> Your standard is "succeed against Google and Apple within 13 years..."

Absolutely not. My standard is the many other AOSP-based ROMs communities and companies that were founded around them, having success within a few years - yes, they could lean on the ecosystem compatibility and didn't produce their own hardware, but maybe that's a more viable way to start?

"shoestring budget with no volume discounts" does not explain the points of criticism above.

▲

dijit an hour ago | parent [-]

AOSP is just a totally different destination, it's not a faster route to the same one.

Sailfish is spiritually MeeGo: actual Linux on the phone, not a custom skin on Google's foundations. Obviously it's faster to build a kit-car than a car factory, I don't see how that's a rebuttal, it's an entirely different conversation.

An AOSP fork on Qualcomm hardware isn't independence. Jolla are actually trying to build the factory.

The $50 fee and tablet scandal are fair hits- but fuck-ups don't make you a grifter, and we've forgiven larger players far worse.

You still haven't said what you'd actually do.

▲

microtonal 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I don't see the issue of using AOSP. You get to skip the many years that Sailfish OS will still need in user testing. You get to skip all the possible incompatibilities with Android apps through the compatibility layer. AOSP is also Linux on the phone. I guess you mean GNU/Linux on the phone, but AOSP now also has official support for a Linux VM (you want a VM because traditional desktop Linux security is not great). They are even adding support for running Wayland apps. With the recently-added desktop support, you can plug a phone into an external screen and you'll have a desktop with Android apps and Linux desktop apps.

I think the chance of Google completely closing AOSP is pretty small, AOSP being open maintains a power equilibrium between Google and other OEMs. Closing up AOSP carries the huge risk that Samsung and some other big OEMs will fork it and Google has essentially lost the whole market overnight. I am pretty sure this is why Samsung phones also have the Galaxy Store with a bunch of apps like Netflix in it. The Galaxy Store is Samsung's subtle message to Google saying: don't try to rein us in, we can cut you out.

That said, even if Google closes AOSP, forking it and maintaining it as an open project is going to be far less work than brining Sailfish OS to the level of polish, security, etc. of AOSP.

▲

poisonborz an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Why is AOSP a wrong path? Why would it be "tainted"? Any large enough entity can fork. Hundreds already did, successfully. Even China couldn't do otherwise - via Huawei they mutated it to HarmonyOS (becoming much different from its roots, and incompatible to it, structurally becoming superior in many ways). Why throw away 20 years of development and a sea of dev experience?

But even if you insist on a non-AOSP way: Supporting any other, more well regarded projects and initiatives? Random top of my head idea: motivate Fairphone (Denmark) to adopt some non-android OS like Ubuntu Touch?

	▲	fsflover an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Why is AOSP a wrong path? Because its existence relies on a good will of Google. See: Google will allow only apps from verified developers to be installed on Android (9to5google.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028 and GrapheneOS accessed Android security patches but not allowed to publish sources (grapheneos.social) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925 > Any large enough entity can fork. Only megacorps will likely be able to support a hard fork for such a large codebase. > Hundreds already did, successfully. Which of them are hard forks? China will not be a benevolent dictator of AOSP > Fairphone It's Android again. There are indeed non-Android alternatives, but not in Europe. I use Librem 5 btw.