AOSP project is coming to an end(old.reddit.com)
old.reddit.com
AOSP project is coming to an end
https://old.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/comments/1l8rhon/aosp_project_is_coming_to_an_end/
134 comments
This is my biggest iPad gripe. I understand the security, but just make it a new "entitlement" that is only given to UTM, Parallels and VMWare fusion.
Or make it a "developer mode" that you can only enable if you pay $99 a year. I'd be fine with that, but the whole iPad is unusable for any kind of software development and I'd love to be able to travel with just an iPad because for everything else I do while I'm traveling (watching videos, reading, browsing, writing, drawing) the iPad is great and I don't have to lug two devices around.
It's not about security. Apple doesn't want to open on external applications, including the one run in VM/emulators, because it wants every software to pass from the AppStore. Not because security, but for the fee it has on app store purchases.
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.
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.
https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/2025/6/1.html
> 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?
> 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?
> developers did not pay any commission to Apple
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.
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.
An estimated 3M iOS developers would generate $300M developer fee revenue.
App store revenue is around $100B, or 300X estimated developer fees.
App store revenue is around $100B, or 300X estimated developer fees.
Still, "developers did not pay any commission to Apple" is wrong.
If the full sentence is referencing sales commission, then the fixed developer fee would not qualify, since it's not a percentage of revenue, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sales-c...
Sales commission is the percentage of the value of a sale that a sales associate or sales representative may earn.If it was really about security (in the sense of that which benefits the end user) they'd just stick it behind a toggle and be done with it. I just think it's important to call out the misalignment - security can refer to the interests of the end user, or alternatively to the vendor. The ambiguity is convenient for PR statements.
We’ve decades of examples of simple toggles not working. Bad actors will just explain to the target the necessity of switching it on.
By that logic the bad actor will just explain that he needs you to log into your online bank account so could you please do that and wire some money. Such scams certainly exist but it isn't a relevant attack vector for the sort of end user security that we're talking about here.
You can load your own root CA on iOS devices (i did it to enable certificates issued by my own private CA). That bypasses a LOT of security issues, and yet it’s still feasible.
Put it in the bootloader then.
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.
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.
Apple shipped hypervisor support back in iOS 16, then removed it!
https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2024/07/25/0900
https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2024/07/25/0900
This is a nice post of things that bothers me in the Apple ecosystem: arbitrary limitation after arbitrary limitation.
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.
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.
> 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.
You're underestimating the strength of the reality distortion field.
Can’t you already do that? If you pay 99/year you can sign your own apps with whatever entitlements no? You just can’t submit them to the Apple Store for obvious reasons
It was removed, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44255512
Hypervisor yeah but it’s still possible for code in debug mode - there is even an app that automates the process for you https://github.com/osy/Jitterbug (requires a paid dev account)
Thanks for the pointer. These are a bit worrying:
https://x.com/dontstealmacosy/status/1920875122690236509
https://x.com/khanhduytran0/status/1932322823336509673
https://x.com/dontstealmacosy/status/1920875122690236509
https://x.com/khanhduytran0/status/1932322823336509673
They will never allow this. They want to control and also cash in on the apps you use on these devices.
Apple wants you to buy both... $100/year may make it worth it for them.
Apple customers have bought both, even multiples of each, would be willing to pay a hefty premium (e.g. bundle hypervisor entitlement with iPad Pros that have more memory) -- but Apple continues to refuse.
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.
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.
After years of being stuck with iPhones I'm also eager to soon switch back to Android. iOS always just felt like a polished compromise. Have been a happy customer of LOS using OnePlus devices. But LOS always also seemed a little opaque and casual. Hence I set my eyes on GrapheneOS and in consequence on a device from the Pixel lineup.
In an alternate universe, trade war and rare earth minerals shortage halts manufacturing of new iPhones, operating system updates become paid products and existing iPhones must implement the secure launch protocol that Asahi Linux uses on Apple Silicon, enabling AOSP for iPhones.
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.
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.
> since Pixel is the only way to get Debian Linux ("Terminal") VM + desktop mode support
My Librem 5 also offers the desktop mode, since it just runs a desktop OS based on Debian (PureOS).
My Librem 5 also offers the desktop mode, since it just runs a desktop OS based on Debian (PureOS).
Wait what? This is a screenshot of 9 short lines of text from the Reddit image server. What is actually going on? Android source is still Apache licensed right? How are these things becoming closed source? What is happening?
Apache is not copyleft so new versions can become closed source.
The copyright holder can change the license for new versions. Copyleft does not matter.
It does when there are many copyright holders, like famously in Linux.
You're right, but I am seeing other random Reddit posts that say Google has simply changed their development workflow/branching strategy, and that the claim from the OP is inaccurate.
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.
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.
As far as I understand this only concerns Google Pixel devices, and AOSP "coming to an end" is mostly speculation. Is this going to affect other manufacturers too, e.g. the Fairphone[1]?
[1] https://www.fairphone.com
[1] https://www.fairphone.com
Fairphone should still be able to get the source for Android from Qualcomm.
How?
Looking at how it works for Wear OS. Qualcomm still only hosts the repos for the BSP and not the whole OS. It's expected to still get those from Google, from the partner portal.
> (BSP) is the layer of software containing hardware-specific boot loaders, device drivers, in sometimes operating system kernels, and other routines
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
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
You wouldn't need to touch BSPs or drivers unless you're doing bringup or updating the Android kernel for a supported device. The common approach to avoid a lot of pain whn updating Android is to simply stay on the old kernel supported by the OEM or partner.
Unless you are actually shipping a custom device running Android, there's very little reason for most developers to poke that far down the stack
This acronym is somewhat known in Android device hacking communities that try to replace Android with Linux or Windows, because these communities usually deal with understanding the bootloader and Qualcomm distributes bootloader sources from what I remember in their BSP.
How does the firmware upgrade cycle looks like? Does their secure element securely throttle pin brute force? Does their hardware offer modern memory protection?
Not true.
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."
https://x.com/seangchau/status/1933029688202703062
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."
https://x.com/seangchau/status/1933029688202703062
Ready-made AOSP device trees for Pixels, which are needed to build custom ROMs, are the ones going away. This is a blow to GrapheneOS as they have been dedicating 100% of their time to improving their ROM itself in the past few years.
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.
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.
Never mind, it seems like they're thinking of wasting their time with a custom ODM-built smartphone. I truly hope they won't choose this route. If they do someone should add "Will the GrapheneOS-Phone fail?" on Polymarket, I'll bet my parents' house on it.
The Pixel device trees going away is very disappointing, but he headline "AOSP project is coming to an end" is an exaggeration.
Reading between the lines tells me they're discontinuing Pixel AOSP support which is a pretty big blow with zero warning to those who used them as de facto reference models.
FWIW: Google says Android Open Source Project not being ‘discontinued’ amidst Pixel change impacting custom ROMs
https://9to5google.com/2025/06/12/android-open-source-projec...
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.
While the title is jumping the gun a little, it is only a matter of time until I suspect this will be real. Give it maybe 5 years Max.
That said, first rule of predictions, don't provide a time frame.
That said, first rule of predictions, don't provide a time frame.
This is my take, too. I'm surprised by all the skepticism here, it looks to me like another case of techies not being able to see the wood for the trees.
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.
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.
Correct title would be: Google is locking Google Pixel platform.
Sounds more like "Google Pixel is no longer the reference device for AOSP"
Indeed. Also remember that android supports multiple form factors and pixel at best served as. reference only for phones. Auto, watches, and tablets were ill served. Cuttlefish, the replacement, works for all form factors.
sad, was thinking to switch from iPhone to pixel 10 in few months once released exactly for the reason that is clean android and gives and escape hatch to use grapheneOS or lineageOS or calysOS. Any other android phone manufacturer that is supported by any of those projects? Most devices supported except pixel devices are few years old.
I'm moving away from Pixel Phones for my next Android. Going to switch back to Samsung. I currently have a Pixel 8 and my screen went completely green and glitchy yesterday (Google "android green screen", it's a hardware issue). It freaked me out because Im in the beginning of a long vacation with tickets held digitally in various apps and email. Thankfully I eventually figured out the solution which is ridiculous, when it happens again I just need to squeeze the bottom of my phone. My last Pixel phone just completely died on me randomly as I unplugged it from my car. And I've had previous Pixel phones just ignore calls, sending them straight to voicemail (which is a common issue if you Google that as well).
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.
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.
You need to manage your expectations with Pixel devices. They are often on sale. Buy the A series for ~$300, which is also what the Nexus phones used to be priced at. They easily last 3+ years, and if they die after that it's no big deal. Dying early, bootlooping, overheating, etc. have been a part of these devices since they have existed.
They've raised the prices so one is looking at a 1 year old a-series to pay $300. Meanwhile they are even further behind the curve hardware wise.
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.
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.
[deleted]
The worst but I’ve ever had with early Android was they never kept time properly! Set an alarm to wake you up, and when you eventually woke up, clock skew was out over an hour!
I use my monitors, TVs, PC hardware for 10 years+. Things dying after 3 years is a big fucking deal. WTF is wrong with you.
The software also used to be supported for only that long. Support cycles have been getting longer, but so has the price. Batteries also die in a few years.
There are many people who use 5 year old or older iPhones. My dad uses an iPhone 12 (2020), my mum an iPhone 11 (2019), someone else in my family still uses an XS (2018). In one of these cases a dying battery was replaced (which is still much cheaper than a new phone). They all still work very well and fast.
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.
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.
The green screen issue is covered by warranty, so get your display swapped at an official repair store. The new ones don't have the green screen issue.
Why not return your phone for warranty when its obviously broken (hardware wise)?
Fwiw, I've had a similar screen issue (turned green or magenta and glitchy, parts of the screen image disappearing, until one day it turned black) happen with two Samsung phones.
> Most devices supported except pixel devices are few years old.
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.
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.
> (Xiaomi, Motorola, OnePlus), none of which are even close to state-of-the-art hardware.
Well, Pixel is arguably pretty shitty hardware as well
Well, Pixel is arguably pretty shitty hardware as well
I truly hate how crappy their processors are, it's insane that their upcoming flagship will have the same performance as a three year old flagship.
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.
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.
The Pixel 10 ought to have a TSMC SoC (https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pixel-10-3470386)
Sadly it's also only reasonably secure Android phone :(
this is not true at all. the 1yr old OP12 has LineageOS and so does the 6 months old 13R, with support for the 13 incoming.
I see only oneplus 11 in the officially supported phones list. I'm not interested in unofficial port - in the era of SGS2 I played many custom unofficial rooms but this days I don't have time for it
I tried to switch from iPhone to Pixel and switched back. Modern Pixel is absolutely not clean android. It's a mess of misfeatures. There's no clean android. iPhone is lean and compact compared to Android. GrapheneOS is solid, but built by security freaks, so unless you're a fan of OpenBSD, it makes little sense to use it. And any custom ROM locks you out of many important apps, like banks apps, NFC payments, etc (unless you want to actively combat integrity system).
I don't see what OpenBSD has to do with it. Is this like liking reliability in a car meaning you are a Toyota fan?
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've had no trouble with banks, brokers or payment networks on GrapheneOS but I don't use crap like company-X pay wallets..
GrapheneOS is not just AOSP rebuild. They do an astonishing amount of work to harden Android. They have a lot of security and privacy-related features. They built a custom layer over Google Services to contain them.
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).
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).
It takes a lot of work for them to push google apps into its own permissions system etc, but its not like you feel that as a user..
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.)
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.)
Fairphone
GrapheneOS only supports Pixels due to their having superior security features [0]. Calyx supports Pixels as well as some newer Motos and the Fairphone 4 and 5 [1]. Lineage supports tons of devices [2].
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
[1] https://calyxos.org/docs/guide/device-support/
[2] https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/
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
[1] https://calyxos.org/docs/guide/device-support/
[2] https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/
grapheneos is still going strong
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114661914197695338
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114661914197695338
Glad to hear, that was my immediate worry upon seeing the thread.
I don't get the motivation behind this RedHatification. Hasn't Google already won in the Android space ? Nobody that matters is forking or using AOSP without Google's blessings anyway due to the stranglehold of Google Play Services. Why the sudden dick move ? I see some mention of the impending antitrust cases, but I don't quite see how that fits.
> Nobody that matters is forking or using AOSP without Google's blessings anyway due to the stranglehold of Google Play Services.
What about Amazon's tablets?
What about Amazon's tablets?
Or every Android phone sold in China
But that's China. Google isn't playing in that sandbox at all. And all this is old news. Fire tablets have existed for more than a decade, Huawei phones w/o Play for more than half a decade.
Could be they don't want devices to have latest Android before their own latest flagship devices are released. They might release the AOSP in Aug when the new Pixel hardware drops.
When you say that they dont want the latest android before their own flagship devices are released, do you mean people running AOSP before the new pixel releases with it or other phone manufacturers/carriers beating them to releasing it?
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
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
I mean xda etc making AOSP roms before Google releases its new hardware
On a tangential:
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 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").
Unfortunately the old.reddit.com frontend does not support /s/ links.
I've no idea what that even is. For me old.reddit is about accessibility while using a VPN and 18+ content (comparison of vaporizers, for example).
I don't want to have an account there, as this just lures me into using it more and engaging in pointless discussions.
I don't want to have an account there, as this just lures me into using it more and engaging in pointless discussions.
A more measured take: https://www.osnews.com/story/142553/rumour-google-intends-to...
Can you even use the Play store on AOSP? I was interested in trying it (I don't use Android currently) but from what I gathered it seemed like a bit of a fraud (on Google's part) because it was fundamentally gimped.
You can on ROMs like LineageOS. The Play Store is part of the Gapps package some users install during the installation of the system. Alternatively there is microG and the Aurora Store, so the play store itself isn't needed.
I assume that is the same situation on raw AOSP.
I assume that is the same situation on raw AOSP.
Some apps will delegate parts of itself to be downloaded from play store on demand. Meaning without play store, some apps literally won’t work because it will fail to launch the component needed to be downloaded from play store.
I’ve came across this in app when accessing some secure flows, like adding credit card numbers.
I’ve came across this in app when accessing some secure flows, like adding credit card numbers.
This only means that microG hasn't implemented the on demand feature download API for dynamic features.
It’s been a while, but is LineageOS still going strong? I’ve been thinking of switching back to non-iPhones for a while
I get the impression, yes. They still have a big list of supported devices, which means many maintainers, and they managed well to port their system to new android versions, even if a recent point release killed many devices. Have a look at https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/, or alternatively my ROM finder https://www.sustaphones.com/.
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.
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.
I really like the idea of LineageOS but got tired with fighting SafetyNet (or whatever the name is today) and playing cat and mouse game on a previous phone. I just can't have an everyday phone where 20 different things don't work. Too bad.
I read that sometimes, but it hasn't been my experience. It maybe depends on local customs. In Germany for example, even banking apps usually work with custom roms, so does the train app and so does VoLTE - and that's all I need. For everything else there is F-Droid.
AOSP does not include GMS or the Play Store.
>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.
>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'm calling it a fraud in terms of Android's initial promise to be the great "open source" OS that would free us all from vendor and telco tyranny.
As we all know, it has done nothing of the sort.
As we all know, it has done nothing of the sort.
At some point in the past you could. I used the Play Store with my Nexus One running cyanogenmodrom 15 years ago with no trouble. I haven't tried lately, but I'm planning to. Hopefully there aren't too many hoops to jump through to register an "unauthorized" device with Google.
In the same way that manufacturers can add the store ("vending") and supporting APKs to the AOSP base they're building upon
Why do pixel device trees have to be updated through different Android versions? If so the differences would be minor, right?
Android Open Source Project
No it's not, they're just not releasing sources until a new version is actually released, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
Which makes life more difficult for downstream projects. However the recent release didn't include the usual device-specific sources.
> 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/
> 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/
Once they give you the device, they're legally required to give you the source code. Most manufacturers don't, but you can sue them and win.
Most of AOSP is Apache 2.0 licensed (permissive, not copyleft)
I believe the device tree stuff is GPL due to the kernel. Might be mistaken though.
A device tree is probably counted as data, so not copyrightable. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. But there's plenty else that is GPL, and in AVM vs Sebastian Steck, it seems that even LGPLv2 requires the manufacturer to give you all the stuff you need to install a modified version of the software, i.e. it seems that all GPL licenses imply anti-tivoization.
> AVM vs Sebastian Steck
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.
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.
seems not exactly true, they did release android 16 to AOSP but "Google did not publish any device-specific source code for supported, modern Pixel devices."
https://calyxos.org/news/2025/06/11/android-16-plans/
https://calyxos.org/news/2025/06/11/android-16-plans/
The alleged claim being made is different than the previous official announcement.
The claim here is that AOSP will stop releasing sources publicly altogether similar to other versions of Android like Wear OS.
The claim here is that AOSP will stop releasing sources publicly altogether similar to other versions of Android like Wear OS.
FYI: https://source.android.com/docs/setup/about/faqs#android-lat...
> 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
> 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
Unlikely now, but the writing has been on the wall since "Android Market" became "Google Play Store" and feature after feature has slowly been migrated from AOSP to GMS over the years. The frog continues being brought to boil, and the inevitable will eventually happen.
Hypothetically, what would happen to the Android SDK and all those developer tools if Google was to go proprietary with AOSP?
One could fork AOSP, but the Android SDK is not open source, is it?
One could fork AOSP, but the Android SDK is not open source, is it?
People became lazy because of the "godsent" involvement of corporates.
This involvement was not free and not guaranteed because of their profit/power motives.
I think it is the time for the community to find innovative solutions for the community and to guarantee involvement by the community.
There are boards out there and x64/arm64 motherboards that can run AOSP.
Someone has to take the task of co-ordinating the efforts and maintain good documentation on how people can contribute, in a friendly to the community manner. I think it is possible.
This involvement was not free and not guaranteed because of their profit/power motives.
I think it is the time for the community to find innovative solutions for the community and to guarantee involvement by the community.
There are boards out there and x64/arm64 motherboards that can run AOSP.
Someone has to take the task of co-ordinating the efforts and maintain good documentation on how people can contribute, in a friendly to the community manner. I think it is possible.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bad info
From https://calyxos.org/news/2025/06/11/android-16-plans/ -
> 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.
> 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.
That's awful. I bought a pixel because the ecosystem around alternative android roms was healthy. This seems to change that.
Why can't I just get a general purpose computer in my pocket? Why is everything so hostile? I am willing to pay!
Why can't I just get a general purpose computer in my pocket? Why is everything so hostile? I am willing to pay!
With Apple's ongoing refusal to enable VM/JIT support on iOS and iPad, Google Pixel + GrapheneOS + Debian is a very competitive 2025 offering.