AOSP dev went private, and Google is slower and slower at releasing the source, now twice a year. Worse, many stock apps like the Dialer and Gallery went closed-source years ago.

But the source isn't the point, it's the governance. Just like Chrome, having the source is not enough to guarantee an open platform. Sure you can disable telemetry flags. But you cannot afford to maintain an important feature Google wants to remove, like MV2.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/google-makes-android... https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-qpr1-source-code...

▲

auggierose 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is, if you cannot afford to maintain it, how could you afford to both build AND maintain your own version of it?

	▲	dminik 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't think it's true, but ... "Google built Android to be impossible to maintain without them." Could be a very genuine answer to that question. Do you really need all of Android? What if you can build a very similar thing at a fraction of the size.
	▲	goldenarm 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Building and maintainance cost are not linear, especially when you inherit legacy code. The AOSP codebase isn't great, is 4x bigger than the Linux Kernel, and full of "Ship now, patch later" mess. But I agree that it is a significant endeavor. But the OSS community succeeded in similar projects before, and the current state of the Linux desktop makes me hopeful.

▲

vanviegen 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But you cannot afford to maintain an important feature Google wants to remove, like MV2.

That depends on who "you" is. Maintaining extensive patch sets is still way cheaper than building and maintaining an entire browser.