Google is systematically dismantling the open Android ecosystem: forcing all developers to register with Google, slowing AOSP releases, and effectively turning Android into a walled garden. Here is what is at stake.
From my understanding, Graphene is still extremely dependent on upstream development of Android so they can focus on their security improvements. I don’t think they have the manpower to properly fork it.
There is a solid basis though, and it wouldn’t be unthinkable to create a foundation around it that could take it forward on its own. And if there are vendors shipping it, then some money might get thrown at the effort too.
I unfortunately think you underestimate the workload here. Developing an OS is a massive undertaking, and it would require a huge community of developers to come forward and take up the job. I just don’t see it happening spontaneously. In my opinion, if they ever lose upstream support, Graphene just dies.
I’m not saying it would be easy or would happen spontaneously, just that it’s not impossible. There is already a solid base to work off and there is a lot of interest in having an open mobile platform. I reject the notion that only large corps can do such things.
And Android piggybacks on Linux. Turtles all the way down, until you get the actual developers committing real effort. And no one is talking about spontaneously, rather realistically 0.5-20 million euros in funding from the EU. Is it viable then? If not, realistically, what would be the threshold for viability?
From my understanding, Graphene is still extremely dependent on upstream development of Android so they can focus on their security improvements. I don’t think they have the manpower to properly fork it.
There is a solid basis though, and it wouldn’t be unthinkable to create a foundation around it that could take it forward on its own. And if there are vendors shipping it, then some money might get thrown at the effort too.
I unfortunately think you underestimate the workload here. Developing an OS is a massive undertaking, and it would require a huge community of developers to come forward and take up the job. I just don’t see it happening spontaneously. In my opinion, if they ever lose upstream support, Graphene just dies.
What is an OS? is Android an OS or just an application layer? Because most of its deep close-to-metal components are not maintained by Google.
What is “developing”? is keeping things stable “developing”? I actually wish Google stopped releasing breaking changes…
IMHO, I actually think Android would be a better off if Google stopped experimenting with it, “developing” it, and adding stuff nobody asked for.
I’m not saying it would be easy or would happen spontaneously, just that it’s not impossible. There is already a solid base to work off and there is a lot of interest in having an open mobile platform. I reject the notion that only large corps can do such things.
And Android piggybacks on Linux. Turtles all the way down, until you get the actual developers committing real effort. And no one is talking about spontaneously, rather realistically 0.5-20 million euros in funding from the EU. Is it viable then? If not, realistically, what would be the threshold for viability?