Standing by GOS and FOSS (+ a respectful message to Google)

Bimmy

In light of current events (s. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114661914197695338 ) I want to declare my support to GOS and FOSS development as a whole. I've just donated, and I plan to do this again in the future.

To readers from Google, please note:
Despite some business practices I consider bad and ultimately self-defeating, I've always respected the effort Google and its developers put into Open Source Software, such as facilitating the Android Universe.
I also held Googles Devices, esp. Pixel mobile devices, in high regard due to their strong focus on security, overall quality, and particularly the possibility to use own, custom android derivates without compromises to security.

Over recent years I bought several Pixel devices personally and for my business because they allowed us to use the hardware according to my very high standards. I remember also promoting Pixel devices for exactly these reasons. I actually have been considering to expand business infrastructure by using further Pixel devices.

However, unless above-mentioned capabilities are restored -- Google devices seem to have lost their USP. I'm afraid, Google will have lost me as a customer, then.

I strongly recommend scrutinising any approach of migrating towards closed source. Standing by open source development is doing the right thing.

Thank you for your time.

EnragedBoot

For as little impact as I believe it would have, I've expressed my concerns about this to Google Support.

I reckon it won't do much, but I wanted to at least try to get it across that some people only buy Pixel devices for GrapheneOS. I can only hope said concerns reach someone willing and able to address this.

Kudos to the GrapheneOS team as always, you have my sincere gratitude.

Viewpoint0232

Unfortunately, Android has made changes which will make it much harder for us to port to Android 16 and future releases. It will also make adding support for new Pixels much more difficult.

What exactly are these changes?

Then again, no surprise. Google has been making Android more and more closed source over the past few years, more stuff shifting from AOSP to Play Services, more mandatory Play Services like Play Integrity, more locking down of "sideloaded" apps, and so on.

other8026

Viewpoint0232 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114661914197695338

And, please, people who read this post or see other posts about the upstream changes, please refrain from speculating what is or isn't happening, or what will or won't happen because of those changes. The project will share the latest information using the official accounts on X, Mastodon, and Bluesky. I'd suggest you get accurate information there. Also, if the topic comes up in other threads, please share links to official posts so other people can get accurate information as well.

The developers are still hard at work porting to Android 16. That's the priority right now.

phone-company

As far as I remember, Google announced the new procedure back in March. I understand the problem, but it was all announced.

Here for example an Article from "Android User"

https://www.android-user.de/android-entwicklung-nicht-mehr-oeffentlich/

Murcielago

phone-company

If i understood it correctly that wasn't a major problem:

The small subset of the OS developed via AOSP main moving away from it won't have a major impact on GrapheneOS. It did not provide us with early access to the code we need for porting GrapheneOS to an upcoming release before the day it gets released. That already required having partner access.

source: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/21315-explanation-of-recent-changes-to-aosp-and-the-lack-of-major-impact-on-grapheneos

GrapheneOS

phone-company It's not related to that, which had very little impact on us.

phone-company

GrapheneOS i'm trying to read and understand that whole thing

Bimmy

phone-company

There were separate stages in how google reorganised and published their development for the AOSP and their Pixel devices , respectively.

One happened in 2025-03, which is the one the official GrapheneOS account commented directly above and was cited/linked by Murcielago.
Another one became apparent yesterday with publication (or non-publication) of source code and components for Android 16. That has been significantly changed -- and for custom OS developers to the negative side -- compared to former releases. This is the change that is currently causing alarm.

Few hours ago, the site androidauthority posted an article that elaborates a bit more on what might be the technical problem:
https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-3566882/

I haven't looked into the Android 16 release myself and can't say how accurate that article is. (At least and to my knowledge the article appears not in direct contradiction to the official messages.)

I hope GrapheneOS can comment a bit more on the new challenges when the time is right.

And again, I see more and more reasons for the community to support high-quality FOSS projects like GOS, so that we become more independent from parties that might make far-reaching bad decisions.

phone-company

Bimmy I completely agree with your last sentence. And thank you very much for the explanation.

PintOfGuinness

Having read that Android Authority article, a question - if Google is no longer releasing the device trees for Pixel devices, instead focusing on their "Cuttlefish" virtual device as the AOSP reference target, how does this affect future Pixel devices with GrapheneOS development?

As @other8026 said, I am not trying to speculate, but rather am asking a technical question, and after searching recent threads and posts on this subject, I don't believe this has been touched on just yet.

It's been said in other posts by @GrapheneOS that porting to Android 16 is still possible (and underway); is that because they already have previous device trees for Pixel 6 through Pixel 9 devices, allowing the developers to reverse engineer the changes in Android 16? If a new device, such as a Pixel 10 was released without a device tree, would GrapheneOS be able to support it?

Bimmy

As other8086 is currently consolidating threads about the recent events, it might be wise that we continue the technical questions in the consolidated thread now dedicated to AOSP and pixel support:
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/23080-aosp-and-pixel-device-support/23 .
(I find the question interesting.)

BTW: There is some updates on GrapheneOS's mastodon (s. https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS )

Last but not least: My gratitude and support remains.