On March 27, Android Authority broke the news that Google will begin migrating all Android Open Source Project (AOSP) development to its internal branch. The change, set to begin next week, means that Android’s continuous integration/delivery (CI/CD) tools and Android Gerrit—the core platforms for community contribution—may also be shut down. In the future, only Google employees will be allowed to access or submit code to the internal AOSP branch.
This sparked immediate concern across the tech world, with some media even calling it a termination of Android open source. While that framing may sound alarmist, the underlying anxiety isn’t entirely misplaced.
Indeed, Google confirmed to Android Authority that it will continue to publish source code for future Android versions, including Android 16, and maintain updates for the Android Linux kernel. On the surface, Android remains open. But the structure of that openness is changing—and with it, the nature of community involvement.
This move essentially signals a redefinition of what “open source” means in practice. Android has always been open-source under Google’s stewardship, but community developers and OEMs were previously able to view and contribute to AOSP in near real time. That transparency fostered innovation and trust, especially among global partners building their platforms on Android.
“It’s not accurate to say Google is closing the source, but the power to decide what and when to release remains entirely in Google’s hands,” according to ZHU Qigang, Secretary-General, Shanghai Open Source Information Technology Association.
The move could significantly affect Android OEMs, especially in China. Companies like Xiaomi, OPPO, vivo, Honor, and Lenovo rely heavily on AOSP as the foundation for their operating systems. Although Google promises to continue releasing source code for stable versions, these OEMs will no longer be able to track changes in real time or contribute proactively to Android’s evolution.
This shift increases Google’s leverage over OEMs. To maintain compatibility with Google Mobile Services (GMS), manufacturers will need to follow Google’s development timeline and technical roadmap more closely. The centralization of control may lead to broader ripple effects across the ecosystem, potentially accelerating the development and adoption of alternative systems like OpenHarmony. While this could bring greater diversity to the global operating system landscape, it also risks further fragmenting the Android ecosystem.
This situation also raises deeper questions about the nature of corporate-led open-source projects. On paper, Android is open source. But in practice, Google has always controlled the project’s direction, governance, and final decisions. Contributions from the global community may be welcomed, but ultimate authority lies with a single company.
Zhu Qigang critiques this dynamic, noting that, “The so-called openness of Android has always been conditional. Google decides whether community contributions are accepted. It’s open source, but it’s not open governance.” In contrast, OpenHarmony—Huawei’s open-source OS—has been donated to a neutral foundation, a move that Zhu sees as a healthier model for genuine community governance.
To be fair, Google’s decision can also be viewed through a practical lens. Managing a project as complex and globally distributed as Android is no easy task. Streamlining development internally could improve efficiency, reduce leaks, and allow tighter control over security and release cycles.
But it also marks a clear shift in priorities. As Android matures and becomes further intertwined with Google’s commercial ecosystem, openness becomes more of a liability than a benefit. This mirrors what happened with other large-scale open-source projects, such as Red Hat’s decision to limit access to RHEL source code—a move that prompted backlash from the open-source community.
Plus, Google is currently under investigation by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation for alleged antitrust violations. Earlier this year, CCP’s official newspaper People’s Daily criticized Android as “fake open source, real monopoly,” accusing Google of using its dominance to suppress competition and innovation.
Google’s decision to move Android development in-house raises questions about the future of corporate open source, the role of community in large-scale tech ecosystems, and the delicate balance between control and collaboration. While Android is not yet “closed,” it is clearly becoming more guarded. Whether this evolution serves the broader ecosystem—or just Google’s bottom line—remains to be seen.
Source: arstechnica, androidauthority, techcrunch
