Google has been trying to make Android proprietary for a few years now, and that’s not news, as many AOSP default apps have been abandoned over time in favor of proprietary Google ones. This was never a huge problem for me, as you can still use those apps without network access or use open source alternatives like Fossify on a custom ROM.
However, the situation is quickly getting worse, now that Google is actively trying to prevent the development of custom ROMs and taking a page from Apple’s book by forcing developers to beg them for permission to release apps on the Android platform, even outside of the Play Store - giving Google full control.
Is there still any hope left for privacy respecting Android ROMs? What do you think will happen next? And what would be your suggestions for those looking for a phone in 2025?
If you have a different perspective on the situation, also please comment below!
That’s not at all what I’m saying. Please point out where I said that open source and licensed (i.e., proprietary licensed) software are the same thing? First, I’m not saying anything about AOSP, which I recognize is fully open source and which I use myself. I’m talking about full Android, the trademarked, licensed product, which includes AOSP (open source) plus GPS and GMS (proprietary) components. We’re talking about Android phones here, before you go “but but but”.
From the link above:
“The “Android” name, the Android logo, the “Google Play” brand, and other Google trademarks, are property of Google LLC and not part of the assets available through the Android Open Source Project.”
“Use of the “Google Play” name and the Google Play Store icon is allowed only in association with devices licensed to access Google Play. For a list of devices licensed to use Google Play, refer to Supported devices.”
Second, a combination of open source and proprietary components is not fully open source, do you agree with that at least?
It very much does matter in the case of Android because AOSP without the proprietary components is limited to a market niche. Show me one really popular phone or phone brand which does not use Google’s proprietary Play Store. Maybe there’s some edge case that doesn’t, I don’t know, but it would be the exception that proves the rule.
Both had to either develop their own app store or rely on a 3rd-party app store, I don’t know. But they’re definitely not using Google’s Play Store, and thus are limited to market niches like I mentioned above.
When you suggested that Android is licensed because the government restricted who could use it, that’s what you said. I don’t understand why this is confusing. Any other open source project is susceptible to the same fate, ergo they’re the same thing. I already explained this.
AOSP is Android. This seems to be where you’re getting confused.
That’s not what I said. What I said was that the fact that Google blocked Huawei’s ability to use Android’s Google Services on their devices at the government’s orders meant that the they had a mechanism that allowed them to do so. Namely, the proprietary license for the Google Services. Do you dispute this exact thing, not some twisted version of what I said? I don’t understand why this is confusing either.
How so? Do you have any examples of an organization blocking someone from using a common open source license like GPL, MIT, or Apache License, with the possible exceptions of GPL license violations or export controls for things like cryptography, etc? The fact that Google didn’t block Huawei from using AOSP most likely means that it was easier for them to ban Huawei through their proprietary license to Google Services than through the Apache License for AOSP.
This seems to be where you’re getting confused too. I’ve already explained multiple times that what I mean by “Android” is the full suite (AOSP + GPS + GMS) that an OEM would need for a mass-market phone. AOSP is not enough for that. No OEM in their right mind would try to market a mass-market phone with pure AOSP and no Google Services.