Did Android close a door? Is Google going to "slay anyone who stands in the way" for its own AI? | Focus Analysis

Author: Qiu Xiaofen

Editor: Su Jianxun

On March 27th, some media reported that Google had decided to discontinue the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), suggesting that Google would make Android a closed - source system. This news dropped a bombshell in China's tech circle.

However, this statement has not been confirmed by Google. In a report by the US tech media Android Authority, Google denied the simplistic and crude claim of "going closed - source".

Ma Yue, the chairman of OSChina, told 36Kr that the correct understanding is that in the future, the Android system will no longer operate in the open - source way defined by the OSI (Open Source Initiative), but rather in a way of "commercial code opening". That is to say, Android is not "closed - source", but will no longer be open to partners without Google's authorization.

Many industry insiders said that this change in Android shows no obvious signs of political motivation and seems more like a business decision based on Google's current situation.

In the short term, this adjustment will not have a significant impact on large hardware manufacturers and end - users. However, in the near future, Google's decision may secretly shake the long - standing bipolar competition pattern between the Android and Apple ecosystems and also hides Google's ambitions in the AI era.

Android's Open - Source Model: A Thankless Task

In the past, Android has always adhered to a dual - track development model, with internal development first and then external opening.

This dual - track parallel development model of internal and external development has helped Google strictly control the quality, ensuring the stability and reliability of the system operation. At the same time, Google has been able to keep the core of the project operation pure and prevent external developers from interfering too much with the core.

More importantly, this relatively open dual - track development model has allowed Google to compete with Apple's closed iOS ecosystem in the past decade and quickly gather a large software and hardware ecosystem.

However, this model has brought many troubles in actual operation. For example, when the internal and external development progress is not completely consistent, Google needs to invest additional resources to coordinate the development progress and resolve code conflicts.

AOSP

In today's fully mature mobile phone market, this dual - track parallel development method can no longer bring the high - growth rate as before and has given rise to various problems, such as high maintenance costs and low development efficiency. Therefore, this thankless development model is inevitably doomed to be abandoned.

In the past few years, Google's capital expenditure has been continuously high due to its investment in AI. According to the financial report data, Google's total capital expenditure in 2024 reached $75 billion, with a year - on - year surge of 52% in the fourth quarter. The rate of spending far exceeds the rate of making money.

To make way for AI investment, the expenditure of other departments has been continuously shrinking. Among them, the Android department laid off 15% of its staff at the beginning of 2025. Cutting off the external branch of AOSP is also to save money. According to Google's data, Google spent up to $800 million last year to maintain AOSP, the world's largest open - source project.

From a business perspective, this adjustment by Google is completely expected. "In the past, a large number of developers were helpful to Google, but now Google may consider them as noise," said Ma Yue.

Big Manufacturers Are Safe, Small Manufacturers Fall, Benefiting HarmonyOS

Most terminal manufacturers have long enjoyed the benefits of Android. But when it is no longer open - source, how will it affect the downstream hardware manufacturers?

In the past, mobile phone manufacturers have carried out secondary development based on Android to create their own operating systems (including OPPO ColorOS, vivo OriginOS, Xiaomi HyperOS, etc.).

Many mobile phone industry insiders told 36Kr that the adjustment of Android does not affect the normal use and subsequent updates of various mobile phone operating systems - these mobile phone manufacturers have already obtained GMS and are authorized partners of Android.

Large hardware manufacturers remain stable for the time being, but small players are not so lucky.

In addition to mobile phones, a large number of global terminals (XR, AI hardware, etc.) have also carried out secondary development based on AOSP, and these manufacturers have not obtained Google's certification. An industry insider said that in the future, if small developers and small hardware manufacturers do not obediently pay the authorization fee to Google, they only have three options -

Either stay on the old version of Android, which means they cannot update the latest technology.

Or invest more resources to independently develop an operating system.

Or completely switch to other solutions (such as the open - source project OpenHarmony of HarmonyOS).

Staying on the old version is equivalent to abandoning products in the torrent of commercial competition. Developing an operating system is a long - term and arduous task that scattered small developers can hardly accomplish. Obviously, the third option is more reliable.

A HarmonyOS developer said that most domestic manufacturers have made certain strategic arrangements for the HarmonyOS system, but there have been many on - lookers in the past about whether to truly migrate to the HarmonyOS system - the maturity of the HarmonyOS ecosystem, the cost of adaptation and migration, and geopolitical factors are all key factors that make people hesitate.

And this adjustment of Android is like pulling out the firewood from under the cauldron, which may indirectly accelerate the popularization of HarmonyOS .

Perhaps, AI Is the Ultimate Goal

When Android is no longer open - source to most players, its short - term impact is limited, but there is a hint of concern in the industry.

The aforementioned developer told 36Kr that Google's move to create a "simplified version of Android" and eliminate "Shanzhai phones" in Huaqiangbei at this time is completely meaningless in the current established mobile phone pattern. Google's main purpose may not only be to save costs, but more likely to strengthen its control over Android by building a "wall" around it and find an entry point for Google's Gemini large - model service.

Gemini Large Model

Ma Yue gave an example to 36Kr - "In the future, will the background of Apple phones call DeepSeek? Or the large models of BAT?"

He said, "Of course, Apple can replace whoever it wants, and the billing model is also controlled by the underlying operating system. All the control is completely in Apple's hands."

Similarly, in the future, Google, which is becoming more and more closed, is also likely to firmly control all applications on it by controlling the operating system as an entry point, and control the right to call models and the right to design business models in the era of artificial intelligence.

Now, the relationship between mobile phone manufacturers and Android is also changing subtly. When mobile phone manufacturers are eyeing each other and have put forward their own AI plans, making changes at the ecosystem level, showing a tendency to disrupt the status quo. In the future, Google also needs to construct a new discourse system to keep mobile phone manufacturers following it in the era of artificial intelligence.

However, whether Google's ambitions will come true is still just the current concern and speculation of hardware industry practitioners. How the changed Android ecosystem will integrate with Google's AI services and whether Google will redesign the business models for mobile phone manufacturers - all these assumptions have not been finalized.

But this is definitely a signal that cannot be ignored.

end