Mobifree – An open-source mobile ecosystem

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

An EU‑funded initiative called Mobifree aims to build an open‑source, privacy‑respecting mobile ecosystem around projects like F‑Droid, /e/OS and microG, positioned as an alternative to Google- and Apple‑controlled platforms. Commenters welcome the idea and note it aligns with new European regulations such as the Digital Markets Act, but criticize the project’s vague, marketing‑heavy messaging, reliance on Android/AOSP, and the bureaucracy and weak track record often associated with EU tech grants. Many also point out practical hurdles to mainstream adoption, including F‑Droid’s usability and search issues, the absence of banking and other proprietary apps, and broader structural problems like closed mobile hardware, app‑store lock‑in, and centralization of internet infrastructure.

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.