zlacker

>>transp+(OP)
This is entirely unsurprising. It's been clear that Google has been into their Android duopoly-abusive stage for a while now, with more and more of their Android changes moving into GMS or non-AOSP Google apps (like camera, messages, location services, etc) over the last decade. Graphene has been doomed to this fate for a long time, and anyone who thought otherwise was naively optimistic.

The same is clearly coming for Chromium forks, which is why I've always thought the privacy and ad-blocking forks are a joke - if they ever gain enough marketshare, or if google just tires of the public open source charade, they have no chance of maintaining a modern browser on their own.

This is all the more likely now that Google has been emboldened by not having to sell off Chrome for anticompetitive reasons.

>>scottb+ll
Just a year prior, I would have been against a decision to force Google to part with either Android or Chrome.

Now, I'm of the opinion that they should have been forced to sell off both, and maybe Chromebooks too, for the good measure.

No company with a direction as vile and openly user-hostile as what Google currently demonstrates should have anywhere near this level of control over the ecosystem.

>>ACCoun+9m
And by destroying the Android development team you'd achieve what exactly? Magical appearance of the security patches you're complaining about here?

Would you start to actually pay for all those hundreds of engineers maintaining the OS?

>>izacus+du
Either the new company takes over maintaining Android, or it fumbles the bag and the development becomes less centralized for a while - until some leader emerges and takes over.

Either way, the new control center of Android wouldn't be Google. A decade ago, I would have seen that as a very bad thing. Now, I'm almost certain that this would be a change for the better. Google is not what it once was.

>>ACCoun+Gu
Or a more likely scenario is that Apple picks up even more market share, and we go from a duopoly to a monopoly.