Project 'Fuchsia': Google is Quietly Working on a Successor To Android (bloomberg.com)

A day after the European Commission fined Google over Android, more details about Fuchsia, a new operating system the company has been working on for several years has emerged. From the report: But members of the Fuchsia team have discussed a grander plan that is being reported here for the first time: Creating a single operating system capable of running all the company's in-house gadgets, like Pixel phones and smart speakers, as well as third-party devices that now rely on Android and another system called Chrome OS, according to people familiar with the conversations. According to one of the people, engineers have said they want to embed Fuchsia on connected home devices, such as voice-controlled speakers, within three years, then move on to larger machines such as laptops. Ultimately the team aspires to swap in their system for Android, the software that powers more than three quarters of the world's smartphones, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. The aim is for this to happen in the next half decade, one person said.

But Pichai and Hiroshi Lockheimer, his deputy who runs Android and Chrome, have yet to sign off on any road map for Fuchsia, these people said. The executives have to move gingerly on any plan to overhaul Android because the software supports dozens of hardware partners, thousands of developers -- and billions of mobile-ad dollars. [...] Still, Fuchsia is more than a basement skunkworks effort. Pichai has voiced his support for the project internally, said people familiar with the effort. Fuchsia now has more than 100 people working on it, including venerated software staff such as Matias Duarte, a design executive who led several pioneering projects at Google and elsewhere. Duarte is only working part-time on the project, said one person familiar with the company.

Comments

From EU perspective

[yuvcifjt]

Whether they call it Android / ChromeOS / Fuchsia or how it works generally doesn't matter.

But if their product is the most widely used (they have a monopoly), they can't force and stipulate anti-trust / anti-competent behaviour over OEMs (handset manufacturers) - just like Microsoft used to do.

Namely,
1. if the OEM wants access to app store, they can't force them to also bundle other Google apps exclusively;
2. they shouldn't bribe network operators and OEMs to install Google apps exclusively;
3. if a handset manufacturer wants to ship a custom Android build, Google shouldn't threaten them from denying access to the app store market, or to any other Google apps.

I would have thoughts nerds would be pretty happy about this, as it means more competition and a more open and free market place, such that others have a chance to create competing apps and services.

Re:From EU perspective

[slack_justyb]

Google provides AOSP without restrictions. You do not have to bundle Google's app store with AOSP

AOSP is dead. You literally cannot build anything useful with it. Pretty much any hardware post 2011 requires binary blobs with commercial fees to make AOSP even bootable. You can literally ask anyone who has done core Android development this, AOSP is dead.

you do not need to license the Play Store.

Play store isn't what this is about. Google Play Services. Long story, short: Everything useful for a functioning phone is in Google Play Services. Slightly longer version: Yes you can call down to do things, but the c libs that handle that in AOSP is literally written to make doing so a lesson in how painful you can make an API. Additionally, much like systemd developers, any interface you use in code is subject to inevitable change or complete abandonment in the next patch. Quite literally you could build an app that calls the C for GPS and in three months, they'll change the interface to something completely different with matching confusing name and your app just gets to segfault. This is why Google always threw a fit when device makers wouldn't update their image, which they fixed with Google Play Services. Addendum: If you've built an app using Android Studio recently, you most likely are making a call to Google Play Services. They've literally made the toolchain to force your app into their ecosystem.

Microsoft even has an app called Bing that, when installed on Android, replaces the Google search infrastructure completely.

No, that's totally not how it works. It intercepts the call but ultimately Google's callback has to be fulfilled or else it cancels the request for hardware access. So while yes, Bing is fulfilling the request, Google has to know about it too "for security purposes". So yeah, when you use Bing, you're just using Bing and Google. You literally cannot opt-out without recompiling your image.

it easier to access the same website all useful mobile phones would default to anyway because they already have a monopoly there

No one is disputing the search giant's monopoly on the web. What they are disputing is that Google has moved all of the previous functionality of their OS into a closed off and highly regulated set of libraries. And they did that to tighten control over their OS. Now if Google made the OS and made the hardware and they were the only ones in town selling Android, who cares? But Google is literally fucking with third parties here. That's the deal here. Apple sells their phones direct to the public, so if they make a change and people hate it, their voting dollars moving away directly affect them, Apple. Now if Google makes a change and people hate it, the public voting dollars indirectly affect Google, but directly messes with the profits of other companies. That's where the anti-competitive nature comes into play. Google knows that if a vendor doesn't agree with them, they can literally twist the API enough to screw the vendor over. It's not like the vendor can sit there and redo an entire access API between releases. Now had Google done that from start, then we'd be in a different story and I'd just say, well they got what they deserve. But no, Google has slowly killed off "open" and "free" Android and did so when vendors were too deep to escape.

Now here's the argument point and this is the thing you know we could debate and I don't think we'd ever come to a "correct" answer on. Google says that they've done this, that they've become this way, to prevent fragmentation. I don't buy that excuse because they knew that fragmentation is the name of the FOSS game. So it's an open debate if preventing fragmentation = being an evil monopolistic company (which it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that I feel Google is pure evil now.) But do not, do not for one moment think that AOSP is some s

Focusing on itmems that are inconsequential, why?

[bogaboga]

Creating a single operating system capable of running all the company's in-house gadgets...

Google are doing this even though they've [miserably] failed to create a single unified messaging application!

How about Gmail, that continues to suck big time?

More details?

[Tx]

I read the article, and an awful lot of the paragraphs are like "Fuchsia could ..." and "There are some signs ..." etc. I guess it's interesting to know how many people are working on it, that was the main actual "detail" I got from the article, most of the rest was just more speculation.

Re:EU ruling will speed this up

[Marisaze]

That's what Google wants, but that's also exactly what the EU is fining them for. What the EU wants is Google to be forced to sell devices completely divested from Google's other products. A closed source OS that was forced to use Google services would still violate this, and would probably incur an even larger fine since as things currently stand you're still allowed to find alternatives. Further, it's possible that creating a closed source OS that forced the use of Google's services would bring back the 90's anti-Microsoft lawsuit for bundling (and forcing) use of Internet Explorer.

The best option for Google is making it so Android can use non-Google apps by default, and then making those devices more expensive to purchase. The only way out of this for Google is increasing user choice, not restricting it.

Re:Fuchsia is a replacement for Linux

[tlhIngan]

Fuchsia is a replacement for Linux. A different design with a different source code base and a different license.

As both Android and Chrome are only hosted on Linux both could replace Linux with Fuchsia when the later gains sufficient functionality. 3/4 of Android developers would neither notice nor care. Of the remaining 1/4 some percentage is only using Posix and not anything uniquely Linux based, so **if** Fuchsia provides Posix support they will not care are either.

Correct, Fuchsia is a kernel. Practically every modern phone has a copy of its predecessor - because it's already in the Android source tree. Android BSP developers know it as "LK" (little kernel) which is used to host the Fastboot bootloader application (the one that draws the screen that lets you select if you want to enter recovery mode, upgrade a package, or other thing. ClockWorkMod and others often install replacement bootloaders based on LK as well).

Fuchsia simply aims to add in the bits that LK is missing to become a proper full function kernel.

Further Evilication of Google

[simpz]

Google used to be a company that embrassed free software. As employees have leaked they are now more obsessed than ever about competitors not just developing interesting things and then see if they sell. Maybe this was inevitable.

Android is already not free just releases tossed over the wall from Google. There is no way I can be part of Android development. Fuchsia just allows total lock down of the last open piece the kernel. Therefore better control. Some even say it will only allow network booting with caching on device, so really locked down.

Most of Android nastiness aren't the kernel's fault, e.g bloat, upgrade issues...
Even with Google's resources they will never have as functional a kernel as Linux. The Linux kernel has things like SELinux, iptables, great filesystem support, device drivers for everything. Great for tinkerers, not so useful to Google (they will only implement the few bits they really need). There is no danger Fuchsia will get all this with basically in house not fully open development.

Re:It's politics

[rahvin112]

And like every attempt to reinvent the wheel with yet another micro-kernel it will be a total failure. They think by narrowing it down it will be easier to support but they will have to scale it up from phones to laptops to desktops and in doing so they will need to reinvent everything that Linux has already done.

Linux is where Google should be investing their dollars because they get more bang for their buck if they actually try to get their changes into the vanilla kernel. Googles always had a NIH syndrome. They are constantly reinventing the wheel and doing the same programming over and over again.

why "replace" Android?

[RhettLivingston]

Replacing Android would be silly. This sounds like a well-thought plan to launch a third OS into the market - one that has a better chance against iOS at the high end.

Develop a new OS, shift your devices to it starting with those furthest away from the smartphones, and when the time is right you split Android off, sell that division to a consortium of the Android device makers, and never look back. That time will likely be right before launching a new set of smartphones using whatever they decide to call Fuchsia and doing so without ever offering Fuchsia to any other company. This is why they must leave Android. They must do so to avoid breaking their own rules.

The key will be whether Fuchsia can achieve real world functional positives that can't be matched by iOS without a similar rewrite. It needs to do something like provide for a leap in power efficiency, security, memory efficiency, or AI integration.