It’s no secret that the Android Open Source Project has been languishing compared to the distributions (?) of Android that are actually being used by Google itself (on their Pixel phones) and OEMs such as Samsung, Sony, and others. Now, it seems Google has taken a pretty substantial step in further gutting AOSP – it has deprecated both the Dialer and Messaging applications in AOSP, with the following message:
This app is not actively supported and the source is only available as a reference. This project will be removed from the source manifest sometime in the future.
This means that soon, if you build the Android Open Source Project, you will no longer be able to send messages or make phone calls without adding your own messaging and dialer applications. In the grand scheme of things, this doesn’t matter all that much since every OEM already uses their own applications, but for the open source operating system that is Android, this is another nail in the coffin. Due to the slow erosion of functionality from AOSP, as well as the transfer of functionality from AOSP to closed-source Google applications and frameworks, we’re fast approaching a point where you can’t really state that AOSP is a full open source mobile operating system anymore.
Is a mobile operating system that can’t send messages or make phone calls really complete?
Luckily, there are open source dialers and messaging apps available.
and some of them is far better than the google ones.
Yes but this gives more proof to the lie that GOOG is any different than AAPL or MSFT just because they use some FOSS in their product.
Remember folks GOOG only cares about getting free labor from using FOSS, they would black box the whole thing if they could get away with it.
How many apple services/products work on open source OSes? How many lines of Code does apple contribute to your linux kernel? AAPL << the rest of the industry.
Android development is a lot time and money invested by google. Last time I checked the EU (and others) were doing their best to encourage making the entire thing closed source. If you recoup your investment by requiring your services are the default and pre-installed but that's no longer allowed how does the open source model for android make any business sense, especially when the competition then gets to take your place for free? There has to be a preference for google services and apps for the open source model for android to continue making sense. This is not like windows where the OS sales made money to pay for the development of the OS.
Apple still open sources most of the darwin kernel and it is the main contributor/driver for the LLVM.
Similarly, Google does contribute a lot fo the linux stack. And it is one of the main drivers for kubernetes, angular, and tensorflow.
For profit corporations will use FOSS when it is convenient and to their advantage, and vice versa. I have no idea why that is such a foreign concept.
Yep. If these are unmaintained, they SHOULD be removed from the open source project. It’s completely normal for projects to regularly do this type of house keeping. I can’t for the life of me see how Thom drew a sky is falling conclusion based on this particular change. This is normal open source stuff, and there are alternatives in the open source space. The sky is still where we left it.
It’s less crap to deal with — I don’t see a definite downside to this change. Sure, stop calling AOSP an operating system if you will. It’s never really been more than a barebones platform anyway, maybe with a few more toys thrown into the mix.
That’s a complex question that I can’t answer (and expect can’t be answered) as it depends on how you define “operating system”.
My theory is that an OS provides whatever is needed for optional applications but doesn’t include optional applications; and that no optional application should be included/bundled with the OS itself to ensure fair competition between application providers (including an OS provider that happens to also provide applications); and therefore apps to send messages or make phone calls should not be bundled with Android in the same way that apps like web browsers should not be bundled with Windows.
From this perspective, it’s reasonable to say that a mobile operating system that can’t send messages or make phone calls (until optional third party applications are installed) is a complete OS and is also a better OS.
Is Linux not a mobile operating system because it can’t make calls or send messages? Is it true that Linux can’t make calls or send messages? Seems like if you install (or compile) the right app you can do both. The term “operating system” seems so fluid these days.
When was AOSP ever a distro? I don’t remember it ever being that.
I would assume that that folks from LineageOS / GrapheneOS / CalyxOS have their own forks already? In that case it’s a nothingburger. Google not open sourcing their implementation of RCS messaging while pretending it’s an open standard was the bigger scandal.
Does that also mean no more secure SMS Text messages ? One of the most widely installed end-to-end encryption tools in the world ? (although most people are probably not aware).
https://support.google.com/messages/answer/10262381?hl=en
Android is pretty much useless without Google Services Framework and Google Play Services both of which have always been closed source.
And that makes the whole issue of being “Open” or “Open Source” kinda murky.
No it doesn’t.
The kernel and parts of the stack being FOSS, just like iOS for example, doesn’t make things “murky.”
Somethings are open source, others are not. I have no clue why some people thing open source = the whole stack must be so.
javiercero1,
As a user of lineageos, I do see where Artem S. Tashkinov is coming from. Some applications are a no-go without google services. MicroG has made lots of progress in faking google’s proprietary APIs and spoofing google signatures to do it. But hard coded server side dependencies are still a problem.
https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/wiki
For example a 2 factor authentication service I needed for work depended on google play services. The application developers didn’t see a problem with that, and it literally meant I couldn’t log in using my phone. I was told it’s my problem and to go buy either an apple or google phone.
I suppose you might tell me they were right, I simply have to use a supported phone with official firmware, but that kind of underscores the problem that Artem S. Tashkinov alluded to in the way that proprietary subsystems are antithetical to FOSS and can be harmful to FOSS adoption.
FOSS and proprietary subsystems are not antithetical, they can coexist and if fact they do that just fine in 90% of the world’s mobile market: Android and iOS are both FOSS/proprietary hybrids. If you want a fully FOSS vertical product which is somehow supported by commercial 3rd parties/services, that is a completely different story.
javiercero1,
Nobody here was questioning that, only pointing out the consequences of it with android.
Well, that’s kind of the point. Those who want to be free from proprietary blobs are going to quickly find that FOSS on AOSP is incomplete due to a reliance of proprietary bits. You seem to agree on that, and this is what Artem S. Tashkinov was saying too.
You could argue that nobody’s entitled to an open FOSS stack, but this does mean that android falls short of most other linux distros.
Android is not a linux distro.
javiercero1,
Why’s that? Some would say it is.
It doesn’t really matter since it’s still valid to compare the openness of android to other operating systems.
Indicting android for not being something that it is not. weird.
javiercero1,
How does this relate to what was said? Do you disagree with anything I said specifically?
Agreeing on what? that you were wrong? In that case, yes.
Cheers.
javiercero1,
Wrong about what specifically? You never made a specific rebuttal to my points about android & FOSS. You know it’s fine to just admit that you agree, statistically it’s going to be true now and again These pointless random pivots of yours always have one thing in common: they are masking the lack of a substantive counter argument. Go on then, prove me wrong and make a great substantive counter-argument to something I specifically said. That would be refreshing! Or prove me right and respond with another arrogant yet empty post. To be clear, I want to be wrong about you, but you’re nothing if not predictable javiercero1.
> Is a mobile operating system that can’t send messages or make phone calls really complete?
Honestly I don’t really get the compliant… The core is FOSS, and you can add an phone and messaging app you want, many of them FOSS too. What’s the big deal? that it doesn’t come by default? My ArchLinux came without anything really by default and I was a pretty happy about that. Can’t recall anyone saying that ArchLinux can’t be called complete because Firefox isn’t preinstalled. AOSP was never really meant to be a an Android distro.
There is a collection called Simple Mobile Tools that can be used as an adequate replacement. The bigger question is on why can’t an average person, that buys an Android phone, select desired version of AOSP and install it without much questions asked. This is something Google should support by now. At least on their line of mobile phones.
Geck,
Most android manufacturers simply license android from google, supporting alternatives on their hardware would have to fall on their shoulders and not google’s. Even if you want to put the onus on google, there’s no motive at all for google to make it easier for users to install alternatives. If anything, the opposite is true.
Google benefits from andorid’s image of being “more open than apple” so that FOSS fans like myself stay in the android ecosystem. Throwing us bones like AOSP and sideloading are “positive” consequences of this dynamic, but in reality google only does the minimum possible to keep FOSS users on it’s side. We are means to an end. Openness on android only goes as far as it needs to in order to keep us from straying to competitors, there isn’t a strong foundational commitment to it though.
Google has its own line of devices. And here they could do better. I am sure that most other manufacturers would follow. Android supports normal installation of applications. This is a major thing. There is no opt-in option in setting to gain root access. If desired. This hence must improve in the future. Google currently doesn’t do enough to upstream more device drivers. Providing them in C or Rust. This hence must improve in the future. On the long run the same must be achieved in regards to Apple products. For start normal installation of applications. We had a discussion on how Apple will likely hinder charging over USB-C. The EU commission already responded to that by saying Apple will do no such thing. So here the path is clear. On how to achieve this goals. By making them mandatory.
Geck,
Yes, google phones have around 2% of the market share.
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/
Obviously there’s a lot of room for improvement, but I still don’t see much motive for any of these manufacturers to make it easy to replace their stock OS.
I know you want this to happen and honestly I do too, but if these companies don’t have the motive to change, then expecting things to change is just wishful thinking. This is the duality I was talking about in the other post: Reality doesn’t always line up with our idealistic visions of how things should be.
On desktop GNU/Linux supports all three. Normal installation of applications, root access and device drivers for most of the hardware. For the remaining hardware you usually get an installer for the blob. On mobile Android support one and Apple will likely be made to support it too. That is support for normal installation of applications. In regards to root access. On mobile it’s currently a policy set by Google and Apple that prevents such access. Changing the policy by for example mandating an opt-in option. That is what should be the next goal. Instead of using exploits to gain root access. As for device drivers. OEMs don’t have much issues with that. GNU/Linux is great in this regard. Supporting hardware. That is likely the main reason on why upstream availability is a slow process. Due to around 2% of end users being interested in it. For you i imagine it doesn’t make much difference. As if i remember correctly you would be OK with something like Fuchsia. Where the chance of you, as an end user, tinkering with device driver, is zero. With GNU/Linux you get the same. Over time the main difference will be you will be able to tinker with device drivers too. As an end user. But i know most people couldn’t care less about that. Locked down Fuchsia would work for them too.
I would actually buy a motorola or samsung or whatever, if I knew that I could replace or even just update the security sensitive parts when needed. But due to past experience I can’t trust them. Even google sucks on security rollouts. I know I’m in the minority, but maybe more would be willing to purchase them? Right now I just can’t in good conscious recommend a non google pixel or Apple because of security concerns.
Geck,
You are conveniently idealizing linux/android and simultaneously villainizing fuchsia from theoretical vantage points that don’t necessarily reflect their realities. I’ve always said that my being ok with Fuchsia would be contingent on what I can practically do with it. While I don’t necessarily predict this outcome, assuming I were able to take an off the shelf Fuchsia phone and have my custom builds work on it without too much trouble, that’s objectively better for me than what linux/android have been able to bring to the table.
I am a pragmatic. Reality is more important to me than dogma. Although I think this is where we fundamentally disagree, you want to continue believing in an owner empowerment redemption path for linux even if it never actually materializes for mobile users.
Bill Shooter of Bul,
Because of their status, google pixel phones also tend to have better support by alt-os projects like lineageos as well.
For better or worse, the mobile space is not like PCs where you often have aftermarket options that don’t depend on manufacturer support. Being so heavily dependent on android manufacturers for the OS has always rubbed me the wrong way. Yet there’s little incentive to fix it, so I don’t expect following decades to yield much progress.
I knew this would happen. Everyone acting like Google couldn’t close source things! ♂ instead of companies and others putting into something like Ubuntu mobile or another Linux OS.
But noooo we don’t have to put much R&D into using AOSP so let’s go down that road while in the mean time slowly but surely Google has been tying more and more then open source parts to Googles closed source parts.
And now fully removing pieces. ♂
>Is a mobile operating system that can’t send messages or make phone calls really complete?
No.