Thread

1. 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. 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. 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.

         1. stuaxo · 1789767928 · focus · HN ↗

            It's not really a "both sides" thing given the scale difference between what Google is up to and that.

            1. 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.

               1. mitxela · 1789779266 · focus · HN ↗

                  Some people are thinking "Firefox doesn't have a chatbot so I'll use chrome" though

                  1. 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?

                     1. mitxela · 1789788222 · focus · HN ↗

                        Yes you want more users not less. This is business 101. Even business 000. Customers good.

                        1. fragmede · 1789789493 · focus · HN ↗

                           Business 101 is to make sales! Users sometimes represent sales, but not always. That maybe Business 201 though.

                           1. mitxela · 1789822600 · focus · HN ↗

                              This is about market share of a nonprofit - it's users.

                              1. exjejfjeifj · 1789835344 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Precisely their point: users don’t necessarily mean sales, but they MIGHT bring in donors.
                        2. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.