You will not need a Google account.

I suspect they are hoping users just give up and go to the play store instead. Google touts about "Play Protect" which scans all apps on the device, even those from unknown sources so these measures can barely be justified.

Imagine if Microsoft said you need to wait 24 hours before installing a program not from their store, which is against the entire premise of windows.

Computing, I once believed was based on an open idea that people made software and you could install it freely, yes there are bad actors, but that's why we had antivirus and other protection methods, now we're inch by inch losing those freedoms. iOS wants you to enter your date of birth now.

The future feels very uncertain, but we need to protect the little freedoms we have left, once they're gone, they're gone for good.

I would not be surprised if, in a few years, these options are gone from all android devices.

People mention GrapheneOS but that relies entirely on Google.

Yes they are working with an OEM (leaked as Motorola) and we'll see how that goes, it may be the last hope.

What part of that process needs to change every 2-3 years? Because some 'angel investor' says we need growth which means pushing updates to make it appear like you're doing something?

old.reddit has worked the same for the last 10 years now, new.reddit is absolutely awful. That's what 2-3 years of 'change' gets you.

In fact, this website itself remains largely the same. Why change for the sake of it?

Food still took 15 minutes, fries were cold, the main meal was nice but was overall disappointing for the eye-watering cost compared to days gone by.

And a few guys collecting for delivery which has split their focus from in-resturant customers.

Can see why people have moved on.

The likes of McDonald's will need to understand who their new customer base is quite carefully and market around that if they are to stay relevant. Sadly their products to me are garbage now; slow service, cold fries, awful oil. Obviously they've had to adapt but it's just expensive slop.

And in the UK they have had scandals around sexual harassment, which hasn't helped their image/branding.

I would also argue a closed source release in August 2025 would start the first 6 month timer (February 2026) and the source code release to trigger another timer (if they differed in any way between the closed source release).

A lot of this law is abstract and only if the EU challenges Google's approach would it be decided how it's meant to be applied in reality.

If this open-source release was to contain new patches, they must now ship these changes within 6 months. The Pixel OS release counts as the first 6 month timer. The source code release, by definition, now counts as the 2nd timer.

I expect the closed source binaries and public source code to be the same, but that may not always be the case. So OEMs are expected to at least in 6 months ship an update with the open-source code.

Now, we have patches already for March 2026 in November 2025. Once the March 2025 patches are shipped by Google, OEMs have 4 months for all OEMs to ship it (deadline being July 2026).

Consider this scenario:

Patch for bug lands January 2026. Google decides to either release a Pixel OS update or release the source code in 8 months time containing this patch for whatever reason. Then a 4 month timer starts for all OEMs to ship that patch. Meaning a patch that has existed from January 2026 can now be shipped by January 2027 under this system and fully comply with the law. This patch may be under active exploit as OEMs have leaked it which again, GrapheneOS have admitted is happening.

Previously, patches would be landing within the month. All google must do is ensure this patch is not included in any pixel OS update or public source code release.

Yes, Google is responsible, but when the EU touts laws as fining 4% of global turnover (in the case of GDPR), then they are going to be taken seriously, which means OEMs demanding Google not release the update for Pixel/source code until they are ready and use this loophole as they are doing.

The loser is ultimately the end user who has a weaker more exploitable device for months.

> at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system

So if somebody reverse engineers the patch, or releases the patch under embargo (which the OEMs would have the source code) that would count as a 'public release'. So GrapheneOS can ship closed source patches as you are right, they are not the provider. If GrapheneOS released the source code they are getting from their OEM then it would count as a 'public release of the source code'.

A patch in itself can be considered an 'update of the underlying operating system' and therefore the moment it becomes public it needs to be patched by all OEMs within 4 months.

GrapheneOS have themselves said that if somebody did reverse engineer the closed source blobs and posted them publicly they could then ship the patches openly at that point but not until.

It must be stated a lot of the wording of this clause and interperetation of what is/is not considered 'publicly releasing source code' is up for debate/courts to settle.

This is the entire reason AOSP went private/closed source, and why Google is delaying security patches as per GrapheneOS. The March 2026 patches are already released by GrapheneOS as closed source blobs. They are not allowed to release them as open source by embargo (essentially NDA). Why do you think Pixel hasn't shipped security patches earmarked for March 2026? There are some critical bugs those patches fix, why not release them today, right now or next month? Because if Pixel releases just a single patch, via a Pixel update or posts it on AOSP, the 4 month timer begins for every single OEM with a phone in the EU. By making the patches under embargo, Google gets to control exactly when the timer starts to coordinate with their OEMs. So the slowest OEM gets to control the entirety of Androids security model.

Ask yourself, why doesn't GrapheneOS just release their patches publicly/open source? Why have different 'security releases' with closed source blobs?

Because if they did:

1: They lose their partner OEM access to these patches

2: Every OEM would be required to release those same patches 4 months to the day GrapheneOS releases them.

It's quite bad as security patches used to take around a month, now it's around 4 months and the patches are being leaked to threat actors who can exploit the bugs until the patches are released.

Example: A patch is fixed on September 1st, released under embargo/closed source to all OEMs. Pixel issues the patch in December 1st publicly (either source code/software update), they now have until April 1st (4 months) to release it according to the law. So the patch is 7 months old before it has to be released according to the law.

All the march 2026 updates are done, now, today, and ready/waiting, but they are not released by Pixel/open source. Once that happens the timer will begin.

This EU law has made security far worse.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45914692

> 2025110800: All of the Android 16 security patches from the current December 2025, January 2026, February 2026 and March 2026 Android Security Bulletins are included in the 2025110801 security preview release. List of additional fixed CVEs:

So, have they been released? No. So the clock hasn't started ticking yet. This EU law made security worse for everyone as patches that are done today are not released for 4+ months.

Note: These are CLOSED source blobs GrapheneOS is shipping. If they were open source, the 4 months clock would trigger immediately but they are not allowed to do this themselves as they get the patches from an OEM partner. GrapheneOS shipping these CLOSED source blobs, that Google has NOT released does not trigger the timer.

I do accept that QPR1 was 'released' by Google on Pixel months ago, and therefore the timer started, however, Google will likely pick and chose what is best for OS updates/security patches. It explains why AOSP is now private/closed source and embargos are being used to get around the laws requirements.

[1]: https://grapheneos.org/releases#2025110800

From the EU law:

> (c) security updates or corrective updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 4 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;

> (d) functionality updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 6 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;

> (d) functionality updates mentioned under point (a) need to be available to the user at the latest 6 months after the public release of the source code of an update of the underlying operating system or, if the source code is not publicly released, after an update of the same operating system is released by the operating system provider or on any other product of the same brand;

So if Google releases an update for Pixel, the 'clock' starts ticking from that date, otherwise, it goes by when the source code is released. Google can pick and choose what works best for them and their partners according to these rules.

Hence why delaying the source code may be preferable. This is why security patches are being delayed as per GrapheneOS (under embargo)

For example: Google releases Android 20, under embargo to all OEMS, this is not released on Pixel, is entirely closed source (hence why AOSP is now private) and therefore doesn't trigger the law. Android 20 could be ready for months, but until it's released on Pixel or open source, those clauses are not triggered. This is already happening to security patches, see my comment above.

Report them, you say? Many DPC's such as the Irish DPC are very friendly in terms of their lax approach to the regulation, just ask Max Schrems, he's been at this for years. I think the EU and the regulators do not have resources to enforce the law, so whilst there are requirements to protect customer data, nothing bad happens if you don't. Just check the top of HN as I write this [1] "Checkout.com hacked, refuses ransom payment, donates to security labs". Will anyone be arrested, charged, fined, or otherwise penalized? Nope, not a chance. I 100% guarantee absolutely nothing will happen as a result of this article. GPT makes it so easy to capture user data these days and people will just willingly hand it over.

The truth is, you should be very careful what data you hand out, always. Use an alias, use privacy tools, always be weary and check if they have a privacy policy, check to see if it works (make a dummy account, do GDPR request, if no reply, be weary).

If they are not serious about privacy, stop, think and act accordingly. While it is a disgrace what these individuals have done, individuals need to take personal responsibility just as in a real world, would you trust a random stranger giving you pills? Hopefully not!

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45912698

Tl;Dr: google has certain commitments they need to make depending on when the source code is released. Expect more delays moving forward thanks to this law.

[1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOL...

Google mentions about being on a call, and being tricked into handing over codes. So why not use signals and huristics to decide?

If user is on a call, block any ability to install a shady app. Implement a cool down before that functionality is restored (say 24 hours). It can also detect where the user is based to add additional protection (such as mandating the use of play protect to scan the app before it's activated and add another cool down regardless).

There's lots of ways to help protect the user but it's wrong to ultimately control them. The real world is full of scary dangers that technology is trying to solve but is actively making things worse (such as computerized safety systems in cars).

Ultimately, the user is responsible and whilst it's palpable Google would want to reduce harm in this specific way, we know authoritarian governments would also love to be able to dictate what software people can run. The harm to democracy is simply too great in favor of saving a few people's money.

I've played many games with 8GB VRAM* and will do so for the forseeable. If that's not enough, I am not a customer. Simple as.

The truth is, there is going to be a massive motivation with the likes of Steam Deck/Machine to actually make titles that are optimised and perform well within their hardware parameters. It's money you won't want to ignore.

*One example was Silent Hill remake on PC, which used the unreal engine. It was optimised beautifully and ran without visual glitches and stutters even with the highest graphic demands on a 8GB RTX

Thankfully there's the likes of GrapheneOS, however, with Google's recent changes, unless their OEM partner pulls through, their days are likely numbered.

Of course, if they could do this with Windows, Linux et al they absolutely would. And general purpose computing will, eventually, be closed and locked down, much like what we are seeing with the internet and ID laws. People would have, and did, think such ideas would be unthinkable 10-15 years ago. Yet little-by-little the screws are being ever tightened. The government wishes to tightly control the information flow and decide what is 'best for you' to see. Preferably their chosen propaganda.

Work-arounds that exist today will likely be closed and forbidden in the future. VPNs to bypass age laws, ADB to bypass install-blocks will all be obsolete. You will be required to identify yourself at all times. I half-expect Google to deprecate and remove the concept of VPN's/ADB on Android entirely and laws will be passed to that affect (restricting the apps themselves, or access to the APIs to verified Android devices/Google accounts). If you don't believe me, you only need to see [1] for the direction of travel.

There is little interest from the regulators to stop this. Perhaps the useless CMA will 'investigate' in 5 years time, decide Google perhaps abused its monopoly and then do absolutely nothing because they have no real re-course over an American company. It's likely governments support this position and will not do anything to influence a change of direction.

Eventually, Linux itself will go the same way, people are just waiting for Torvalds to retire from the project to make their moves, but make no mistake, open general-purpose computing is under threat and there is going to be little we can do to reverse the current trends towards closely monitored and controlled computing.

[1]: https://developer.android.com/google/play/age-signals/overvi...

This will most likely be expanded in the future to limit access to certain 'dangerous' APIs like ADB/VPN's etc. This can also be used 'in app' and across the entire OS to shape your experience of what you can see and do. I wouldn't be surprised if 'unlocking bootloader' required an 18+ verified device.