Keep Android Open

Android vs iOS Experience and Market Position

• Some see Android and iOS as functionally similar, with UX differences mostly stylistic; others argue Android is buggy, inconsistent, and less polished.
• High‑end Android (Pixel, Samsung Fold/Flip, DeX, multi‑window) is framed by some as more “pro” than iPhone; others insist Apple still dominates the “luxury” and youth market.
• A recurring sentiment: many use Android not because they love it, but because it’s cheaper or more flexible than iOS. If Google locks it down, it becomes “a worse iOS” with no clear advantage.

Developer Verification, Sideloading, and F-Droid

• Google’s planned developer verification and notarization is seen as a de‑facto gatekeeping layer: tying app installation to Google‑approved identities.
• Critics say the promised “advanced flow” for sideloading is vague, not present in current betas, and likely to be hostile (multi‑step, dark‑pattern warnings).
• Any scheme that makes F‑Droid/alt stores harder to use than Play is viewed as anti‑competitive and a betrayal of Android’s perceived openness.

Security vs Control: Banking, NFC, and Play Integrity

• One camp argues locking down installs and attestation is needed to combat real‑world scams and banking malware, especially in regions where phones are primary banking devices.
• Others note that most malware and scams already come through official stores, and that Play Protect/SafetyNet/Play Integrity and banking apps are increasingly used to lock out custom ROMs and non‑Google OSes.
• On GrapheneOS and similar, many banking apps work, but Google Pay NFC usually does not; this is a dealbreaker for heavy wallet/ID/e‑ticket users.

Ownership, Freedom, and Locked Bootloaders

• Large subthread debates: “It’s their OS vs it’s my phone.”
• One side: Google can design Android however it wants; users remain free to hack or replace it, but Google needn’t make that easy.
• Other side: if a company prevents you from installing arbitrary software on hardware you bought (via locked bootloaders, attestation, store control), that’s effectively theft of user sovereignty.
• Locked bootloaders and proprietary drivers are repeatedly cited as the core structural problem.

Legal, Regulatory, and Political Angles

• Several commenters have contacted EU DMA teams and encourage EU citizens to do likewise, hoping regulators will protect sideloading and competition (for both Android and iOS).
• There’s skepticism that EU e‑ID, banking apps, and payment schemes (e.g., Wero) will support non‑Google/Apple platforms; some examples already block GrapheneOS.
• Broader concerns: tying real‑world identity to software distribution, “safety” being used to justify de‑anonymization and control, and weak antitrust enforcement.

Alternatives: GrapheneOS, Linux Phones, and China

• GrapheneOS is widely praised as “Android done right,” but Pixel‑only support and app incompatibilities limit adoption.
• Linux phones (postmarketOS, Ubuntu Touch, Sailfish, Librem 5, PinePhone) are admired but seen as far from daily‑driver ready: missing drivers, poor cameras, power use, and weak app ecosystems.
• Some speculate China or HarmonyOS‑style forks could provide a non‑US‑controlled ecosystem, but most doubt they’d be truly open.

Android’s “Openness” and Future Forks

• Many argue Android was never truly open: AOSP is controlled by Google, key capabilities moved into closed Play Services, OEM contracts and hardware stacks are tightly bound.
• A hard fork under a neutral foundation is discussed, but maintaining compatibility at Android’s complexity (similar to Chromium) is seen as extremely difficult and expensive.
• Some hope Google’s tightening will finally push serious investment into open Linux‑based phones; others think most users will simply accept further lock‑in.