AOSP and Pixel Device Support

GrapheneUser599901

Realistically what can the users do to help gos long-term? I'm willing to donate, but is there a plan for expanding the Dev team to deal with the increased workload?

Bimmy

GrapheneUser599901

Regarding your last question: GrapheneOS published a job ad (s. https://grapheneos.org/hiring ).

argante

DeletedUser299 Suppose they could, with their revenue stream, you could fine Goolag the equivalent of a small countrys GDP and they could pay, probably in cash.

Google softly introducing more and more locks and restrictions. There is currently no clear reason to lock the bootloader, but it could invoke these changes in the EU and do it globally, explaining that it wants to treat users the same way. I'm concerned that Google emphasizes that does not want the Pixel to be a reference device for AOSP. This is just one step away from locking the bootloader.

Titan_M2

Probably the only way to keep working in the long run would be to build their own smartphone.

spl4tt

argante Google always had a reference phone. It's really weird to see that change now

dhhdjbd

My only hope is my goverment for does a non corrupt decision and understands that it is kind of important and only right to use open source software in the public sector, funds the development of more foss projects and maybe even goes as far as securing grapheneOs funding entirely.

(in reality probably we here about another multimillion dollar mircrosoft/ apple whatever deal )

other8026

Both topics are already being discussed here, so I renamed the thread so hopefully discussions can all happen here instead of in multiple threads.

Stewart

Maybe I don't know enough about the consequences for GOS of Google's decision to shut down AOSP but I'm thinking that maybe it's a blessing in disguise, GOS's independence from Google.
I would have done it before but I'm going to start making regular donations to the GOS team to support them in this independence.

Wadder

My hope is that the GOS team is still able to support pixel devices moving forward, although I fully support and admire their ambition to develop their own hardware.

For me the upfront cost that it would probably require from me as a user wouldn't be possible, or justifiable under my situation, this therefore would force me back to iOS as the next best thing (😔).

Google making custom ROMs harder to develop is major annoyance and shows the why the level of trust in them is so low.

All the best to the GOS team, I will standby them and promote them where I can to my circles. And I do hope a solution is found moving forward with regards to support for hardware such as pixels.

PintOfGuinness

I posed this question earlier in #2306712 - missed this thread here and seems more appropriate to ask here since it's a device related question.

After reading this Android Authority article (https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-3566882/), my understanding is that Google is no longer publishing the device trees for Pixel devices because they are instead using their "Cuttlefish" virtual device as the reference target for AOSP. Previously, the Pixel devices were the AOSP reference target.

I have a technical question. The GrapheneOS devs are already in the process of porting GrapheneOS to Android 16 without the Android 16 device trees. Is this because they already have access to the device trees from previous versions of Android, allowing them to reverse engineer the changes in Android 16?

Secondly, and while trying to avoid speculation on a device that is yet to exist (such as an anticipated Pixel 10 later this year), is it believed that GrapheneOS can add support in the absence of a device tree?

raccoondad

PintOfGuinness The GrapheneOS devs are already in the process of porting GrapheneOS to Android 16 without the Android 16 device trees.

(My understanding of the situation)
They mentioned on bsky they already have basically the port finished OS wise. They have it running in an emulator. The issue is getting device support, which they are currently in the process of doing.

If the device tree was still available publicly, GOS would of probably already had production releases by now.

Much love to the GOS team, hopefully Google chooses to release these files separately :/

Viewpoint0232

PintOfGuinness

PintOfGuinness is it believed that GrapheneOS can add support in the absence of a device tree

That would still be possible (see: all the devices supported by LineageOS) but lots of extra work that needs to be repeated for every single device.

n2gwtl

This was an interesting read: https://www.osnews.com/story/142553/rumour-google-intends-to-discontinue-the-android-open-source-project/

If Google were indeed intending to do this, what could happen is that Google takes Android closed source from here on out, spinning off whatever remains of AOSP up until that point into a separate company or project, as potentially ordered during the antitrust case against Google in the United States. This would leave Google free to continue developing its own “Pixel Android” entirely as proprietary software – save for the Linux kernel – while leaving AOSP in the state it’s in right now outside of Google. This technically means “AOSP is not going away”, as Chau claims.

Of course, other parties would then be free to continue working on and contributing to AOSP, but AOSP itself would no longer benefit from the work done by Google. Again, this feels very similar to how illumos and OpenIndiana are built atop the last open source release of Solaris from 2010, without any of the additional work Oracle has done on Solaris since then. As you can tell, there’s a lot of speculation here, because even if all of this is true, it seems the ongoing court case and any rulings that come of it will play a major role in Google’s decision-making process.

The Android Open Source Project has been gutted over the years, with Google leaving more and more parts of it to languish, while moving a lot of code and functionality into proprietary components like Google Mobile Services and Google Play Services. Taking “Pixel Android” closed source almost feels like the natural next step in the process of gutting AOSP that’s been ongoing for well over a decade. As it stands today, a default AOSP installation requires a lot of additional components and applications before it can be considered a complete mobile operating system, and if it were to be spun off into a separate, non-Google project to which Google itself contributes nothing, its future seems quite uncertain.

n2gwtl

And so much for the GrapheneOS pixel laptop. :(

n2gwtl

[unknown] I'm not switching. I'll continue to use this device for 5 years even without security updates. I think it is still better.

n2gwtl

grayway2 they can do whatever they want to new devices. But up to the 9, it should be maintained as it has been.

n2gwtl

grayway2 it's the policies imposed on them that drove them to this decision.

raccoondad

To quell some fear in people, from GOS on bsky

Yes, we can continue to provide support far into the future. It will sometimes take longer than it did before to port to new quarterly and yearly releases. It will mainly be an issue for this initial Android 16 release and more than anything else difficulty adding support for new Pixel devices.

This was my main concern, I'm glad its been addressed

Elgoog

When was that Google dropped the "Don't be evil" motto?

« Previous Page Next Page »