Thread

1. mmooss · 1790974594 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. csdreamer7 · 1790992301 · focus · HN ↗

      > It seems especially dangerous being entirely dependant on Google's goodwill; Google has zero need for GOS.

      Google's justification for Android over Apple is it being open source and attracting this crowd and people they recommend it to. They have a very strong need for it or they would have stopped contributing years ago.

      > GOS can just talk about the upside, their solution to this problem. That's great work. But they often choose to denigrate others, which is destructive, damages relationships (the most essential assets - especially when you have no money to offer!), and is myopic: GOS's sh-t stinks too; they f- things up too.

      Look up false equivalence.

      GOS isn't a trillion dollar company with a massive possible budget for quality control. Google can do better and they should do better.

      If Google's internal issues (or deliberate withholding of source code) is causing a small group to surpass them in product quality then that is something to talk about. Especially without the ad tracking and data collecting money Google brings in.

      If it gets Google to improve AOSP then all the better.

      > would tell GOS to zip it. > Just zip it, be professional,

      This is very rude-esp for a group trying to make Android better. I downvoted you.

      1. mmooss · 1791000424 · focus · HN ↗

         All the justification in the world won't help GOS. Do they want to be justified or do they want GOS to succeed?

         At work you can say things and say them in a manner that you think is justified, or you can behave in ways that let you keep your job. I want GOS to succeed.

         1. csdreamer7 · 1791002247 · focus · HN ↗

            > At work you can say things and say them in a manner that you think is justified, or you can behave in ways that let you keep your job.

            I saw nothing in the post that is even close to that.

            > I want GOS to succeed.

            By making poor arguments on HN and being rude to them? Sounds productive.

            You think you can do better? Contribute to another/Make your own fork of Android and help the community reduce it's dependence on Google.

      2. grapheneos · 1791059952 · focus · HN ↗

         Google has been increasingly hostile towards GrapheneOS over the past several years despite our substantial contributions upstream. We've spent years helping Google with vulnerability reports, improvements submitted upstream and multiple proposals for security protections which were implemented for both Android and Pixels. We've been treated incredibly poorly by Google despite our contributions. They're trying to limit how many devices can be sold with GrapheneOS by Android OEMs, reduced the number of AOSP releases from 12 to 2 per year with 10 of those now being Pixel exclusive, removed Pixel support from AOSP, unsuccessfully tried to cut us off from early access to security patches which are now allowed to be shipped early by OEMs while under embargo (which we do), are trying to convince app developers to ban using GrapheneOS via the Play Integrity API and even recently funded an AI slop paper with misinformation about GrapheneOS falsely claiming it missed security patches that it did not based on an entirely false premise that it has diverged from AOSP in a way that it hasn't and has to port patches to a diverged fork of the OS which isn't how it works.

         Many of the things Google has done to hinder open source projects based on Android are illegal and they continue doubling down on it despite a lot of regulatory and legal actions already taken against them.

         More info at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;edit?id=49946698">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;edit?id=49946698.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.