HN

Comments (195)

• Menu

  wps
  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.
• Menu

  bri3d
  So, the real thing that's happening here is:* Google drop "real" Android source-code updates to OEMs _and_ the public every half.* But they ship four Pixel updates, including documentation + SDKs.* Now they added new APIs in a Pixel-only update.* Google also drop security update backports to "trusted" OEMs monthly (which GrapheneOS have had access to for years).So, there are now Pixel-exclusive app features on the Pixel SDK version which isn't available to OEMs - but, it's highly unlikely any app developer would actually depend on these new APIs, since Pixel marketshare is tiny to begin with. This in essence just makes Pixels a weird beta-testing device for what will come out a quarter later to "normal" devices, which is sort of an odd business decision, but also a weird thing to get really mad about, in my opinion (I do see what GrapheneOS are trying to do, with having OEMs saber-rattle about not getting features on the same cadence as Pixels, it just doesn't resonate very loudly for me).However, the API headline seems to bury a deeper lede; in the thread, GrapheneOS also claim that the quarterly Pixel releases contain security content which is not appearing in the monthly backports. This is quite bad and very sloppy if true, since the Pixel releases can easily be patch-diffed and exploits backed out of them. I'd be interested in seeing this enumerated in more depth.
• Menu

  largbae
  Alright AI maximalists, what's the estimated token budget to remove the Google dependency?GrapheneOS has the bootable AOSP and will have Google-alternative device support.We probably need an equivalent to Play Services, app signing/porting/publishing tools.With these in hand could we talk Valve into providing the scalable alternative to the play store?
• Menu

  Ajedi32
  Important details further down: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117282129725629495So it seems like the problem isn't that the new API is Pixel exclusive, but that the first and third quarterly release patches each year are Pixel exclusive?
• Menu

  barbazoo
  I'm on GrapheneOS and I will never go back to Google Android or iOS. The amount of control you get is just liberating. I hope Google doesn't crush them.
• Velocifyer
  This is confirming my belies that Google is trying to block OEMs that don't pay them to be part of GMS, with the goal of eventually being the only android phone maker.
• HumblyTossed
  GrapheneOS scares them.
• Menu

  petcat
  Does anyone contribute to AOSP besides Google? Does Google actually accept any patches into "upstream" and ultimately into their own commercial distro?
• Menu

  xnx
  The world needs a Steam Phone.
• natterangell
  I get the sense Android is going the way of MacOS and Darwin. At some point Google will release something non-free end users experience as an absolutely integral part of OS, and it won't be possible to continue as an equivalent alternative. AOSP will still be free and underlying the whole thing, but slowly rot away as anything more than a code base.
• Menu

  matheusmoreira
  I wonder how low Google will sink next time.Respect for the GrapheneOS for pushing through regardless, even if they have to reverse engineer stuff. Can't wait to buy their phone.
• Menu

  vkaku
  Many developers will likely be developing at Android 16 APIs only. Will rely on Aptoide+AOSP exclusively. This is likely the timeline we'll see a decline in Play Store and Pixel usage.
• Menu

  teekert
  Installed GrapheneOS on my Pixel 10 yesterday, only used the stock rom to start the installer... Am feeling a little unconfortable due to this situation: [0]. Hope this gets better. Really feeling the dislike for Google on this one.[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741510
• IronWolve
  I'm going to guess that google is afraid of the age of AI, they should be, those API's will be reverse engineered pretty quick. Lots of bad actors will using AI.We live in a time, if you want to build an android app, you easily can, but installing will be harder due to google concerns.
• exabrial
  Someone please make a linux-based, using proper cgroups/containers for app isolation, where programs are one of: regular JVM ByteCode, or WASM. APIs follow a JEP-style Process with multiple incubators until we got it right.
• ironqcold
  Google is increasingly locking down Android. I wouldn't be surprised if they killed off AOSP entirely in a few years...
• jokoon
  I mean, even if android is/was open source, it was always fastidious to build a de-googled android image for a phone model.Of course it's not great for their business model. Not to mention, no more trustworthy app distribution.I don't see the EU really being able to forcing them to de-google android phones.I am also curious how much those phones would cost, BTW, since the cost calculation to release such an OS would be a bit complicated.
• Menu

  VCFundedGenYer
  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.
• Menu

  claudiojulio
  Forget Android. The future is Plasma Mobile.
• palata
  Google managing to get worse every day.
• jauntywundrkind
  Worth reminding folks that the EU DMA Act is forcing Google to start unlocking some of their APIs, such as the AI services AI. Right now a bunch of the apis for digital assistants/chat stuff are kind of proprietary, and this is demanding interoperation. August 1, 2027 is the deadline for most of this (but open access to hotword listening capabilities is slated for Aug 1, 2028).https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/developer-portal/in...Side note, that API here is HID. USB HID is so cool. There's so much stuff in this spec! Chargers and batteries can both communicate all kinds of status, which, well, afaik no one does, there's all kinds of sensors. It's this ancient spec that has so much, and weirdly is just so far ahead of where we are. More HID on Android will be great. Wish they'd played with others to make this so though!
• shevy-java
  One can not simply trust Google. While I personally like the MIT licence more, I think it is time that the GPL or variants of it (Affero etc...) get used a lot more. It worked very well with the Linux kernel. Corporations keep on abusing this.
• Onavo
  So...if you vibe code API shims Google can't sue your right? It would be clean room implementation by definition.
• dingdong2026
  Google is a cancer on humanity.
• Menu

  ahmd-sh
  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.
• hagbard_c
  Fine, whatever but no Android 17-derived Google-free AOSP distribution for me if these APIs are in any way essential to the functioning of the device or required by one or more of the government/bank-mandated applications which are sometimes needed. If they are in any way related to some Google service I don't care since I don't use those anyway.