
Android without the mothership - oska
https://lwn.net/Articles/602521/
======
privong
I have been running this setup (Cyanogenmod + f-droid, no google apps) for the
past 9 months and have been quite happy. I use owncloud for keeping my
calendar, contacts, and files sync'ed. K9mail + APG for (signed/encrypted)
email. As the article notes OsmAnd is workable, but the what is available
through f-droid is 2 versions behind (apparently with low chance of future
updates due to difficulties building it).

Many apps are open source (e.g., github, wordpress, coinbase, 2FA apps
compatible with many services) and so are available through f-droid. Others,
like TextSecure are really easy to build from source and install.

I have occasionally downloaded apps through one of the APK downloader services
mentioned in the article comments -- I've had mixed luck. Some work
flawlessly, others don't work at all without the google apps.

It would be awesome to see Mozilla's location service [0] integrated into
Cyanogen to replace the google location services (which are of course disabled
if you don't install google apps).

[0]
[https://location.services.mozilla.com/](https://location.services.mozilla.com/)

~~~
jlujan
>I have occasionally downloaded apps through one of the APK downloader
services mentioned in the article comments -- I've had mixed luck.

One of the biggest issue of running Apps (open source or not) is the inclusion
of the Play Store API in the app itself. These apps when not logged into the
play store usually crash with NullPointerExceptions. Please... if you are an
Android developer... expect your third-party services/APIs to be missing or to
crash and handle that case... If you include the Map API or several other
Google Services APIs in your app and the Play Store is missing or the user
does not have a registered account... calls to those services will most likely
result in NullPointerExceptions. Tell me to deal with it, don't crash.

~~~
DominikR
I agree that an app shouldn't crash, but piracy is a problem.

Google In-App purchases are safe, so if that's how you monetize, I don't see
why the app should be allowed to work anywhere else but in Google's
environment.

It's different if the app is open source or you don't need to monetize (sadly,
not everyone can afford that luxury), but even there it depends on how
important those Play Store API features are to the functionality of the app.

~~~
king_jester
Apps that are provided with for free on Google Play, IAP or no IAP, don't have
any fear of piracy from being installed from another source. If Google Play is
not available when your app runs, if the user could use that app for some
purpose, it is a really good idea to make sure it doesn't crash. Indeed, most
free apps with IAPs don't require you to buy the IAP immediately at launch,
you can use the app to some degree.

~~~
DominikR
It just depends on how much extra cost is invoked by having more users who
never pay. (for example support, server costs)

I just don't think that you can follow some rule dogmatically, because for
some it might be worth the exposure, for some the extra costs might outweigh
the benefits.

This is something that I would decide on a case by case basis.

~~~
npsimons
_I just don 't think that you can follow some rule dogmatically_

Sure you can, if the rule is "don't write shitty software that crashes". In
which scenario do you think users are more likely to buy: when an app crashes
with no indication of what caused it, or if an app pops up a message along the
lines of "we couldn't connect to Google Play; is it disabled for some reason?"

~~~
DominikR
I stated clearly, that every developer should aspire to develop apps, that do
not crash.

------
zmmmmm
I am wondering how long it is before we see an effort to do to Google Play
Services what Google did to Java - copy all the APIs and create an independent
alternative that lets you build apps that use features from Play Services,
without tying your app to Google. Ideally one can then choose what to do from
just stubbing them out, filling them with 3rd party alternatives, or providing
custom implementations. I would think a nice collaboration between Amazon,
Microsoft, some Chinese players and maybe even Yahoo could do quite a nice job
of this.

~~~
aikah
EDIT : wanted to update my message but deleted it!pasting it here :

the value of Android,for most people, is in Google services... not in
Linux.People dont care what os android is running,the fact that it is Linux is
irrelevant for them,(but not for google).

> copy all the APIs and create an independent alternative that lets you build
> apps that use features from Play Services, without tying your app to Google.
> Ideally one can then choose what to do from just stubbing them out, filling
> them with 3rd party alternatives, or providing custom implementations.

And who's going to copy all that,for you,for free?

> I would think a nice collaboration between Amazon, Microsoft, some Chinese
> players and maybe even Yahoo could do quite a nice job of this. And now you
> want to depend on Amazon and Microsoft and Yahoo,is that your vision of
> independence? And why Amazon or Microsoft would do that when they are
> pushing for their own closed mobile plateform?

Your message is basically "someone do something",not understanding what the
success of the plateform is about : Google Services.And then you are calling
to players that are even worse offenders than Google when it comes to closed
plateforms. What you say makes no sense.

You cant run all the services Google provides for free , with no string
attached ,it cannot work. And that's why mobile oses that dont provide these
kind of services will flop,all of them,because people now feel entitled to get
them for free.

~~~
zmmmmm
I'm not sure what I said that incited such passion in your answer. I did not
ask anybody to copy it for me personally, I did not even suggest anything
about whether such a project is a free or commercial enterprise. I didn't
suggest whether I think this is a good thing or a bad thing. You seem to have
picked up on some imaginary points you think I was making without any basis in
my actual comment.

What I am suggesting is that there are coalition of interests - Android
manufacturers that share the situation of being outside of Google's ecosystem.
All these manufacturers want apps, and the apps are all on Google Play. They
therefore have a very strong interest in having those apps run without
modification on their own platforms which is achievable only if someone clones
the Google APIs. It seems to me only a matter of time before the incentive to
create this gets high enough that someone actually does it.

~~~
rahimnathwani
_It seems to me only a matter of time before the incentive to create this gets
high enough that someone actually does it._

Yes, but it might be just another big company which does it, and in an 'all or
nothing' fashion. In that case you would have a choice (Google or XBigCorp),
but I'm guessing you really want to be able to mix and match, and have
different parts of the Play APIs served by different
apps/daemons/companies/whatever.

~~~
ithkuil
People have done this stuff for free. GNU/Whatever/Linux itself is a clone of
some existing APIs. Wine, reactos, while being far from complete, attacked a
far larger API and also a big moving target.

It's doable. By amateurs and professionals with passion and spare time.

~~~
ithkuil
[https://github.com/microg](https://github.com/microg)

------
unabridged
Android is a lost cause, all the man power being donated to the project is
just going to line google's pockets and lock us further into closed hardware
and barely opensource phones.

The only future is a real linux phone, debian or ubuntu mobile, where one day
there will be effortless desktop/tablet/mobile unified development. Why push
for developers to waste time porting between c++ and java?

~~~
euank
Why no mention of FirefoxOS?

The Mozilla foundation has our best interests at heart much more than Google
and while it's not C++, html5/javascript is certainly an open enough platform
which basically everything has started to target anyways.

Sure, a pure linux phone would be cool in some ways, but FirefoxOS seems much
closer, realer, and every bit as awesome.

~~~
unabridged
FirefoxOS is definitely a step forward and I'd love to see it overtake
Android, but its only a half measure. The problem is a phone does not need to
be an operating system, it would be fine as just a program/desktop environment
running on linux. A phone is not a special case, there are plenty of mission
critical applications that run on top of linux without having to resort to
building a whole new OS.

~~~
diafygi
Ummm, that's exactly what Firefox OS is. It's the Firefox engine (gecko)
sitting on top of the linux kernel.

~~~
pessimizer
What unabriged means is that you don't need an entire reimplementation of the
underlying OS to make calls, all you need is an Linux app that makes calls.

The purpose of reimplementation is generally to screw consumers. There's
nothing special about a phone that requires you to put everything into a VM. I
don't know why firefox is doing it. I did order a development phone, though,
because if it takes off, I want a share:)

~~~
glogla
> I don't know why firefox is doing it.

To make it more accessible. Way more people can make web page than make QT or
GTK GUI. Way more people can do Javascript than can program in C or C++.

That means, that everyone is stuck with html and js, but I think it's worth
it.

------
mkozlows
It seems notable that trying to run a modern computer without Google is about
as quixotic as was trying to run a '90s-era computer without Microsoft.

~~~
zurn
PCs were for boring suit types in the 90s. Windows 3.1, ugh. Lots of people
ran Amigas or Macs at home and RISC workstations at university or work. Then
Linux happened and you could run something nice even on a PC. It involved
tinkering but advancing by leaps and bounds, certainly not quixotic.

~~~
joenathan
You forgot to turn off your hipster vision.

------
msoad
It's getting harder and harder to not give up your privacy in order to use new
technology. Android without all that Google goodness is a hard sell to an
average customer today.

~~~
yuhong
Does an average consumer have good reason to not use them though?

~~~
mike_hearn
Probably not. The article does admit this in fairness. It says the primary
reasons you might want to do this are not trusting Google (but most people
have had pretty reasonable experiences with them, especially considering the
price), concern over a future management change (a very real concern but one
that's very distant and hard to anticipate at the moment), and concern over
governments and criminal enterprises. Governments, it seems, take what they
want anyway regardless of whether you use Google or not.

------
contingencies
If you value privacy and freedom on your mobile devices, please consider
supporting FirefoxOS and voting / rah-rahing over here for ad-hoc wifi and a
networking / permissions overhaul to support arbitrary link-layers and
granular connectivity.
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=945047](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=945047)

------
ausjke
As always, LWN publishes great articles, a proud subscriber here.

Android is used in more and more fields other than phones and tablets these
days, in those fields Google service is deemed not helpful, and totally
unneeded. A working AoSP plus a few specialized apps will do that job
perfectly well. I hope Cranogenmod will provide a viable approach in that
space(non-phone and non-tablet market segment)

------
ForHackernews
If this is something Hacker News users value, please consider contributing
development time (or money) to the Replicant Project
[http://www.replicant.us/](http://www.replicant.us/)

~~~
kevinflo
Seems like an awesome project, but at first visit to that site I had
absolutely no idea what replicant was. If you're involved with the project or
that site, it might be helpful to put a short (one sentence) description of
what replicant is somewhere on the front page. Also, sorry if it is there and
I'm just missing it.

~~~
ForHackernews
I'm just a supporter, and I have no control over that page. But FWIW, I
absolutely agree, they need a concise "About Replicant" section.

Sadly, good communication for newbies and outsiders has never been the Free
Software movement's strong suit.

------
gudness
I used to run without any google play services and running pure aosp. I
stopped because Android is just so much better with google and fuck it, who
cares about me any ways. Not to mention compiling aosp is a pain.

Like seriously, no swyping in aosp keyboard? so i install google keyboard,
then i might as well have everything. one piece of proprietary software from
google, might as well go all the way.

Though i still get most of my apps from f-droid and will use an open source
alternative if its as good or better. example: i prefer cyanogenmod gallery to
google+ and vlc to google music, poweramp

~~~
gohrt
There are other (non-google) swipe keyboards.

~~~
a3_nm
Is there a good open-source swipe keyboard available in F-Droid? I couldn't
find one.

------
dang
This article has received an extraordinary number of user flags, and I can't
tell why. It relates to some controversial questions, of course, but is there
anything terrible about it?

------
zokier
I'd be more interested in the reverse; getting the "mothership" (ie first-
class Google services) without Googles platform. I just generally dislike
Android and would love to see something that allows running Android apps
smoothly and transparently on a GNUish/POSIXy system, especially on mobile
devices. Haven't tried Jolla/SailfishOS yet, maybe it delivers on that front.

Last time I noticed this "disconnect" was when I looked into running
TextSecure on my desktop. Sadly it seems that there isn't really any good way
of doing that (yet). I'd imagine that these days you could whip something up
with LXC and Android-x86, but it would obviously need some effort to make it
really smooth experience.

------
Zigurd
CyanogenMod is now much more relevant to open source computing than Ubuntu,
and the popular consumer-oriented face of Linux.

But I'm not sure that either the developers of CyanogenMod or the business-
minded people have a firm idea of what CyanogenMod should be or can be.

They have the advantage that, unlike Ubuntu, they are born with a good shot at
doing a remunerative business in integrations for OEMs. The question is, is
there a business in doing alternative ecosystem integrations, and are any of
those alternative ecosystems free and open.

------
atoponce
I just recently discovered this setup. I've been running Cyanogenmod for a few
years, but was always under the impression I needed Google to use my phone,
such as making calls. After my most recent install, I decided to go with
F-Droid rather than with Google Play, and realized I could live entirely
Google-free with zero effort.

Apps in F-Droid have been lacking, and there are some FOSS apps in Google Play
that are not in F-Droid, which is unfortunate. However, I have had a pleasant
experience living Google- and proprietary-free on my Android phone. Really,
the only thing I miss is Maps.

------
dotnick
_> ... CyanogenMod is free; it is mostly a build of the Android Open Source
Project (AOSP) release with a bunch of added goodies. Google's proprietary
user-space apps and utilities are available, but they must be downloaded and
installed separately. _

Interesting. Isn't this against any Google terms?

~~~
dublinben
The Google Apps are no longer distributed directly with CM and other ROMs,
which seems to have satisfied Google. They've reached an unofficial agreement
to let users flash their own GApps package, as long as it's distributed by
itself.

It's really not in Google's interest to _prevent_ users from putting GApps
back on their devices.

------
jcr
It's a good article. Those who prefer to have their phones disconnected from
Google for whatever reason at least have some options to limit exposure, but
unfortunately, preventing the mobile web browser in the phone from leaking
information like location, history, and habits to Google (and plenty of
others) is going to be really tough.

Also, the article glossed over an important issue; the need to use closed-
source proprietary binary blob drivers to make the hardware usable. With
drivers running in kernel space, the potential damage of an intentionally or
unintentionally bad driver is pretty much unlimited.

The most problematic drivers are usually the graphics drivers due to
complexity and their impact on both system and battery performance. Since the
companies making the graphics chips (well, they're often just graphics cores
within the main processor IC rather than separate chips) like nVidia,
Qualcomm, Arm Inc (mali), and Broadcom (to a lesser degree lately) refuse to
release the documentation necessary for open source hackers to write drivers,
tons of unnecessary effort is wasted in attempts to reverse engineer the
binary blob drivers so open source drivers can be written.

There are quite a few efforts under way to produce open source drivers for
various graphics "chips" on various types of ARM systems. Here are a few links
I've collected:

[http://freedreno.github.io/](http://freedreno.github.io/)

[http://bloggingthemonkey.blogspot.com/](http://bloggingthemonkey.blogspot.com/)

[http://limadriver.org/](http://limadriver.org/)

[https://gitorious.org/lima](https://gitorious.org/lima)

[https://github.com/grate-driver/grate/wiki](https://github.com/grate-
driver/grate/wiki)

[https://github.com/laanwj/etna_viv/wiki](https://github.com/laanwj/etna_viv/wiki)

[http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-
broadcom/](http://www.raspberrypi.org/a-birthday-present-from-broadcom/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7320828](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7320828)

I haven't seen anyone succeed in making a fully open source blob-free phone
yet, but people are working towards that goal.

Unfortunately, even if open source devs eventually solve all of the blob
driver (and chip documentation!) problems, there will still be an unknown,
untested, and unaudited chunk of code running on phones that cannot be legally
altered; it's the baseband processor.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseband_processor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseband_processor)

Since the baseband processor controls the radio(s), it's actually against the
law (FCC in the US) to modify the broadcast/receive power levels or
frequencies. As such, each baseband processor has to be tested and certified
by the FCC, and any change means it has to be tested and recertified again.

~~~
616c
I obviously cannot speak to your comments re baseband process and firmware/OS.
That is basically the unsolvable problem in all of this without
social/legislative change in the US. I cannot see the FCC or the rest of the
government piggybacking on these advantages ever changing.

As for mobile browsers, this is specifically why I use NoScript, even in beta
on Android (ironically called NSA-NoScript Anywhere).

[http://noscript.net/nsa/](http://noscript.net/nsa/)

It might not be perfect, but most of the time, like my laptop, I do not need
JS or Flash unless there is a very specific reason, and I will not help these
a-holes trace me.

And I am also, like others here, who got a new phone and now exclusively use
FDroid. No Google Apps. It is a lower power cheaper phone with shoddier
processor, and I can run minimally 2+ days without Google Play and shitty
proprietary apps. So at least I recommend it.

------
miguelrochefort
There should be a name for this privacy craze.

It's one of the rare instance where people can act completely irrationally (to
the point of paranoia), and people will accept it as completely normal and
expected.

I hope you realize how silly all of this will sound 20 years from now.

~~~
josephlord
There should be a name for this absolute trust in corporations to manage
intimate personal details of all sorts on out behalf.

It's one of the rare instances where people can act as corporations of
thousands of people will act in their long term interest and continue to do so
indefinitely into the future with no oversight or transparency into their
actions.

I hope you realize how silly all of this will sound 20 years from now.

Edit: This is obviously a parody of the parent comment. It doesn't absolutely
reflect my views but I feel it is at least as valid a view as the parent. I do
sometimes trust in certain places but I'm often uncomfortable and Google is
one of the last companies I want to trust with massive amounts of personal
information.

~~~
miguelrochefort
I don't trust them, nor anyone, to keep any "intimate personal details"
(whatever that means) secret. But that's not the point.

I don't give them access to information to keep it secure. They shouldn't even
need permission to access it. I share information with the world to make it a
better place. There's no point in living in the dark.

To keep information for yourself is selfish. To expect that others will keep
it secret for you is foolish.

I'm in favor of complete transparency, and I do not favor individuals or
corporations in that matter.

~~~
josephlord
If you are carrying a Google phone and using the Google systems you are giving
them access to where you are going, where you have been, who you have met, who
you know.

All these can be intimate personal details at times. They may provide
information about health, sexual partners and activity. They can also reveal
journalistic sources and high level company meetings that might give rise to
insider trading.

Is this all information that should in your view be completely transparent.

~~~
miguelrochefort
> If you are carrying a Google phone and using the Google systems you are
> giving them access to where you are going, where you have been, who you have
> met, who you know.

That's great! Profit while it's still free. We'll soon have to pay to get
businesses to track us.

> All these can be intimate personal details at times. They may provide
> information about health, sexual partners and activity. They can also reveal
> journalistic sources and high level company meetings that might give rise to
> insider trading.

All of these things are great too! What do you not see?

~~~
josephlord
I'm starting to think you are trolling me.

In case anyone is taking your position seriously Google don't necessarily
share the information about you with you. Secondly in twenty years time when
someone has obtained high office Google will still have the records of them
visiting prostitutes/gay bars/anti-gay marriage events (whatever is
disapproved of in 2035) and Google[0] or a disreputable employee[1] will
blackmail them.

[0] Google 2014 obviously wouldn't do something so disreputable but give it 20
years of falling marketshare, decreasing quality of management and desperation
and who knows where it might be.

[1] Likewise todays controls on data may be tight but who knows when they
might be dismantled when they get in the way of profit.

~~~
miguelrochefort
My position is obviously controversial, but I assure you that I truly hold
these views. I am not trolling on purpose.

Google should definitely share information concerning me with me (or
information concerning anyone with everyone). But whether or not they do it
shouldn't have any legal implication. They can be evil (as in not transparent)
if they wish.

Whether or not large corporations that gather data about people (such as
Google) are evil or not doesn't concern me. I would hold the same position if
Skynet existed. They deserve this right just as much as anyone else.

------
quadrangle
For those who are into this, consider OmniROM instead of Cyanogenmod

------
rohith_14_04
I guess Nokia X series comes without Google goodies

~~~
sirkneeland
True, but it does come instead with Microsoft goodies (and HERE maps, which
are still owned by the part of Nokia that Microsoft didn't buy). Depending on
your personal preferences (re: service quality, privacy etc) Microsoft cloud
services may be an improvement over Google, they may be no different, or they
may be worse.

------
blueskin_
This is why I use CyanogenMod. I have installed the Play Store, but not all
the other crap that comes bundled in gapps, and I use XPrivacy to restrict its
access to my data.

------
EdwardDiego
I'd also rate Opera Mini as an alternate web browser... if you can install it
sans Play Store.

~~~
nly
Not open source.

~~~
EdwardDiego
Not Chrome either, wasn't sure what the criteria was.

------
mellisarob
this would just kill the pace of growth.

------
wldcordeiro
This website needs a visual reboot, it's so ugly.

