TL;DR

  • Google has made it harder to build custom Android ROMs for Pixel phones by omitting their device trees and driver binaries from the latest AOSP release.

  • The company says this is because it’s shifting its AOSP reference target from Pixel hardware to a virtual device called “Cuttlefish” to be more neutral.

  • While Google insists AOSP isn’t going away, developers must now reverse-engineer changes, making the process for supporting Pixel devices more difficult.

  • fouc@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Long time coming, Play Integrity (or whatever’s called nowadays) restrictions have effectively killed any alternative distributions.

  • fin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Damn, I’ve just switched to Pixel 3a XL I got for $100 and then installed Evolution OS.

  • malwieder@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    That was bound to happen at some point. Buying a Google device to then “degoogle” it never sit quite right with me.

  • danzania@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    12 hours ago

    So I installed LineageOS recently. Now that I’ve transferred my passwords and account info I’m quite happy. What will happen from here? Will some apps stop working? If not, is there a problem with just continuing to use the phone as is until I need a new phone (security, eg)?

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    I am running GOS on a Pixel 7, which means I’ve had this device for ~2.5 years at this point, and back when I transitioned to this setup I was aware they were talking about being beholden to Pixels due to the hardware security module not being available on other devices.

    It has been a known issue. I understand it is a very difficult and costly undertaking to develop new hardware and new entrants would be competing against the big guys for fab space, manufacturing and assembly etc.

    We need some kind of nonprofit or independently financed group to advance this cause. Could it be FUTO, Framework, or some other company/organization like this?

    There would be market incentive to solve these problems - There has got to be a lot of demand for a neutral hardware platform that meets the hardware security module and other requirements for bootloader security, custom ROMs, etc.

  • Quik@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Now more than ever we need more work on PostmarketOS, Mobian, Gnome Mobile etc…

    Bummer that it’s still so hard to find a somewhat modern, affordable phone that is Linux compatible

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Yeah, I’d totally buy a phone running one of those provided it does all the phone things properly: SMS/MMS, reliable calls, all day battery, etc. I don’t need fancy apps, I just need a working phone.

      If I can get that, I could probably donate some time porting apps.

      • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        I really want to give furios phone a shot. It’s apparently close to supporting my carrier.

        That and a sailfish phone. The community one though didn’t support my carrier (think it’s mainly EU specced only.)

        What I find missing most of the time though is any esim support. Makes me wonder if the hardware one that you can program an esim on works.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I want a phone with only cellular data, no calling, no sms, just an open source browser capable of webasm and webrtc

        • Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          We had those, they were called Pocket PCs. I too want them back. I loved the Dell Axim x51v. A tablet does the job, but it’s the same shitty OS.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              There are some 7-8" tablets that could probably fit in a pocket, but finding the perfect mix of Linux compatibility and cell chip is going to be difficult.

              However, I see a few Linux tablets out there that have to be all runs, because Linux tablets are a pretty small niche, so it might not be that expensive to build one yourself.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I know someone at a company that built and sold a Linux phone 19 years ago.

      You’re not upset you can’t find a Linux phone: you’re upset you can’t find one anymore.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Why can’t we install it on a Samsung Galaxy A06 A065F DS ? They are like, less than 200$ new without contracts

    • metaphortune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t have any actual research, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pixel itself doesn’t really make money at all. One of those “get people hardcore into the Google ecosystem to get their money/data” things.

      • Sir Arthur V Quackington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        The absolutely criminal dark patterns that they pull on people via Google photos auto backup is insane.

        Just in my own orbit 2 of my friends wives, my parents, and my in-laws all wound up paying Google because they thought they had to or lose all their photos. We helped most of them disconnect the autobackup (that they didn’t even know was activated) and move it to offline safely. But that was the most downright evil shit Google has ever done and literally a fire in me for manipulating the elderly and less tech savvy so blatantly.

        • ᗪᗩᗰᑎ@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          devil’s avocado: this move has saved many people’s cherished photos from disappearing by having them auto save. before Google photos I’d run into cases (I used to do home IT support) where people had years of family photos disappear because they didn’t back them up properly. Having to communicate what happened was never fun.

          is Google photos perfect? No, but it’s a great solution for people who don’t want to manage their data.

          • Sir Arthur V Quackington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Yes, but that shouldn’t explicitly opt in, and they shouldn’t marry that product to Gmail and Google Drive if they are going to push it to enable by default.

            Again, it’s really insidious. They push it so aggressively I had to disable it on my personal device twice, and I can’t just not use Google Photos app because it’s tied to the camera itself on pixel phones.

            • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              I agree with you, it’s insidious.

              Given you’ve got a Pixel phone, you can save at least yourself from this problem by running Graphene or Calyx on it.

  • Feyd@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    The company says this is because it’s shifting its AOSP reference target from Pixel hardware to a virtual device called “Cuttlefish” to be more neutral.

    This actually probably make sense, but they could still be cool and have pixel drivers be open source in a different repo if that was the only reason.

  • thatradomguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    18 hours ago

    If Pine64 can spec out a reasonably decent prototype of a phone and Purism can sell theirs for 2 grand (not worth it), then somebody else can legit come out with something just the same. Pine64 project and Purism cannot be the only communities that can somehow come out with these kinds of tech. Better yet, more people should be jumping to help out these guys to be free from Google and Apple dominance.

  • roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    1 day ago

    Does this mean Graphene is dead? Probably the real reason they would do this is to kill Graphene.

    • passepartout@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      82
      ·
      1 day ago

      The GrapheneOS team is very aware of their dependence on google. They are planning to either find an OEM for their own line of hardware or a brand whose phones support their requirements other than google. That being said, it will complicate work a lot, but for now it would be to early to jump to that conclusion.

      Also, Google couldn’t care less if <1% of buyers flash a custom ROM / OS on their phone, this is about tying the android ecosystem closer to google in general. Most other big phone manufacturers know this and are trying to come up with their own solution, like Huawei had to because of the ban when the orange man has been president the first time.

      • nintendiator@feddit.cl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        or a brand whose phones support their requirements other than google.

        Wasn’t Graphene’s “selling point” for long being that nothing but Pixels can match their reqs? I don’t see why any current band would want to make it easier for them, and I also don’t see new brand significantly entering the market.

        Graphene boiled themselves in their own frogpan.

        • Noxy@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Nah, you have it backwards. GrapheneOS didn’t choose Pixels for any reason other than they’re the only acceptably secure devices out there. I can’t imagine they want this to be the case.

        • passepartout@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          1 day ago

          This is not a selling point but rather a unfortunate but comprehensible circumstance. Nexus and later Pixel phones have not been anything more than reference hardware without significant sales until the Pixel 6. Google has been a software company that has greatly benefited by android being an “open” platform you could contribute to and use their services on.

          The App / Cloud ecosystem has gained a lot of competitors, so Google is doing their best to reverse this course of action by pulling more and more functionality out of AOSP into Play services and now into Cuttlefish. We can only wait and see how other phone manufacturers react to this.

    • tisktisk@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      23 hours ago

      It certainly feels like it is judging by the general moodshifts occuring. But I’m a moron, what alternative exists for a secure phone of comparable functionality? It feels like ditching phones is the only option to some extent(for me). If stupid, isn’t the phone the most vulnerable weakpoint open to attack?