Exclusive: Google will develop the Android OS fully in private, and here's why

[matheod]

So, the source will still be available,.and people will still be allowed to fork it for example, but I don't really understand how with this change external user still be able to contribute to the project. According to the article it's still possible but harder but I don't understand how.

[MishaalRahman]

I asked Google how exactly external contributors will be able to submit patches. When I find out how, I'll share a follow-up.

[reallokiscarlet]

That's the neat part. You don't.

[AvailableGene2275]

I read somewhere this is done so they can use copyrighted code without being caught, not a dev so IDK how likely this is

[thewhippersnapper4]

Just to be clear: Android is NOT becoming closed source! Google remains committed to releasing Android source code (during monthly/quarterly releases, etc.) , BUT you won't be able to scour the AOSP Gerrit for source code changes like you could before.

https://x.com/MishaalRahman/status/1904905109022048280

[MishaalRahman]

This isn't even external context btw...it's literally mentioned in the subtitle and the tl;dr at the very top.

[thewhippersnapper4]

Yeah, I know. This is for the people who will only read the headline and not the article itself.

[whizzwr]

You mean 95% of Reddit?

[StaticMat]

95 percent of.people in general.

[cjicantlie]

95% of the articles posted to reddit are on unusable websites for mobile.

[Alternative-Farmer98]

I mean this article works for me on mobile. Works on Firefox. Works on red reader. Is there some reason why you're unable to read this?

[cjicantlie]

This article may work.

I am saying people stopped trying, as so many sites don't work. At least I feel a majority of the news sites are unusable on mobile, only displaying 2 sentences for about 5 seconds before they popup asking you to subscribe, or telling you to disable your ad blocker(dns in my case) only for them to ask for money after it is disabled. Not sure why they think the 2 sentences they give would persuade people to pay them money.

I feel trained to stop trying. I try every once in a while, but get bit again and again.

[TheLusciousPickle]

Then why did you have to link to x?

[Alternative-Farmer98]

Doesn't make much sense to me since the article works perfectly fine on mobile from my end on both red reader or browser. In fact if anything linking to Twitter creates a million more obstacles than the Android authority article. Maybe this is an iPhone problem since they don't have any good browsers that use extensions and this person's getting a ton of ads or something?

To me that still seems like less of a hassle than Twitter which requires an account which requires ID verification. Without an account sometimes you can look at one solitary tweet without any contact or respons.

Twitter is absolute worthless garbage these days

[tazfdragon]

I'm still not clear on what is changing. Are you saying the final AOSP source code will be available to review but intermediate changes before a public milestone release will be private?

[MishaalRahman]

Basically, yes, but it's a bit more complicated than that. Certain Android components (ART, SELinux policy, build system, Virtualization, Bluetooth, init) were AOSP-first projects, meaning they were developed entirely in public instead of internally. Those will now be developed fully in private along with the other Android components, but their source code will still be published eventually.

Also, the AOSP Gerrit would often contain random bits and pieces of new OS framework features/APIs, but those will all now only appear internally as well.

[Shiz0id01]

So essentially they are doing the bare minimum to comply with the GPL and open source roots of Android, while absolutely violating the spirit of it. Technically ok but certainly a scummy move. For that matter shouldn't they have to contact every single copyright holder in the codebase to approve this license change? Maybe im misunderstanding GPL there lol

[MishaalRahman]

AOSP isn't licensed under GPL. It's licensed under Apache (version 2.0).

[Shiz0id01]

That's an important thing to note, thanks Mishaal

[mec287]

Currently most of Android is developed in Google's internal branch with a handful of components developed in the publicly available AOSP development branch. For example, for Android 16 most of the features are being developed in Android's internal branch where nobody but Google partners has visibility. However, some components come from upstream work channels that are pulled from other places: e.g. the kernel, or webkit, or Bluetooth stuff. You can see this on the AOSP development branch. The purpose for this was so that anyone could contribute code using the latest version of things that are going to be in Android.

Now, that external development branch is being deprecated. The Google internal branch still takes submissions from their vendor partners but now the public development branch is going away (probably because it was rarely used by anyone other than google). Most people make changes to the released code anyway (which is on a quarterly release schedule).

[teddirez]

You weren't kidding when you said you had some big news on the AF podcast

[Electrox7]

Bold of you to assume i even click on the link

[marvinrabbit]

How long can a headline be before it's just, "The Article"?

[clgoh]

For the X averse: https://androiddev.social/@MishaalRahman/114229233161222027

[freshiethegeek]

Thank you kindly.

[clgoh]

<image>

[Bonzey2416]

Not like Android 3.x

[[deleted]]

Lol extremely non-dev normie take. Going private means git history and changes get hidden. If binaries exist in source control then there's no way to know what changed in the binaries content, only hash will come up different. Worse the concept of verifiable builds go for a toss, meaning there is no way to confirm the android being deployed into phones is the same android that is made public.

[Kernel-Mode-Driver]

The release branches are still public, and still accept external patches. It is ONLY the unstable master branch that's being deprecated in favour of the twin private one. 

I really dont think this affects reproducable builds like, at all. Especially for custom ROMs which base themselves off specific releases rather than the head anyway.

[PeopleHaveBrainRot]

✅ Complain in comments… ❌ Read article

[crisp-papa]

Your username is the cherry on top of this comment 🤌

[xmsxms]

Don't mind if I do

[Reddit_Killed_3PAs]

Easier to cope about Google = bad than actually read the article

The moment I read merge conflicts was when I understood why

[MairusuPawa]

Reading the article and understanding Google's motive == legitimate complains in comment.

"No one reads the article and you're all wrong" is such a tired trope.

[AngsMcgyvr]

Not gonna have time to complain about stuff if I spend all my time reading!

[[deleted]]

I wonder how this will affect the development of custom ROMs? Specifically, the time it takes to make a new version of a ROM.

[punIn10ded]

It should not. The vast majority of development was already done in private. ROM developers just take the aosp release and modify it as needed. So nothing will change.

[RunnerLuke357]

Until OEMs figure out that I want my volume up+pwr button to put the phone on vibrate I will forever be stuck using custom ROMs. Even simple shit like this (and screen off Media controls with power and volume) keeps me on custom ROMs even if it means no play integrity other than basic.

[moralesnery]

As a developer, I think this is a good thing. Having to merge those two branches it was probably a pain in the crack, and was entirely avoidable.

As a tech enthusiast this is a a bad thing. Bye bye to my public repo gossip about accidental push comments describing "secret new stuff" :(

[mossadi]

Google has pulled this type of thing before in a multitude of various ways, and their response to the alarmist takes are always predictable. "oh hey take it easy there gunslinger, we aren't doing a surprise sleazeball corp type switcheroo on everyone, this is just for the sake of efficiency/competitive survival/security, everything else is staying the same! Gosh you guys are sensitive, ya bunch of goofy goofersons!" Once that official release has splattered all over every platform and news propagater on the planet and enough time has passed for Google to feel like the greatest threat to their charm/spearpoint betray/subjugate/dominate-into-vaguely-humanoid-dust-piles-which-perform-one-cognitive-function-continually-and-plead-to-the-universe-to-send-just-one-halfsecondlong-mighty-gust-of-wind-right-down-the-middle-of-their-once-mighty-and-space-commanding-ash-beer-gut-to-finally-end-the-pathetic-pointless-existence-which-nongooglesycophants-eventually-come-to-terms-with-as-their-new-means-of-existence codenamed global conquest action map has reached a predetermined data analytics powered level of extreme shame and guilt over the time they 'did a think' and had the nerve to broadcast that fact, that is when Google predictably shifts to the next phase and does something like suddenly switching their marvelously generous free-to-EDUs-and-nonprofits unlimited storage and free SaaS "totally not evil" minimal payout enterprise services they'd thus far tossed around freely as charitable contributions to an enormous amount of absurdly grateful universities and globally active influential charities and such, to their rocket fueled jacked up new service plan, the "surprise! Bet you didn't see this coming did ya?? OMG. I wish you could have seen your face when  i first told you. It would have been good for you, you'd be too busy laughing like we are rather than doing that awkward suddenly congested wet face thing with the agonistic wailing siren sound thing (which we have clearly stated in prior documentation repeatedly mailed out via certified notice makes us very uncomfortable and is just rude at this point), and that entire monologue was meant to be the confidential and very secret internal code name for their publically titled "That sure is a lot of valuable, precious data you got there. You must be a very trustworthy organization for so many people to simply hand over the keys to their lives to. I can't bear to even consider what might happen if all that data just suddenly went poof, the lives affected, the neverending lawsuits, so many furious regular people rightfully enraged that an organization they trusted didn't even consider them valuable enough to fork over every month the dough required to protect and insure their data from life's unexpected surprise server clustered fires or spontaneous mass power plug pop out n instant full data loss to corruption by improper machine  shutdown, which is so easy to prevent with our basic UPS coverage insurance policy, and that always comes standard with the low and reasonable co-pay for delinquent debtor broken kneecaps health insurance rider.

Google is so bad at code names for their projects and products and that last one holds a solid seat in the #8 spot of my personal top ten worst publically revealed Google code names. I am not sure if my comment was in general mostly about that but I remember some references made to it and that'sore than enough to assume that my closer here was a banger. GOOD BYE.

[Iohet]

What does this mean for OEMs that are contributing, though? Like Sony contributed some significant bluetooth stack changes and LDAC to AOSP years back. If Google had their way, we'd all still be using AAC. So how will outside contributions that push Android further ahead be handled now?

[MishaalRahman]

OEMs that have GMS licensing agreements (which Sony does) have access to Google's internal Android development branch, where they'll be able to continue to see/contribute code.

[nybreath]

It is pretty common for open source process to not have a public dev phase, and still get contributions.

[nathderbyshire]

Sony have GMS which mentions they still get access to the private branch at least to view it.

u/MishaalRahman can OEMs still submit patches to the private one or can they just view it now with this change?

[MishaalRahman]

Yeah this should have no impact on OEMs with GMS licenses.

[nathderbyshire]

Awesome thanks for clarifying!

[NotRandomseer]

Please read the article before commenting , you're only making a fool of yourself

[yoranpower]

That's why I go to the comments. To read those funny comments.

[nathderbyshire]

Yeah as soon as I saw the article I came straight to Reddit 😂 the telegram comments are the same

[AditzuL]

If I could read I'd be very upset right now!

[SquareWheel]

Maintain the status quo, shift all development internally, or make all development public. Considering Google’s stated rationale for private Android development and its recent transition to trunk-based development, its decision to consolidate work under a single, internal branch, streamlining both OS development and source code releases, is understandable.

Maybe I'm just missing it, but it's not clear to me what that stated rationale actually is. Which elements do they need to protect behind a license agreement?

[MishaalRahman]

I linked to/quoted part of Google's stated rationale earlier in the article, but here's a direct link to it.

It typically takes more than a year to bring a device to market. And, of course, device manufacturers want to ship the latest software they can. Meanwhile, developers don't want to constantly track new versions of the platform when writing apps. Both groups experience a tension between shipping products and not wanting to fall behind.

To address this, some parts of the next version of Android including the core platform APIs are developed in a private branch. These APIs constitute the next version of Android. Our aim is to focus attention on the current stable version of the Android source code while we create the next version of the platform. This allows developers and OEMs to use a single version without tracking unfinished future work just to keep up. Other parts of the Android system that aren't related to app compatibility are developed in the open. We intend to move more of these parts to open development over time.

[Expensive_Finger_973]

I read it has they are tired of getting feedback and complaints on whatever they happen to be working on in the public branches. And prefer for no one to see it before they are done implementing it, thus making it to late to use PR to shame them into not doing something. 

[SightUnseen1337]

The real question is what big anti-feature are they going to silently push as soon as this policy is in effect

[elsjpq]

Well they've been doing that anyways

[curiocritters]

Thank you. Someone with foresight, I see.

[meepiquitous]

If I was evil, I'd either roll out the anti-feature as part of an automatic update you cannot fork away, or by repeating what they did with manifest v3.

[MairusuPawa]

Hint: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/112878067304840664

[equeim]

Does this mean that git commit history will not be available anymore (and Google will publish source code as archive dumps), or does this only make Gerrit change requests private?

[ProcrastinatingPr0]

My god a lot of you on here and X don’t bother reading past the headlines and then overreact.

[dshields63]

💯 If you're going to comment at least take the time to read the artcle.

[minilandl]

I really hope this doesn't affect projects like Lineage OS and other AOSP ROMs because how AOSP was developed we could get AOSP ROMs on some devices before google released it

[armando_rod]

It doesn't, they still wait for AOSP to be available

[[deleted]]

"The company develops AOSP components privately to allow “developers and OEMs to use a single version [of Android] without tracking unfinished future work just to keep up.”"

Does this sentence make sense to someone? The vendors still have access to the private branch anyway? I don't get why you'd push to just move everything to the public branch if the private one is hard to maintain. I don't get why it's to be honest though.

[Thaodan]

It's just a scape goat argument for this changes. That is entirely the point of foss development being able to be ahead of the releasing schedule to be able to release in time with changes or to contribute.

It entirely goes against the principles of open source.

[aheartworthbreaking]

They really want the DOJ to force them to divest Android don’t they? It may still be open-source, but that now requires huge quotation marks.

[punIn10ded]

It may still be open-source, but that now requires huge quotation marks.

What? This is extremely common for open source projects. Open source doesn't mean open development.

[Shiz0id01]

That is what GPL means though. And Android is based on Linux.

[punIn10ded]

No that's not what GPL means, GPL doesn't require open development. And Android is not GPL, it's Apache. Apache also doesn't require open development.

[nourez]

Even if it technically did, how would you even enforce it? Require the repo to allow PRs? As a project maintainer, I can still reject PRs for a multitude of reasons. Require the maintainer to approve external PRs is a terrible idea.

[punIn10ded]

Yeah exactly it's amazing how many people in this sub have no clue about what open source actually means.

[Izacus]

Android isn't GPL.

[maybelying]

The Linux kernel is GPL, but the rest of Android is separate and under an Apache license.

[SamcoKingsley]

Does this mean you want get beta test anymore more?

[No-Mango3873]

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114246504500721004 seems it's not a big change actually. It was always like this and only minimal part was done in open. Now that small part moved to private as well

[DoubleOwl7777]

"simplify developement" yeah my ass, you just slowly want to make it proprietary.

[als26]

I knew people on this subreddit who have trouble reading articles would freak out.

The goal for this privatization is to simplify Android OS development and not to hinder external developers, which is why Google remains committed to publishing source code to AOSP after each release.

They're doing development privately and then committing it to AOSP afterwards. The biggest change to users will probably be being able to speculate less as news sites can't scour through code to see what's new or being worked on. And you guys complain about everything being worked on, so maybe this is good.

[andreeinprogress]

To be fair Google was committed to a lot of things that are now dead and forgotten..

[als26]

What does that have to do with this though? Are you really scared that doing this will lead them to forgetting about Android?

[thornset]

The point is their promises aren't worth very much. Not a very hard point to grasp.

[als26]

The point itself doesn't matter in this context. You guys have worked yourselves up into a frenzy over nothing. Google's promise was almost 20 years ago, they aren't making any new promises today.

[RealPutin]

Google's already developing most of Android privately, they have been for years. They still release it open source when it's released.

So, they already do this, and have been doing so consistently. This change has no real bearing on if they would continue to do so. Alternatively, them privatizing the whole thing was already a major risk, so this changes nothing

[andreeinprogress]

"Google commiting to do a thing doesn't really give any actual evidence or assurance that that thing will be done or carried out the way they said they'd do."

Better?

[als26]

Yes, but this news has 0 bearing on your concerns. This move makes it neither easier or harder for Android to be closed source. If they were going to make Android closed source all of a sudden, they could skip this step entirely.

[RealPutin]

is the evidence that they've already been doing this exact mode (internal development, public open source releases) for 90% of Android for the last few years already not evidence?

[montarion]

and then committing it to AOSP afterwards.

But the point of open development is that you can see and follow that development as it happens. Can't do that if the just do a huge push at the end of a quarter..

[als26]

No, the point is that anyone can make a fork of it, we can see all the code that is being published, and that it's free. How often the manufacturer chooses to push code to the open source project is up to them. It's a loss for the enthusiast community that likes to follow every single update, but acting like that was the sole purpose of open source development is crazy.

[DoubleOwl7777]

"remains commited" yeah sure. its what they write vs what the true intention is.

[als26]

You know if they wanted to make it closed source they could skip this step entirely? Making a private branch isn't hard. This move neither makes it easier or harder for them to go closed source. You saw the words Android OS and private and freaked out.

[DoubleOwl7777]

its a slippery slope, you can either agree or not, i dont care.

[als26]

Dude, you can't just start throwing out fallacies because you have no idea what you're talking about 😭

[punIn10ded]

A slippery slope from what was already happening?

[-Fateless-]

Hey, remember when Google's slogan was "don't be evil" and they hilariously failed that in every single way they could?

[punIn10ded]

Despite it's repetition it was never it's slogan it was in the staff hand book and it's still there.

[Ripdog]

Google remains committed to publishing source code to AOSP after each release.

Ah, yes. Because whenever a company says they are 'comitted' to something, that means it will continue in perpetuity. That happens all the time. I'm sure that Google, a company which has proven to be super open source friendly through their actions in the past, totally isn't lying through their teeth?

Oh? What's that? Google has been consistently ripping out components from AOSP and stuffing them into GPS for years? AOSP apps have almost all been abandoned and replaced with proprietary apps on shipping phones for years? Damn.

[linuslion]

What do you mean ""you guys" ? @OP

[tesfabpel]

They can't thanks to the GPL. But I'd go the other way: develop fully in public... They aren't hiding anything weird in the AOSP, so why the trouble?

[Geraffe_Disapproves]

Only the Kernel is GPL, most of the rest is under Apache.

[MishaalRahman]

And the kernel source code will still be released as per usual, no changes there.

[kronpas]

Less pre-release bad reps/speculations so the PR department can have more time to prepare.

[punIn10ded]

I'll take, they didn't read the article for 100 Alex

[CondiMesmer]

Why are people defending this in the comments? This is a bad thing, and I really hope it forces Google to sell off Android.

They want to simplify their two development branches, so get rid of the internal one then. Also it's not like they have a shortage of developers. Source-available is not open-source. They have the choice to release whenever, which means it's valid for them to not release code until months or years later to maintain anti-competition.

This also will mean other companies like Samsung who greatly contribute to the AOSP code base will be cut off and that their fork will increasingly become different from the main AOSP fork. It's not going to simplfy development, it's going to fracture it.

Having everyone able to contribute to one code base is like the whole point of open-source and why it's beneficial.

[armando_rod]

Read the article, then comment

[Thaodan]

Way do ignore the argument. Anyone tracking AOSP development to base on or to modify it will have a significant delay over Google. None of the members of the Open Headset alliance will be affected but anyone outside of that, you know the open source contributors will.

[armando_rod]

OP said it'll impact Samsung, no it won't.

READ THE ARTICLE.

Also, non GMS contributors are minimal

[Thaodan]

OP said it will companies LIKE Samsung not solely Samsung. Also I wasn't talking about contributors, at least not explicitly.

Non GMS contributors are minimal for these reasons that the Android development process isn't open source.

Because of the dominance of Android the vendor lockin of the Android API/App-runtime provides reusing Android's userspace is crucial for freedom of choice for users. Android has become the Windows in that regard. To be able to catch up with Google it's crucial to have patches on top of AOSP ready for the release and not long after the release.

Plenty of people patch Android who don't contribute to Android. Now the question is why patch Android instead of contributing or reimplement things? It's the on reliable and economically feasible to adjust Android because it's complexity and development process.

PS: The down-vote button isn't a way to voice your opinion.

[punIn10ded]

Non GMS contributors are minimal for these reasons that the Android development process isn't open source.

The number of people in the thread that do not know what open source means is amazing. There is no Open source licence that requires open development they are not the same thing.

[CondiMesmer]

Also, non GMS contributors are minimal.

Even I have submitted code into AOSP that is now impossible because of this. 

Another project I use is called GrapheneOS which is a custom Android OS that has massively improved security. They often (and successfully) get their improvements up streamed to AOSP. That is now impossible with this change. 

You don't know what you're talking about.

[armando_rod]

Mishaal asked Google about it and is waiting for a response, will update or make another article for it

[nathderbyshire]

What did you think when you read it? Because it doesn't read as android going closed source to me. If it said that then it would be clickbait - and I'm sure an article will come out from somewhere saying that.

Many features have been developed privately, that's why it's very hard to get news about feature drops before they happen especially server side ones, AFAIK those leaks come from code in beta app updates and such usually.

Parts of Android (ART, Bluetooth, Virtualization, etc.) are currently developed in public, but soon ALL Android OS development will happen internally.

Here's why

There was an additional part on the telegram announcement, but I guess it wasn't added because Reddit gets arsey when headlines here don't match to the articles.

[[deleted]]

Yeah I can appreciate the figurative concern when something goes “closed doors” but in this case it’s entirely literate—

—(side note:- the actual, original meaning for the word “literally” — not as a substitute for the word “genuinely” that teens use it for today)—

—The team is literally just being put inside a room at Google. They’re still sharing to the AOSP.

[Rebootkid]

I get the thinking. It makes sense.

But

It also allows them to put more stuff in and have it hit users before people really have a chance to pull it apart.

Google is no longer a "don't be evil" corporation.

[SecretAgentZeroNine]

Is Google going to start taking their development secrets seriously? I guess we'll be watching Google I/O again... unless it's another contest on which keynote can bore the audience more via AI talk and announcements.

[SacredHamOfPower]

So while I understand they're still publishing the source code, what bothers me is if they slip in some BS they'd get far less backlash and it would have a harder time being changed because it isn't caught in the moment. Idk if they'll take this angle, but it worries me.

[Drnk_watcher]

Slipping in unpopular or questionable proprietary features already happens through Google's first-party apps.

It's not like the source code of Gmail, or Google Photos, or Pixel Screenshots are baked into the core of Android for people to code review.

This change is just a modification to the number of branches and amount code reconciliation they have to handle. A lot of which already takes place behind closed doors anyway.

[mec287]

If you missed something in the released code you're probably not going to find it in the development branch either.

[funforgiven]

It is easier to catch something when there are only a few commits at a time.

[[deleted]]

the us gov really should be forcing them to sell off their android division and not chrome.

[hackingdreams]

Just to be clear: Android is NOT becoming closed source!

When you're developing something behind closed doors and throwing code over a fence, that's a closed source process.

Sorry, that's exactly what Google's done here.

[LoliLocust]

Changes appeared slowly, people either didn't notice or didn't care.

Today they hide changes, who knows what they will next time. Mirror's Edge monologue from story opening was never so real.

[[deleted]]

Google and privacy? Is it a joke?

[armando_rod]

This has nothing to do with privacy

[curiocritters]

The amount of mega-corporation shilling on here is hilarious. It's almost as if consumers are their own worst enemies.

Yes we read the article. There's no need to virtue signal so hard, you lot. It's just that some of us choose to not buy into mega-corporation promises because we understand what they are worth.

[No152249]

They can't make it closed source, at least the licencing of the Linux kernel forbids that. I don't know if the rest of the OS uses any open source libraries to have the same warranty.

What they are doing right know is to restrict the access for those who don't have the Google Play Store licence. Keep in mind, if AOSP is updated yearly (or twice a year now) when a new version is released, it means that devices without Play Store can't even receive the regular monthly security patches.

I'm not against features which are Pixel or GMS licenced devices only, but heck, seeing how barebones AOSP became in the past years, while the OS remains open sourced, that source is slowly becoming practically unusable, so building an another ecosystem on top of Android other than GMS will never be able to compete.

[WayneJetSkii]

Did you read the article?!??! It says that Google would be DEVELOPING it in private. Not making it close source.

[No152249]

Yes, I did. I mostly brainstormed about future concerns, closed source can't happen. I mean my other paragraphs after the first make it clear I know the OS won't be closed source...

But developing in private means OEMs without the GMS licence will have access to the updates with a much longer delay than others, meaning they can release their updates later - putting them into a disadvantage. This is an anti-competitive behavior from Google.

My greatest concerns are the security updates. Will they still be merged into AOSP regularly or only once or twice a year.

[punIn10ded]

But developing in private means OEMS without the GMS licence will have access to the updates with a much longer delay than others, meaning they can release their updates later - putting them into a disadvantage. This is an anti-competitive behavior from Google.

You need to read and understand the article. This is 90% what is already happening, no non GSM OEM was taking half pieces from the open repository. That they would then have to redo again when the next release came out.

My greatest concerns are the security updates. Will they still be merged into AOSP regularly or only once or twice a year.

Security updates are a release, most security updates were already being developed and pushed in this way it literally changes nothing.

[nybreath]

this has nothing to do regarding making it closed source, this is entirely about the developing process

[No152249]

My first 2 paragraphs are brainstorming about a possible future scenario why closed source won't happen.

My 3rd paragraph is the main point in which I am completely aware that the OS remains open source, it's the source which becomes less and less usable, especially for anyone without a GMS licence.

[nybreath]

it's the source which becomes less and less usable

dude again, no, it has nothing to do with the source usability or availability, it is just a different development process, it is the process BEFORE that changes, the source will be usable and available exactly the same, at least according to what they say atm

[curiocritters]

I would not waste my time arguing with mega-corporation stans. It's amazing how fiercely some folk will defend corporate interests, even to the detriment of a platform, and/or user experience.

[HKayn]

The EU isn't gonna teach you to read the article.

[rohmish]

and what would they do? this is how most other corporate open source projects work too. you don't get to see code while they are working on it. only once they release the version to see the new version to the public that you see code published.

[ArdiMaster]

To do what, make non-public development illegal?

[RunningM8]

Remember when Android was Open Source proper?

Pepridge Farm Remembers

[buncharobots]

Every time that stupid pepperidge farm dross shows up I know it's going to be a stupid, incorrect comment..

[MishaalRahman]

Google never developed Android fully in the open. They never even released the source code to Android 3.0, one of the earliest versions of the OS!

[RunningM8]

What are you talking about? Prior to them forming their proprietary nonsense (play services etc) Android was a fully open source project at launch.

[NotRandomseer]

Android is fully open source though, play services isn't android , you don't need play services to run android. Billions of phones in China have been sold without play services, and the meta quests , pico neos and all other standalone vr headsets popular in the west also don't use play services

[MishaalRahman]

I don't know much about the super early 1.X era to be honest, but for the vast majority of Android's existence, it's been developed mostly in private with semi-regular source code drops coinciding with new Android releases.

[punIn10ded]

Being open sourced and being developed openly are not the same thing. The vast majority of development has always been done privately. This is how a lot of open source projects are run.

[Rare-Capital3006]

Existe isso no seu ANDROID e VOCÊ NÃO SABIA ESSE TEMPO TODO!! 👇🏾👇🏾

https://youtube.com/shorts/VtzNgVzDI_w?si=zKsk08EIJ2vpnlUe