this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
285 points (98.6% liked)
Privacy
41325 readers
1052 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not on Android. People love to stan for Android because "it's open source," but Android would have gone nowhere if Google didn't buy it, and Google wouldn't have bought it if they weren't convinced it would let them scrape more personal data than Gmail. (And Andy Rubin made Android because he heard Steve Jobs say the iPhone would run OS X, and he thought he could probably whip up a Linux distro to run on a phone.)
You could get an iPhone and not run any apps by Google, Meta, Microsoft, X, or any of the other privacy-opposed companies. You'd also better change the default search off of Google. DuckDuckGo is an option. Ecosia might be. Not sure. The issue is, while Apple says they're all about privacy, that's based on them being a computer/hardware company first (and Google being a data company first). However, Apple is heavily leaning into services now — Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple News+, and more — and there are rumors they want their own search engine. So while Apple may be privacy strong now, you don't know what they'll be a year from now, or three, or five.
It's like Tim Cook (Apple CEO) said about Facebook when they introduced the tracking limiter. "You can still give Facebook permission to track you all over the web, they just gotta get your permission first." That's true of privacy. You can still use Google, Meta, Microsoft, X, TikTok, and other privacy-violating companies' products, but what you share is entirely up to you. You can use some of those services in Safari and block some tracking, or you can install the apps and allow it all. It's up to you.
Or, you can buy a Pixel and reward Google's business model, and put GrapheneOS on it. That is probably better, privacy-wise, than using an iPhone. But you're still rewarding Google's business model. And if they're making so much money off your data that opting out isn't even an option, why does the Pixel cost the same the iPhone does (and more, considering the Pixel Fold)? You are getting more RAM, but RAM is cheap. You're not getting a better processor — Apple has won that race for years. Camera tech is about 50/50. Screen is up in the air — I think Apple's is better, but Google et al use higher resolutions. Apple buys from the same companies but screens are made to spec which is why Apple's are better than those by companies they buy from. Their spec is more demanding. "Good enough" is what passes in Android — it's like how iPhones use NVMe and Androids use UFS. NVMe is more expensive, and it's faster on paper, but in the real world? UFS is good enough. You wouldn't see a difference, or a significant one, in real world usage. So what are you paying for in a Pixel? The lower specs plus the privacy/data factor should make the Pixel significantly cheaper... except Google is a publicly traded company, so they can't sell it that low.
Apple may not be the best option, but they're advertising that they are (with regards to privacy). And I think they're trying. I'm not saying they're saints. They are doing better than Google though. And you have to decide if that's worth your money. And dealing with a crappy keyboard. The keyboard sucks.
Did you not get the memo? That might not be an option in the near future, that's the whole point of OP asking.
Memo about custom firmware? No. I did see the bit about Google blocking sideloading. True, I don't follow Google/Android news as closely as I follow Apple news due to that being what I use.
That said, I know a fair bit about Android and used to do custom firmware. I know it's never been easy, largely due to the carriers getting involved. I thought Pixels were unlocked though, at least those bought direct. In the early days when they were Verizon exclusive, the carrier bought ones were locked (this was 2016). Custom firmware in the last 5-10 years? I know a lot less about that.
Apple has a search engine, it’s just not publicly accessible. They’ve had a web crawler for many years and their internal search engine is likely what powers things like siri suggested sites and information for apple maps. It is correct they could enter the search and advertising game at any moment, though unlikely because it would destroy their brand integrity.
That said apple is no saint for privacy. For one they actively enable google; they take billions from google to fund safari development in exchange for prioritizing google as built in search and feeding google user data. For a company like Mozilla this is an ethical conundrum; without googles money they’d likely be done. For a company like apple it is inexcusable. the few billion, while a tremendous amount (I think 18 billion?) is a pittance to them.
Further to your point of “active permission” with the tracking limiter this is not always the case. Apple is aware and does not do anything to reform. Part of the reason companies want you to use their app on ios is because then you will be far more likely to open links via the in app browser, which is still safari/webkit, but now escapes sandboxing and allows for far more precise tracking and fingerprinting even if you utilize the tracking limitations built into ios.
Notice how only sketchy games with tons of blatant ads will prompt the “ask ad not to track” box. Instagram, twitter, youtube, reddit, etc generally don’t because they don’t need to track you through permitted routes. Apple has long been aware of this and continue to do nothing (forcing links to open in safari or another browser, limiting traffic on in app browsers, etc). Lord knows what other tricks scumbags like facebook have to circumvent systems and track everything you do. Apple is well aware it happens without user consent but tolerates it and then has the gall to say their hardware and software is “privacy oriented”
Yes, ironically I just read another article about how Facebook/Meta has gotten around the ATT (App Tracking thing, I forget what the other T stands for) with in-app browsers. The article's point was that all the beef between Apple and Meta is just for show and that they need each other like Apple and Google, Apple and Samsung, et al. So yeah, with you on that.
Keep in mind that every Apple phone is also an AirTag, even if "powered off". This isn't the case with most Android phones, and you can get one with a removable battery to ensure it. Sure, there's Faraday bags, but they are easy to mess up, while you can't go wrong with just pulling the power at the source.
Also, you don't have to buy from Google. There's the second-hand and discount reseller market.
We shouldn't live life settling for the "lesser evil", we need more hardware to support things like GrapheneOS.
It's the other way around, it's down to GrapheneOS to support other hardware. They simply choose to focus on Pixels.
You're onto something with the AirTags but you haven't got it quite right. Every Apple device participates in the Find My network, which means any Apple device marked as lost will have its location reported, anonymously, by every other Apple device it can communicate with. This is a good thing, unless you're being stalked via an AirTag placed on your person, but Apple has taken pains to mitigate this issue. One shoe company recently released shoes with AirTag compartments so parents could track their kids, and the placement should mitigate the beeping they can emit. Honestly the AirTags and Find My network do more good than harm, the impact to devices participating in the Find My network is minimal, and if it's your device that's lost, you don't want people opting out so thieves can get away with stealing your stuff.
This can easily be disabled in settings though.
proprietary software can never be trusted to do what it says though. some of these tech companies have been caught "cheating" many times.
Sure, I agree and am not disputing that.
You mean the company that gave Trump a gold brick. No thanks. God I wish there was more options.
I mean it can be both? Android has been awesome for many years precisely because it was open source. It's the reason we have had and continue to have so many custom ROMs. It was open source so it could be run by Samsung, Motorola, LG, etc. while Google collected all the data. It also meant that independent developers could create their own OSs without any of Google's BS in it. And that was fine, because us nerds are not even 1% of the market. But something seems to have changed because they're very suddenly clawing back control of the entire OS. Pretty much the beginning of the end for private mobile devices. This trend is likely to continue faster than the community can create workarounds.
The open source thing is largely a myth, though. AOSP is what's open source. The version of Android on Pixel phones and Nexus before them was forked from that and bundles a lot of closed source stuff, like Google Play Services, Gmail, and more. But it's close enough to AOSP that devs can target it and it should run on most/all Android forks.
So then Samsung and others take AOSP and they fork it and make their own OS that is based on Android. They are required per licensing to use Android branding if they want Play Store access. There are other rules, like Chrome and/or Google has to be on the main launcher page, Play Services has to be included... if they don't play by the rules, they can still fork Android, they just can't use the name Android... like Fire OS and Switch OS. (It's unclear if modern Switches use any Android code. Before they were released they were rumored to have forked Android. Switches absolutely do not run Android apps, but the OS borrows several cues from Android design language.)
You say it's a myth, then say it's not a myth. Which one is it? Is it open source or not?
AOSP and production versions of Android (what's on the Pixel) are not the same thing.
Yes, that's what I've been trying to tell you.
Wait, it being open source should have no effect on this? It could just as easily be closed source as long as Google offered licenses for manufacturers to use it.
Offering licenses means they could take back their permissions at any time.
OEMs want open source for the same reasons as everyone else.
OK, but Google essentially still has that power, despite the OS being "open-source".
That has nothing to do with Google, that has to do with the US government.
How does it have nothing to do with Google, if Google did it, even if it was by order of the US government? Regardless, this still clearly demonstrates that AOSP being open-source has no bearing on an OEM being able to use the full Android system or even the name "Android".
Contrast that with a fully open system like Linux, where this wouldn't be possible. No OEM would get banned from using Linux, even if the US government ordered it.
Because Google has zero control over it. You're REALLY reaching here...
We seem to be having a communication problem. I was originally addressing this specific statement:
Those OEMs could run Android and let Google collect all the data regardless of whether it were open-sourced or licensed, and the Huawei case demonstrated that "Android" is licensed. It's only AOSP minus Google services that is open-sourced. I don't understand what's so controversial about what I'm saying.
We are not having a communication problem. We have a failure to understand. If you want to challenge the entire definition of open source, that's not something that I'm going to entertain. You can take that up with OSI. Every other open source project is susceptible to the same legal shitfuckery.
These are not the same. And it's preposterous to suggest such a thing. It's like saying licensing movies from Amazon is the same as owning them. The implications are completely different.
Again, only as much as every other open source project is "licensed", as in it's susceptible to legal regulation.
It's either failure to understand or you're intentionally twisting my words. I'm not challenging the definition of open source and I'm not claiming open source and proprietary software is the same.
Let me restate and clarify what I'm saying:
I hope you understand my points now. If you still want to argue either of them, I think we've reached a dead end.
Yes you are. You are claiming that open source and "licensed" are the same thing, because the government can get involved and take away someone's right to open source.
GPS and GMS are not components of AOSP. They are proprietary Google apps.
It doesn't matter if it's useless or not, because it's not part of Android
Its obviously not useless because Huawei continued using using Android, minus GPS and GMS, as does Amazon.
That's not at all what I'm saying. Please point out where I said that open source and licensed (i.e., proprietary licensed) software are the same thing? First, I'm not saying anything about AOSP, which I recognize is fully open source and which I use myself. I'm talking about full Android, the trademarked, licensed product, which includes AOSP (open source) plus GPS and GMS (proprietary) components. We're talking about Android phones here, before you go "but but but".
From the link above:
"The "Android" name, the Android logo, the "Google Play" brand, and other Google trademarks, are property of Google LLC and not part of the assets available through the Android Open Source Project."
"Use of the "Google Play" name and the Google Play Store icon is allowed only in association with devices licensed to access Google Play. For a list of devices licensed to use Google Play, refer to Supported devices."
Second, a combination of open source and proprietary components is not fully open source, do you agree with that at least?
It very much does matter in the case of Android because AOSP without the proprietary components is limited to a market niche. Show me one really popular phone or phone brand which does not use Google's proprietary Play Store. Maybe there's some edge case that doesn't, I don't know, but it would be the exception that proves the rule.
Both had to either develop their own app store or rely on a 3rd-party app store, I don't know. But they're definitely not using Google's Play Store, and thus are limited to market niches like I mentioned above.
When you suggested that Android is licensed because the government restricted who could use it, that's what you said. I don't understand why this is confusing. Any other open source project is susceptible to the same fate, ergo they're the same thing. I already explained this.
AOSP is Android. This seems to be where you're getting confused.
That's not what I said. What I said was that the fact that Google blocked Huawei's ability to use Android's Google Services on their devices at the government's orders meant that the they had a mechanism that allowed them to do so. Namely, the proprietary license for the Google Services. Do you dispute this exact thing, not some twisted version of what I said? I don't understand why this is confusing either.
How so? Do you have any examples of an organization blocking someone from using a common open source license like GPL, MIT, or Apache License, with the possible exceptions of GPL license violations or export controls for things like cryptography, etc? The fact that Google didn't block Huawei from using AOSP most likely means that it was easier for them to ban Huawei through their proprietary license to Google Services than through the Apache License for AOSP.
This seems to be where you're getting confused too. I've already explained multiple times that what I mean by "Android" is the full suite (AOSP + GPS + GMS) that an OEM would need for a mass-market phone. AOSP is not enough for that. No OEM in their right mind would try to market a mass-market phone with pure AOSP and no Google Services.