> Google did not publish any device-specific source code for supported, modern Pixel devices.
> In previous years, Google released full device trees alongside new Android versions. This allowed developers to build and boot AOSP on Pixel hardware relatively easily.
> With Android 16, only the platform/framework code has been released. The device trees are missing, at least for now.
> This means AOSP 16 cannot currently be built or run on any recent Pixel device easily just using official source. It’s unclear whether this is a delay or a policy change. Either way, it seriously disrupts custom ROM development and our porting efforts.
Why can't I just get a general purpose computer in my pocket? Why is everything so hostile? I am willing to pay!
LineageOS is the only one of the three that supports older hardware, but I'd recommend getting a previous-gen Pixel for the seven-year (at least) support cycle.
[0] https://grapheneos.org/faq#supported-devices
That pretty much sums it up, there's a reason all of those custom ROMs pivoted to supporting basically just Pixels. Apart from Pixels, your only options are Fairphone and a few years old Chinese models (Xiaomi, Motorola, OnePlus), none of which are even close to state-of-the-art hardware.
Custom ROMs are pretty much dead, this just might be the final nail in their coffin.
Well, Pixel is arguably pretty shitty hardware as well
you don't need it, it's just a phone. Yeah maybe now, but in two years when the pixel is shitting itself you will understand.
If GrapheneOS dies, that's probably it for me with pixels. The only advantage left is how cheap you can get a new flagship pixel on the gray market.
I will miss having stock android and timely updates, I will hate Samsung bloatware and apps I can't uninstall, but it's I hope to have more stability and longer life for my phones. In barely getting 2 years of life from my Pixels. I'm also seriously considering iPhones as well.
It would be very nice (but a tremendous effort) if Graphene OS took this opportunity to switch hardware preference right before Google's August release. Maybe to someone who could make a modern tablet too.
Also a lot of folks around still sporting Samsun S20 (though they should probably ditch them now due to the lack of security updates).
Getting only 2-3 years of life is very bad for most people.
"OpenBSD"
"Locks you out of many important apps ... (Unless you want to combat integrity system)"
When did you try to switch?
I've had no trouble with banks, brokers or payment networks on GrapheneOS but I don't use crap like company-X pay wallets..
I admire this effort. However I don't care that much about my privacy and I don't care about extended security. All I want is a basic Android system without any of added apps, without any AI. I want the most basic apps for phone, SMS, camera. And I want working Google Play to install some additional apps. I want OS focused around this goal. Not OS focused around extended security or privacy.
So it's like suggesting to buy M1 Abrams instead of Toyota Land Cruiser.
I'm embracing ascetic computing. I'm using Arch Linux with bare minimum of apps for my desktop. And I wanted to do the same for my smartphone. Pixel is incredibly bloated. I spent few days just navigating its maze of settings, trying to disable them all. At this point, I'm back to my old iPhone, which at least allows me to uninstall almost every single app and old enough, so it does not support Apple Intelligence (thank, god).
Its similar to what the Linux distributions that try to turn on a SeLinux like profile by default would feel like if they really put in the work. That's nothing like switching (from a Linux) to a BSD.
(I would love to just run my desktop Linux with a half baked touch UI and rely on browser versions of almost everything, but that would feel like a real switch between OSes instead of just seeing the same OS with a corrected security profile as the user. I also don't see why you compare it to an Abrams, I doubt an Abrams has a security model intentionally compromised by an ad company, GrapheneOS just makes it possible to catch the dumbest or laziest attacks on a system no one should run ever.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_support_package presumably. Never heard that TLA in my life and it's not like I've not gotten my hands dirty in Android
With Apple's ongoing refusal to enable VM/JIT support on iOS and iPad, Google Pixel + GrapheneOS + Debian is a very competitive 2025 offering.
The pretence that Apple makes these things for security reasons and there's absolutely no way in the world to make it possible is a bit ridiculous.
I didn't know about the Apple Watch couldn't pair with an iPad, and I don't think even an Apple fanboy could make an excuse for that one.
You're underestimating the strength of the reality distortion field.
With the recent court ruling that enables non-Apple payment channels, blocking VMs does not protect revenue, but it does hurt Apple customers who want iPads for a quick portable terminal, while using their Macs for extended work sessions.
If it opens to having VM, you could just run another OS in a VM (Windows, for example) and install normal software on it (like the desktop version of most programs) and not pay the AppStore fee.
It's only a commercial reason, not a security one.
> For more than 90 percent of the billings and sales facilitated by the App Store ecosystem, developers did not pay any commission to Apple.
Would the remaining 10 percent of App Store sales have meaningful competition from a CLI (no GUI) terminal VM that enables development workflows on iPad?
That's certainly a take. The developer fee is $99 a year, that HAS to be paid to put something on the App Store.
Sure they are not getting commision on the download, but they ARE getting their pound of flesh from the developer fee.
App store revenue is around $100B, or 300X estimated developer fees.
Sales commission is the percentage of the value of a sale that a sales associate or sales representative may earn.My Librem 5 also offers the desktop mode, since it just runs a desktop OS based on Debian (PureOS).
At the moment we have 200+ upvotes on something that is very light on information, but heavy on confusion. I am just trying to understand what is going on.
https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2025/06/03/2155
> Apple has dropped the ball so badly that Sky is like a perfect storm of what they could have done, but didn’t. And now, not only is it a third-party app that is doing what Apple should have done, but it is also doing it in a better way that anything they ever shipped.
If the second one, that seems a bit unlikely. Atleast here, I don't think I've seen a carrier that delivers an updated android without taking a long time first - iirc this was part of the reason google made it possible to split out security updates and such, to kind of work around that
>it seemed like a bit of a fraud (on Google's part) because it was fundamentally gimped.
AOSP is designed to be customized by vendors before they ship a device with it. Development of AOSP goes towards the shared OS pieces that actually get used and not towards things which would just get swapped out. Which is why the stock user space has not had much investment.
I assume that is the same situation on raw AOSP.
I’ve came across this in app when accessing some secure flows, like adding credit card numbers.
However, I personally switched to CalyxOS. I was a bit unhappy with LineageOS pushing users towards the Gapps, by blocking microG from working properly (they blocked signature spoofing, a problem during the pandemic) and by forbidding discussions about microG on their subreddit, together with forbidding to even talk about issues with VoLTE or anything that touches rooting the system. They course corrected only a little bit with the signature spoofing, but still project user hostility otherwise via those rules. CalyxOS gave me a more usable system out of the box, while having a bigger focus on security (locking the boot loader) and presenting the project nicer. Vastly less devices supported though, and if pixels go closed now the Calyx project would have to implement big changes, those were their main devices.
That said, first rule of predictions, don't provide a time frame.
These companies believe that AI puts them in an existential battle for survival. They're battening down the hatches. Concepts like open source and community collaboration can only look like unaffordable luxuries in such a context. Quaint, even.
IMO the last remaining hope for free software is going to be an entirely separate hardware-OS ecosystem, plus funding and lobbying to ensure that the web platform remains competitive.
I recently found out that using Kagi it is possible to configure RegEx replacements in the search results (this makes it possible to replace "[www.]reddit.com" with "old.reddit.com").
I don't want to have an account there, as this just lures me into using it more and engaging in pointless discussions.
https://9to5google.com/2025/06/12/android-open-source-projec...
Pixel device trees and other code used to adapt the AOSP release to specific (Made by) Google hardware was not released in a big change from precedent. Without the Pixel hardware repos (which include the device trees, driver binaries, and more), custom Android ROMs will have a hard time developing their OS updates. This might also have implications for security (vulnerability) researchers.
What about Amazon's tablets?
From the Android VPN and GM: "We're seeing some speculation that AOSP is being discontinued. To be clear, AOSP is NOT going away. AOSP was built on the foundation of being an open platform for device implementations, SoC vendors, and instruction set architectures.
AOSP needs a reference target that is flexible, configurable, and affordable – independent of any particular hardware, including those from Google. For years, developers have been building Cuttlefish (available on GitHub as the reference device for AOSP) and GSI targets from source. We continue to make those available for testing and development purposes."
Since at this point they'll need to create device trees like LineageOS does with Snapdragon/MTK phones, so I hope they won't stick with the worst Android manufacturer on Earth. Especially now that the snapdragon 8 elite 2 will have the same security features as the Tensors.
I agree that this would be a crazy choice and doomed to fail.
One could fork AOSP, but the Android SDK is not open source, is it?
ranger_danger•1d ago
fc417fc802•1d ago
> This means AOSP 16 cannot currently be built or run on any recent Pixel device easily just using official source. It’s unclear whether this is a delay or a policy change. Either way, it seriously disrupts custom ROM development and our porting efforts.
https://calyxos.org/news/2025/06/11/android-16-plans/
immibis•1d ago
rob_c•1d ago
lipowitz•23h ago
flotzam•23h ago
fc417fc802•22h ago
immibis•20h ago
ranger_danger•17h ago
That case was dismissed because they settled privately, so technically it does not prove anything about LGPLv2, and Germany is not as big on blindly following precedent in law as other countries anyway.
charcircuit•1d ago
The claim here is that AOSP will stop releasing sources publicly altogether similar to other versions of Android like Wear OS.
flakiness•1d ago
> Google pushes the code for the next release to the latest public release branch and updates the android-latest-release manifest to point to that branch.
Along with https://source.android.com/docs/whatsnew/site-updates#aosp-c...
> The android-latest-release manifest is set to the latest AOSP release branch, android16-release
pzo•1d ago
https://calyxos.org/news/2025/06/11/android-16-plans/