Remix.run Logo
wps 6 hours ago

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.

godelski 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I hope people remember this when advocating for chromium. Just because it is open source doesn't mean they don't control it. We need to start the long process of hard forking now or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.

  > Google simply regrets android being open source.
Android wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't open source. With all the work from outside Google. The same is true chrome.

But they won't learn that on their own. They are breaking the deals. So we move. We force their hand

saghm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> But they won't learn that on their own

I think they're fully aware of this. They just don't care, because the goal of "get market share super high" has been reached, so now they have no need for it to continue being open.

I don't disagree about what that means we should do; I just don't think we should assume they're being naive here. It's like writing a program to play chess; you should select your move assuming the opponent is smart and will make the optimal counterplay rather than assuming weakness, and then if they end up being less smart than that, you're still in a good place.

lokar an hour ago | parent [-]

I think this is true, but I also believe the original people who built it are not the people in charge now.

StilesCrisis 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hard forking doesn't solve the problem of closed source.

If the goal of a hard fork is "the community will invest equal resources that Google does today" then you wildly underestimate how many engineers work on Chrome.

floxy 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

>wildly underestimate how many engineers work on Chrome.

It is completely insane how many people work on Chrome. It seems like it is time to deprecate web browsers and do something different. Like you get a frame-buffer to draw on with something like a wasm vm. Web pages get replaced by programs (which they essentially are anyway). Get rid of 99.9% of the cruft that has accumulated over the decades in browsers. If you want to have some of that cruft, that is a library you have to send.

kjs3 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

Or go the other way and make web pages not programs at all, like they originally were. Unfortunately, just communicating information isn't cool, doesn't monetize, and certainly doesn't get clicks.

seb1204 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not denying than many engineers work on Chrome just wondering how many of them work on Chrome features that are anti pattern, reducing privacy, improving information collection or tracking or against users interest in broad.

ocdtrekkie an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The bigger problem is wasting developer effort contributing to Google's platform. The real secret behind Android being "open" (sorta) is that while almost nobody runs AOSP, Google has tricked a bunch of fools into working on Android forks instead of building a real competitor.

Playing at their table is a losing game, the house always wins.

mitxela an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Windows only isn't still 90% market share because of Wine, then Proton.

ocdtrekkie an hour ago | parent [-]

Neither Wine nor Proton run on Windows. Building Android emulators for Linux: Worth your time. Building Android knockoffs which claim to remove the Google from Google's operating system? Foolishness.

xmprt 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Valve is working on supporting apks for their new VR operating system. If this goes anything like Proton then I'm hopeful for the future of Android without Google.

mitxela 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

ReactOS was also a good idea.

charcircuit an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The developer effort is not wasted because it's open source. Anyone can fork it at any time. None of it can be thrown away from humanity, wasting it.

The reason why no one runs AOSP is because the phone market rewards differentiation. Each phone manufacture wants to build their own experience and building on top of AOSP is how they do so.

Is it really a losing game? Building a new OS from scratch is not worth it. Why throw away an entire app catalog for your device? Consumers want access to existing app catalogs when buying a phone. If anything is a losing game it's building a new mobile operating system over forking Android as a base.

fragmede 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It wasn't worth it, but it's 2026, not 1991, when Linus first released Linux. AI can shit out a new OS, given enough tokens, and a VM/compatibility layer would let you run Android apps until native ports became available. The question is why would you want to do that? Computers are vastly more capable than they were when the Linux kernel was originally designed, and the needs of programs and their permissions have changed as well. https://xkcd.com/1200/ While throwing away all the learnings and starting from scratch are usually not justified, sometimes it is the right choice, if enough things have changed. Should GPS location, fine grained or coarse, and related permissions, be a part of the OS kernel or a user space daemon that other processes can query or some other thing? That wasn't a question when Linux was created but should be a core consideration for a replacement system that was created today, along with a myriad of other modern day questions that didn't exist back then. I don't think it's a loosing game, and I don't have the resources to make one myself, but I do think that the world's materially changed enough to justify building a new one from scratch.

AI generating code changes the game significantly, though there are issues with that. A new OS would have taken several millions and multiple teams, but can now be done for far less. The problem is hardware to run it on. Who'd pay $2,000 for a shittier phone with less features when a $500 used one with GrapheneOS is right there? So the market, (in)efficiently, hasn't come up with a new phone OS. Not because it isn't warranted, but because the free market isn't a perfect system.

fragmede 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It wasn't worth it, but it's 2026, not 1991, when Linus first released Linux. AI can shit out a new OS, given enough tokens, and a VM/compatibility layer would let you run Android apps until native ports became available. The question is why would you want to do that? Computers are vastly more capable than they were when the Linux kernel was originally designed, and the needs of programs and their permissions have changed as well. https://xkcd.com/1200/ While throwing away all the learnings and starting from scratch are usually not justified, sometimes it is the right choice, if enough things have changed. Should GPS location, fine grained or coarse, and related permissions, be a part of the OS kernel or a user space daemon that other processes can query or some other thing? That wasn't a question when Linux was created but should be a core consideration for a replacement system that was created today, along with a myriad of other modern day questions that didn't exist back then. I don't think it's a loosing game, and I don't have the resources to make one myself, but I do think that the world's materially changed enough to justify it.

ocdtrekkie 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

If you are not working to destroy Android, you are supporting it. You might feel happy about your custom ROM nonsense and how it protects your privacy, but that just means you're selfish, because nearly everyone will still be trapped on Google's version.

Technologists need to aggressively reject solutions which don't spread freedom to ordinary users as well.

Forgeties79 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But the open source project wouldn’t need to invest as much as Google does. There are all kinds of features and things they are working on that the general public really does not care about.

paulryanrogers 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> But the open source project wouldn’t need to invest as much as Google does.

Not at first. Yet over time the work increases as one must differ more and more from Chrome. I believe that's why so many forks are giving up on Manifest V2.

charcircuit an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Forks are giving up on mv2 because it's not as important as the people online say it is. If mv2 was what would cause a browser to gain market share they would keep maintaining it, but if the market is not rewarding browsers with mv2 then it does not make sense to maintain.

armadyl 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

Seriously. The average person in real life has no idea what MV2 or MV3 is. And despite what people here would have you believe uBlock Origin Lite works nearly as good as uBO and is generally indistinguishable from its MV2 counterpart. A casual user wold not be able to tell the difference, nor do they care.

Forgeties79 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Differentiating isn’t as important as not engaging in Google‘s heinous practices

StilesCrisis 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

redeeman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

but perhaps we dont need several gigabytes compressed code to have a browser. perhaps what google have been doing is an utter abomination?

atomicnumber3 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This is cool until Google doesn't load in your free browser.

bossyTeacher 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Then, you use this: https://duckduckgo.com/

Actually, use it now.

jchoksi 3 hours ago | parent [-]

https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite

takeda 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Actually it is still cool if they don't.

Because of their enshitification we do have alternatives that were developed.

At this point the their only services I'm using are Maps, Translate and Keep Notes and it is mostly due to lazyiness as all of those already have alternatives.

Edit: forgot about YouTube, which is ironic, because that one is a toughest one because the value comes from creators, but I'm doing my part and using GrayJay[1] so I can follow them if they switch their platform.

[1] https://grayjay.app/

arcanemachiner 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Android wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't open source.

Yes, and now that they've achieved market saturation, it's time to pull up the ladder.

Thanks for all the free work, suckers!

spydum an hour ago | parent [-]

Don't worry, we will fork and just repeat the pattern with new names! See you next time!

cecexacjrgec 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.

With the way Firefox is heading, that might not be the best idea. Nowadays Mozilla seem more focused on riding the AI-hype wave than actually making an excellent browser people want to actually use.

bryanlarsen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is Firefox or Mozilla perfect? Heck no. But we're not comparing Mozilla against pre-IBM Red Hat or Ben & Jerry's or whatever your concept of the ideal corporate citizen is. We're comparing Mozilla against Google. That's a very low bar that Mozilla clears with ease, especially if you're criteria includes shoving AI down your throat.

mitxela an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure Mozilla clears it. Zen or Librewolf or PaleMoon clears it.

josephg 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mozilla definitely wastes a bunch of money building features I don’t want. But underneath it all, Firefox is still an excellent web browser. You just occasionally have to disable “pocket” or “gadgets” or something.

II2II 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is sad to see Firefox riding various hype trains over the years, but I can't really blame them. Miss the wrong train, and you fall behind and may not be able to catch up. Miss the train to nowhere, and you are only wasting resources.

As for the excellent browser that people want, that raises the question of what people want. There are likely as many answers as people.

cecexacjrgec 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah. It’s a tough balance to achieve but that’s the situation we’re in right now so Mozilla really ought to step up (and I totally wish they would).

My biggest pain point at the moment (entirely subjective mind you) is not even the AI nonsense, but how disjointed and alien the Firefox UX and general feel is to Apple platforms (what I use, at the moment). I don’t want Firefox to mirror Safari 1:1 but I do want the Firefox UI and UX to feel polished, well thought out and thoroughly in line with system HIG specs—given that I spend a lot of time in a browser, it shouldn’t feel like a stranger in a strange land amidst my other desktop applications.

Aggressive UI improvements would go a long way to restore some faith in the incandescent fox‘ mission—at least for me.

II2II 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Behaving like a native application also has tradeoffs. If you're only working on one platform, then sure you will want it to behave like a native application. If you're working on multiple platforms, chances are that you're going to value consistency. And while macOS users prefer their UI, the same can be said of Linux and Windows users. Guess which one is going to win out there.

takeda 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe I'm not enough of an Apple fanboy but using work provided mac with firefox for 15 years I never noticed UI being disjointed from the system any more than Chrome.

josephg 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What aspects feel foreign on macOS? The Firefox preferences for sure. Anything else?

weikju 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Tab close buttons are on the right (windows style) instead of on the left (macOS style), for one.

odo1242 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

I mean, it’s the same on every browser except Safari

seb1204 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Where is the form, forum or spot in general where one can tell Mozilla?

jdjfnfjdjjeh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mozilla gets 100M a year from Google ??? No fucking way they are biting the hand that feeds.

stuaxo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not really a "both sides" thing given the scale difference between what Google is up to and that.

cecexacjrgec 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No one is forcing Mozilla’s hand (afaik) and no one is actually thinking “if Firefox had a chatbot that might convince me to move over”. Youre right that it is not a “both sides” thing, its a “Mozilla thing”. Through and through.

mitxela an hour ago | parent [-]

Some people are thinking "Firefox doesn't have a chatbot so I'll use chrome" though

xmprt 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google is starting to turn into early 2000s / late 90s Oracle.

awakeasleep 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The “we” in your post is interesting to me. Who do you mean? Individuals?

Henchman21 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ahem. Ladybird.

nomel 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> So we move. We force their hand

What do you have in mind?

PaulCarrack 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> We need to start the long process of hard forking now or turn to alternatives like Firefox as a new foundation.

4 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
luqtas 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

oh yes sure. just like we can shift the population into installing Debian into their machines so we also deter M$ and Apple abuse /s

olyjohn 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We did it before. Thanks to Firefox we broke the IE6 monopoly even on Windows.

mitxela an hour ago | parent [-]

How did that happen, anyway? Tabs? What's the next killer feature after tabs? Maybe sync?

grahamburger 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Haven't all the major browsers had sync for ages? I've been using Firefox's built-in sync for so long I don't even remember what it was like without it.

NOTanAlagent an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

Rohansi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's so much easier to switch browsers than platform/OS. Unless you have an iPhone or iPad.

sieabahlpark 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

saghm 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm reading your comment on Firefox. You can probably read mine and write a reply on it too!

shevy-java 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, it is time to realise that GPL and similar variants, are better in the long term. I like MIT too, but GPL worked so much better for the linux kernel. Google and others abuse the ecosystem of open source contributors here.

microtonal 5 hours ago | parent [-]

You mean the Linux kernel that the GrapheneOS project has to request every update for and then has to wait up to weeks to get a Google Drive link?

The GPL is worth nothing if nobody is enforcing it aggressively.

mitxela an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, as opposed to the Fuchsia kernel where they wouldn't even get that. We're lucky Google is institutionally incapable of creating things.

dvdkon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The GPL is the only reason they even get that. More enforcement would certainly be good, but it's not like the GPL is worthless without a legal team backing you up.

nomel 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Could you quote the part of the GPL that they're not adhering to (which you seem to be implying), in this situation?

JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Donate to Ladybird https://ladybird.org/

jm4 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They have their own problems. They may be "open source", but they don't accept contributions. I'm skeptical it will ever become more than a hobby project.

tech234a 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Commit activity actually increased after they blocked external contributions in June: https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/graphs/commit-ac...

ragnese 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is not accepting contributions the only/biggest issue you have with the project? I'm honestly becoming more and more okay with the "cathedral" style of open source. Depending on the project, catering to "the community" can lead a loss of focus, lack of a cohesive "vision" or scope, and just generally trying to be everything to everyone without the resources to maintain a giant beast.

With something like a browser (engine), I'm totally okay with someone saying "I'm an expert and I'm trying something with my own vision/priorities. I don't want input from random people that I have to spend time evaluating."

seb1204 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes I can relate to this. Picking good, valuable feedback out of the noise has become a chore.

takeda 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's on BSD license, Google or someone else can again Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

charcircuit an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are already several different forks of Chromium and they are able to make their own decisions on points where they want to differentiate from upstream or other browsers in the market.

the_real_cher 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

LOL "start" using Firefox. I've been using Firefox for half a decade. There's zero I miss about Chrome.

weikju 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Rather than being smug, I’ll say awesome! The best time to start using Firefox is yesterday. The second best time is now.

IOW:

Don’t threaten to stop using Google Chrome if they do one more evil thing. Start now.

drnick1 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some of us have been using it for two decades more or less.

OtomotO 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

LOL half a decade.

I've been using it for more than 20 years.

I don't know why either of use loled though

vsviridov 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

LOL, I've been using it since Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold, via Mozilla M3 (SeaMonkey tech preview), Phoenix, Firebird, and then finally Firefox :D

cecexacjrgec 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Me too. Too bad I had to abandon it because Mozilla seem more focused on making AI-nonsense than a browser nowadays. No, Firefox, you don’t need AI features. You do need a better UI. You do need smoother scrolling. You do need privacy focus (which automatically means you do not need AI features). You do need to feel like you belong on the platform you’re installed on and not wish everything were Linux. You do need better designers that understand UX is not just “add controls everywhere”.

takeda 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm assuming you use Lynx now then? Because I don't think you would be using Chrome or its clone if that's where you draw the line?

josephg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Huh? What ai features? Firefox seems largely the same as it did a few years ago.

I’m not doubting they added some ai junk somewhere. But whatever they did seems very easy to ignore.

olyjohn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Its just an excuse people use to keep using thier beloved shiny brand.

nunodonato 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Mosaic :P

usrnm 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I've been using it since the time it was called Netscape Navigator. Just sayin'

nunodonato 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Loved netscape navigator! That entire suite with mail, website builder (composer?)

fragmede 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Shit, remember Mosaic? Gopher?

mrkstu 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Any fellow CompuServe users around???

jauntywundrkind 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's sad we lost ChromeOS. They got Linux, they got open source, they didn't make so so so many unforced errors.

Now that the chromebooks are also Android, it feels like the slide is only going to grow ever more fearsome.

Retr0id 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google is also seriously dropping the ball in terms of security. The CVE-2026-43499 root LPE (aka ghostlock) is still unpatched across all Pixel devices, on the latest """security""" update, despite weaponized exploits being public for months.

grapheneos 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pixels used to have far better updates than any other Android devices but they stopped improving it years ago. It should have kept improving because it's not at all adequate. They need to be able to release OS updates more than once per month and it shouldn't take months for patches to make it into the OS. It currently takes them at least around 2 months to get even the most urgent patches into the OS. They could fix emergency calls being broken if the patch was made around 3 weeks before an OS release, but that's about as quick as they can go. It's not at all adequate for security and is a complete joke compared to Chromium's release cycle. They can get an emergency Chrome update released within a couple days. They should at least be able to do it for the Pixel OS in a week.

GrapheneOS is often around 4 to 6 months ahead on merging Linux kernel LTS releases. We used to handle this ourselves but switched to the Android GKI LTS branch maintained by Greg KH. Unfortunately, it was often struggling to keep up even before the absolutely massive increase in Linux kernel security patches this year. AI models have rapidly accelerated vulnerability discovery and it's an ongoing crisis for the Linux kernel. We want to be on the latest LTS revision within days and want to be using the latest LTS branch within months of it being released. We're not at all happy with how Android is handling things and plan to fix that ourselves. We'll get things back to how they should be.

We also ship all the AOSP userspace patches months before Pixels due to shipping all of the security preview patches as soon as possible. There are sometimes minor regressions but we find and fix them ourselves downstream. The security preview system has a terrible design especially considering that frontier AI models can reverse engineer the patches. There should at least only be a source embargo for around 24 to 72 hours rather than pretending as if it can work with the patches available 2 to 6 months in advance.

cyberax 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'd love to use GrapheneOS on less secure devices, just for the sake of Google autonomy rather than privacy.

grapheneos 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

GrapheneOS will be available on Motorola devices meeting all of our requirements for updates and security features in 2027. It will be starting out on a high end flagship and expanding down from there as devices improve to meet our requirements. We aren't going to support devices unable to provide a reasonable level of security.

Cider9986 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

GrapheneOS's goal is privacy for the world and that's achieved through secure devices. You can get a phone specifically for GrapheneOS just as you choose a new device when you're buying a new one. Soon there will be two different phone brands which you can install it on. There's already an estimated 500,000 users with Pixel exclusivity.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117249893761790371

cesarb 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> GrapheneOS's goal is privacy for the world and that's achieved through secure devices.

Perfect is the enemy of good. What's better for privacy, an old but inexpensive smartphone running Android 11, or the same smartphone running an up-to-date third-party rebuild of Android 16 or newer with as many privacy-improving bells and whistles as the hardware can support?

> Soon there will be two different phone brands which you can install it on.

...will they be available in my country (Brazil)? I don't think I've ever seen a Google Pixel phone in person.

Cider9986 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Are all of these unsuitable [0]?

Not sure if you have any experience with eBay. I looked it up and people had problems selling to Brazil [1] but there are various listings that offer to ship. So maybe not a great option.

KaBuM!, Intec Store, Performance Solutions all charge significantly more with a 10a being more than double than from Google.

Motorola officially sells the Signature in Brazil [2] at the same price or cheaper than in the UK. It will be supported by GrapheneOS in 2027 on the 2027 version. From then on, hopefully Qualcomm brings MTE to the non-flagship chips and Motorola and GrapheneOS support budget or midrange devices.

>perfect is the enemy of good

I don't consider that relevant when users deserve ≥ security than an iPhone. GrapheneOS is not purpose-built to avoid big-tech's services although it does that more completely than any other alternative mobile operating system, the focus is privacy.

GrapheneOS on the state of privacy and security for their ethos: https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2044440381803069778

[0] https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=google+pixel+9

[1] https://reddit.com/r/Ebay/comments/1d92pyn/

https://community.ebay.com/forum/shipping-57923/topic/diffic...

[2] https://www.motorola.com.br/smartphone-motorola-signature/p?...

mitxela an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can dot his but it won't be Graphene but something else, like LineageOS. As long as Graphene's selling point is extreme privacy and not just more privacy, it will be this way.

drnick1 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Same thing here, I use Graphene for the sake of user control. All the security features and hardening of the Pixel phones and of the OS are good to have, but they not the main reason.

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
jeroenhd 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I just ran https://github.com/CakesTwix/Android-CVE-2026-43499 on my Pixel 9 Pro and it seems to have been patched. I did get a system update not long ago, though.

Retr0id 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Try https://github.com/alex193a/Root-My-Pixel, worked on my 9a as of a few days ago (the version table in the readme is stale). I haven't checked the September update yet though (installing it now, to check).

Edit: September update for 8a has a kernel build from July. I believe it's still vulnerable but the exploit will need its offsets adjusting etc.

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
lenerdenator 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's "dropping the ball" and then there's "not reaching out your glove to catch it to begin with".

It'd be interesting to see which one is happening here.

7734128 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not a regret. Android would never have been popular in the first place if it had not been open source. If phone makers had been able to anticipate how much the demons at Google would be able to lock down the Android then they would never had used the OS back in ~2009.

thevillagechief 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think this is actually true. Phone makers seem happy to have the platform locked down even further. They're putting even more roadblocks, as evidenced by most of them making bootloaders unlockable.

ardacinar 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They're happy that it is locked down. They're not happy that they're not the ones doing the locking down.

alightsoul 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Any discussion about this is shut down. I just read an article https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckqxvy98x578o In the UK according to the BBC, politicians are pressing Samsung and apple to make stolen phones bricks. Samsung in response said that they have implemented several security features for this purpose. I think Samsung considers removing OEM unlocking a security feature according to the bootloader unlock hall of shame.

Intel used to do the same with their anti theft technology aka Intel theft deterrent on their classmate PCs, so students had to enter unlock codes from an IT admin every 3 months or every say 200 boots to prevent the computer from being locked at the bios level preventing it from booting an OS, and there was an update which disabled that functionality permanently. And you would be warned when you had around 50 boots left to get the unlock code.

mitxela an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Normally you have to unlock the phone before unlocking the bootloader, and that is the protection.

alightsoul 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It could be disabled from the bios somehow if you knew the bios password or the bios could be reflashed with a programming Clip directly on the bios flash chip itself.

tosti 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Making the bootloaders unlockable is a good thing.

0x1ch 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I think OP misspoke. He probably meant that they're not able to be unlocked by the consumers, usually.

lenerdenator 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is what lots of people forget.

Android is not a Linux desktop or server distro. It is not about you getting to put what you want on the hardware you bought for free.

Operating systems are hellaciously expensive to maintain and that only gets worse in markets with rapid hardware improvements, as the smartphone market was up until maybe the late 2010s. Google is not a charity. SV did not come into national prominence for making investors $0. There is no money in giving maybe one in one-hundred smartphone users (and that's being generous) a bunch of code, for free, so that they can put it on their gizmo and talk to their nerd friends at their hacker meetup.

When they pitched Android as "open", they meant that carriers and device makers could load it up with all of the revenue-enhancing bloat that they wanted. In return, Google got a device that would let them hoover up all of the data they could ever want in order to build better ad service profiles for those using the devices. That is, after all, their business.

For a while, this could coexist with us screwing around with a real-life tricorder. At some point, though, the free stuff turned into a revenue opportunity that had to be exploited. And so, it will be.

TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> For a while, this could coexist with us screwing around with a real-life tricorder.

Wish I could upvote you twice for that line alone. It perfectly sums up what I always wanted Android to be. Alas, the closer we are to this in hardware, the further away we are getting in software.

mitxela an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Especially Android, which is an ever-growing pile of spaghetti almost as bad as Windows.

mrpippy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s possible (never underestimate the bad decision-making of phone makers), but what would they have done instead? Windows Mobile 6 was the only licensable alternative, but it was a known quantity and obviously a generation behind Android and iOS.

edent 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Symbian and LiMo were both available at the time. It is hard to say they were good alternatives though. Windows 7 - even with the weight of Microsoft behind it - wasn't able to attract enough hardware manufacturers.

SoftTalker 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Windows Phone was pretty nice, too bad Microsoft didn't follow their DOS and Windows strategy of getting it preinstalled on every consumer PC sold. There was really only the Nokia Lumia line that I recall, but everyone I knew who had one loved it.

dpark 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Windows Phone 7 didn’t ship until 2 years after Android. 2 more years later Windows Phone 8 was released and it was a legitimate option but just too late.

Pre-7 was just not an operating system that anyone except the geekiest of geeks wanted to use.

SoftTalker 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah I guess Apple set too high a bar and MS was caught flatfooted (again) and was too far behind.

dpark 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t have visibility into what happened with the Windows Phone team, but Android from what I understand saw immediately that they needed to follow Apple’s lead and pivoted (originally they were building something closer to a BlackBerry). The Windows Phone team either didn’t believe they need to pivot initially or they just took too long to do so.

Windows Phone is a case study of missed opportunity.

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
pmlnr 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maemo.

michaelmior 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I remember using a Maemo device circa 2009. I recall overall really liking the OS.

LTL_FTC 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

WebOS was pretty cool (Palm). But I’m not sure if Palm would have licensed it. Lg ended up with it.

thomasahle 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also Bada

cyberax 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There were several credible competitors: WebOS, Symbian, Maemo/MeeGo, Palm OS 6, and of course Windows Mobile. But they required cooperating with a single vendor and/or a lot of work to adapt.

Android won because it was available "right now" and easy to hack. Vendors could get a BSP (Board Support Package) from a chip manufacturer, slap Android userspace on top of it, and ship a phone within half a year. It was a glorious mess for a while.

Google then slowly tightened the reins and made the ecosystem more ordered.

sublinear 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, everyone knew what they were getting into with Android. It wasn't taken lightly by the power users of the time either. I still have a phone somewhere with Ubuntu Touch on it. I really was hoping that would be my phone OS by now. Not that Canonical isn't capable of similar, but that it would bring about acceptance of Linux phones.

I think we're all more surprised by how long it took for Google to make these bad moves. For a period of time in the 2010s we actually started thinking maybe Google was alright.

reedciccio 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It wasn't Canonical's limitation. Mozilla can confirm: the barriers to enter the phone manufacturing market are immense. Samsung, Ericsson, Sony, LG, etc, all had solid control of the deals with the network operators worldwide. It's a highly regulated market, you can't get in without Verizon, att, Vodafone etc to let you in. Canonical, Open Moko, Mozilla... Didn't have the strength to push through. Google and Apple did.

numpad0 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's operators that have grips on manufacturers. Phone OEMs don't make any without the sales networks and financing structures of cellular carriers.

This is to extent that some carriers still insist that they design phones and phone manufacturers are just factories. People need to understand that power dynamic before blaming those "mere factories" for not making Linux phones.

There has to be like an SVP of SoandSo Wireless pushing like three pillar approach of iOS, Android and Linux. Otherwise the pitch decks for any alternative phones just go straight to trash(or into a motorized shredder if it is still physical).

aboardRat4 an hour ago | parent [-]

>It's operators that have grips on manufacturers

Only in the USA.

mitxela an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Worst case we can buy phones and physically replace their Application Processors with liberated ones.

alightsoul 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Phone manufacturers had Symbian which became open source

monomania 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a non-zero chance that three-letter agencies are lobbying for at least some of this.

jasonfarnon 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah. Which doesn't mean Google isn't happy to comply for its own profit motivations.

yndoendo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It makes perfect sense when you apply the Friedman doctrine to their actions. [0]

Google is a lawn mower, stop anthropologizing them. This goes the same with Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, ...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

mikeweiss 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Agree. The only time a company does something in the public interest is when it believes doing so would ultimately benefit the shareholders. Everything is a business decision.

mitxela an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When you realize that keeping people on proprietary mobile OSes is a matter of national security it makes more sense. The USA spares no expense for national security.

rkagerer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah I have trouble accepting it's pure coincidence this occurs just as GrapheneOS is starting to gain some noticeable traction.

jeroenhd 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The thread states that Google is putting out patches that affect other Android vendors too.

They're not treating GrapheneOS very differently from other vendors, except that Graphene isn't relevant enough to sign a contract with because they don't make phones (or money, really).

Google should be putting out the code and patches like they used to, but the constant badgering of Google on this issue feels off. I don't see anyone complaining that Samsung isn't supporting their security-focused fork enough, or complain that Apple is delaying the bootloader unlock process by a day.

Despite their very worst, selfish intentions, Google is the very best vendor of commercial open source software. While Google's open source project collapses, there's plenty of space for other vendors to step in.

We should bemoan Google's fall from grace, but only because they're on the way to becoming just as bad as every vendor but Librem if they keep this up another decade.

alightsoul 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a net loss. Less data and in their view makes development harder.

dimaaan 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And don't forget about Manifest V2/uBlock Origin removal!

_blk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not that it doesn't make sense, you just said it, they regret - well maybe not regret since they'd never made it without, but they now want to reverse a decision they feel needs to be overhauled. I always thought they'll replace Linux with Fuchsia but that hasn't happened and it's not like they couldn't have done it.

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
karlgkk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> None of their decisions make any sense

It only doesn’t make sense if you’re assuming conspiracy.

It makes a lot more sense if you assume they just don’t give a shit.

bossyTeacher 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> None of their decisions make any sense,

Of course, it does. Google is no longer afraid to spit on open source. People happy to use Chromium features better remember this. You are renting everything and your landlord will soon come demanding it back.

surcap526 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

curiousgal 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Google

Can we just stop saying "Google" as if it's same faceless org? No, it's not Google, one or two asshole execs are behind this policy.

SahAssar 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The org takes responsibility. If you want to additionally name & blame an exec feel free.

bebeirjd848r 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

GrapheneOS does not even register on Google scale! It does not even manufacture its own devices!

Bigger problem is HarmonyOS and similar devices, compatible with Android. Opensource threat from china!

And no NSA backdoors or honeypots!

mitxela an hour ago | parent | next [-]

GrapheneOS does, however, register on the FBI's radar because a lot of criminals know to use it, and the FBI can't crack it.

subscribed 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If the hardware security is on par with iPhone / pixel 8+, then sure.

Otherwise there's no need for NSA backdoors (as Cellebrite matrix shows) :)

ChickeNES 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, let's just trade the NSA for the CCP, no issues there.

anonym29 6 hours ago | parent [-]

One poses an active, unchecked threat to the constitutional rights of US citizens, has a chartered mission to subvert and undermine the very field of cryptography itself - going so far as to bribe standards bodies to adopt backdoored algorithms (using taxpayer funds to do so), has plotted to mass-violate the constitutional rights of their own citizens and lie about it to the national legislature (which they carried out successfully, committing perjury in the process and facing zero consequences for it), secretly cooperates with the criminal justice system via parallel construction to target nonviolent, law-abiding political activists with fabricated criminal charges as retaliation for politically disfavored speech, while the other is about 6500 miles away, has negligible presence in / reach into the US, and is generally unconcerned with the domestic political activities of US citizens.

Cider9986 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree–it's absurd to be more concerned about spying of China on American citizens than the spying of our own government. While allies of the US are problematic because of however many eyes.

Not particularly relevant but the lawful spying implemented in the telecommunications system by our own government has been abused by Chinese hackers as well.

075326899532 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

+ 3 social credits, comrade

ChickeNES 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> has negligible presence in / reach into the US, and is generally unconcerned with the domestic political activities of US citizens.

lmao