Mobifree – An open-source mobile ecosystem

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

EU Focus and Funding

  • The EU focus is seen as driven by Digital Markets Act (DMA) regulations and EU funding rather than an actual geographic restriction; software outcomes should be globally usable.
  • Some argue EU grants are “kiss of death” due to bureaucracy and consortium politics; others say newer programs like NGI/NLNet are leaner and have funded many useful FLOSS projects.

What Mobifree Actually Is

  • Many readers find the announcement vague or “marketing/SEO-like” and struggle to understand what Mobifree concretely delivers.
  • Clarification in the thread: Mobifree is primarily an EU grant program (via NLNet/NGI) funding mobile-related open-source work, with F‑Droid as a key partner, not a single new OS or unified stack.
  • Some confusion remains about how its “decentralized app distribution” differs in practice from F‑Droid’s existing repo model.

Dependence on Android and Big Tech

  • Critics say building an “alternative to Big Tech” on Android/AOSP (a Google-controlled ecosystem) is contradictory.
  • Others counter that AOSP is open source, Play Services are the proprietary part, and forking/replacing components (e.g., with microG) is feasible and far more practical than a new OS and driver stack.

F‑Droid’s Role and Limitations

  • F‑Droid receives substantial Mobifree funding but is criticized for poor search (e.g., not finding Firefox/Fennec when searching “browser”) and rough UX; alternative clients like Droidify and Neo Store are praised.
  • F‑Droid’s strict inclusion policy (FLOSS only, no proprietary trackers) is seen by some as its core value, by others as a barrier to being a full Play Store replacement, especially for banking and commercial apps.
  • Debate over adding payments: some see it as compatible with free software principles; others highlight privacy, account, and business-model complications.

Website, Marketing, and Communication Quality

  • The mobifree.org site is widely criticized as amateurish (layout, typography, unclear calls to action) and heavy on aspirational language with few specifics.
  • Some say this is typical “bureaucratic” communication aimed at funders rather than users; others worry it signals weak execution.

Privacy, Infrastructure Control, and Practical Constraints

  • One subthread argues the modern internet is effectively controlled by a handful of corporations (cloud, DNS, AS-level whitelisting), making true decentralization extremely hard; others partially dispute the “global whitelist” framing.
  • Real-world obstacles include banking and identity: in some EU countries, online banking now effectively requires proprietary mobile apps tied to Google/Apple ecosystems, while others still support hardware tokens or SMS.
  • Users share mixed experiences with alternative ROMs (/e/OS, Lineage, GrapheneOS, PinePhone/postmarketOS), noting gains in privacy but practical issues like VoLTE, app compatibility, and lagging Android versions.

Demand for Simple, Private Apps

  • Some participants want a curated set of minimal, offline-first Android apps with minimal permissions and no network access; others note that many such apps already exist on F‑Droid (e.g., Fossify suite, Aegis, Binary Eye).
  • Broader discussion touches on how honest, privacy-respecting apps can be disadvantaged in mainstream stores by review manipulation and monetization pressures.