AOSP and Pixel Device Support

other8026

f13a-6c3a My worries began when I noticed alarming change of messaging tone and requests for help with just 1 (ONE) main developer unexpectedly departing.

The lead developer, who is both very skilled, and has been doing the majority of the porting work in the past. When he was conscripted, there were worries that without early access to Android 16 code, porting would take much longer. The developers rose to the occasion and had a port booting in the emulator in a couple of days.

f13a-6c3a Then the big G pulled the rug and quality of GOS releases changed even more. I understand that the implication of removing the device tree are severe, but some of the released and then pulled updates with the changes that they had to revert/fix made me think that it wasnt that.

This is part of the process. Updates are released to the alpha and beta channels first so members of the community can help test them.

You also seem to be misunderstanding what those releases were. Updates were backported. It's an accomplishment that the developers got them to work with Android 15, and you're here complaining about something that didn't affect regular users. Updates are working fine when they reach stable. That's the point.

f13a-6c3a P.S.

Removing this part of your post. Being impolite about members of the GrapheneOS team is not appropriate.

McFlurry

I was about to get a Pixel to get started with grapheneOS a few days ago, when I learned about the changes regarding the AOSP.

My first reaction was to skip on the idea of using grapheneOS altogether, but I decided on waiting a bit for things to clear up at least until the next price drop of the Pixel. Why not.

Well, due to very recent developments I'm getting a bit nervous, that things might get alot more expensive soon, and it may be better not to wait after all.

Since I really don't want a google product for any other reason than to put grapeneOS on it, I would go for another brand in any other scenario.

For this reason it be good for me to get an idea, what the implications are, if I go for a Pixel with grapheneOS now?

wuseman

McFlurry For this reason it be good for me to get an idea, what the implications are, if I go for a Pixel with grapheneOS now?

I don't see them discontinuing GrapheneOS for Pixel devices anytime soon. There are other AOSP forks with their own made from scratch device trees. Porting GrapheneOS to newer versions will take longer, that's all.

DeletedUser473

McFlurry Get a Pixel 9a or older and immediately install GrapheneOS. It's better to do this now before Google makes a software update to prevent OEM unlocking, if they ever do. Pixel 10 might not have OEM unlocking.

McFlurry

wuseman DeletedUser473

Okay, that is great! I hope the grapheneOS-team won't let the pixel users down, and support these devices for many years to come.

I was told, that if I need to contact the google support, in case that something is wrong with my google pixel, I'd need a gmail account. Is this true?

yore

DeletedUser473 before Google makes a software update to prevent OEM unlocking, if they ever do. Pixel 10 might not have OEM unlocking.

Couldn't find anything online. Do you have a source for this?

wuseman

DeletedUser473 Pixel 10 might not have OEM unlocking.

Why the hell would they block this after all these years? Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

data_logs

Just got a pixel 9pro xl that is already on stock android 16. Can I flash to graphene os that is still currently on android 15.

de0u

data_logs Just got a pixel 9pro xl that is already on stock android 16. Can I flash to graphene os that is still currently on android 15.

Yes.

The web installer will install the latest release that has been marked stable for your device (see the device/release table and the changelog). When a subsequent release is marked stable the system will automatically download it and prompt you to reboot. The developers are busy working on Android 16, but due to recent abrupt policy changes by Google it is uncertain when an A16 release will be stable.

Please note that I do not speak for the GrapheneOS project.

de0u

f13a-6c3a Obviously, the project is going to claim that they will, but I'm starting to have my doubts.

"It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."

Very large companies are forced to deal with serious unexpected contingencies. Some months back Apple removed security features (that they had worked hard to develop) from UK customers due to an unexpected legal change. Google is in the midst of a U.S. anti-trust case that might completely change their business model for phones. Uncertainty is unavoidable, but many organizations manage to survive serious challenges.

In my opinion, so far the GrapheneOS project has done very well. The project has developed a lot of security and privacy features, and has found some pretty big bugs in Google's code, some of which Google has fixed as a result. Other Android open-source projects have used code from GrapheneOS. I expect the current situation is quite uncomfortable for the development team, and I expect they have concerns. On the other hand, the community is large enough to be a resource (if there is a hardware partnership, more purchasers will make a big difference). Also, the team has recently been able to hire (source).

f13a-6c3a All I can do at this point is to continue to support the project, which I will, and hope that the team manages well to not only survive, but also thrive.

That sounds good to me!

Viewpoint0232

wuseman Why the hell would they block this after all these years? Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

Perhaps they don't make a profit on the hardware but only on the advertising business, which requires all of your data and hence customers that install a degoogled Android (like GrapheneOS) are worthless for them. Not saying that's true as I don't know the profitability of Pixel phones but it's just a theoretical example for why they might not care about keeping the bootloader open. Also don't forget that Google tends to prefer short-term profitability over long-term viability. Another example is how they made Google Search worse just so people would spend more time on it and click on more ads: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/

edit: personally I think the Pixel 10 will remain unlockable, but in 5 years, who knows. Samsung, Asus, Nokia, Xiaomi and many others used to have unlockable bootloaders and now don't.

DeletedUser370

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114722432094158776

We have talks with a large Android OEM ongoing and they're doing initial work towards supporting GrapheneOS. We hope there will be another device we can support in 2026 or 2027 based on this. Qualcomm releasing MTE support this year is key and appears to be happening.

Dumdum

DeletedUser370
Also:
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114729018035689722

The initial devices built for us by an OEM are going to be their regular devices improved to meet our security and support time requirements. We aren't going to have much influence over the initial hardware. If GrapheneOS on these devices is highly successful, then we can make the business case that it makes sense to have custom hardware and firmware beyond meeting our minimum requirements. Our minimum requirements cannot require more than what we have on current devices.

spl4tt

Dumdum That sounds quite promising already. Nice.

Viewpoint0232

McFlurry I was told, that if I need to contact the google support, in case that something is wrong with my google pixel, I'd need a gmail account. Is this true?

Yes but I was able to create a brand new account in the browser coming from their support website. So you don't need to "connect" it to your phone.

CueHD

McFlurry I was told, that if I need to contact the google support, in case that something is wrong with my google pixel, I'd need a gmail account. Is this true?

No, you need a Google account which can be associated with any email address. You do not need to use GMail. My own Google account is an alias on a different email provider, I do not have a GMail address at all.

McFlurry

Viewpoint0232
It is very unfortunate that they are allowed to insist to use their e-mail service, which requires phone number verification, in order to get baseline support.

Would it be adviseable to buy the pixel at a local store, to have the option to get support from them?

Is there anything else I could do? I see grapheneOS users, putting alot of effort into protecting their privacy, yet they need to give google their phone number to get support for their hardware?

Viewpoint0232

McFlurry It is very unfortunate that they are allowed to insist to use their e-mail service, which requires phone number verification, in order to get baseline support.

I agree but also I think this is always the case with any kind of product where you want to make a warranty claim. They will always ask for your proof of purchase (or in this case IMEI), name and contact details.

McFlurry

CueHD Viewpoint0232

Okay, maybe buying it form a local store is a better opiton for me.

Tried making a google account with my own e-mail, but they ask for phone verification still.

CueHD

McFlurry I dont recall needing to add one when I created my account, but that was a while ago.

This page from Google says that a phone number is optional. https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/27441?hl=en-EN&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop

Perhaps try from a desktop version of the registration page if you haven't already.

ryrona

hakingstok What about a partnership with Pine64?

I don't know there stance about security, but I think they are worth mentioning/considering.

I had a Pinephone. The hardware broke after half a year, the touch stopped working, and I wasn't able to repair it myself. Maybe I was just unlucky. But either way the phone was hugely overpriced for what you got, the hardware was more of less standard hardware from 10 years ago, I couldn't even get it to play back HD resoluted video, and the battery would last like 4 hours at most of active usage, less if watching videos. The camera was so bad I would never have been able to show any photo I had taken with it to anyone, without feeling hugely embarrassing. Think standard budget laptop webcam quality, pretty much. As far as security goes, there were apparently no Secure Boot support at all what I could see, and no Secure Element or TPM or similar, or anything like that. I never saw them releasing any firmware updates. Sometimes I wonder if the firmware was even updatable at all. Security did simply not seem to be a design goal. They kind of clearly stated on their webpage where they sold their devices that the devices are only intended for open source enthusiasts and developers interested in making regular Linux on phone possible. Essentially saying they are not guaranteeing anything at all, not security or anything else.

I did like the design of the phones though. They just looked like any no-brand smartphone. Hardly anything anyone would take notice of. Exactly how a privacy focused phone should look IMO. But I would be surprised if Pine64 is up to or even interested in the challenge of making a phone at GrapheneOS' expected security level. I think they would just want to keep making "freedom phones".

« Previous Page Next Page »