logoalt Hacker News

other8026 • yesterday at 4:08 PM • 2 replies • view on HN

GrapheneOS's approach is Sandboxed Google Play so the apps don't get special permissions. Without privileged access, Google apps get access to nothing more than what other apps can get access to on Android. So, for example, even if a device has microG installed, an app with a Google library would have virtually the same access as if Sandboxed Google Play was installed. And why would anyone need microG if not to provide compatibility for apps that rely on Play Services, aka apps with Google libraries?

Also, for some reason some people think that microG means deGoogling. That's not at all the case. microG still communicates with Google servers.

microG doesn't meet the project's requirements. If you look at the big picture, microG offers worse app compatibility and is less secure. The cons outweigh the pros by a lot. "Google bad" isn't an argument that works for us. App compatibility is very important.


Replies

ForHackernews • yesterday at 5:55 PM

"Sandboxed" Google Play still gets everything that the other apps in the same profile offer up to it / to Google. I don't understand how you're gaining any privacy as a practical matter. The issue isn't GApps' privileged access to the system, it's that other apps send your data to Google via Google Play Services.

To take some examples, MicroG stubs out the analytics and ads APIs. Your "sandboxed" Play would send that data to the mothership and return with ads.

https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/wiki/Implementation-Status

https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/blob/32bc8954ff872d0e1a05d...

➕ show 3 replies
hgfygkh • yesterday at 4:12 PM

MicroG is a good compromise between deGoogling and having things work. GrapheneOS is not.

At the end of the day, I need a functional smartphone that can run the apps needed for daily life. MicroG offers that while reducing my exposure to Google.

➕ show 2 replies