Android 16 QPR1

RedDeath

Hello good afternoon, today I find myself writing this post to comment on my curiosity about why Google has not yet released the code of Android 16 QPR1 to AOSP, usually they release it immediately however this time we have given a subjective response, ambiguous and subject to free interpretation: "we will release the code during the course of the next weeks" that, particularly me too strange, is like: "why this sudden change?"

wizoatk

RedDeath

Presumably it's part of the fallout and confusion from the decisions last March.

https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-development-aosp-3538503/

Google will develop the Android OS fully in private, and here's why

TL;DR

Google has confirmed to Android Authority that development of the Android operating system will soon fully happen in private.

Currently, Google shares some of the work it does on the public AOSP Gerrit, but moving forward, this work will all be done in private.

The goal for this privatization is to simplify Android OS development and not to hinder external developers, which is why Google remains committed to publishing source code to AOSP after each release.

Delaney

RedDeath
It is largely all speculation until further information comes out. I think most of these changes are choices made by the marketing team. None of the choices make sense otherwise. As for Android 16 QPR1, my guess is that the marketing team simply wants to maintain exclusivity of the Material 3 Expressive overhaul for as long as they can.

RedDeath this time we have given a subjective response, ambiguous and subject to free interpretation: "we will release the code during the course of the next weeks"

99% of the time, use of double speak is nothing but the words of marketing, so I don't bother seriously listening to what they have to say. But it does suggest that the marketing team is taking the reigns on this.
Actions speak louder than words. Most of Google's decisions have only hurt AOSP. To me, this signifies that AOSP is simply no longer Google's priority.

23Sha-ger Add to it the now unreleased Pixel device trees, many changes regarding security update timelines, upcoming changes in the verified developer enforcing for apps, and more.

The changes in security update timelines is almost certainly the choice of marketing. Making it "easier" for OEMs to update their Android security before the "public release" would only make sense if it was motivated for marketing reasons.

Regarding developer verification, I don't think this is necessarily related. Developer verification seems to be largely in response to scams and fraud activity that is particularly prevalent in certain countries.

https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/16471116

Starting in late 2026, all Android apps must be registered by verified developers in order to be installed on certified Android devices - including through Google Play - in Brazil, Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand. A global rollout will follow.

https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/08/elevating-android-security.html

This change will start in a few select countries specifically impacted by these forms of fraudulent app scams, often from repeat perpetrators.

The silver lining is that this does not impact GrapheneOS.

wuseman Why the hell are they choosing to develop it privately? What are the advantages?

If we take what Google says at face value, then it's to simplify internal development. This also hurts AOSP, but for selfish purposes, it is a reasonable choice to make.

23Sha-ger

Add to it the now unreleased Pixel device trees, many changes regarding security update timelines, upcoming changes in the verified developer enforcing for apps, and more. But what can we expect from a company who's business model is mainly selling ads and data.

ron

23Sha-ger I feel like this is a strategy to artificially increase the value of Android in case they have to sell it in case of the Anti Trust lawsuits.

wuseman

Why the hell are they choosing to develop it privately? What are the advantages?

23Sha-ger

ron
Unlikely:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/02/tech/google-antitrust-ruling-chrome-android

What is more likely is that they would want OEMs to pay for early access. Because right now every small OEM can use AOSP without any license, and money > open source.

DeletedUser481

23Sha-ger
No OEM in the west is going to do that though, because they want to sell it with GMS. Most other OEMS don't care about early access since they are always behind anyway. There has to be a different motive, or the situation has to become significantly worse for it to make sense.

untried075

I just hopped on the boat with my pixel. I hope they release the updates soon.

PjMuffin

Any update on QPR1 getting merged into AOSP?

Tandara

PjMuffin nope.. GOS will make an announcement when it comes out

alonely0

There has been some speculation that Google might start releasing Android source release in an (n-1) fashion, i.e., releasing the source code of the previous quarterly release once a new one is out. So the best guess right now is that QPR1's source will be released around the time of QPR2's launch, if at all. There have been rumors that his is to starve the hobbyist "consumers" of custom ROMs (even more) as, even if effectively a prejudice, hobbyists generally do want to stay up to date with the bleeding edge features--especially with fancy UI revamps like in QPR1. In the end, this is just a social experiment by Google to see how bad they can push the line before there is actual, widespread consumer outcry or a govt agency (aka, EU) intervenes.

GrapheneOS

alonely0 We haven't seen any evidence or indication of that.

alonely0

GrapheneOS oh, ty. Then I was misinformed.

W1zardK1ng

GrapheneOS will you be considering releasing qpr1 without the source code just like the security previews if you have access to the code via oem?

n2gwtl

GrapheneOS it's speculation. Why then have they not released it?

SaeedDev94

GrapheneOS
Well, 2 months passed and still nothing, we have some evidences now!!

23Sha-ger

W1zardK1ng
There is quite a big difference between early access to security patches via a 3d party OEM and full device trees for Pixels.
The platform VP at Google made a statement about it:
https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-qpr1-source-code-delay-3596650/

Since GrapheneOS is focused on security, it would be a waste of time to reverse engineer some cosmetic stuff that will arrive sooner or later.
Sorry to hijack the discussion but such doom questions appear here almost daily.

W1zardK1ng

23Sha-ger i was expecting an answer from the official gos team.
Google already stopped pushing device trees for pixels.
Since gos team already mentioned they are trying with the oem to see if they can push the update on time and release the code without waiting for the google to publish it to aosp, there no reverse engineering required. There are not going to be any change in the code whether they get it through oem or google push it to aosp. @GrapheneOS Team correct me if im wrong.

n3t_admin

W1zardK1ng and now guess who the OEM for the Pixel phones is...

Windows11

W1zardK1ng
tangorpro-user 16 BP3A.250905.014.A1 13873969 release-keys：
https://github.com/gm-stuffs/google_tangorpro_dump
komodo-user-16-BP3A.250905.014-13873947-release-keys：
https://dumps.tadiphone.dev/dumps/google/komodo/-/tree/komodo-user-16-BP3A.250905.014-13873947-release-keys?ref_type=heads

W1zardK1ng

n3t_admin how does that even matter nowadays. Pixel were the reference devices for android but not anymore. Its just another oem making hardware like any other brand. Only thing is they have better security standards once other oems catch up its all same.

https://github.com/GrapheneOS/adevtool Exists for a reason.

Eirikr70

n3t_admin I know who it is ...

... It is Google ! ;)