{"id":15623,"date":"2026-02-04T09:59:28","date_gmt":"2026-02-04T16:59:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/?p=15623"},"modified":"2026-02-04T09:59:28","modified_gmt":"2026-02-04T16:59:28","slug":"aluminium-why-googles-android-for-pc-launch-may-be-messy-and-controversial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/2026\/02\/04\/aluminium-why-googles-android-for-pc-launch-may-be-messy-and-controversial\/","title":{"rendered":"Aluminium: Why Google\u2019s Android for PC Launch May Be Messy and Controversial"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Chrome OS was actually a fabulous idea and project that I used from the beginning after the wife won an early Chromebook at work. There are dual boot channels hashed for security, firmware and OS, so if a problem with one, it uses the other and fixes the bad one in the background, also great for updating the unused channel for next boot. And the Linux kernel is made read only after boot. They eventually added Android and Linux virtualization as well so you could run Android and Linux apps. The best perk with Chromebooks was they were cheap but decent PCs, and if you removed the write protection you could fully replace the firmware and install Linux, with even a partial firmware change to allow dual booting between Chrome OS and Linux<\/a> (if your device was supported). But as we’re moving towards agentic AI spy machines, those days are going to be over, as well as running Chrome OS or stock Android on anything you want privacy on. The future is Libreboot and Linux on supported computers and Graphene OS on supported phones, and we wait to see what manufacturer Graphene OS partners with as Google is actively trying to hamper their project because you can’t break into their phones like with standard Android and iOS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/tech\/869659\/aluminium-why-googles-android-for-pc-launch-may-be-messy-and-controversial<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
Aluminium may not fully arrive till 2028 \u2014 and ChromeOS bows out in 2034.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

By Sean Hollister<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"ALUMINUM\"\/
Image: Cath Virginia \/ The Verge, Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

is a senior editor and founding member of The Verge who covers gadgets, games, and toys. He spent 15 years editing the likes of CNET, Gizmodo, and Engadget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFinally.\u201d That was my first reaction when I heard Google would combine Android and ChromeOS into a single operating system. Android has long struggled on tablets<\/a>, and ChromeOS always felt like too much of a stripped-down alternative to tempt me away from Windows and Mac. So last week, it was exciting to see a leaked first glimpse at Google\u2019s Aluminium OS<\/a>, and hear it may already be slated for an Intel Panther Lake laptop<\/a> dubbed \u201cRuby\u201d and a \u201cSapphire\u201d high-end tablet<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the future may not be coming as fast as you\u2019d think, and it might be messy when it gets here. According to previously unreported court documents in the Google search antitrust case<\/a>, Aluminium won\u2019t see a full release until 2028.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though Google\u2019s head of Android, Sameer Samat, said last September<\/a> that the combination of Android and Chrome is \u201csomething we\u2019re super excited about for next year\u201d \u2014 meaning 2026 \u2014 the documents suggest Aluminium won\u2019t be ready to change the laptop world quite that soon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Q:<\/a>
Image: US v. Google<\/em> (2020)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In a transcript obtained by The Verge<\/em> from August 2025, Samat said that Google merely hopes<\/em> to launch Aluminium in 2026 \u2014 \u201cWe\u2019re working hard on it,\u201d he said \u2014 and Google\u2019s own lawyers seem less sure. In documents Google filed with the court, the new operating system\u2019s \u201cfastest path\u201d to market involves offering it to \u201ccommercial trusted testers\u201d in late 2026 before a full release in 2028. And while Chromebooks currently dominate in schools, the document suggests that \u201centerprise and education sectors\u201d in particular will get Aluminium in 2028, not 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEven when the new OS that runs Chromebooks becomes available, it will not be compatible with all existing Chromebook hardware, requiring Google to maintain existing ChromeOS at least through 2033 to meet its \u201810 year support commitment\u2019 to existing users,\u201d Google\u2019s lawyers added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/a>
Some notable bits from Columbia computer science professor Jason Nieh\u2019s testimony: He interviewed Google engineers and was Google\u2019s witness.<\/em>Image: US v. Google (2020)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"\/<\/a>
Later, Nieh added: \u201cI don\u2019t have a percentage. I just know that some of the hardware will not support Project Aluminium.\u201c<\/em>Image: US v. Google (2020)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

We already know ChromeOS won\u2019t vanish from laptops right away. Google\u2019s head of ChromeOS, John Maletis, confirmed as much to Chrome Unboxed<\/em><\/a> earlier this month, adding that Google will honor its promise to give ChromeOS devices 10 years of automatic updates<\/a>. But that means those devices may get those updates instead<\/em> of an upgrade to Aluminium. Maletis told Chrome Unboxed<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In terms of devices being able to migrate over to the new stack, not all devices will be able to just because there are technical specifications\u2026But a lot of the newer devices, we will be working on an ability for customers to migrate over.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

And here\u2019s something that wasn\u2019t previously reported: Google plans to kill off ChromeOS as soon as it can while meeting its 10-year support obligation for devices that won\u2019t get Aluminium. The \u201ctimeline to phase out ChromeOS is 2034,\u201d court documents reveal, adding that Google can\u2019t do it any earlier because \u201cjurisdictions have various rules for how long a device must be supported.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why did Google lawyers admit all these things in court? At the time, those attorneys were trying to use these facts to argue that the US should not and cannot force Google to sell off Chrome after abusing its monopoly power over search. You can even see Google\u2019s attorney leading the judge in that direction in one of my screenshots above: \u201cSo would divesting Chrome make it more difficult to support the ChromeOS software on the older computers?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last September, in a controversial<\/a> and widely reported decision, Judge Amit Mehta allowed Google to keep Chrome<\/a>. What wasn\u2019t so widely reported: Judge Mehta also agreed that he won\u2019t ban Google from making self-preferencing deals with carriers and manufacturers to prioritize Google apps on their Aluminium OS devices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"From<\/a>
From the final judgment in <\/em>US v. Google. The <\/em>US v. Googleremedies apparently don\u2019t apply to Aluminium devices, even though Aluminium is largely Android. <\/em>Image: US v. Google<\/em> (2020)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

While Mehta\u2019s final judgment<\/a> bans deals that explicitly say things like \u201cMotorola can\u2019t put Google apps on their Android phones unless the phones default to Google Search\u201d or \u201cApple can\u2019t set their default AI app to ChatGPT if they want a share of Google search revenue on the iPhone,\u201d Mehta has exempted ChromeOS and Aluminium from that ban. According to the final judgment, devices \u201con which the ChromeOS operating system or a successor to the ChromeOS operating system is installed\u201d simply don\u2019t count there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a December 2025 opinion<\/a>, the judge explained in part that\u2019s because \u201cChrome is a necessary component of a ChromeOS device.\u201d Perhaps that\u2019s fair, and perhaps Chrome will be necessary for Aluminium as well. But perhaps it will only be necessary because Google designs it that way, giving the Chrome browser and Google apps special privileges that could possibly be delegated to other browsers and companies as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Chrome<\/a>
Chrome and first-party Google apps are first-class citizens in Aluminium, while user apps are not. That could be important for a good user experience; it could be intentional lock-in; it could be neither or both.Image: US v. Google (2020), Mickens demonstrative<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

If Aluminium turns out to be largely Android for PCs, a version that just so happens to lock users into Google\u2019s browser and Google\u2019s app store and APIs, it might fly in the face of the world\u2019s attempts to curb Google\u2019s monopoly power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tipster who pointed us to these documents wonders if, perhaps, Google may even be trying to shield Aluminium from repercussions in Epic Games v. Google<\/em>, too \u2014 the case that may crack open the Google Play store to competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Judge James Donato\u2019s original permanent injunction<\/a> in Epic v. Google<\/em> applies to Google\u2019s dealings around the Play Store in general, presumably even if it\u2019s installed on laptops, desktops, or any other kind of Android-based device, Google and Epic\u2019s proposed settlement<\/a> tweaks the injunction to only apply to smartphones and tablets that specifically run \u201cthe Android operating system.\u201d That could exclude Aluminium as well as laptops and desktops in general, if approved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"How<\/a>
How would the court handle it if Google continued monopolistic behavior not on phones, but on Android-based Aluminium laptops?<\/em>Image: Epic Games v. Google<\/em> (2020)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Google declined our request to fact-check the Project Aluminium timeline and other statements and documents from the court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Chrome OS was actually a fabulous idea and project that I used from the beginning after the wife won an early Chromebook at work. There are dual boot channels hashed for security, firmware and OS, so if a problem with one, it uses the other and fixes the bad one in the background, also great […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tech"],"blocksy_meta":[],"featured_image_src":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"Jason","author_link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/author\/jturning\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15623"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15623\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15624,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15623\/revisions\/15624"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}