Remix.run Logo
minimalist 2 days ago

Last I heard, Google discontinued publishing device trees and driver binaries for Pixel devices with their recent changes to their stewardship of the AOSP [0]. Was it something definitive or are they merely delayed? If the practice is being discontinued, what would be the reason why? Doesn't publishing these artifacts create a business case for customer demand for the Pixel devices? Or is there some cost that outweighs the benefits? Is it maintainer overhead?

I didn't bring this up when it was a news story last month because there was a lot of cynicism in the thread, but I am genuinely curious. I am really grateful for both GrapheneOS and Google for creating a phone platform that Just Works for the essential stuff and that I can reasonably recommend to non-technical people!

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44259921

strcat 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Android 16 no longer provides device trees for Pixels as part of the Android Open Source Project. It's important to note it doesn't provide those for any other devices. There are no other OEMs providing similar AOSP support. A few OEMs publish more basic device trees for older Android versions. This was Pixels losing one of their advantages compared to non-Pixels but it was never one of our hardware requirements, which are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. It isn't part of why Pixels are the only devices meeting our requirements. We're working with a major Android OEM to change that though, hopefully for 2026 or at least 2027.

GrapheneOS typically ports to new yearly Android releases in a couple days and tends to have it reach the Stable channel in under 2 weeks. We completed our initial port to Android 16 in a similar time period after the release on 2025-06-10. However, we then had to reimplement device support in a similar way to how we would support a non-Pixel device. Our initial production release based on Android 16 was published on June 30th. As usual, we had to spend around a week making a series of releases fixing regressions reported by users. It reached our Stable channel on July 8th.

Since our port to Android 16 took significantly longer than usual, we backported most of the Android 16 firmware, all of the kernel drivers and parts of the userspace device support to our now obsolete Android 15 QPR2 branch and did a few more releases based on Android 15 QPR2 where we were able to provide the full 2025-06-05 patch level which also turned out to be the full 2025-07-05 patch level due to no vulnerability fixes in the July 2025 Android Security Bulletin or Pixel Update Bulletin. This was an unusual approach and not generally a reasonable way of doing things. We were able to do it successfully.

It won't be nearly as much of an issue going forward since we dealt with building the new automation we needed. Our port to Android 16 QPR1, Android 16 QPR2, Android 16 QPR3, Android 17, etc. shouldn't be nearly as difficult and we should get back to our typical porting time for major releases.

notachatbot123 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> We're working with a major Android OEM to change that though, hopefully for 2026 or at least 2027.

Is there any chance that you fabulous guys could lobby for a smaller <5 inch phone with that OEM? (reference https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44586723)

strcat a day ago | parent | next [-]

It will start out being their regular phones with security and updates improved to meet the requirements of GrapheneOS. When we demonstrate there's a huge demand for it after the products launch, we can have more influence. Our focus would be adding some security features not available on Pixels. The current aim is preserving the security we get from Pixels, but the future goals are more ambitious.

LMYahooTFY a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Sony Xperia XZ1 Compact was the perfect size phone and I hate the world for not having successors of the same size.

johnisgood a day ago | parent [-]

The phone I am currently using has the following dimensions: 165.2 x 75.7 x 9.1 mm (6.50 x 2.98 x 0.36 in). I think it is a sweet spot for me. I would not go for larger than this.

backscratches a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Seconded! Need a smaller phone! and video out means i can make screen biggger if i want!

preisschild a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you guys all have that small pockets? I have a 6.7" Smartphone and never had an issue with its size

DanHulton a day ago | parent [-]

Oh it's not pockets. I just have tiny raccoon paws for hands.

I like being able to reach across the keyboard one-handed (to shift, etc) and I can't do that on modern, larger phones.

preisschild 5 hours ago | parent [-]

In some keyboards (like Florisboard) there are options to either left-align or right-align the keyboard, which helps you to do that, even on a big smartphone

ranguna 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Quite a lot of detail on this comment, thanks for that!

But I'm still left a bit confused about the future devices GraphaneOS will support:

Because you said discussion are being done with an OEM, will GraphaneOS switch from pixels to a different device?

You also said that not having the device tree won't be a major hurdle in building GraphaneOS for the future, does that mean we can expect the pixel 10 to have GraphaneOS or it's too early to know ?

Thanks again!

strcat a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Because you said discussion are being done with an OEM, will GraphaneOS switch from pixels to a different device?

Pixels will be supported until end-of-life. Future Pixels will be supported if they continue meeting our requirements.

> You also said that not having the device tree won't be a major hurdle in building GraphaneOS for the future, does that mean we can expect the pixel 10 to have GraphaneOS or it's too early to know ?

We expect 10th gen Pixels to meet our requirements and we should be able to add support for them. It's not going to happen in 12 to 48 hours from the official launch of the devices as we did for around the Pixel 6a and later. It will be more work. We've automated most of the device support for existing Pixels now and have removed nearly all of the Android 15 QPR2 device trees rather than manually updating them. We're continuing to automate more and will use that approach for supporting new Pixels.

The devices with an OEM partner are further in the future than the Pixel 10. We need Qualcomm's new SoC with hardware memory tagging support to launch because a flagship Snapdragon is the best fit other than the current lack of hardware memory tagging. Some things need to be addressed by the OEM including licensing extra things like Qualcomm and filling in some missing features. There needs to be a clear, workable plan for updates including Linux kernel LTS branches.

ranguna 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Makes sense, thanks for the reply!

I've never owned a pixel, but I'm planning on getting the pixel 10 so I can use the new android 16 Linux terminal with graphical support. I hope the pixel 10 will still fit your requirements and it won't be a hurdle to port GOS without the device tree. I see no other OEM supporting the level of virtualization with kvm and vergil Google is bringing to the pixels. Good luck!

mbananasynergy a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Pixel 10 will be supported by GrapheneOS provided it continues to meet our requirements - we'll know when it's out. It'll definitely take us longer than it has before.

A collaboration with an OEM doesn't mean we'll stop providing existing or future Pixels if they continue to meet our requirements.

ranguna 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Good to know. Thank you and good luck!

wishfish 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As you're working with the OEM, I hope you'll consider a model which will come with either an IPS screen or is compatible with a 3rd party IPS replacement.

I bought a Pixel 9 Pro Xl specifically to use with GrapheneOS. Unfortunately, its OLED and my eyes were incompatible. The PWM on the screen was terrible and I had to return it after some headaches.

Of course, none of that was the fault of GrapheneOS. I absolutely loved using it and think your project is vital.

spankibalt a day ago | parent | next [-]

> "As you're working with the OEM, I hope you'll consider a model which will come with either an IPS screen or is compatible with a 3rd party IPS replacement."

Ahaha, don't get your hopes up, friend. The possibility of an adequate, degoogled Android with picky requirements as GOS on good, ultramobile hardware (matte DCI-P3 IPS, 3.5 mm audio, USB-C 3.2 or better, dedicated, ideally quick-access mSD card slot, IP68 rating, good cameras, EMR pen compatibility, changeable battery, non-plastic case) is virtually nil. That would essentially be a modern hybrid between a Samsung XCover Pro 6 and one of the older Samsung Note phones, e. g. the Note 9. Days long gone... :(

backscratches a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed, pixel oled (and iphone oled) make my eyes blurry and achy and ia ssume its the pwm. ips laptop, other phones never have this effect

preisschild a day ago | parent | prev [-]

for me a non-OLED screen would be a non starter. I love reading text (white text with black background) and watching HDR videos on OLED screens

minimalist 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I suppose this means that supporting future Pixel devices will be more difficult? If someone has the ear of anyone at Google, especially someone who works with Android, please share this cause with them!

poisonborz 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The comment above was describing in great detail how this is not the case and after some initial effort should prove no difference at all.

fifteen1506 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Generic power-user here: I am going to guess without the backing of Google going forcefully open-source, "niche" hardware such as Google's Tensor will lose their attractiveness.

However one must note also that for now not even Snapdragon fulfills GOS requirements. If/when that changes, Snapdragon devices may have more open-source community momentum than Google's Tensor. Plus all the economy of scale, etc..

In terms of security, Microtek is even more far behind Snapdragon.

Again, not an Android dev here, take the text above with a grain of salt, YMMV, etc..

71bw 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is it now possible to build a custom release of graphene for any of my non-Pixel devices or will that, again, bring graphene ninjas to my abode?

ulrikrasmussen a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I am so excited about the thought of a GrapheneOS native phone!

NewJazz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I heard unsubstantiated rumors that it was somehow antitrust-related. If they are selling off their device business (again), then it makes sense that the device drivers would not be part of AOSP...

strcat 2 days ago | parent [-]

> If they are selling off their device business

Android and Chrome are potentially going to be split from Google:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-search-... (https://archive.ph/egRL4)

Pixels are no longer the Android reference devices. An Android company ending up with the OS, Google Play and Google's OEM partners wouldn't need Pixels. That's a possible reason for the change. However, the simplest explanation is that they're continuing to take cost cutting to an extreme where it negatively impacts their long term revenue far more than the money it saves. A lot of Pixels were sold due to first class support for using other operating systems including it not voiding the warranty.

ysnp a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It may be permanent and I think this was the official indirect response:

"AOSP needs a reference target that is flexible, configurable, and affordable — independent of any particular hardware, including those from Google." [0]

Emphasis on independent of any particular hardware.

Current speculation/inference suggests it is because of the antitrust case against them, preparing for the possibility that they may be divested of Android (or at least to decouple in meaningful ways [1]).

[0]: https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-356...

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-18/doj-will-...