Well, that info bit was relatively new 
.
GSI = Generic System Image … but it didn’t sound entirely convincing to me, more like a basic testing environment.
True ^^, I’ll edit.
GSI are dev images, you’re right. But it is still a custom ROM without GAPPs. And I prefere a dev image than g**gle. Some GSI (e.g. Bliss, Resurrection) are official supported image. And they haven’t any Gapp. What was the meaning of the thread ^^
The last problem is about the qualcomm libs, and their possible privacy issue
3 Likes
Fairphone Open wasn’t available right away either, nor was SFOS or other custom OSes such as LineageOS. Community OSes are made for and by the community. They don’t come with warranty. Anything can happen when you run such. Which is a Bad Thing ™ in a corporate or business environment. There’s a plethora of people who can/will only run official firmware.
That’s exactly the point of this conversation: Fairphone Open OS is an officially supported OS without Google, but it is only available for the Fairphone 2 at the moment. We’re’ getting upset because we want a phone that respect our privacy and even if it looks like this will be achievable thanks to the community, it’s always some hacky unofficial non-supported ROM, and that’s very different from what Fairphone used to provide with the FP2. Because it was available for FP2, we were excepting it for FP3 and are now disappointed.
Why doesn’t Fairphone communicates on that topic and reassure us that they are working on it? Is it impossible for them to achieve because they delegated to much work to another company? That’s worrying.
1 Like
Leaving aside the question why people would get this agitated over something like that “while other children are starving” (Aw, childhood memories 
) …
“We are currently investigating the possibility of making Fairphone Open available on Fairphone 3.”
@lorahaspels: Can Fairphone already communicate some kind of intermediate state of the investigation, or what kind of factors would play into a decision?
3 Likes
But other than they did with FP2, they made it clear from the beginning, that they are not offering FPOOS, but just investigating the possibilities.
If you expected otherwise, you obviously didn’t really pay attention.
So please get upset with yourself, because you missed that info or took “investigating a possibility” for “nearly there”.
Please don’t hold someone else accountable for your unwarranted expectations.
Take a look at this thread started in August 2019:
And to that question:
I guess, they have enough to do. And maybe, just maybe, they are not even working on it (yet); especially since it seems that the community will offer LOS in a few weeks time.
Plus: Please keep in mind, that only 5% of the FP2 users were running the phone on FPOOS. So that kind of information might be really way down on the agenda, when there are more pressing needs like the supply chain, accessories, support requests etc (all just my guessing of course).
3 Likes
Given the amount of time the ‘investigation’ took already, I see two possibilities:
- Fairphone AS management for some marketing related reason decided to not make Fairphone Open available the FP3. But they hesitate to tell us because of the likely back slash.
- There are legal reasons. In particular, Fairphone may have signed a contract with Google that contains some ‘interesting’ by-laws. E.g., the contract may forbid fairphone to sell FP3 with android but without the full set of google apps. The contract may also prohibit them to provide ready made recipes on how to set up an alternative OS. In addition, there is probably a comprehensive gag clause included, aka non disclosure agreement (NDA). The NDA may be very comprehensive in that the very existence of the contract may already be subject to it.
Unfortunately, the second scenario seems more likely than the first. I could imagine, that the ‘investigation’ is looking at the exact wording of the contract at. There may or may not be a loop hole. Other possibilities may involve a fee to be paid to google for every no-GAPPS fairphone. But now I am completely in Speculativeland.
To be honest.
There you were from the first letter of your posting.
Because there are so many more possible scenarios, that everything is just wild guessing.
Examples? Here you go:
- They are in the process of developing another device or accessories, which is taking much more time than anticipated.
- They ran into severe problems with FPOpen.
- They are currently developing special/individualized OS solutions for FP3 business phones they sold or will be selling to (large?) companies.
- …
- …
And just keep in mind, there is no solid ground for any one of those possibilities or any other one might come up with. 
4 Likes
Though that should be not allowed anymore after the EU antitrust ruling against Google in 2018, AFAIK. (okay they wanted to appeal that and I don’t know the recent results. That said, the new search engine selector screen already popped up.)
2 Likes
Don’t want Google services? Try the new Huawei Mate 30 Pro 
Hey @hirntot !
Good news! Don’t be too much desperate, there will be very soon a 100% unGoogled OS with nice android UX compatible with FP3!
Look here: https://mastodon.social/interact/103912398236907028
cheers 
2 Likes
Well, reading this article here (assuming it’s still valid today) leads me to believe they will never be able to offer an alterative OS: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
But then I’m also wondering, why they even suggested to “look into” alternatives when they should have known the contract from the beginning.
Because it’s so much better if China is spying on you instead of the USA
2 Likes
AOSP still exists, though its functions are ever more basic compared to the Googlified experience. But I’m running AOSP on my FP2 and it runs great - so for now, an open source AOSP option is still possible.
Another problem with Android is that it’s “look-don’t-touch” open source: everyone is allowed to look at Android’s source code, but only Google is allowed to make decisions and contributions.
The good news is that that’s why we have several forks with active communities, such as Lineage and /e/. My guess is that the future of open source OSes will indeed lay with the community (as it should) and any stock version of Android will be closed-source and a privacy nightmare. But for now, AOSP is still pretty good.
2 Likes
Because they were able to do this on the Fairphone 2. The Fairphone 2 came with the Google certified “Fairphone OS”, but Fairphone also offered and supported “Fairphone Open OS” without Google Apps and services. Users had to install the open variant of the OS themselves. Adoption rate, when it was mentioned one time, was 5% = 1 in 20 users.
Maybe Google’s grip now was tightened, maybe the different OS development situation plays a role (was in house for the Fairphone 2, is seemingly outsourced to the phone production partner in China for the Fairphone 3) … we’ll just have to see now and wait for community efforts like /e/ or LineageOS instead.
2 Likes
On the other hand Google got fined because “Google has also blocked phone makers from creating devices that run forked versions of Android”
5 Likes
Oh, I didn’t know that! Thanks for sharing. The question remains, whether this will have a substancial impact on Google’s behavior. I mean, the search provider selection is pathetic and Google is even earning money with it… Despite the fine, I suspect nothing will change.
1 Like
Hmm but google practically owns Android, they can abandon the current open source Android and make a proprietary Android, they have all the resources, they are the Android.
The only way to compete with them is to create an os that does not track you and does not gather private information, that’s it. So the existence of the company itself is the cause of these potential “clean” operating systems, and google no matter how advanced will never have a clean reputation and they know it…
What difference would it make, if Google made their own proprietary Android?
If they would use it for their own phones only, the OS would become meaningless.
If they would distribute it the same way they distribute Android now, they will run into antitrust matters quite the same.
The EU-fines are not imposed, because Android is an open source OS, but because Google has got a kind of monopoly when it comes to smartphone OSs.
And I have the impression, that there really would be problems of practiability.
They really would have to make do without the open source part of Android.
Since I am no developer or programmer, I can only guess. But my guess would be, that this is not exactly a trivial task to do. Plus, they would have to convince the smartphone manufacturers to stick to the new google OS.
Of course, they are Google, but why would they risk (1) the support of the android community and (2) other parties to develop an Android based on the open source project?
The way I remember it, one crucial point in the antitrust case was that Google only certifies smartphones as “Android” if the same model is not sold with a different OS. Or probably the other way round: by selling a phone with the “Android” certification the phone manufacturers are not allowed to let the customers choose their preferred OS for preinstallation.
Of course, if a phone manufacture would offer additional OSes if allowed to is a different matter.