Google will develop Android OS behind closed doors starting next week

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of the Change

  • Google will keep releasing Android source to AOSP, but active development moves fully to private internal branches.
  • Many note this is already true for large parts of Android; the change mainly makes remaining public Gerrit-based work private and streamlines their own branching.
  • Others argue this is still significant: public incremental development, early visibility, and contribution channels effectively disappear.

Transparency, Trust, and Precedents

  • Several commenters call the headline misleading but still worry about loss of transparency and earlier detection of “anti-consumer” changes.
  • There are repeated comparisons to Chromium/Manifest V3 and to OpenSolaris: development went private, then meaningful open releases largely stopped.
  • Skeptics say they’ll “believe it when they see it,” expecting a gradual shrink toward only legally-required copyleft releases.

Impact on Forks and AOSP Users

  • Concerns for LineageOS, GrapheneOS, and ROM builders:
    • Harder to track upstream, more painful merges after large periodic dumps.
    • Longer delays for new features/security changes and less ability to prepare.
  • Some minimize the impact: forks are already a tiny share; much of Android has long been developed privately; interesting parts have been moved to proprietary Google Play Services anyway.
  • A GrapheneOS statement (linked in the thread) says direct impact is limited but directionally “a major step in the wrong direction.”

Licensing, Enclosure, and Control

  • Discussion of Apache-licensed components vs GPL parts (kernel, some runtime/OpenJDK bits) and how permissive licensing lets Google close more over time.
  • Several argue this illustrates the risk of single-vendor “open” projects and of permissive licenses being easy to enclose; others respond that open source never required public development, only source for distributed binaries.
  • Noted long-term trend: key functionality (location, SMS, stock apps) migrating from AOSP to proprietary Google Play Services.

Business Strategy and Antitrust

  • Some see this as a step toward a Chrome/Chromium-style split or even a future fully proprietary Android, especially under EU pressure on Google’s business model.
  • Counterpoint: Android’s openness doesn’t significantly help with current antitrust issues focused on Play Services; thus Google has little regulatory incentive to stay more open.
  • Debate over whether large OEMs (Samsung, Huawei, Amazon, others) could or would maintain a serious fork if Google tightened control further.

Alternatives and Broader Sentiment

  • Multiple commenters express renewed interest in non-Android mobile platforms (postmarketOS, Mobian, Plasma Mobile, Sailfish, HarmonyOS), but acknowledge poor hardware support, driver issues, and lack of polish.
  • Some welcome Google “dropping the pretense” of openness, hoping this creates space for a truly open, privacy-respecting phone OS.
  • Overall tone mixes resignation (“nothing really changes, it was mostly closed already”) with concern that this is a familiar first step on a path to enclosure.