Keeping Android Open

[Alexzee]

I found this on my Android phone today.
What you think about this is important to me and how to help others if I can.

In August 2025, Google announced ↗ that as of September 2026,it will no longer be possible to develop apps for the Android platformwithout first registering centrally with Google.

➤ You, the consumer, purchased your Android device believing in Google’s promise that it was an open computing platform and that you could run whatever software you choose on it. Instead, as of September 2026, they will be non-consensually pushing an update to your operating system that irrevocably blocks this right and leaves you at the mercy of their judgement over what software you are permitted to trust.

Keep Android Open

Your phone is about to stop being yours. In September 2026, Google will block every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with them.

keepandroidopen.org

 

[KGIII]

You, the consumer, purchased your Android device believing in Google’s promise that it was an open computing platform and that you could run whatever software you choose on it.

Nope. LOL Not me.

I never even considered it, and I certainly would expect that to change down the road. It looks like it'll roll out over the next couple of years. But, yeah, Google hasn't had its 'do no evil' motto for a long time.

This looks like it's even going to cover 'side-loading'.

On one hand, I can see why (and mostly agree with) what they're doing. The goal is to increase security and accountability.

On the other hand, unless they put effort into vetting the software itself, it's largely security theater.

 

[Alexzee]

Nope. LOL Not me.

I never even considered it, and I certainly would expect that to change down the road. It looks like it'll roll out over the next couple of years. But, yeah, Google hasn't had its 'do no evil' motto for a long time.

This looks like it's even going to cover 'side-loading'.

On one hand, I can see why (and mostly agree with) what they're doing. The goal is to increase security and accountability.

On the other hand, unless they put effort into vetting the software itself, it's largely security theater.

Thanks for your input.

 

[APTI]

I wrote something about this a few months ago and it is something people need to stand up and shout about. personally I would like to see a nice class action law suit over it. I do android developing and this decision is already rolling out in some areas of the planet. I find this to be part of the thought google has that while you purchased the device you do not own it. As linux people we believe in that open thing. If google wants to close the doors this way then Linus needs to revoke permission to use the kernel.

If you know of a group trying to do something about it, count me in.

 

[Alexzee]

I wrote something about this a few months ago and it is something people need to stand up and shout about. personally I would like to see a nice class action law suit over it. I do android developing and this decision is already rolling out in some areas of the planet. I find this to be part of the thought google has that while you purchased the device you do not own it. As linux people we believe in that open thing. If google wants to close the doors this way then Linus needs to revoke permission to use the kernel.

If you know of a group trying to do something about it, count me in.

The Federal Communications Commission should be the right place. Anyone can file a complaint on their website however, I'm a small cog in the machinery but if we all get connected we can become a big engine (think Thomas) that creates change.

Antitrust Complaint Intake

Antitrust Complaint Intake

The official website of the Federal Trade Commission, protecting America’s consumers for over 100 years.

www.ftc.gov

 

[gvisoc]

Nope. LOL Not me.

I never even considered it, and I certainly...

Writing style aside, that was the promise of Google back in 2006 when it bought Android, and that's why AOSP exists, it was a true beacon before 2010, and also why Google has always sold the best hardware for development purposes.

Whether or not Google ditched the "don't be evil" by 2016, that was the principle under which the Android ecosystem of ROMs grew and thrived. Otherwise, most of the Android enthusiasts wouldn't have spent a minute of their time in it.

 

[gvisoc]

I wonder if creating some sort of Trust or umbrella association behind which personal developers can federate can mitigate this problem. Is there any lawyer in the room?

EDIT: before I had put an LLC but I don't think it makes any sense, this problem is one of those I know so little about that I wouldn't even be able to articulate a google search.

 

[The Duck]

➤ You, the consumer, purchased your Android device believing in Google’s promise that it was an open computing platform and that you could run whatever software you choose on it. Instead, as of September 2026, they will be non-consensually pushing an update to your operating system that irrevocably blocks this right and leaves you at the mercy of their judgement over what software you are permitted to trust.

Most people never considered this when purchasing their Android device.

What Google is doing or going to do doesn't surprise me at all.

Google is no different than any other big corporation.

Google will do what they want and no one will change that.

Google does what Google wants they have the power and they know it.

 

[Alexzee]

Most people never considered this when purchasing their Android device.

What Google is doing or going to do doesn't surprise me at all.

Google is no different than any other big corporation.

Google will do what they want and no one will change that.

Google does what Google wants they have the power and they know it.

You're right.
At the time when I purchased my new Android phone I had no idea this was a possibility.

How would you stand up to this bro?

 

[The Duck]

I don't really have an answer.

I don't know that there is a good solution for the end user.

If we continue to use Android we just have to reluctantly agree and accept Google's policy.

I don't see Apple devices being any better of an option as they are to my knowledge the same way with software.

I guess the only real option is to go with a Linux mobile device which as far as I know are limited to cellphones.

Big corporations are succeeding to take away any control we have with our devices which we have become very dependent upon.

I'm all for keeping Android open but Google is going to do what they want which imo has been proven over and over.

 

[KGIII]

Otherwise, most of the Android enthusiasts wouldn't have spent a minute of their time in it.

Google must currently believe that they have lock-in status, and believe that enough of those devs will comply.

I wouldn't be surprised if they still allowed side-loading in like development mode. We'll have to see how it takes shape as they roll it out globally.

And, I very much expect Google to make these kinds of choices. They used to give a slight nod to altruism and benignity. But that was a long time ago, at least for a tech business.

Also, I 'get' why they'd do this. It's for accountability and security reasons. However, if they don't step up their current security checks, it's largely going to be 'security theater'.

We'll have to see how it comes out in the wash.

Collectively, but not universally, we seem to have resigned ourselves to living in a walled garden, with behaviors not entirely dissimilar to those of the days of the dumb terminal.

 

[Alexzee]

I don't really have an answer.

I don't know that there is a good solution for the end user.

If we continue to use Android we just have to reluctantly agree and accept Google's policy.

I don't see Apple devices being any better of an option as they are to my knowledge the same way with software.

I guess the only real option is to go with a Linux mobile device which as far as I know are limited to cellphones.

Big corporations are succeeding to take away any control we have with our devices which we have become very dependent upon.

I'm all for keeping Android open but Google is going to do what they want which imo has been proven over and over.

Thanks for your honest answer.

Not every Android user can throw $200.00 on the table in a day.

PINEPHONE - Beta Edition with Convergence Package Linux SmartPhone - PINE STORE

The EU PinePhone orders will dispatch weekly from Poland transit warehouse. For non-EU PinePhone orders will dispatch weekly from Hong Kong warehouse. BODY Dimensions: 160.5mm x 76.6mm x 9.2mm Weight: 185 grams Build: Plastic Colour: Black SIM: Micro-SIM DISPLAY Type: HD...

pine64.com

Some things are worth fighting for, Seriously:-

 

[APTI]

Thanks for your honest answer.

Not every Android user can throw $200.00 on the table in a day.

PINEPHONE - Beta Edition with Convergence Package Linux SmartPhone - PINE STORE

The EU PinePhone orders will dispatch weekly from Poland transit warehouse. For non-EU PinePhone orders will dispatch weekly from Hong Kong warehouse. BODY Dimensions: 160.5mm x 76.6mm x 9.2mm Weight: 185 grams Build: Plastic Colour: Black SIM: Micro-SIM DISPLAY Type: HD...

pine64.com

Some things are worth fighting for, Seriously:-

google has already implemented this in some countries. I guess as a test. Now they are moving forward to do it in North america and Europe. This needs to stop. WE OWN THE DEVICE NOT GOOGLE.

 

[KGIII]

WE OWN THE DEVICE NOT GOOGLE.

This has been tried before. If you look into US legal cases, a well-known one is the 2010 decision in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., there's not much you can do about this.

The key point from that case is that you own the hardware, but you license the software.

So, yes. You own the device. Google does not own your device. You have the liberty (and freedom) to use different software. If the device does not make it easy/possible to alter the software, that's not their concern. (See Tivo for an example.)

For the sake of clarity, with freedom vs liberty:

You are free to punch me in the face.
You are not at liberty to do so.

In this case, you have both the freedom and liberty to change your device's software. As we do not have an established Right To Repair (and we do have the pesky DMCA), you're not at liberty to modify (some of) the software on your phone. You can replace it without violating any rights. Parts of Android are open source, so you can modify those bits, but the software on the phone is only partially open source.

But, you are correct. You do own the device. However, you don't own the software. You do not have the liberty to modify (some of) the code on your Android-powered device.

You have the right to replace the software with other software, but they're not legally obligated to help you or facilitate such. If it has a locked-down bootloader, you're out of luck. They are not obligated to make it possible to modify the software.

A good example is a modern microwave oven. You own the oven, but you don't own the software that runs the oven. The OEM is not required to help you if you want to change the software. Additionally, the OEM doesn't have to use an IC that can be altered after its initial programming.

For what it's worth, software is protected by copyright laws. The GPL itself relies on those same laws for its enforceability. This generally means that you don't get to edit the code that you licensed.

My goal is not to rain on your parade; it's simply to share what I know and understand. Don't get me wrong. I wish it was different, and I've not had much trust in Google for a long time.

Note: The above is based on some US legal cases that set precedents. Other areas of the world may fare better than we will. At the same time, we have some 'right to repair' movements going on across the country and across some different industries. One could then posit that the right to repair means the right to use different software. We're a long way from that, however.

 

[APTI]

sound

This has been tried before. If you look into US legal cases, a well-known one is the 2010 decision in Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., there's not much you can do about this.

The key point from that case is that you own the hardware, but you license the software.

So, yes. You own the device. Google does not own your device. You have the liberty (and freedom) to use different software. If the device does not make it easy/possible to alter the software, that's not their concern. (See Tivo for an example.)

For the sake of clarity, with freedom vs liberty:

You are free to punch me in the face.
You are not at liberty to do so.

In this case, you have both the freedom and liberty to change your device's software. As we do not have an established Right To Repair (and we do have the pesky DMCA), you're not at liberty to modify (some of) the software on your phone. You can replace it without violating any rights. Parts of Android are open source, so you can modify those bits, but the software on the phone is only partially open source.

But, you are correct. You do own the device. However, you don't own the software. You do not have the liberty to modify (some of) the code on your Android-powered device.

You have the right to replace the software with other software, but they're not legally obligated to help you or facilitate such. If it has a locked-down bootloader, you're out of luck. They are not obligated to make it possible to modify the software.

A good example is a modern microwave oven. You own the oven, but you don't own the software that runs the oven. The OEM is not required to help you if you want to change the software. Additionally, the OEM doesn't have to use an IC that can be altered after its initial programming.

For what it's worth, software is protected by copyright laws. The GPL itself relies on those same laws for its enforceability. This generally means that you don't get to edit the code that you licensed.

My goal is not to rain on your parade; it's simply to share what I know and understand. Don't get me wrong. I wish it was different, and I've not had much trust in Google for a long time.

Note: The above is based on some US legal cases that set precedents. Other areas of the world may fare better than we will. At the same time, we have some 'right to repair' movements going on across the country and across some different industries. One could then posit that the right to repair means the right to use different software. We're a long way from that, however.

sounds like we need one of those.... "Power to the People" things... enough people say &%*#$ google and they start to listen. As it is personally I avoid using google anything because of this sort of thing.

 

[KGIII]

sounds like we need one of those.... "Power to the People" things... enough people say &%*#$ google and they start to listen. As it is personally I avoid using google anything because of this sort of thing.

I doubt that enough people care enough for it to matter to Google. They make their money on the ecosystem, including the ad revenue and data mining. If you honestly answer yourself, ask yourself how many 'normal Android users' will care about this.

And, no... I don't think developers are going to 'leave in droves' or anything like that. They're just going to conform so that they can keep developing apps and making a few dollars along the way. There's a lot a person will do to keep their belly full, the TV turned on, and their favorite sports team.

 

[APTI]

I doubt that enough people care enough for it to matter to Google. They make their money on the ecosystem, including the ad revenue and data mining. If you honestly answer yourself, ask yourself how many 'normal Android users' will care about this.

And, no... I don't think developers are going to 'leave in droves' or anything like that. They're just going to conform so that they can keep developing apps and making a few dollars along the way. There's a lot a person will do to keep their belly full, the TV turned on, and their favorite sports team.

very true, my mother says we have too many sheep in the world.

 

[KGIII]

very true, my mother says we have too many sheep in the world.

That made me think for a moment, not because it's a new thought but because of the context. I haven't given this much thought, but...

In an ideal world, it's not the sheep that are the problem. It's the shepherds and wolves that concern me.

Shepherds are going to do what they have always done, which is lead the lamb to slaughter. They'll keep enough of the herd to replace the ones lost along the way. They'll claim to keep the wolves at bay, so long as it profits them to do so.

Yeah, that reads like a stoned person whose claim to fame is that they failed their Intro to Philosophy 101 class at the community college. I'm still gonna post it.

 

[APTI]

That made me think for a moment, not because it's a new thought but because of the context. I haven't given this much thought, but...

In an ideal world, it's not the sheep that are the problem. It's the shepherds and wolves that concern me.

Shepherds are going to do what they have always done, which is lead the lamb to slaughter. They'll keep enough of the herd to replace the ones lost along the way. They'll claim to keep the wolves at bay, so long as it profits them to do so.

Yeah, that reads like a stoned person whose claim to fame is that they failed their Intro to Philosophy 101 class at the community college. I'm still gonna post it.

you made me laugh, but it is true. except I consider myself a shepherd due to my long time as a firefighter.

 

[PhantomShadow]

Is it possible to create a program to "map" the infrastructure both hardware and drivers so you can adjust any basic linux distro on a given device?