Top
Best
New

Posted by LorenDB 10/29/2025

Keep Android Open(keepandroidopen.org)
2693 points | 889 commentspage 4
yu3zhou4 10/29/2025|
Are there any alternative mobile OSes actively developed? I remember Ubuntu Touch was the thing and something from Firefox, but not sure if they are continued?
baobun 10/29/2025||
Ubuntu Touch is still a thing.

We also have PostmarketOS (alpine base) and Mobian (debian base) as frontrunners. Supposedly Arch Linux for ARM and openSUSE Tumbleweed are also used by some on mobile.

dguest 10/29/2025|||
There's HarmonyOS [1], which is developed by Huawei, and which has a similar mix of open (OpenHarmony) and proprietary components. I haven't used it, but it's supported by quite a few phones and sort of surprised it wasn't mentioned anywhere on this thread.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarmonyOS

fsflover 10/29/2025||
https://mobian.org
ghm2180 10/29/2025||
Given the apple v epic ruling about in payment commision outside the app store, I don't understand this. I assume Google would get the same ruling if they tried what apple did, so why bother with walling off if you can't get paid?

At least with 3p app stores they could have Gpay if the app developer wanted to, but now they will be pissed and can't build a 3p app anyway since users can't install it via 3p app stores.

xigoi 10/29/2025|
> why bother with walling off if you can't get paid?

To destroy competitors of Google apps such as Aurora Store or NewPipe.

munchlax 10/29/2025||
I bet those are just a rounding error to their profits.
joak 10/29/2025||
If you leave under a dictatorship you definitely don't want to reveal your identity to develop and distribute an app that fights the government.
6LLvveMx2koXfwn 10/30/2025||
This site is blocked by the UK National Cyber Security Centre via CloudFlare:

>This site may be associated with malicious activity or malware. Access to this site has been blocked by the Protective DNS Service Site: keepandroidopen.org Please contact your local Network Administrator or IT support if you require further assistance

MarkusWandel 10/30/2025||
It's disturbing enough that many gadgets these days only stay usable as long as their cloud backend stays working.

But many more gadgets, while not cloud dependent, depend on an app. Think about any number of remote-controlled toys where the remote control is a phone app. Think, for example, about very expensive bicycle derailer systems that can only be configured via app.

Already I've found very neat objects whose app has long faded from the app stores, but for Android at least, you can usually find a .apk and even ancient ones often still load and run. A recent example was that for an ancient parrot ar.drone that I got at a garage sale.

Since these gadgets and their apps precede this attestation thing, newer Android devices will no longer be able to run them. Then what? Keep an old Android device around and hope that it stays working as long as your expensive gadget?

VikingCoder 10/29/2025||
Please, just give users the ability to say whether they want this "extra safety" control on. (If it even is extra safety, but whatever.)

If they don't, they can sideload, and use F-Droid, and etc.

And then we can debate whether it should be default on, or default off, and how hard it should be to turn off.

zzo38computer 10/30/2025|
I agree, but it is not good enough. They should also need to actually check for malware and other problems with their own app store, in addition to allowing loading your own unverified (or that you verify yourself in a different way) software if you want to do too (perhaps with the option to configure this, as you mentioned).

(I do not use iPhone nor Android and I won't, even if they do fix these problems.)

SilverElfin 10/29/2025||
Every company is open when they gain from it and closed when they gain from it. The idea of free general computing needs a different sponsor. Like a country or regulations. I don’t think open source projects and private companies can defend this idea adequately.
zoobab 10/29/2025||
Remember when Apple removed the signature of the dev of iTorrent, distributed via an 'alternative' app store?

Exactly the same.

GAFAM are controlling what you can and cannot install on your computer.

It's time for a broader law that goes beyond what is in the DMA (bootloader, OS, etc...).

rzerowan 10/29/2025||
I think the main ask should not be limited to android/ios but similarly to the rules and regs of previous decades around agressive interop and standardisation. Asks for piecemeal carveouts whenever a monopoliist tightens the noose allows the can to be kicked downn the road when the outrage has subsided and allows for entrenchment of the status quo by stealth. Chipping away until the stated goal is reached. Just like the car/gas monopolies were not alowed to get away with locking users into their own cartels - similar efforts should (but probably wont) be taken to preserve the ability of users to do with their devices as they see fit.
hilbert42 10/29/2025|
The idea of offering something for free then later deliberately restricting and or reducing its scope after securing enough takers to maximize benefits and advantages for those making the offer ought to be unlawful as they are knowingly and deliberately manipulating human nature. Those who accept such seemingly appealing offers often end up disadvantaged or harmed. And here with Google's latest Android edict we have yet another instance.

Manipulation and deception tactics are particularly relevant in internet age and they are Big Tech's standard modus operandi because its found them to be such financially successful business models. Laws need to enacted to prevent such exploitation as it is unreasonable and unacceptable for the psyche/reasoning of ordinary citizens to be pitched against such psychological might.

As so often happens with such authoritarian and manipulative dictates, this Google edict comes wrapped in the usual paltry excuse of security. Even Blind Freddy knows this excuse to be bullshit and that the real beneficiary is Google. The time has come for Android to be decoupled completely from Google.

It's tragic that despite a monopolistic finding against Google the Law didn't recognize the fact.

More comments...