Android System Reducing Open Source Level, Causing Concern Among Chinese Developers

Recently, there has been a debate in the tech community about whether Google’s Android system is becoming closed source. Some argue that the system is not actually becoming closed source but rather the degree of openness is decreasing. This may not have a significant impact on smartphone manufacturers and average users of the Android system, but it could pose challenges for some small to medium-sized developers.

The controversy stemmed from Google confirming to the tech media outlet “Android Authority” that the development process of the open-source Android Open Source Project (AOSP) code will now be conducted internally and not be publicly available. However, the new versions will still be released with the source code for developers to use.

Some media outlets misinterpreted this information, leading many to believe that Google would completely close source the Android system, causing concerns within the industry. This misconception has garnered attention due to the dominant position of the Android system in the global market.

According to data released in March by the market research firm CounterPoint, Android holds a 74% market share in the global smartphone market, while Apple’s iOS accounts for 22% and China’s HarmonyOS for 4%. Additionally, most smart devices such as tablets, TVs, smartwatches, car infotainment systems, and smart speakers run on the Android system, showcasing its significant ecosystem influence.

Despite Google clarifying its commitment to keeping the Android system open source, some Chinese media outlets have deliberately misinterpreted it as Google cooperating with the U.S. government to target Chinese smartphone manufacturers like Xiaomi, Vivo, OPPO, and other Chinese companies using the Android system. This has led to many Chinese citizens making heated remarks in the absence of accurate information.

Professor Lin Zongnan from National Taiwan University told Epoch Times, “Apart from China, other countries and companies using AOSP have not reported negatively on Google. The Chinese Communist Party’s actions not only provoke anti-Western sentiments among the Chinese but also offer no substantial help in their current situation.”

Currently, the Android operating system is primarily divided into two branches. One is the open-source AOSP, which is accessible to everyone, and the other is the closed-source Google Mobile Services (GMS) developed internally by Google.

GMS encompasses various deeply integrated applications and APIs with the system. Manufacturers wishing to use GMS need to pay a certification fee to Google. After passing Google’s device compatibility and performance review, they can obtain the GMS licensing agreement.

Upon receiving the GMS licensing agreement, manufacturers can pre-install Google Play, Gmail, and other Google services and applications on their devices. Due to the strict standards of this agreement, not every brand or developer can obtain this authorization.

AOSP is an open-source project led by Google. The Android Source website states that Google provides the core code and framework of the Android operating system for free downloading, viewing, and modification. However, any modified versions need to undergo Google’s approval to ensure compatibility.

This is akin to Google providing a “blueprint” for developers to create customized versions while ensuring system stability. Currently, systems like Samsung’s One UI, Xiaomi’s MIUI, OPPO’s ColorOS, Vivo’s OriginOS, and Honor’s MagicOS are all developed based on AOSP.

Google has announced that the development process of AOSP will no longer be public, only providing the complete source code upon the release of new versions. The AOSP website also indicates that, “Starting March 27, 2025, we recommend using the latest android release instead of AOSP main for constructing and contributing to AOSP.”

The main change currently affecting Android is the frequency of public source code releases for specific components, including build systems, update engines, Bluetooth stacks, virtualization frameworks, and SELinux, among others prioritized in AOSP. Core components of the Android system are still developed internally by Google.

Many smartphone manufacturers have stated that Google’s approach will not significantly impact them as they have agreements in place to use the internal versions of the Android system. Average users generally do not have the need or ability to modify the Android system, and application developers are hardly affected as this mainly pertains to platform development aspects.

Additionally, developers outside of China working on Android systems (including those creating custom ROMs) mostly operate based on release branches rather than the main branch. This is because the main AOSP branch itself is unstable, leading few companies using AOSP products to employ the primary AOSP branch.

Android Authority believes that the main impact of this change will be on small to medium-sized external developers or tech journalists who contribute to AOSP. This modification reduces their understanding of Google’s development work, and those without GMS certification may lag behind in knowing Android system changes for weeks or months.

Mark, a host on the Mark Time Channel, stated, “Many small mobile and automotive application companies in China rely on the open AOSP to avoid GMS fees and enjoy real-time updates. Google’s rule changes now mean that these companies will struggle to quickly update their code.”

Japanese computer engineer Kiyohara Jin told Epoch Times, “Google’s current approach may encourage those who had not signed GMS agreements but aimed to profit from the AOSP system to apply for GMS certification due to the inability to maintain the system promptly, thus increasing Google’s revenue.”

Google’s move aims to streamline the development process by merging the dual branches into one to reduce maintenance and development costs. Since the code differences between the two branches are significant, the public AOSP branch often lags behind the private branch. When merging the two, conflicts frequently arise, leading to Android system bugs. Google will need to expend a lot of effort resolving conflicts and issuing maintenance patches to ensure the system’s operation. If third-party developers continue to contribute code, Google will need to continuously filter, merge, and resolve conflicts, inevitably escalating maintenance costs.

According to the latest analysis by the custom software development company Space-O Technologies at the end of March, application maintenance costs make up 15% to 20% of the total mobile application development cost. These costs include hosting fees, bug fixes and updates, feature services, API integration, IT support, and technical interventions, with each maintenance item having varying costs. For example, IT projects require a minimum annual investment of $10,000.

Previously, Google had not disclosed the maintenance costs for the Android system. However, based on the complexity, scalability, and numerous AOSP branches, Space-O Technologies’ analysis published on their website by the end of March suggests that the annual maintenance cost could reach billions of dollars. Google offsets some of these costs through service fees from the Google Play Store, Android and Google ad revenue, ad income, and hardware partnerships.

Mark analyzed, “Google likely wants to redirect the resources saved into AI fields to position the company as a leader in the AI domain. Google CEO Sundar Pichai told internal staff at the end of 2024 that 2025 is a critical year for the company to accelerate operations in response to fierce competition in the AI domain.”

Professor Lin Zongnan believes, “Google’s current approach aligns with commercial logic. Most tech companies, during the initial development of software, programs, and AI, often leverage open source to expand their ecosystem and gain market share. However, once maintenance costs increase as things stabilize, they will adjust their business strategies.”