I think we're defining "less" differently. You're interpreting "less open" to mean "not open at all," which is not what I said.

There's a long history of Google slowly making the experience worse if you want to take advantage of the things that make Android open.

For example, by moving features that were in the AOSP into their proprietary Play Services instead [1].

Or coming soon, preventing sideloading of unverified apps if you're using a Google build of Android [2].

In both cases, it's forcing you to accept tradeoffs between functionality and openness that you didn't have to accept before. You can still use AOSP, but it's a second class experience.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/google-will-block-si...

Core is open source but for a device to be "Android compatible" and access the Google Play Store and other Google services, it must meet specific requirements from Google's Android Compatibility Program. These additional proprietary components are what make the final product closed source.

The Android Open Source Project is not Android.

"open" and requiring closed blobs doesn't mean it's "open source".

It's like saying Nvidia's drivers are "open source" as there is a repository there but has only binaries in the folders.