years.
    I don't know why either of use loled though
    vsviridov · 1789765874 · focus · HN ↗
    LOL, I've been using it since Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold, via Mozilla M3 (SeaMonkey tech preview), Phoenix, Firebird, and then finally Firefox :D
    nunodonato · 1789767375 · focus · HN ↗
    Mosaic :P
    cecexacjrgec · 1789768089 · focus · HN ↗
    Me too. Too bad I had to abandon it because Mozilla seem more focused on making AI-nonsense than a browser nowadays. No, Firefox, you don’t need AI features. You do need a better UI. You do need smoother scrolling. You do need privacy focus (which automatically means you do not need AI features). You do need to feel like you belong on the platform you’re installed on and not wish everything were Linux. You do need better designers that understand UX is not just “add controls everywhere”.
    josephg · 1789771442 · focus · HN ↗
    Huh? What ai features? Firefox seems largely the same as it did a few years ago.
    I’m not doubting they added some ai junk somewhere. But whatever they did seems very easy to ignore.
    olyjohn · 1789773528 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    takeda · 1789774584 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm assuming you use Lynx now then? Because I don't think you would be using Chrome or its clone if that's where you draw the line?
    bot
    vsviridov · 1789877216 · focus · HN ↗
    I remember using lynx at school, since they only let A+ level students use the X11 GUI. And then later on using elinks which was a bit more featureful on my own servers...
    epihelix · 1789792001 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh, those great days when the competition was NCSA Mosaic.
    A simpler, better time. I miss it :(
    usrnm · 1789765877 · focus · HN ↗
    I've been using it since the time it was called Netscape Navigator. Just sayin'
    fragmede · 1789766587 · focus · HN ↗
    Shit, remember Mosaic? Gopher?
    mrkstu · 1789767523 · focus · HN ↗
    Any fellow CompuServe users around???
    nunodonato · 1789767407 · focus · HN ↗
    Loved netscape navigator! That entire suite with mail, website builder (composer?)
    drnick1 · 1789767135 · focus · HN ↗
    Some of us have been using it for two decades more or less.
    weikju · 1789775482 · focus · HN ↗
    Rather than being smug, I’ll say awesome! The best time to start using Firefox is yesterday. The second best time is now.
    IOW:
    Don’t threaten to stop using Google Chrome if they do one more evil thing. Start now.
    hobo123 · 1789820171 · focus · HN ↗
    Reminder that by now the Android version is also quite usable (typing this from FF). Just install Ublock origin.
  3. StilesCrisis · 1789766362 · focus · HN ↗
    Hard forking doesn't solve the problem of closed source.
    If the goal of a hard fork is "the community will invest equal resources that Google does today" then you wildly underestimate how many engineers work on Chrome.
    Forgeties79 · 1789767320 · focus · HN ↗
    But the open source project wouldn’t need to invest as much as Google does. There are all kinds of features and things they are working on that the general public really does not care about.
    StilesCrisis · 1789768336 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    paulryanrogers · 1789772787 · focus · HN ↗
    > But the open source project wouldn’t need to invest as much as Google does.
    Not at first. Yet over time the work increases as one must differ more and more from Chrome. I believe that's why so many forks are giving up on Manifest V2.
    Forgeties79 · 1789773829 · focus · HN ↗
    Differentiating isn’t as important as not engaging in Google‘s heinous practices
    charcircuit · 1789780120 · focus · HN ↗
    Forks are giving up on mv2 because it's not as important as the people online say it is. If mv2 was what would cause a browser to gain market share they would keep maintaining it, but if the market is not rewarding browsers with mv2 then it does not make sense to maintain.
    armadyl · 1789783715 · focus · HN ↗
    Seriously. The average person in real life has no idea what MV2 or MV3 is. And despite what people here would have you believe uBlock Origin Lite works nearly as good as uBO and is generally indistinguishable from its MV2 counterpart. A casual user wold not be able to tell the difference, nor do they care.
    nottorp · 1789812702 · focus · HN ↗
    Indistinguishable because ad blocking still works.
    Under the hood, what the MV2 uBlock can do and Lite can't is at the least stripping tracking parameters from links and block 3rd party trackers that are cloaked in a subdomain of the originating site.
    Forgeties79 · 1789820206 · focus · HN ↗
    You’re right it doesn’t impact most people’s decisions but m2 and m3’s differences are quite substantial and meaningful.
    Forgeties79 · 1789822954 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s overly simplistic and glosses over the actual objections to mv3.
    RunSet · 1789820506 · focus · HN ↗
    Chrome attained its user base not by merit but by paying third party Windows installers to bundle it.
    wwiinn · 1789825177 · focus · HN ↗
    Forcing it down users’ throats at the world’s most popular website might have helped. Slightly.
    cosmic_cheese · 1789825937 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep. Google has been incredibly aggressive in promoting Chrome over the years, including practices similar to those Microsoft gets lampooned for doing the same with Edge.
    The thing is that most of this is invisible to people who already live within Google’s bubble. The promotion is visible mostly to those of us who don’t, and it gets irritating.
    izacus · 1789830211 · focus · HN ↗
    This is complete nonsense, it's a post hoc copium where you're trying to dishonestly rewrite history from your personal hatered.
    Chrome was better than competition pretty much all its lifetime and there's plenty of historic articles to prove it, no matter how much your emotions refuse to accept the history.
    Forgeties79 · 1789837046 · focus · HN ↗
    You can argue the merits of a product without personally attacking people.
    izacus · 1789840742 · focus · HN ↗
    The only personal insult to everyone here is such blatant lying and rewriting of history. And it's telling about the bottom barrel culture of the internet that you're angrier about having someone called out as a liar they are instead of actual lies.
    We were there and we didn't install Chrome via some made up toolbar installer, but because it was significantly better than what Mozilla and Internet Explorer offered.
    Forgeties79 · 1789850423 · focus · HN ↗
    I am plenty calm, I do not know what gives you the impression I am angry. You, however, absolutely need to ease off the gas. You can’t talk to people like this here. You are being needlessly hostile and taking swipes at people. Treat people with respect or just don’t bother commenting. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    RunSet · 1790015016 · focus · HN ↗
    You are incorrect. Chrome was widely bundled with third party installers for much of its early history.
    <a href="https://www.osnews.com/story/25184/adobe-tricks-users-into-downloading-installing-google-chrome/" rel="nofollow">https://www.osnews.com/story/25184/adobe-tricks-users-into-d...
    <a href="https://www.labnol.org/software/chrome-with-adobe-reader/20123" rel="nofollow">https://www.labnol.org/software/chrome-with-adobe-reader/201...
    <a href="https://forum.filezilla-project.org/viewtopic.php?style=246&t=62153" rel="nofollow">https://forum.filezilla-project.org/viewtopic.php?style=246&...
    redeeman · 1789771758 · focus · HN ↗
    but perhaps we dont need several gigabytes compressed code to have a browser. perhaps what google have been doing is an utter abomination?
    atomicnumber3 · 1789772637 · focus · HN ↗
    This is cool until Google doesn't load in your free browser.
    bossyTeacher · 1789772841 · focus · HN ↗
    Then, you use this: <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/" rel="nofollow">https://duckduckgo.com/
    Actually, use it now.
    jchoksi · 1789773536 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite" rel="nofollow">https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite
    drnick1 · 1789791102 · focus · HN ↗
    This. Also, use OSM for maps and run your own SMTP server, if you can. Nobody should need Google.
    hobo123 · 1789819511 · focus · HN ↗
    Sadly, the to me most important parts of Maps are live navigation and live traffic status. I'm assuming you can't get those with osm (yet).
    The actual maps are much better in osm than in Google.
    drnick1 · 1789833375 · focus · HN ↗
    OsmAnd does have live navigation as far as I understand it (turn-by-turn directions), but no live traffic status, because for that you a lot of drivers willing to surrender their location/sensor data. Anything "live" cannot be privacy respecting. I never found live traffic information particularly worthwhile to be honest.
    tancop · 1789836478 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe it's time to give up privacy absolutism and add strictly opt in live data features.
    That reminds me, place reviews using ATProto. Kinda surprised that no map client jumped on that when it's the exact thing you need to replace a centralized service. A lot of people use Google Maps to find businesses more than directions.
    atomicnumber3 · 1789794049 · focus · HN ↗
    This works for nerds, but not for grandma who can't even describe what she's doing without using the word "google".
    skinfaxi · 1789801101 · focus · HN ↗
    Nerds with grandmas can manage grandma's DNS or better yet set up MDM (I'm serious).
    takeda · 1789773250 · focus · HN ↗
    Actually it is still cool if they don't.
    Through enshitification we do have alternatives.
    At this point the their only services I'm using are Maps, Translate and Keep Notes and it is mostly due to lazyiness as all of those already have alternatives.
    redeeman · 1790023943 · focus · HN ↗
    funny, somehow we managed to have these things before chrome became basically two orders of magnitudes exploded. are you seriously defending the size of chrome as rational? we are talking verbosity to the levels that even claude would be jealous of
    ocdtrekkie · 1789778454 · focus · HN ↗
    The bigger problem is wasting developer effort contributing to Google's platform. The real secret behind Android being "open" (sorta) is that while almost nobody runs AOSP, Google has tricked a bunch of fools into working on Android forks instead of building a real competitor.
    Playing at their table is a losing game, the house always wins.
    mitxela · 1789779158 · focus · HN ↗
    Windows only isn't still 90% market share because of Wine, then Proton.
    ocdtrekkie · 1789781098 · focus · HN ↗
    Neither Wine nor Proton run on Windows. Building Android emulators for Linux: Worth your time. Building Android knockoffs which claim to remove the Google from Google's operating system? Foolishness.
    mitxela · 1789781427 · focus · HN ↗
    ReactOS was also a good idea.
    wwiinn · 1789825036 · focus · HN ↗
    A lot of react os helped wine/proton. It’s still was a good idea.
    xmprt · 1789782344 · focus · HN ↗
    Valve is working on supporting apks for their new VR operating system. If this goes anything like Proton then I'm hopeful for the future of Android without Google.
    pjmlp · 1789789202 · focus · HN ↗
    Gamedevs would still target Android, just like they target Windows, letting Valve run after them.
    Android is even more of tragedy, given how all relevant NDK game development APIs are also available on GNU/Linux.
    mitxela · 1789785197 · focus · HN ↗
    Reimplementing Windows was a huge task. If the windows source code was available, why wouldn't you begin with a copy-paste?
    pjmlp · 1789789143 · focus · HN ↗
    More like thanks to Apple, in what concerns desktop computing.
    charcircuit · 1789780372 · focus · HN ↗
    The developer effort is not wasted because it's open source. Anyone can fork it at any time. None of it can be thrown away from humanity, wasting it.
    The reason why no one runs AOSP is because the phone market rewards differentiation. Each phone manufacture wants to build their own experience and building on top of AOSP is how they do so.
    Is it really a losing game? Building a new OS from scratch is not worth it. Why throw away an entire app catalog for your device? Consumers want access to existing app catalogs when buying a phone.
    ocdtrekkie · 1789781209 · focus · HN ↗
    If you are not working to destroy Android, you are supporting it. You might feel happy about your custom ROM nonsense and how it protects your privacy, but that just means you're selfish, because nearly everyone will still be trapped on Google's version.
    Technologists need to aggressively reject solutions which don't spread freedom to ordinary users as well.
    fragmede · 1789781558 · focus · HN ↗
    It wasn't worth it, but it's 2026, not 1991, when Linus first released Linux. AI can shit out a new OS, given enough tokens, and a VM/compatibility layer would let you run Android apps until native ports became available. The question is why would you want to do that? Computers are vastly more capable than they were when the Linux kernel was originally designed, and the needs of programs and their permissions have changed as well. <a href="https://xkcd.com/1200/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1200/ While throwing away all the learnings and starting from scratch are usually not justified, sometimes it is the right choice, if enough things have changed. Should GPS location, fine grained or coarse, and related permissions, be a part of the OS kernel or a user space daemon that other processes can query or some other thing? That wasn't a question when Linux was created but should be a core consideration for a replacement system that was created today, along with a myriad of other modern day questions that didn't exist back then. I don't think it's a loosing game, and I don't have the resources to make one myself, but I do think that the world's materially changed enough to justify it.
    fragmede · 1789781694 · focus · HN ↗
    It wasn't worth it, but it's 2026, not 1991, when Linus first released Linux. AI can shit out a new OS, given enough tokens, and a VM/compatibility layer would let you run Android apps until native ports became available. The question is why would you want to do that? Computers are vastly more capable than they were when the Linux kernel was originally designed, and the needs of programs and their permissions have changed as well. <a href="https://xkcd.com/1200/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1200/ While throwing away all the learnings and starting from scratch are usually not justified, sometimes it is the right choice, if enough things have changed. Should GPS location, fine grained or coarse, and related permissions, be a part of the OS kernel or a user space daemon that other processes can query or some other thing? That wasn't a question when Linux was created but should be a core consideration for a replacement system that was created today, along with a myriad of other modern day questions that didn't exist back then. I don't think it's a loosing game, and I don't have the resources to make one myself, but I do think that the world's materially changed enough to justify building a new one from scratch.
    AI generating code changes the game significantly, though there are issues with that. A new OS would have taken several millions and multiple teams, but can now be done for far less. The problem is hardware to run it on. Who'd pay $2,000 for a shittier phone with less features when a $500 used one with GrapheneOS is right there? So the market, (in)efficiently, hasn't come up with a new phone OS. Not because it isn't warranted, but because the free market isn't a perfect system.
    pjmlp · 1789789361 · focus · HN ↗
    You mean proprietary AI can do that, running on big corp servers.
    thepasch · 1789811323 · focus · HN ↗
    What proprietary AI running on big corp servers was 6 months ago is now runnable on owned bare metal compute, and there's no reason to believe this trajectory won't continue for the foreseeable future.
    pjmlp · 1789829168 · focus · HN ↗
    With a proprietary local stack, provided one can actually afford the hardware.
    bigstrat2003 · 1789793468 · focus · HN ↗
    LLMs can't even get much simpler programs right without humans holding their hand, let alone an OS. The odds of an LLM just banging out an OS are nil.
    fragmede · 1789957820 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://github.com/Made-In-Basement/ember" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/Made-In-Basement/ember would seem to raise the odds, slightly.
    charcircuit · 1789795024 · focus · HN ↗
    Why bother building a compatibility layer when you can just start with Android and start promoting your LLM from there?
    realusername · 1789785877 · focus · HN ↗
    > The reason why no one runs AOSP is because the phone market rewards differentiation.
    No, the reason is that AOSP doesn't even include a functional keyboard nor a functional call manager nowadays.
    AOSP apps were abandonned around Android 11, you can't just keep them as is for real users, it looks amateur.
    Even the open-source ROMs came to the same conclusion eventually and developed their own.
    charcircuit · 1789794895 · focus · HN ↗
    >the reason is that AOSP doesn't even include a functional keyboard nor a functional call manager nowadays
    No one was using those apps so it didn't make sense to spend time on them.
    troupo · 1789797777 · focus · HN ↗
    So.. The market didn't actually support differentiation?
    izacus · 1789820264 · focus · HN ↗
    The marked used all the different apps available from both OEMs and on Play Store.
    Don't be a prick.
    realusername · 1789836682 · focus · HN ↗
    They were used quite a lot at the time, outside of the usual Samsung/HTC, a lot of OEM didn't bother to make their own full app suite, nowadays it's necessary though
    AnthonyMouse · 1789790586 · focus · HN ↗
    > The reason why no one runs AOSP is because the phone market rewards differentiation.
    This is what empire-building middle managers say to rationalize their boondoggles, but in actual fact most customers can't even tell the difference between two different vendors' Android skins, definitely can't tell the difference before they buy one, and the way they actually differentiate phones is on real hardware differences that show up in the specs like the camera or performance.
    The hardware company's idiosyncratic fork of the software is irrelevant at best and annoyingly irregular in the common case.
    miki123211 · 1789814960 · focus · HN ↗
    > the way they actually differentiate phones is on real hardware differences that show up in the specs
    You forgot about one thing they care about above all others — cost.
    And the easiest way to keep costs down is through "alternative revenue streams", which involve your own tracking, your own app bundling deals and your own App Store, which you're pushing on users constantly. And if you do that, you may as well get the branding win from doing the custom skin too.
    AnthonyMouse · 1789967427 · focus · HN ↗
    That's the middle manager's rationalization again, but meanwhile nobody actually uses their OEM-specific app store and the two dollars they made from the two percent of customers who accidentally bought an app using their store is less than the amount of money they lose to pissing people off.
    swiftcoder · 1789817127 · focus · HN ↗
    > The developer effort is not wasted because it's open source. Anyone can fork it at any time
    Assuming you can get a hardware vendor to support your fork.
    Android has always been a weird blend of proprietary BSPs wedged together with the core AOSP project - we used to have an entire team whose full-time job was merging the Qualcomm BSP into our AOSP fork. At the time you didn't even get access to that BSP without inking a deal with QCOM...
    floxy · 1789781514 · focus · HN ↗
    >wildly underestimate how many engineers work on Chrome.
    It is completely insane how many people work on Chrome. It seems like it is time to deprecate web browsers and do something different. Like you get a frame-buffer to draw on with something like a wasm vm. Web pages get replaced by programs (which they essentially are anyway). Get rid of 99.9% of the cruft that has accumulated over the decades in browsers. If you want to have some of that cruft, that is a library you have to send.
    kjs3 · 1789782869 · focus · HN ↗
    Or go the other way and make web pages not programs at all, like they originally were. Unfortunately, just communicating information isn't cool, doesn't monetize, and certainly doesn't get clicks.
    mapontosevenths · 1789794788 · focus · HN ↗
    The biggest mistake the web ever made was leaving it up to to the website to choose how content renders.
    It should be the users choice how their browser renders, it's their damn browser. Instead, browsers are built to follow standards that mostly favor the developers preferences above those of the person who actually own the device rendering it.
    The modern web is user hostile by design.
    Xirdus · 1789807197 · focus · HN ↗
    If a web browser allows images, then the website always has full control over how content renders. It's the default. HTML and related standards are trying to persuade developers to cede some of that control in the name of accessibility, user choice, searchability, device compatibility etc. that all-image websites lack. But this can only succeed if the developers still can do everything they want to. If they can't, then they'll fall back to images and everyone loses.
    Sophira · 1789820552 · focus · HN ↗
    This is true.
    A lot of websites back in the 90s were just made up of images that were clickable using image maps. It was not a fun time.
    I get what they're saying, though, and it's why I use Gemini (the protocol[0], not the AI). It doesn't align with corporate interests, but for now I consider that a good thing.
    [0] <a href="https://geminiprotocol.net/" rel="nofollow">https://geminiprotocol.net/
    microtonal · 1789820613 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep, in the old days, a lot of websites used image maps (so that clicking a part of the image would go to another page).
    miki123211 · 1789814580 · focus · HN ↗
    Users want an app platform that 1) works on every device, 2) is 1-click (no app installation / management, click a link and go), and 3) has advanced capabilities which let them easily do the task at hand.
    Think "an interactive visualisation for choosing a seat when buying a concert ticket." That's not a "traditional" webpage, should work on whatever device the user is currently on (so native is unsuitable), and shouldn't require the user to install anything.
    People clearly want web pages to be exactly this; we're on iteration #3 of the idea now. Iterations 1 and 2 were Java Applets and Flash, not necessarily in that order, and they were massively popular despite their shortcomings. Clearly, if we somehow deprecated the web as it is now (which is an utterly ridiculous idea, which makes me really curious what comments like yours are exactly trying to achieve here), as long as we keep it an open standard, users will choose browsers which offer this capability in some form. We should appreciate that the current iteration is an open standard which anybody is free to implement, instead of some proprietary blob that you need to license from Oracle or Adobe.
    za_creature · 1789822727 · focus · HN ↗
    > Users want an app platform that...
    So do hackers. A big chunk of the open standards revolve around sandboxing malicious code, and given the amount of tracking happening anyway, fail at it.
    kjs3 · 1790464783 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't disagree with you, but I can't help but think "If that's what users want, why didn't you folks figure out how to do that well, instead of ruthlessly molesting HTTP to shove ever more crap it wasn't really designed to do into port 80/433".
    AnthonyMouse · 1789788797 · focus · HN ↗
    > Like you get a frame-buffer to draw on with something like a wasm vm. Web pages get replaced by programs (which they essentially are anyway).
    The biggest thing standing in the way of this is actually Apple, since they don't allow competing browser engines or equivalent so you can't make something like this for iOS whatsoever.
    floxy · 1789794817 · focus · HN ↗
    Apple can create a clone for their wall-garden.
    NetMageSCW · 1789804710 · focus · HN ↗
    Those times will never happen.
    nottorp · 1789812496 · focus · HN ↗
    Pretty sure wasm works on Safari since I've ran my own code like that...
    AnthonyMouse · 1789961810 · focus · HN ↗
    The premise is that you want to make something that competes with Safari, e.g. you want to provide a graphics API to third party developers.
    Doing that in Safari doesn't work twice. First, if Safari doesn't already expose whatever GPU primitives you need to do things efficiently, you can't get them. And second, your API implementation (which is likely to be large) would then have to be distributed by anyone using it instead of being part of the browser they use for all sites, creating a >100MB dependency for a <50kB web page.
    sp332 · 1789818120 · focus · HN ↗
    This kills accessibility. You wouldn't even be able to select text unless the page implemented that feature itself. Screen readers would have nothing to work with. No high-contrast mode, no translation, no changing the font size, no reader mode........
    TeMPOraL · 1789822464 · focus · HN ↗
    Unfortunately none of the things you listed are what page vendors want you to have. They'd very much prefer you didn't. On the web, they're just too hard to prevent, so most don't bother.
    sp332 · 1789823453 · focus · HN ↗
    I think that must be false. Serving the page as a static image was possible from the early days of the web, but vendors (mostly!) moved away from that as features like web fonts became available. I guess Flash was the big remaining exception. And remember Java applets? But even now as rendering to a canvas is possible, enabling animation and interactivity without necessarily including accessibility, websites are mostly not doing that. Accessibility is good for business. And sometimes it's legally required.
    TeMPOraL · 1789823922 · focus · HN ↗
    Software accessibility is bad for business - that's why it has to be legally mandated. There's no firm difference between "accessible", particularly to screen readers, and "amenable to end-user automation", and the latter is anathema to businesses.
    As for the styling and fonts - it's all a bunch of low-key trade-offs here. The businesses want to exercise total control over the end-user experience, for sales/marketing and branding reasons. At the same time, going off the beaten path quickly makes development costs skyrocket.
    Flash was a good choice back when all visitors were using a PC and there were like 3 different screen resolutions to choose from. Once laptops gained popularity, this started to shift, then pre-iPhone mobile briefly became consideration, and Flash stopped being sufficient; then iPhone came out, killed Flash, and started an era where every visitor has a different screen than the previous one. "Responsible web" became the cheapest option, and you can see its evolution as a trajectory towards giving more and more control over experience to developers, and less and less to the users.
    sp332 · 1789825453 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm fine with it being legally enforced. The point is, web site owners mostly wouldn't move to "a frame-buffer to draw on with something like a wasm vm".
    TeMPOraL · 1789826333 · focus · HN ↗
    Not until it's convenient enough, then yes.
    Otherwise, explain Flutter.
    tancop · 1789836190 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    seb1204 · 1789781884 · focus · HN ↗
    Not denying than many engineers work on Chrome just wondering how many of them work on Chrome features that are anti pattern, reducing privacy, improving information collection or tracking or against users interest in broad.
    StilesCrisis · 1789786195 · focus · HN ↗
    You can just look at the commit stream and see for yourself. Despite community pearl-clutching, 99% of the work is just good old fashioned software engineering.
    MiroslavPokorny · 1789793425 · focus · HN ↗
    Can anyone actually share 1 - 3 examples where a hard fork of a living os project has actually succeeded ?
    If AMZN couldnt make their fire whatever it was called fork of Android really grow, what chance has the community got ?
    hex-m · 1789796207 · focus · HN ↗
    OwnCloud -> Nextcloud, OpenOffice -> LibreOffice, Elasicsearch -> OpenSearch, privacyIDEA -> eduMFA
    MiroslavPokorny · 1789803927 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice
    Difficulties maintaining a sufficient number of contributors to keep the project viable have persisted for several years. In January 2015, the project reported a lack of active developers and code contributions.[49] There have been continual problems providing timely fixes to security vulnerabilities since 2015.[50][51][52][53] In September 2016, OpenOffice's project management committee chair Dennis Hamilton began a discussion of possibly discontinuing the project, after the Apache board had put them on monthly reporting due to the project's ongoing problems handling security issues.[54][55][56]
    Sounds like AOO is effectively dead, so this example is a fail to my challenge.
    OpenSearch & ElasticSearch both seem alive, as well as OC & NC.
    Neither <a href="https://github.com/privacyidea/privacyidea" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/privacyidea/privacyidea or <a href="https://github.com/eduMFA/eduMFA" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/eduMFA/eduMFA say either is a fork of the other.
    I think you failed to share 3, 2 seem to valid examples of my challenge but the other 2 are questionable.
    Kubuxu · 1789804866 · focus · HN ↗
    AOO became a thing after LibreOffice essentially won. Before that it was OpenOffice.org owned by oracle, forked into LibreOffice in 2010, with LibreOffice getting significant traction and Oracle throwing in the towel and donating OO to Apache Foundation in 2011.
    AnssiH · 1789813580 · focus · HN ↗
    LibreOffice was forked from OpenOffice.org in 2010, way before the difficulties of Apache OpenOffice (which didn't even exist back then).
    notpushkin · 1789828478 · focus · HN ↗
    > Sounds like AOO is effectively dead, so this example is a fail to my challenge.
    You didn’t ask for examples where both projects are alive!
    oAlbe · 1789862240 · focus · HN ↗
    The amount of people that to this day still default to OpenOffice and have either never heard of LibreOffice or think it's the same as OpenOffice is crazy making though.
    AnssiH · 1789813977 · focus · HN ↗
    The big ones that come to mind that were not already mentioned are MySQL => MariaDB, XFree86 => X.org.
    microtonal · 1789820303 · focus · HN ↗
    386BSD -> FreeBSD
    NetBSD -> OpenBSD
    To some extent I would argue that Linux is a spiritual fork of Minix and Unix.
    But I think it’s also worth pointing out that these were in vastly different times where a single person or a small group of people could maintain an OS. An OS or browser is vastly more complex now.
    bunderbunder · 1789822336 · focus · HN ↗
    Network effects were also nowhere near as strong as they are now.
    BSD is a sort of killer example. Using a BSD Unix got to be pretty difficult after Linux containers became hegemonic.
    mh- · 1789869571 · focus · HN ↗
    It was a bit challenging long before that. I ran webhosting on FreeBSD in the early 2000s - remember finding a tool you needed and hoping it was in ports?
    MiroslavPokorny · 1789869278 · focus · HN ↗
    The point which i didnt not mention in my original question is that merging from the fork is a pain, which is why its just easier to jump onto and continuing development on the fork if it gains traction.
    hollerith · 1789862349 · focus · HN ↗
    Samsung has had an Android fork for a long time.
    Safari started as a fork of KHTML, and Chrome started as a fork of (the open-source parts of) Safari.
  4. saghm · 1789767178 · focus · HN ↗
    > But they won't learn that on their own
    I think they're fully aware of this. They just don't care, because the goal of "get market share super high" has been reached, so now they have no need for it to continue being open.
    I don't disagree about what that means we should do; I just don't think we should assume they're being naive here. It's like writing a program to play chess; you should select your move assuming the opponent is smart and will make the optimal counterplay rather than assuming weakness, and then if they end up being less smart than that, you're still in a good place.
    lokar · 1789780793 · focus · HN ↗
    I think this is true, but I also believe the original people who built it are not the people in charge now.
    pjmlp · 1789789015 · focus · HN ↗
    Like most projects, anyone that thinks Linux or Steam will stay as they are when the generation that started it all is gone, is in for a surprise.
    joquarky · 1789858520 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm convinced that this is causing a lot of problems right now, including outside of the tech industry.
    A lot of the people now in charge of large organizations have never been down in the trenches. Or even near them.
    They operate in an abstract world with very little connection to reality.
    echelon · 1789785769 · focus · HN ↗
    We haven't had antitrust enforcement for 25 years. It's high time we did.
    Google needs to be broken up.
    necovek · 1789792878 · focus · HN ↗
    MS was never broken up.
    m4rtink · 1789803569 · focus · HN ↗
    So do M$ as well ?
    girvo · 1789814969 · focus · HN ↗
    Its still crazy to me that a judge effectively said "yes you're a monopoly, but it's too hard to break you up so we won't bother"... I'm being glib, but only slightly.
    izacus · 1789820109 · focus · HN ↗
    Start with Apple which actually has a monopoly on mobile devices in USA and let's go from there then.
    You do care about the market and aren't just angry because a corp doesn't listen to your orders, right? RIGHT?
    bunderbunder · 1789822047 · focus · HN ↗
    You would have a heck of a job convincing a court that 60% domestic market share in a two competitor market constitutes a monopoly.
    mahboi · 1789834913 · focus · HN ↗
    Then how is Google a monopoly?
    LocalH · 1789837024 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    mahboi · 1789858083 · focus · HN ↗
    No I don't know it. Is that what echelon meant?
    bunderbunder · 1789844308 · focus · HN ↗
    It isn’t, and nobody said it is. The ruling in question did not find that Google had a mobile OS monopoly. It found that they had monopolies in both the ad server and ad exchange markets, and was using them to reinforce each other in an anticompetitive way.
    izacus · 1789902368 · focus · HN ↗
    So why would they breakup Android away from Google (essentially killing the product as a whole due to lack of funding from Play) instead of separating the Ad business?
    [deleted] · 1789851950 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    mahboi · 1789835012 · focus · HN ↗
    Wow, Apple really made the right business choice only catering to people who don't care about any of this. Google set different expectations, and it already bit them with Epic.
    godelski · 1789787533 · focus · HN ↗
    Tbh I don't think fighting open source is Google's best play. I think it is in their own best interest to keep it fully open. It is free labor by those who are most passionate. It gives strong signals at what people want, this direction you develop. It strengthens security as more people try to test it. It means people work on forks rather than alternatives. All this is true even with a monopolistic market share.
    So yes, I do think they are being naïve. The stance is myopic. It is only a good move in the short term, and barely even that. It is under the false belief that we operate in a zero sum game.
    pjmlp · 1789788941 · focus · HN ↗
    Most successful open source projects have devs being paid by big corporations, including Linux itself, which only really took off in the 2000's when companies like IBM started caring.
    Also in the last century most software was commercial, and thanks to business friendly licenses we are back to demos, PD, Shareware and co, only with new names for a younger generation.
    Google will do just fine.
    spockz · 1789799605 · focus · HN ↗
    I don’t get the hate for business licenses.
    I’ve seen many open source contributors deflated because they wanted to share their code/solutions with other individuals and the world to learn from only to have their work sold as a service by a big cloud vendor without seeing something back for it. Or maybe even getting more work back to support the cloud vendor for free.
    So I’m not surprised at all that licenses that allow commercial use up to a point and above that require seperate license or contributions back. It is still open source in a lot of ways. Can still be part of other open source distributions that themselves make no profit etc. And only companies that are more than able to pay must pay something.
    fauigerzigerk · 1789810075 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    spockz · 1789828499 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    b112 · 1789808385 · focus · HN ↗
    which only really took off in the 2000's when companies like IBM started caring.
    Correlation is not causation.
    What I lived through, was Linux taking off like a juggernaut, and IBM embracing it as a result. Large corps came along for the ride, they didn't drive it and at best paid for some gas.
    DEVs being paid is simply what it is. The entire scsi/sata stack was originally re-authored by 3ware for example.
    Why?
    To sell stuff, and the guy was an advocate too.
    It's always been this way, under the great wonder of the GPL, blessed be it.
    pjmlp · 1789828976 · focus · HN ↗
    It was so relevant that even Wikipedia discusses this, we were using Solaris, HP-UX and Aix for actual production deployments. Linux was our MP3 server.
    b112 · 1789830378 · focus · HN ↗
    Meanwhile every startup in SV was using Linux, Facebook was using Linux, Google, and everyone in between. This was early 2000. It had immense momentum without big boys like IBM coming in (and IBM was massive compared to Google or Facebook of that day).
    pjmlp · 1789834641 · focus · HN ↗
    Really? Every single one?
    You must have a good source of information for such a statement.
    Do you want examples why Solaris was selling so well before the .com crash?
    b112 · 1789836638 · focus · HN ↗
    There are several 'early 2000s' after the .com crash. Linux growth was phenomenal, and as tends to happen with growth, starts with smaller market share.
    There is no conflict in "linux was growing without the big boys' and 'it started with small market share'.
    And yes, you can find exceptions to the rule, although regardless, do you see me saying "exclusively"? What does someone using Solaris, have to do with Linux only growing due to external help?
    lstodd · 1789840463 · focus · HN ↗
    FreeBSD 4 was big in early 2000s.
    b112 · 1789846061 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, yet it was. There were the BSDs, some more popular than others. A lot of the time, especially back in the earlier days, stuff was more regional.
    There certainly were mailing lists, usenet, forums, all of an all-encompasing scope. But there were also very local user groups, and pockets of wildly more and less usage depending upon region. The Internet was young, and many made decisions predicated upon what they saw around them.
    Especially back in the day, when Google was seen as good, and Facebook not really evil yet, everyone wanted to emulate them too.
    brirec · 1789847650 · focus · HN ↗
    I vividly remember my father coming home from Borders Books & Music one fateful day in 1998 with a boxed copy of Red Hat Linux 5.1. (This was the distro that eventually became Fedora, not RHEL). It was the first Linux distro I’d ever used, but my dad also had some older SuSE and Slackware CDs and floppies in his archives as well. I’m confident Red Hat has always paid their employees, and I’m confident SuSE GmbH did as well.
    Famously IBM did eventually buy Red Hat, but not for another 20 years. The fact is, Linux was alive and well and growing as far back as the late 1990s, and devs were getting paid. You could literally buy CDs in a box of an installable Linux distribution at an ordinary retail chain bookstore in 1998.
    And for whatever it’s worth, the reason Linux took off the way it did when it did was because the Dot Com Bubble helped pump smaller companies like Red Hat or SuSE up, and they were certainly selling floppies and pressed CDs at a margin like Shareware as well, since most people didn’t have the time or hardware to download and burn ISOs until the early/mid-2000s when P2P music took over the world.
    (I remember. I was there. I guess I’m old now…)
    datacruncher01 · 1789802018 · focus · HN ↗
    Google learned that it's exactly not in in their best interest when they lost their court case against Epic a few years ago which is why they are shifting focus away from open source and moving towards Apple's walled garden approach. If they had locked down their platform similarly as Apple did, Epic would probably have lost it's case for similar reasons.
    Granted, we know Android would not be where it is today without open source contributions.
    lmz · 1789831079 · focus · HN ↗
    > Granted, we know Android would not be where it is today without open source contributions.
    But the parts of Android that are majority outside developed is still available as the Linux kernel. I have my doubts that the uniquely Android bits of the userland and system services have many outside contributions.
    joquarky · 1789858379 · focus · HN ↗
    Isn't the biggest problem caused by the opaque drivers for the hardware? At least that seemed to be the roadblock a few years ago.
    lmz · 1789868666 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, but that's the same for all hardware so not a uniquely Android issue. Linux based wireless routers are another common category with the same problem.
    mahboi · 1789832931 · focus · HN ↗
    I forgot about this. Epic lost the same kind of suit against Apple. That's hilarious.
    brookst · 1789822263 · focus · HN ↗
    Every time the HN crowd rediscovers that companies make business strategy choices rather than immutable principled philosophical decisions, the angst and dismay are really something.
    When Android launched, making it open source (ish) was the right competitive decision. It got phone makers and carriers on board and accelerated the ecosystem’s development. Today it being open source (kinda) is a met negative for Google. So, yeah, they’re changing that.
    Well-run companies aren’t zealots. They adapt to changing conditions. If a company’s actions happen to align with your personal preferences today, it doesn’t mean you’ve found a lifelong philosophical soulmate. Ditto if a company’s actions run counter to what you want today. Either can and will change, and there’s nothing morally concerning either way.
    dzonga · 1789823540 · focus · HN ↗
    companies aren't human beings with morals.
    companies exist for the sole reason to make money - not to make the world better - that's a side effect.
    but unfortunately a lot of people wanna see the world as they wish it to be, not the way it is.
    ashkankiani · 1789824930 · focus · HN ↗
    And if I asked people to name companies which retain a good public perception of being not entirely profit driven, the ones that would most likely come to mind are ones like Costco, where there's someone who is setting the tone and not leaving it to the committee of free market/investors to decide the fate of the company. I wonder if there are parallels here to other similar economic models, hmm...
    dzonga · 1789827401 · focus · HN ↗
    companies like Costco, Patagonia etc are rare why ? because deliberate actions & care have been taken to go against the grain of what a company should do.
    just like the USA at it's founding - deliberate actions were taken etc that were counter to the normal. & going against the wind takes a lot of energy.
    at a certain point in time - you run out of energy or you've to keep keep reinvesting to not run out otherwise barbarians are knocking down at the gate.
    hollerith · 1789861878 · focus · HN ↗
    I shop at Costco and don't hate it, but why would I believe it is not entirely profit-driven?
    brookst · 1789869084 · focus · HN ↗
    The problem with “profit driven” is that it reduces motives to a lowest common denominator. Short term profit? Long term profit? Brand value that can be leveraged later?
    Costco, specifically, I have a good story about. Jim Sinegal spoke at my MBA program, and he talked about when they were starting and the challenge was a value prop of “buy bulk, lower cost” contrasted with bulk actually being more expensive than small quantities, therefore needing to target higher incomes.
    Part of the solution: wider parking spaces. Make people feel like their expensive cars are safer, it’s easier to get in and out of the car (especially for older people, who have more wealth), and differentiate from typical stores.
    Now, you tell me: would you be just as happy with cramped parking spaces because the larger ones are profit-driven? Does motive even matter here?
    johnnyanmac · 1789891719 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    tancop · 1789835237 · focus · HN ↗
    Not every business owner is a profit obsessed psycho. Most multinational CEOs are but you can find good people at every level. The "only exist to make money" thing starts when you let in shareholders, but a company can stay ethical as long as they put up strong barriers before taking outside investment.
    A lot of people get the wrong impression from reading Dodge Brothers and think companies are legally required to put profit first. What really happened is Friedman and Reagan planted the idea of shareholder supremacy, convinced schools to teach it and now generations of business majors think it's a sacred truth they have to enforce anywhere they go. Never let a MBA take over.
    tracerbulletx · 1789844284 · focus · HN ↗
    Being "a profit obsessed psycho" might help some people rise to positions of power, but I think the stronger point is that a corporation is an emergent superorganism with its own identity above the individual human level, without a psychology, that operates on its own principles of self preservation based on the incentives of the environment it operates in and that individual choices result in a gestalt of behaviors that no one person really has full control over even though they are part of it and what they do does affect the overall outcome, like a cell and organs making up an animal.
    usefulcat · 1789854908 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s not about the moral or ethical qualities of the CEO. It’s about the structural incentives of the organization as a whole. This is even more true in a larger organization, where any one individual has relatively little effect on the behavior of the organization as a whole.
    Companies that don’t do a good job of making profits tend to go away, thus there exists natural selective pressure to put profits ahead of other concerns. Note that none of the above has anything at all to do with morals or ethics.
    brookst · 1789868740 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes. Emergent behaviors.
    This is why a healthy, society-aligned regulatory regime is impoetant, to set incentives. If you make more money being decent than you would being abusive, companies will adapt. They are more like corals than they are like people.
    cindyllm · 1789869223 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    throw0101a · 1789841110 · focus · HN ↗
    > companies aren't human beings with morals.
    Companies are not sentient beings in themselves: they are made up of human beings with wills. If the human being(s) make moral choices the result will be companies that do moral actions.
    > companies exist for the sole reason to make money - not to make the world better - that's a side effect.
    That is one interpretation on the purpose of companies (and a relatively recent one):
    * <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
    There are others:
    * “Profits are to business as breathing is to life. Breathing is essential to life, but is not the purpose for living. Similarly, profits are essential for the existence of the corporation, but they are not the reason for its existence.” ― Charles A. O'Reilly, Lead and Disrupt: How to Solve the Innovator's Dilemma, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._O%27Reilly_III" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._O%27Reilly_III
    * “On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy...your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”[72] — <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#Politics" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch#Politics
    Or going back a few decades:
    > In 1949 General Foods’ president Clarence Francis told Congress that he had a “three-way responsibility to the American consumer, to our associates in this business, and to the 68,000 [stockholders in General Foods]. We . . . would serve (the company’s) interests badly by shifting the fruits of the enterprise too heavily toward any one of those groups.” Two years later, the president of Standard Oil of New Jersey claimed that managers needed “to conduct the affairs of the enterprise in such a way as to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups—stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.” So widespread were such views that, in 1959, one writer in the Harvard Business Review complained that it was no longer “fashionable for the corporation to take gleeful pride in making money.” Instead, he complained, it was typical “for the corporation to show that it is a great innovator; more specifically, a great public benefactor; and, very particularly, that it exists ‘to serve the public’.”
    * <a href="https://law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-history/" rel="nofollow">https://law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-history...
    > American corporate law has long drawn a bright line between for-profit and non-profit corporations. In recent years, hybrid or social enterprises have increasingly put this bright-line distinction to the test. This Article asks what we can learn about the purpose of the American business corporation by examining its history and development in the United States in its formative period from roughly 1780-1860. This brief history of corporate purpose suggests that the duty to maximize profits in the for-profit corporation is a relatively recent development. Historically, the American business corporation grew out of an earlier form of corporation that was neither for-profit nor nonprofit in today’s parlance but rather, served a multitude of municipal, religious, charitable, educational, and eventually business purposes in early nineteenth-century New England. The purposes of early American business corporations—rather than maximization of profit to private shareholders— were often overtly public, involving development of local transportation, finance, and other much-needed economic infrastructure. With the rise of factory-based manufacturing, railroads, and other capital-intensive industries in the middle decades of the nineteenth century and the advent of general incorporation statutes, the purpose of the American business corporation shifted fundamentally from public to private. By 1860, the stage was set for the modern firm.
    * <a href="https://repository.law.umich.edu/mbelr/vol9/iss1/2/" rel="nofollow">https://repository.law.umich.edu/mbelr/vol9/iss1/2/
    dekimir · 1789851492 · focus · HN ↗
    Eric Ries gives more examples and some excellent commentary on this here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJ1vTdHpks" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJ1vTdHpks
    throw0101a · 1789861987 · focus · HN ↗
    > That is one interpretation on the purpose of companies (and a relatively recent one):
    Self-reply: see also Boeing company ethos pre-McD acquisition versus post-McD acquisition ethos:
    * <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55994102-flying-blind" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/55994102-flying-blind
    dzonga · 1789911047 · focus · HN ↗
    thanks for the resources.
    croes · 1789847286 · focus · HN ↗
    Are there the same companies that claim that companies are people?
    The exist to make money but not by all means.
    Companies are allowed to make money because it’s a net benefit for society.
    If that changes companies lose their reason of existence.
    account42 · 1789977062 · focus · HN ↗
    Pushing back on companies breaking social norms you think are important is one way to make the world how you wish it to be. The point is to make it clear that doing immoral things will affect their finances.
    Setting on "companies exist for the sole reason to make money" as the only motivating factor just makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    mahboi · 1789832717 · focus · HN ↗
    I was more annoyed when Google was like "we're the good guys, we believe in free stuff." At least now they're being honest.
    mahboi · 1789833028 · focus · HN ↗
    The "we're the good guys, we give away everything for free" Google was annoying. At least they're honest now.
    d0mine · 1789835013 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    omgwtfbyobbq · 1789842946 · focus · HN ↗
    I think this is a different situation than what you're describing. It's one thing when a company acts in their own interests, their communications are consistent with that, you observe that, and align with them (or don't).
    It's another when they say they're going to do one thing, you align with them, and then they do another later. That's generally frowned upon morally because it's considered to be deceptive/untruthful.
    It's not surprising, but that doesn't mean people should be ok with it, especially when other businesses get by fine making more ethical business choices, or at least avoid outright lying for their own benefit.
    b3ing · 1789847519 · focus · HN ↗
    Yet Chrome will still be used and installed. I hope Firefox gains numbers but I know it won’t
    flossly · 1789848321 · focus · HN ↗
    An if you dont like to give them your work, but still do open source, there are the copy-left licenses: GPL and AGPL.
    They stay away from those.
    What license was KHTML again? Checked: LGPL.
    lukewrites · 1789862130 · focus · HN ↗
    > Well-run companies aren’t zealots
    They absolutely are zealots; the zealotry focuses on profit.
    Why these types of stories are so jarring to some is that they serve as a reminder that your pet technology or project will get fed into the wood chipper if enough bloodless “Ex-Bain, Ex-Mercer, I Love LinkedIn” types tell the ceo it’s a profitable idea. And you are just as expendable.
    johnnyanmac · 1789891049 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  5. awakeasleep · 1789767749 · focus · HN ↗
    The “we” in your post is interesting to me. Who do you mean? Individuals?
  6. cecexacjrgec · 1789767824 · focus · HN ↗
    > or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.
    With the way Firefox is heading, that might not be the best idea. Nowadays Mozilla seem more focused on riding the AI-hype wave than actually making an excellent browser people want to actually use.
    stuaxo · 1789767928 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not really a "both sides" thing given the scale difference between what Google is up to and that.
    cecexacjrgec · 1789768199 · focus · HN ↗
    No one is forcing Mozilla’s hand (afaik) and no one is actually thinking “if Firefox had a chatbot that might convince me to move over”. Youre right that it is not a “both sides” thing, its a “Mozilla thing”. Through and through.
    mitxela · 1789779266 · focus · HN ↗
    Some people are thinking "Firefox doesn't have a chatbot so I'll use chrome" though
    wolrah · 1789786215 · focus · HN ↗
    Really? How many people can that possibly be, and how many of those would a reasonably sane developer actually want?
    If your competition is attracting the worst kind of users, do you really want to get in their way?
    mitxela · 1789788222 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes you want more users not less. This is business 101. Even business 000. Customers good.
    fragmede · 1789789493 · focus · HN ↗
    Business 101 is to make sales! Users sometimes represent sales, but not always. That maybe Business 201 though.
    mitxela · 1789822600 · focus · HN ↗
    This is about market share of a nonprofit - it's users.
    exjejfjeifj · 1789835344 · focus · HN ↗
    Precisely their point: users don’t necessarily mean sales, but they MIGHT bring in donors.
    wolrah · 1789937552 · focus · HN ↗
    Business 102, something that's obvious to anyone who's ever worked a customer facing job but incredibly elusive to a lot of people who went straight to management, is that some customers are net negatives and you should not cater to them. They have some combination of ignorance, stupidity, and/or malice which results in them costing more employee time and/or "goodwill" than you'll ever make from selling things. Your business is better off not having them, and even better if they go off to inflict themselves on your competition.
    rockskon · 1789786986 · focus · HN ↗
    Are any of those people not investors?
    II2II · 1789769581 · focus · HN ↗
    It is sad to see Firefox riding various hype trains over the years, but I can't really blame them. Miss the wrong train, and you fall behind and may not be able to catch up. Miss the train to nowhere, and you are only wasting resources.
    As for the excellent browser that people want, that raises the question of what people want. There are likely as many answers as people.
    cecexacjrgec · 1789770337 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah. It’s a tough balance to achieve but that’s the situation we’re in right now so Mozilla really ought to step up (and I totally wish they would).
    My biggest pain point at the moment (entirely subjective mind you) is not even the AI nonsense, but how disjointed and alien the Firefox UX and general feel is to Apple platforms. I don’t want Firefox to mirror Safari 1:1 but I do want the Firefox UI and UX to feel polished, well thought out and thoroughly in line with system HIG specs—given that I spend a lot of time in a browser, it shouldn’t feel like a stranger in a strange land amidst my other desktop applications.
    josephg · 1789771076 · focus · HN ↗
    What aspects feel foreign on macOS? The Firefox preferences for sure. Anything else?
    weikju · 1789775328 · focus · HN ↗
    Tab close buttons are on the right (windows style) instead of on the left (macOS style), for one.
    odo1242 · 1789781181 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean, it’s the same on every browser except Safari
    cecexacjrgec · 1789795296 · focus · HN ↗
    Just because everybody does it wrong doesn’t make it right.
    weikju · 1789798509 · focus · HN ↗
    Orion also does it right.
    Every other browser aren’t using macOS native UI therefore are wrong in this environment. But right on their own in being the same everywhere.
    cecexacjrgec · 1789806239 · focus · HN ↗
    Unfortunately “being the same everywhere” only works if your application is distinctive enough in functionality that it can’t be anything else but itself. Firefox is just a browser. Safari is also a browser. Chrome is also a browser. And none of these apps are more important or relevant than the operating system they are working under.
    If my OS says windows and tabs close on the left, then I expect every single app to be a good platform citizen and not make me relearn default controls just to operate simple functions. Windows and tabs close on the left. End of story.
    cecexacjrgec · 1789805475 · focus · HN ↗
    Not only that, but general colours are system-like but offputtingly different (dark theme is different from Mac dark theme just enough to be unsettling). Spacing (padding, margins, etc) is uneven on a lot of options, toggles and fields. Swipe back/forth being a simple arrow on the corner of the screen instead of full page swipe (like Safari) in the year of our lord 2026 is a complete disgrace (yes, chrome does this too, yes chrome also sucks). Press CMD+F and just watch as a search bar that hasn’t been updated to modern visuals in about 20 years pops up at the bottom. Pretty much everything around Firefox feels like a random collection of Windows and Linux behavioural patterns mashed together like a digital Frankenstein monster.
    Firefox is not a bad browser by any means, but it feels like Firefox is the browser equivalent of the “how do you do fellow kids” meme. An out-of-time experience pretending to blend in under the guise of “AI”.
    II2II · 1789825288 · focus · HN ↗
    Most of those are subjective details and vary from platform to platform. Fine adjustments for each platform isn't guaranteed to attract many people to Firefox either. After all, the UI/UX of Firefox is good even if it isn't excellent. Factors such as convenience (e.g. familiarity or being pre-installed) are likely bigger factors. That said, I will grant you that things like the visibility of the find bar is poor.
    It is also worth noting that the macOS UI/UX isn't anywhere near perfect. It is a hodgepodge of design decisions that go back to the origin of OS X or, in a few cases, the origin of the Macintosh iitself. Padding and margins may help achieve visual balance, but it's Windows management paradigm is an absolute functional mess.
    exjejfjeifj · 1789835274 · focus · HN ↗
    Your argument boils down to “but Mac’s HIG isn’t perfect and UX/UI criticism is nitpicking”. OP is right though, UI/UX matters and despite Mac’s HIG being a mess, it is the Mac’s mess and users expect a Mac-like mess, Firefox should not be taking things into its own hands either way.
    II2II · 1789841221 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe I shouldn't have included that second paragraph, since that's not my point. The second paragraph was more of an expression of frustration with how elements of the Apple user base regard macOS as the pinnacle of user interfaces and how everyone places an extremely high importance upon even minor elements.
    Then again: while I believe bad UI/UX is a thing, I don't think there is an ideal. Different people think in different terms, or have different preferences. Some forms of interaction are better in one domain than another. There are undoubtedly many other reasons.
    As for Firefox taking things into their own hands, that's the developer's decision. I have already given two reasons why that may be the case (users may expect consistency across platforms, and it may require too much effort for too little return).
    takeda · 1789773933 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe I'm not enough of an Apple fanboy but using work provided mac with firefox for 15 years I never noticed UI being disjointed from the system any more than Chrome.
    cecexacjrgec · 1789806821 · focus · HN ↗
    > Maybe I'm not enough of an Apple fanboy
    Maybe you’re too preoccupied trying to discredit valid criticism as “fanboyism” to realise how important UI and UX are for products such as browsers.
    Besides, Chrome itself is already an absolute mess of conflicting and downright distasteful UX choices and patterns. Chrome seems to DESPISE being available on Mac.
    II2II · 1789782947 · focus · HN ↗
    Behaving like a native application also has tradeoffs. If you're only working on one platform, then sure you will want it to behave like a native application. If you're working on multiple platforms, chances are that you're going to value consistency. And while macOS users prefer their UI, the same can be said of Linux and Windows users. Guess which one is going to win out there.
    epihelix · 1789791507 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't understand this - what is wrong with Firefox these days? It does everything I need, and very few things I don't want.
    Very puzzled why there isn't more love for Firefox, even on HN.
    AstralSerenity · 1789888625 · focus · HN ↗
    There is a weird standard Mozilla is held to that doesn't exist even for other privacy-minded companies.
    There is also a layer of hypocrisy when people beg for Mozilla to generate greater revenue diversity, but then an immediate scoff whenever they try anything unrelated to Firefox -- where there is no money beyond search deals since Mozilla can't go down the Brave crypto route.
    josephg · 1789770990 · focus · HN ↗
    Mozilla definitely wastes a bunch of money building features I don’t want. But underneath it all, Firefox is still an excellent web browser. You just occasionally have to disable “pocket” or “gadgets” or something.
    AstralSerenity · 1789887778 · focus · HN ↗
    It's also easy to understand why.
    Google is not the same company Mozilla partnered with decades ago. You can listen to retrospectives from Mozilla engineers, and you sense a desire to bite the corrupted hand that feeds.
    However, for Mozilla to be the bold, it needs funding diversity, and that isn't going to come from a browser alone.
    I have not agreed with everything Mozilla has thrown against the wall, but I sincerely hope something sticks. We need it to.
    bryanlarsen · 1789772459 · focus · HN ↗
    Is Firefox or Mozilla perfect? Heck no. But we're not comparing Mozilla against pre-IBM Red Hat or Ben & Jerry's or whatever your concept of the ideal corporate citizen is. We're comparing Mozilla against Google. That's a very low bar that Mozilla clears with ease, especially if you're criteria includes shoving AI down your throat.
    mitxela · 1789779220 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not sure Mozilla clears it. Zen or Librewolf or PaleMoon clears it.
    AstralSerenity · 1789888338 · focus · HN ↗
    Gosh, Pale Moon? That browser is a security nightmare IIRC.
    pjmlp · 1789789620 · focus · HN ↗
    Firefox is no longer part of most browser compatibility matrices, what ease?
    throwaway27448 · 1789790670 · focus · HN ↗
    > Firefox is no longer part of most browser compatibility matrices, what ease?
    What would be the point of a browser compatibility matrix then?
    pjmlp · 1789793296 · focus · HN ↗
    Compatibility between market relevant browsers.
    Which for the large majority of companies means Chrome and Safari nowadays.
    throwaway27448 · 1789790638 · focus · HN ↗
    Either way we're still stuck with it.
    jdjfnfjdjjeh · 1789778364 · focus · HN ↗
    Mozilla gets 100M a year from Google ??? No fucking way they are biting the hand that feeds.
    EbNar · 1789794284 · focus · HN ↗
    Closer to 500M, actually.
    hurfdurf · 1789805070 · focus · HN ↗
    ~$585 million in 2024 (86% of total revenue) <a href="https://stateof.mozilla.org/pdf/Mozilla%20Fdn%202024%20-%20AuditedFinancials.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://stateof.mozilla.org/pdf/Mozilla%20Fdn%202024%20-%20A...
    Mentioned as "one customer" in the PDF.
    jdjfnfjdjjeh · 1789805914 · focus · HN ↗
    Lol yeah off by a factor of 6 but yeah no fuxnig way still stands
    wwiinn · 1789825269 · focus · HN ↗
    They still produced Firefox OS for mobile phones.
    ricardobayes · 1789827120 · focus · HN ↗
    An interesting read. If I'm reading page 20 right, they hold over 1 billion worth of investments? I've seen smaller hedge funds.
    seb1204 · 1789781729 · focus · HN ↗
    Where is the form, forum or spot in general where one can tell Mozilla?
    suprjami · 1789788985 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  7. arcanemachiner · 1789769712 · focus · HN ↗
    > Android wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't open source.
    Yes, and now that they've achieved market saturation, it's time to pull up the ladder.
    Thanks for all the free work, suckers!
    spydum · 1789780338 · focus · HN ↗
    Don't worry, we will fork and just repeat the pattern with new names! See you next time!
    pjmlp · 1789789541 · focus · HN ↗
    GNU generation is over 50 nowadays, and newer don't really get open source as we used to.
    I mean, FOSDEM full of Apple laptops on the corridors, the message was really lost.
    mahboi · 1789833324 · focus · HN ↗
    Google started making proprietary APIs for the Pixel. Even if they stop contributing to the open Android, is this really pulling up a ladder? The open Android is still there and can be run on phones.
  8. jauntywundrkind · 1789770556 · focus · HN ↗
    It's sad we lost ChromeOS. They got Linux, they got open source, they didn't make so so so many unforced errors.
    Now that the chromebooks are also Android, it feels like the slide is only going to grow ever more fearsome.
  9. charcircuit · 1789779874 · focus · HN ↗
    There are already several different forks of Chromium and they are able to make their own decisions on points where they want to differentiate from upstream or other browsers in the market.
  10. Henchman21 · 1789780701 · focus · HN ↗
    Ahem. Ladybird.
  11. xmprt · 1789781693 · focus · HN ↗
    Google is starting to turn into early 2000s / late 90s Oracle.
  12. suprjami · 1789788873 · focus · HN ↗
    > or turn to alternatives like Firefox
    Implying I ever left Firefox in the first place.
    simondotau · 1789830222 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m a web developer and I have never dailied Chrome or a Chromium descendant. Firefox for daily, Safari for the occasional cross-check.
  13. DANmode · 1789790346 · focus · HN ↗
    > Just because it is open source doesn't mean they don't control it
    Just point out how that hurts security or privacy and we’re with you!
  14. throwaway27448 · 1789790566 · focus · HN ↗
    > advocating for chromium.
    Advocating for chromium to do what?
  15. rs_rs_rs_rs_rs · 1789800064 · focus · HN ↗
    Who's we?
  16. p0w3n3d · 1789801103 · focus · HN ↗
    So we move. We force their hand
    How?
  17. dmacedo · 1789803105 · focus · HN ↗
    I would say its even more proactive than support other projects. It is becoming clearer that every single technically competent member of the friends or family is now required to educate and proactively change devices.
    Remember this upcoming Christmas that the ye oldie tradition of fixing PCs clearing awful exploiting phone apps (and cancelling subscriptions) should also include the "fix my browser" again, instead of Internet Explorer being replaced by Chrome, our collective duties is to replace Chrome with Firefox, plus its useful extensions to block ads and improve the web experience removing trackers etc.
    Your call to arms today is to ensure all your tech colleagues join the movement, and then we can see Google's management views on "market growth"; they forget they made Chrome, we sold it - its our fault we forgot the "infinite growth of shareholder value"...
  18. duskdozer · 1789810875 · focus · HN ↗
    What's the licensing on AOSP? Everything I look for points to Google-owned things. Is it a GPL/similar that Google is actually legally required to share its changes?
  19. drooopy · 1789820176 · focus · HN ↗
    I wish that a consortium of Android phone makers would/could "LibreOffice" Android.
  20. leni536 · 1789821269 · focus · HN ↗
    Reminder to think twice when signing CLAs when contributing to these big company open source projects.
  21. httgp · 1789825634 · focus · HN ↗
    Heavily rooting for Ladybird.
  22. faust201 · 1789826865 · focus · HN ↗
    > I hope people remember this when advocating for chromium. Just because it is open source doesn't mean they don't control it. We need to start the long process of hard forking now or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.
    This is correct but rarely in practiced.
    During firefox DRM/HTML5 issue, I know many people from Free software foundation Europe absolutely telling in their blogs, talks etc please stop Mozilla from implementing this DRM or that... but finally when I spoke to these in private they told --- ya, whatever - I need to see this series in netflix etc- so I have another device with chrome etc to watch it. (Indeed Firefox did implement it)
    This behavior is the reason average Joe gives up...
  23. thisislife2 · 1789841609 · focus · HN ↗
    And this is also why I advocate for xGPL for open source projects. FSF's xGNU Public Licenses are the only open source licenses (that I am aware of) that envisioned a users "right to repair" decades ago. This is enforced by ensuring that any source code licensed and distributed under xGPL, has to remain open source. Other permissive licenses, like MIT, BSD or Apache, for example, don't guarantee the open source nature of the product that is licensed under it as it allows anyone to also use the code and distribute it without the source code.
    (This is also why we should be be vary, and quite sceptical of, Canonical's new Rust-based port of GNU CoreUtils too. Apparently, Canonical plans to replace GNU CoreUtil completely in Ubuntu with this port. The original GNU Coreutils are licensed under the GPL, but the Rust based ports are not. This means that Canonical will now have the ability to stop distributing the source code of its CoreUtils port in future Ubuntu Oses).
    toxik · 1789842405 · focus · HN ↗
    And you just know Canonical thinks this is feasible because they can just copyright wash it with an LLM. "Write GNU coreutils in rust" is all you need to say.
  24. graemep · 1789842311 · focus · HN ↗
    The important bits of Chromium are LGPL licensed,originally a fork of other people's code. Google cannot close it as easily.
  25. m-p-3 · 1789842583 · focus · HN ↗
    > or turn to alternatives like Firefox
    I never left. The only thing I don't like is that I can't directly donate to fund Firefox, only towards the Mozilla Foundation in general.
    AstralSerenity · 1789888122 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm personally fine with that. Mozilla Corporation (Firefox) remains the largest part of Mozilla.
    As the cash cow, it will always receive what it needs, but it will also act as the vehicle for funding possible avenues of diversity.
    Mozilla is never going to be independent off of Firefox alone -- that revenue simply doesn't exist.
    I wish Mozilla had taken Proton's approach, but regardless, I hope they manage to throw something that sticks.
    A fully financially secure Mozilla would truly allow their organization to shine.
  26. marysol5 · 1789992771 · focus · HN ↗
    The fragmentation that has occurred in Android Google does hate, they've been working to try and piece it back together, getting manufacturers to stop bastardising the OS.
9. dimaaan · 1789764011 · focus · HN ↗
  And don't forget about Manifest V2/uBlock Origin removal!
10. thfuran · 1789764256 · focus · HN ↗
  Doesn't it make perfect sense in the context of a deliberate effort to end open source Android?
11. yndoendo · 1789765626 · focus · HN ↗
  It makes perfect sense when you apply the Friedman doctrine to their actions. [0]
  Google is a lawn mower, stop anthropologizing them. This goes the same with Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, ...
  [0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
  1. mikeweiss · 1789767182 · focus · HN ↗
    Agree. The only time a company does something in the public interest is when it believes doing so would ultimately benefit the shareholders. Everything is a business decision.
  2. wwiinn · 1789825600 · focus · HN ↗
    You conveniently forgot the OG, oracle.
12. surcap526 · 1789766753 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
13. bossyTeacher · 1789772788 · focus · HN ↗
  > None of their decisions make any sense,
  Of course, it does. Google is no longer afraid to spit on open source. People happy to use Chromium features better remember this. You are renting everything and your landlord will soon come demanding it back.
14. rkagerer · 1789774007 · focus · HN ↗
  Yeah I have trouble accepting it's pure coincidence this occurs just as GrapheneOS is starting to gain some noticeable traction.
  1. NetMageSCW · 1789842763 · focus · HN ↗
    LOL at “noticeable traction”.
15. karlgkk · 1789778651 · focus · HN ↗
  > None of their decisions make any sense
  It only doesn’t make sense if you’re assuming conspiracy.
  It makes a lot more sense if you assume they just don’t give a shit.
16. mitxela · 1789779102 · focus · HN ↗
  When you realize that keeping people on proprietary mobile OSes is a matter of national security it makes more sense. The USA spares no expense for national security.
17. _blk · 1789780157 · focus · HN ↗
  It's not that it doesn't make sense, you just said it, they regret - well maybe not regret since they'd never made it without, but they now want to reverse a decision they feel needs to be overhauled. I always thought they'll replace Linux with Fuchsia but that hasn't happened and it's not like they couldn't have done it.
18. Telaneo · 1789783898 · focus · HN ↗
  I'm convinced Android being open source is just an accident of history. It's been somewhat useful for Google to be able to ride on that goodwill, but they're not actually invested in open source beyond the ways it directly benefits them (or at least they haven't been in the last 10 years). Thus they're happy to throw the baby out with the bathwater if they believe they need the bathtub for anything that will earn them 0.1 cent more than that baby would.
  1. Ritewut · 1789784856 · focus · HN ↗
    It's like PC parts being modular. IBMs greatest mistake and the industry wants to make sure it never happens again.
    NetMageSCW · 1789805205 · focus · HN ↗
    When IBM tried that with PS/2 it didn’t go so well.
    layer8 · 1789842711 · focus · HN ↗
    Apple seems to be having more success.
  2. ikiris · 1789790339 · focus · HN ↗
    Its more a reflection of the vastly different internal culture of the time (and different executive leadership).
    When Patrick Pichette left and Sundar became CEO both led to massive culture shifts.
19. taneq · 1789784581 · focus · HN ↗
  If someone’s (or some company’s) decisions don’t make sense to you, you don’t understand their motivations.
20. surajrmal · 1789788864 · focus · HN ↗
  There was a split world for a long time even before the more recent changes because of the need to hide secret new features or products from the general public. It was always a tricky arrangement. They just decided one day that there wasn't a lot of folks contributing that lacked access to the private repos, so they might as well just switch all development to occur in that place. Honestly, it's somewhat rationale. If there was a significant number of folks contributing to Android without such access I'm sure that wouldn't have happened. We didn't lose as much as folks think we did given the code drops from the private repos still happened even previously.
21. varenc · 1789789018 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
22. binkHN · 1789794526 · focus · HN ↗
  They want to be like Apple here and lock things down. Remember SMS? The ubiquitous text messaging protocol that had an API that developers could access? Now, the latest standard, RCS, is locked down with no API and behaves just like iMessage. Ring any bells?
23. sporkland · 1789796036 · focus · HN ↗
  As an outsider in a hyper competitive commercial space like mobile os (apple, android) which part makes you think it's active obstruction and not just moving fast and trying to keep up, get ahead, etc and they want the open source side but it's a lower priority?
  1. fh973 · 1789819891 · focus · HN ↗
    Please remind us which exciting features Android graced us with in the last say 3 years?
    hollerith · 1789863196 · focus · HN ↗
    Desktop mode!
    hollerith · 1789863638 · focus · HN ↗
    The developers at Google who are good at Android development have been busy adapting Android to be the OS for its upcoming Googlebook laptops. Consequently, Android for smartphones has probably been ignored.
24. zx8080 · 1789805131 · focus · HN ↗
  > None of their decisions make any sense ..
  What? Google is advertisement business. Not a software house. They sell ads. It all makes sense to build a walled garden. They are effectively a monopoly for half of the personal devices _in the world_. And they _will_ return their investments into the opensource. By locking Android and Chrome and showing ads to everyone.
  Like the old days shitty TV, full of ads.
25. zx8080 · 1789807162 · focus · HN ↗
  > Google simply regrets android being open source.
  No, they are benefitting from it! They gained some trust and removed competition from the horizon. Now they are locking the platform down to do what their business is about: displaying ads.
26. mrbluecoat · 1789827739 · focus · HN ↗
  > Pixels are now significantly harder to support than many other devices. ... It will be far easier for us to support upcoming Motorola devices than Pixels.
  The Motorola transition can't come soon enough, IMHO
27. illiac786 · 1789829506 · focus · HN ↗
  Well, based on your last sentence these decisions very much make sense.
  But I agree with the other comments out there. It will get ugly and they will loose. I am convinced there many heavy weights just waiting for the right time to hit google hard on this. While I don’t know all of them and don’t like the ones I think I know, I will sing and dance when it’ll happen.
  And no, Apple is no better.
28. mahboi · 1789833529 · focus · HN ↗
  This news in particular seems similar to the other Android phonemakers like Samsung. They have their own custom Android forks that aren't open source.
petcat · 1789761146 · focus · HN ↗
Does anyone contribute to AOSP besides Google? Does Google actually accept any patches into "upstream" and ultimately into their own commercial distro?
1. nzeid · 1789761604 · focus · HN ↗
  The phrasing of your first question is ironic given GrapheneOS has upstreamed a ton of their security hardening.
  You're probably asking if they're able contribute anymore?
  1. izacus · 1789763080 · focus · HN ↗
    Can you link to patches or commits they upstteamed? I'm not aware Google ever accepted any.
    PhilippGille · 1789765717 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://grapheneos.org/faq#upstream" rel="nofollow">https://grapheneos.org/faq#upstream
    <a href="https://android-review.googlesource.com/q/status:merged+author:%22Daniel%20Micay%22" rel="nofollow">https://android-review.googlesource.com/q/status:merged+auth...
    HJain13 · 1789793081 · focus · HN ↗
    Nothing in last 5 years; and if we ignore the last one, Nothing in almost 9-10 years. I am not sure how much weight it holds. Now if that's on Google on not accepting stuff that's different matter
    izacus · 1789801194 · focus · HN ↗
    Most of it is one liner config changes too, not much of actual code.
    ysnp · 1789811144 · focus · HN ↗
    What about issue tracker discussions, mailing list discussions, security vulnerability reports etc.?
  2. shwaj · 1789859281 · focus · HN ↗
    Why is it ironic? Sounds like an honest question from someone who doesn’t know.
    nzeid · 1789923954 · focus · HN ↗
    Don't worry, I'm not coming down hard on said person. The thread is about a GrapheneOS bulletin, whose members are well-documented contributers to AOSP.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.