We really need an Android alternative with no involvement from American or Chinese companies.
This won’t occur without state intervention. The market has already decided to move design and production of phones and phone components to China (and Vietnam to some extent). In order for a European phone to be made, in Europe, the necessary supply chains need to be buit. But there’s no market for them as their output would be more expensive and the market already figured the maximum profit is in the China-Vietnam manufacturing mix. So the state would have to create these supply chains. Minerals, displays, diodes, MOSFETs, ICs, caps, PCBs and small cells. Once that’s in place, creating a European phone manufacturer becomes possible. That’s a decade long process that simpy won’t occur without deliberate and persistent state support. I think it should be done, however you may find a lot of opposition by free market fundamentalists, or interest groups that represent capital in other industries receiving state support.
Agreed. Hardware supply chains and ecosystem externalities are an extremely challenging area and it will take both industrial policy and de facto tariffs to raise the cost of devices with non-local components.
I was refering to the software/OS. An operating system and platform that has nothing to do with Android, iOS or HarmonyOS. I think in theory, software can have faster market adoption.
On the software front, our fastest way to independence is a state-funded software org to fork Android and begin development and maintenance full-time. Whether one goes with non-Android or Android OS, it always comes down to funding development. Starting with Android would likely be significantly cheaper since a lot of work has already been done. And if you fund its continued development away from Google, then Google isn’t a factor anymore. Make an independent app store, Play Services replacement, etc. As I said in another thread, the social infrastructure (people, labour) is more important than the exact technology used. If we have that, we can make a usable phone out of Android or Sailfish, or anything else. It’s a matter of doing the work.
Having independent software with PRC-hardware isn’t a bad compromise. Especially in the near term.
Android has been stagnant for a long time and Google has been making some pretty authoritarian moves lately before walking them back due to outrage. They will reintroduce these ideas when they’re more acceptable under the falling standards of the US.
Sure but that no longer matters if you have say Igalia staff a 200-people team with EU funding to develop NOSP (Nondroid Open Source Project) a hard fork which no longer accepts any changes from Google. All the decisions happen without Google’s direction. Since that would be already compatible with hardware in the near term, the EU could mandate manufacturers who want to sell in the EU to ship phone variants based on NOSP.
The APIs and OS infrastructure that already exists in AOSP is enormous. I develop system software for AOSP, for a living. It’s been stagnant becauase the OS is basically complete. There’s no major gaps of any kind left. You don’t want the OS to move much unless there’s problems to solve or gaps to fill.
You are likely correct that forking Android would be a better (cheaper and more efficient) option. But I can’t get rid of the feeling that it’s best to do a clean break with American oligarchy and make design choices that reflect regional priorities.
I understand that feeling. If it’s strong enough to drive to using a different base I wouldn’t care much even if it’s more work. The staffing and funding is the real difficult part.
From technical perspective, other than perhaps the software license choice, there’s nothing in AOSP that I’m aware of (not the closed source parts) that’s driven by the oligarchy. I’ve been involved with AOSP at the OEM level for some ten years, some in the early 2010s and then since 2020. AOSP has been fairly well isolated from non-technical decisionmaking at Google, in part due to how many third parties heavily depend on it, and in part because of how pluggable the APIs are. The plugability allowed all anti-features so far to go into installable components that don’t need to be a part of the OS. I think this bullshit with the app “sideloading” changes is the first major change that has no technical basis whatsoever that I’m aware of and requires AOSP surgery to accomodate. There may be more to come from here on out.
I guess you could chalk up the lack of open source app development as part of the oligatchic shitfuckery. I guess it is, but the base apps really are separate from the OS and they’re a pretty small effort compared to the rest of the OS and frameworks.
Anyway. I’ll get this next Jolla phone to try out. Sailfish is an evolution of MeeGo which was the most promising Android alternative in the early 2010s. 😁
The staffing and funding is the real difficult part.
Agreed. I will also add that a lack of leadership and gumption is also a challenge. You need commitment and inspiration to successfully execute such a project in a democracy.
I am not technical enough to evaluate whether what I am saying is correct, but my concern with using AOSP is that such a decision will result in 2nd tier clone apps.
It seems to me it would make much more sense to leverage industry policy (technical requirements, grants for developers) to develop a “clean slate” solution.
I had a Nokia N900, it worked pretty well for 2010 (apps weren’t as big then and mobile web worked surprising well). I am done with Android and American corruption. I am not buying another Android phone; looking forward to getting a Jolla device once they add support for Ukraine (even with no official support).
How it does very well and it even gets up to 10K+.
I just realized that I can’t pre-order even if I wanted to since I am not in EU/UK/Norway/Switzerland.
We really need an Android alternative with no involvement from American or Chinese companies.
This won’t occur without state intervention. The market has already decided to move design and production of phones and phone components to China (and Vietnam to some extent). In order for a European phone to be made, in Europe, the necessary supply chains need to be buit. But there’s no market for them as their output would be more expensive and the market already figured the maximum profit is in the China-Vietnam manufacturing mix. So the state would have to create these supply chains. Minerals, displays, diodes, MOSFETs, ICs, caps, PCBs and small cells. Once that’s in place, creating a European phone manufacturer becomes possible. That’s a decade long process that simpy won’t occur without deliberate and persistent state support. I think it should be done, however you may find a lot of opposition by free market fundamentalists, or interest groups that represent capital in other industries receiving state support.
Software is the easier part to build up first in Europe. AOSP will no longer be patched soon.
Agreed. Hardware supply chains and ecosystem externalities are an extremely challenging area and it will take both industrial policy and de facto tariffs to raise the cost of devices with non-local components.
I was refering to the software/OS. An operating system and platform that has nothing to do with Android, iOS or HarmonyOS. I think in theory, software can have faster market adoption.
On the software front, our fastest way to independence is a state-funded software org to fork Android and begin development and maintenance full-time. Whether one goes with non-Android or Android OS, it always comes down to funding development. Starting with Android would likely be significantly cheaper since a lot of work has already been done. And if you fund its continued development away from Google, then Google isn’t a factor anymore. Make an independent app store, Play Services replacement, etc. As I said in another thread, the social infrastructure (people, labour) is more important than the exact technology used. If we have that, we can make a usable phone out of Android or Sailfish, or anything else. It’s a matter of doing the work.
Having independent software with PRC-hardware isn’t a bad compromise. Especially in the near term.
Android has been stagnant for a long time and Google has been making some pretty authoritarian moves lately before walking them back due to outrage. They will reintroduce these ideas when they’re more acceptable under the falling standards of the US.
Sure but that no longer matters if you have say Igalia staff a 200-people team with EU funding to develop NOSP (Nondroid Open Source Project) a hard fork which no longer accepts any changes from Google. All the decisions happen without Google’s direction. Since that would be already compatible with hardware in the near term, the EU could mandate manufacturers who want to sell in the EU to ship phone variants based on NOSP.
The APIs and OS infrastructure that already exists in AOSP is enormous. I develop system software for AOSP, for a living. It’s been stagnant becauase the OS is basically complete. There’s no major gaps of any kind left. You don’t want the OS to move much unless there’s problems to solve or gaps to fill.
You are likely correct that forking Android would be a better (cheaper and more efficient) option. But I can’t get rid of the feeling that it’s best to do a clean break with American oligarchy and make design choices that reflect regional priorities.
I understand that feeling. If it’s strong enough to drive to using a different base I wouldn’t care much even if it’s more work. The staffing and funding is the real difficult part.
From technical perspective, other than perhaps the software license choice, there’s nothing in AOSP that I’m aware of (not the closed source parts) that’s driven by the oligarchy. I’ve been involved with AOSP at the OEM level for some ten years, some in the early 2010s and then since 2020. AOSP has been fairly well isolated from non-technical decisionmaking at Google, in part due to how many third parties heavily depend on it, and in part because of how pluggable the APIs are. The plugability allowed all anti-features so far to go into installable components that don’t need to be a part of the OS. I think this bullshit with the app “sideloading” changes is the first major change that has no technical basis whatsoever that I’m aware of and requires AOSP surgery to accomodate. There may be more to come from here on out.
I guess you could chalk up the lack of open source app development as part of the oligatchic shitfuckery. I guess it is, but the base apps really are separate from the OS and they’re a pretty small effort compared to the rest of the OS and frameworks.
Anyway. I’ll get this next Jolla phone to try out. Sailfish is an evolution of MeeGo which was the most promising Android alternative in the early 2010s. 😁
Agreed. I will also add that a lack of leadership and gumption is also a challenge. You need commitment and inspiration to successfully execute such a project in a democracy.
I am not technical enough to evaluate whether what I am saying is correct, but my concern with using AOSP is that such a decision will result in 2nd tier clone apps.
It seems to me it would make much more sense to leverage industry policy (technical requirements, grants for developers) to develop a “clean slate” solution.
I had a Nokia N900, it worked pretty well for 2010 (apps weren’t as big then and mobile web worked surprising well). I am done with Android and American corruption. I am not buying another Android phone; looking forward to getting a Jolla device once they add support for Ukraine (even with no official support).