AOSP isn't dead, but Google just landed a huge blow to custom ROM developers
Technology
98
Beiträge
66
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
Idk man.
I love my OP12. But we're switching carriers to a Verizon MVNO which "won't work" with my OP12, so I bought a Pixel 8 Pro on sale last week and need to switch over.
I'm starting to wonder if that "it won't work" is bullshit tho...I've got a Verizon SIM in slot 2 and it works fine. Maybe I'd be missing out on 5G speeds? I got 5 bars on my tmo sim and my vz sim...but my Tmo got 1.1Gbps down, and my Vz sim only got 70Mbps.
Verizon MVNO
Christ, why?
-
Yup, the entire culture of Google has nearly changed. It used to be coder- and innovation-driven, and open-source was a natural thing to support. Make more money by growing the pie, creating markets with new tech.
Now it seems it's middle managers and MBAs calling the shots, and their strategy is generic business zero-sum mindset - lock down, restrict, extract. They still see the PR value in open-source, but that's it.
Just becoming 1990s Microsoft or 1980s IBM.
Just another example of enshittification from a publicly traded company. Nothing really new here.
-
The trap: He could stop builds for the OP7... tomorrow with zero warning.
That leads to my main takeaway for custom roms. Pick the phone with the most topics and replies on XDA. The more popular and liked, the more supported you'll be.
and never get attached to anything. Your phone miraculously has support, none are guaranteed it.
You have now anti-sold me and hyper-enlightened me with some very worthwhile wisdom. I can not say thank you enough--I truly need more like you in my life
-
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.
Like, I understand the more the merrier, and so I don't hate on the whole Pixel, ROM development thingy, but I just don't understand the appeal of Pixel phones. If you want to be a photographer, get a camera. Other than that, you really don't need that great of a camera on your phone. Given the condition of America and the police state and corporate surveillance, I don't know why anybody with a damn look of sense would put their information on these major platforms, let alone even on the outskirts. Some people make money on social media, but a lot don't. I stick to my guns and I'm on the internet and computers to learn to educate myself, not to dick around with stupid shit. We need something other than Android. And we have to be weary of open source, especially when it's sponsored by Google. Google is a terrorist organization.
-
-
Oneplus gang, how we feelin?
Have a couple OP 9pros and they'll be the last OP devices I buy.
There are severe bugs that OP never fixes and make using the phone for something like navigation unreliable. Battery life can be great one day and terrible the next when not even using the phone. Also OP sells carrier specific hardware. My TMO phones can't be used at AT&T or Verizon, severely limiting our options. My understanding is unlocked Pixel phones can be used on any carrier.
I really wanted to load Graphene, but even without it I'll consider a Pixel device.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Why eSim? Does your carrier not support physical sim?
-
This is not good, this is why I don't like permissive licenses.
Or in other words, cuck licenses.
-
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.
More like A-no-SP
-
-
Or in other words, cuck licenses.
Haha, great name, thanks for the link!
-
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.
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.
-
-
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
Why can't we install it on a Samsung Galaxy A06 A065F DS ?
They are like, less than 200$ new without contracts -
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.
I want a phone with only cellular data, no calling, no sms, just an open source browser capable of webasm and webrtc
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
-
I want a phone with only cellular data, no calling, no sms, just an open source browser capable of webasm and webrtc
Sounds like a tablet, and that very well could be easier for someone to build than a phone.
-
Why eSim? Does your carrier not support physical sim?
For traveling I find it much easier to just buy an esim
-
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.
Would fairphone be a good choice?
-
You must be ignoring the Motorola bloat that makes it's performance beyond subpar somehow
People who use stock ROMs choose to suffer, just like people who choose to buy a Pixel that will either come unglued, push components through the display, or just constantly overheat.
