# AOSP isn't dead, but Google just landed a huge blow to custom ROM developers **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/aosp-isnt-dead-but-google-just-landed-a-huge-blow-to-custom-rom-developers/28274 **Category:** News **Tags:** article **Created:** 2025-06-12T12:43:52Z **Posts:** 128 ## Post 1 by @Regime6045 — 2025-06-12T12:43:52Z > **[AOSP isn't dead, but Google just landed a huge blow to custom ROM developers](https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-3566882/)** > > Google has confirmed it isn't discontinuing AOSP, but it's making a change that makes it harder for devs to build Android for Pixel phones. --- ## Post 2 by @Regime6045 — 2025-06-12T12:46:46Z Statement from GrapheneOS: [GrapheneOS: "We have early builds of GrapheneOS based on Andro…" - GrapheneOS Mastodon](https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114665558894105287) Statement from CalyxOS: [Android 16 and Pixel Support](https://calyxos.org/news/2025/06/11/android-16-plans/) It sounds like Google is doing two things - dumping the whole Android 16 code at once, making it very hard for developers to see what’s actually changed and where - not publishing any code specific for Pixel devices; the code they publish can only run in a virtual machine This means it will become much more difficult for custom ROMs to support Android 16 and to support future Pixel devices. What do you guys think will happen? And what is the best option if custom ROMs like GrapheneOS die or stop supporting new phones - switch to normal Android or iOS? Get a Fairphone? --- ## Post 3 by @anon63378630 — 2025-06-12T12:50:33Z > [@Regime6045](#): > > What do you guys think will happen? This was inevitable. > [@Regime6045](#): > > Get a Fairphone? No lmao. > [@Regime6045](#): > > switch to normal Android or iOS? I’ve been daily driving an iPhone for exactly 6 months now (yes, before I ended DivestOS), and while it has a lot of issues, it is honestly largely fine for the most part. --- ## Post 4 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-12T09:25:49Z I saw this news recently in an LTT news video and I wonder if this will present a hurdle for the GrapheneOS team > **[Exclusive: Google will develop the Android OS fully in private, and here's why](https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-development-aosp-3538503/)** > > Google has confirmed it will move development of the Android OS to behind closed doors. Here's why it's doing it. It seems portions of development of AOSP will go closed source? --- ## Post 5 by @anon63378630 — 2025-06-12T09:37:30Z > [@anon73250778](#): > > It seems portions of development of AOSP will go closed source? That is old news and was just the first nail in the coffin. The second nail was the other day when Google didn’t publish the Pixel repos for AOSP 16, and the few they did have squashed commit history. - [GrapheneOS: "Our speculation about this is that a result of Go…" - GrapheneOS Mastodon](https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114665441933500613) - [Android 16 and Pixel Support](https://calyxos.org/news/2025/06/11/android-16-plans/) see here: - [Refs - platform/frameworks/base - Git at Google](https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base/+refs) - [Refs - device/google/gs201 - Git at Google](https://android.googlesource.com/device/google/gs201/+refs) both have an Android 15 tag: android-15.0.0\_r36 but only fw/b has Android 16 tags: android-16.0.0\_r1, android-16.0.0\_r2 even the a16 factory images are already available and Google almost always publishes the sources at the same time they publish factory images: [Factory Images for Nexus and Pixel Devices  |  Google Play services  |  Google for Developers](https://developers.google.com/android/images#panther) - > 16.0.0 (BP2A.250605.031.A2, Jun 2025) - this lines up with android-16.0.0\_r1 kernel sources are now squashed: - a15 with commit history: [Log - 5a8eb10d6878d2394555c14626cdf86293afbe56 - kernel/google-modules/gpu - Git at Google](https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/google-modules/gpu/+log/5a8eb10d6878d2394555c14626cdf86293afbe56) - a16 with no commit history: [Log - 696fc0246c17ba4270c11f88ab742ad4040938de - kernel/google-modules/gpu - Git at Google](https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/google-modules/gpu/+log/696fc0246c17ba4270c11f88ab742ad4040938de) --- ## Post 6 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-12T09:44:18Z What does this ultimately mean? The GOS team are on their own? Are alt OS really eating up Google’s profits somehow? --- ## Post 7 by @anon63378630 — 2025-06-12T09:47:19Z > [@anon73250778](#): > > What does this ultimately mean? Projects will have to piece together all the non vendor/firmware device specific parts themself and it will be quite time consuming. Both GrapheneOS and CalyxOS have largely finished their ports to A16, just can’t really boot them on any of the Pixels until they do that work. > [@anon73250778](#): > > Are alt OS really eating up Google’s profits somehow? Unlikely, but Google doesn’t want Pixel’s be included in the forced split after the coming antitrust rulings. They’re trying to make them clearly distinct products. --- ## Post 8 by @user1 — 2025-06-12T10:25:24Z It seems to me an impossible task to reverse engineering all the drivers and keep up with every update. I wonder if this is the beginning of the end of GrapheneOS :disappointed_face: > **[AOSP isn't dead, but Google just landed a huge blow to custom ROM developers](https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-3566882/)** > > Google has confirmed it isn't discontinuing AOSP, but it's making a change that makes it harder for devs to build Android for Pixel phones. --- ## Post 9 by @anon39279085 — 2025-06-12T11:29:52Z GOS has said that it will be harder now rather than they will stop, which is still not any good news and Graphene isn’t alone, Calyx, Lineage etc. are suffering from this too. --- ## Post 10 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-12T13:00:48Z GrapheneOS has said that AOSP will likely need to be forked by a “consortium of organisations” [@grapheneos.org on Bluesky](https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3lrbx6k3oqk2v). They also said they will need to [re-implement the USB protection feature](https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3lrekg74mjc22). They even are considering [making their own devices](https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3lrdfk2b2qk2h), which would cost millions. This is very worrying. --- ## Post 11 by @overdrawn98901 — 2025-06-12T13:01:36Z What’s your opinion on the Librem phone? I’d imagine it’s way less secure than GOS. --- ## Post 12 by @anon63378630 — 2025-06-12T13:02:35Z > [@overdrawn98901](#): > > Librem phone big no. --- ## Post 13 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-12T13:06:40Z The founders/owners act like scammers. I have followed them previously and was hopeful for Linux on phones but all they did was tarnish the idea of a Linux phone to the general public. --- ## Post 14 by @anonfox — 2025-06-12T13:09:33Z It’s not impossible. It’s what LineageOS has been doing for years for non-Pixels. --- ## Post 15 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-12T13:09:53Z > [@Regime6045](#): > > And what is the best option if custom ROMs like GrapheneOS die or stop supporting new phones - switch to normal Android or iOS? Get a Fairphone? I really hate the iPhone and Apple but out of spite, I will pick them over Android in the future all the while maybe buying something like a PinePhone (not the pro, because somehow the battery is bad on those). The OG is much more daily driver friendly, albeit weak… like multiple generations behind weak. --- ## Post 16 by @TheDoc — 2025-06-12T13:44:47Z Kinda the same. If I get another Pixel it’ll definitely be second hand. The “secure & private phone” market share is small but at least Google cornered it without really needing to try. Now there will be many people who won’t have a use for Pixels anymore. I’m really hoping [this](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/aosp-isnt-dead-but-google-just-landed-a-huge-blow-to-custom-rom-developers/28274/10) works out. --- ## Post 17 by @KevPham — 2025-06-12T13:56:52Z Supposedly all this is because Google is trying to separate the Pixel from Android in case of a antitrust breakup by the DOJ. The idea of a nonprofit consortium developing Android sounds great…but the short-term consequences from such transition will be difficult for ROM developers. --- ## Post 18 by @Milus — 2025-06-12T14:54:22Z Nothing that is said is really practical unless concretely done. “Needs to be forked” → Ok, who will concretely do it? “Making their own device” → If they don´t have the funds now as an active project, I really doubt they will have them in the future. Plus, they attempted this in the past and didn´t work out. Very difficult situation for them and us the users. --- ## Post 19 by @mika — 2025-06-12T14:57:46Z Boy, as someone who will be in the market for a new phone next year this is quite concerning. I’ll be watching how this shakes out and I appreciate everyone’s thoughts on what the least-bad option may be if GOS gets severely hampered. --- ## Post 20 by @TheDoc — 2025-06-12T15:12:20Z GrapheneOS is a relatively small community because not everyone is obsessed with security, or they don’t want to use a Pixel, or they don’t care for the drama surrounding the project. But a consortium which seeks to develop a functional and open Android soft-fork would have much broader appeal outside just GrapheneOS, it would receive support from nearly all FOSS enthusiasts, privacy enthusiasts, and some right to repair people. If formed, it’d have a realistic shot at providing what the “Linux phones” have failed to provide in a usable and secure product. It wouldn’t be easy but I wouldn’t dismiss the idea just because GrapheneOS in particular isn’t drowning in money. --- ## Post 21 by @yes — 2025-06-12T15:16:36Z I also think that companies like Proton would be willing to donate or get involved. It seems to me that this is just the beginning, and that what we really need is a consortium to manage a fork of Android. --- ## Post 22 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-12T15:43:45Z > [@KevPham](#): > > The idea of a nonprofit consortium developing Android sounds great…but the short-term consequences from such transition will be difficult for ROM developers. For sure. And security wise, worse. Such consortium will probably be backed either by company who don’t care about security that much, or by Chinese companies who still need AOSP, so in the latter case a bit like RISC-V. But as @TheDoc said, this would likely be a soft fork, meaning they would still try to merge it every release, but could develop device trees and driver binaries. --- ## Post 23 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-12T15:49:35Z Update from them on [X](https://nitter.net/GrapheneOS/status/1933177989480456365#m) Pasting new info > We’re going to be **moving forward under the expectation that future Pixel devices may not meet the requirements to run GrapheneOS** ([grapheneos.org/faq#future-de…](https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices)) and may not support using another OS. > We spent most of May preparing for the Android 16 release. Due to our extensive preparation work, our initial port to Android 16 has been completed and is being tested in the emulator. > Due to AOSP no longer having device support, we need to build it ourselves. We can start from the Android 15 QPR2 device support, remove the outdated code and update the configurations. We have tooling to automate generating device support setups which will need major expansions. > Since **our port to Android 16 is going to be delayed by a week or more** , we’re in the process of **backporting the Android 16 firmware/drivers released on June 10 to the previous releases** --- ## Post 24 by @gregandcin — 2025-06-12T16:05:42Z I can only hope that the device tree is just delayed… the amount of apps that I have that are Android only is wild, so its gonna be hard for me to move somewhere else. Guess I better build a contingency plan --- ## Post 25 by @anon39279085 — 2025-06-12T16:09:55Z meanwhile DHL Express is consistently putting my iPhone 13 mini shipment on hold lmao. like wow. but I’ll still keep my Pixel 7 for the android side. --- ## Post 26 by @KevPham — 2025-06-12T16:16:06Z Flash forward two years from now - Privacy Guides users debate whether stock iPhone or stock Pixel is better for privacy :grimacing: Hopefully, this situation gets resolved soon. --- ## Post 27 by @any1 — 2025-06-12T16:41:04Z This is such a dumb move by Google, considering the work done by the GrapheneOS team—parts of which have been upstreamed and improved the stock OS. --- ## Post 28 by @Regime6045 — 2025-06-12T16:56:37Z Seems like they’d rather lose hardware sales\* than allow people to escape their ad/surveillance ecosystem. \*GrapheneOS apparently has 300,000 users, and there’s several other ROMs for Pixels, so let’s just guess and say at least 500,000 people have bought a Pixel for the purpose of running a custom/degoogled Android. --- ## Post 29 by @The_Centurion — 2025-06-12T22:26:02Z Very disappointing but it was only a matter of time until Google started blocking access to the Android ecosystem. This is likely one of the first steps in that direction. Hopefully the GrapheneOS team are able to make it work somehow. Not sure where others stand but if GOS went away and my choice was an android packed full of Google’s spyware or an iPhone; I’d probably go back to the iPhone. --- ## Post 30 by @M-A9NPV — 2025-06-13T01:52:27Z Damn. I guess I’ll have to be dragging my Linux laptop everywhere in the near future. If this kills GOSz I’ll go back to iOS but I won’t ever store anything on iCloud again. --- ## Post 31 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-13T02:59:28Z This is a dark future I am not prepared for… --- ## Post 32 by @mangomango — 2025-06-13T05:31:12Z Personally I think that I would keep a pixel because it may be less private than an iPhone but for the freedom of side loading apps. There are a lot of Android only apps that I like But there are alternatives on iOS for nearly all of them though. --- ## Post 33 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-13T05:39:03Z I just want to point that GrapheneOS isn’t going away any time soon, and it will likely continue to exist, so we shouldn’t assume otherwise. But development will likely slow down and/or they might discontinue support for legacy devices as they will not have time for doing the backporting (I think) on those. --- ## Post 34 by @LoSee21 — 2025-06-13T05:45:19Z > [@The_Centurion](#): > > Hopefully the GrapheneOS team are able to make it work somehow. Seems like it… > [@](#): > > Our initial port to Android 16 has been completed and can be built for the emulator from our 16 branch. All of the device-independent GrapheneOS code has been ported. There are some parts of the port which will be redone better and a lot of testing and fixing regressions to do. > **[GrapheneOS (@grapheneos.org)](https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3lrgvjlcsqs22)** > > Our initial port to Android 16 has been completed and can be built for the emulator from our 16 branch. All of the device-independent GrapheneOS code has been ported. There are some parts of the port which will be redone better and a lot of testing... And they say > [@](#): > > Pixel 9a is a special case and will be more work. If the Pixel 10 does meet our requirements, we’ll support it, but it will take significantly more time and effort to develop support for it. --- ## Post 35 by @anon51983832 — 2025-06-13T05:47:55Z I have a question: would these changes affect the development of future Android versions for the Pixel 10 and onwards, or do they affect all Pixel models? If the Pixel 8, for example, were to stay on Android 15, could it still continue receiving these versions with security patches? Or am I wrong? --- ## Post 36 by @LoSee21 — 2025-06-13T07:25:58Z > [@anon51983832](#): > > Pixel 10 Like they said yesterday > [@LoSee21](#): > > If the Pixel 10 does meet our requirements, we’ll support it In the comming month(s) everything will be more clear. Even maybe their one smartphone. --- ## Post 37 by @securitybrahh — 2025-06-13T07:50:04Z > Our speculation about this is that a result of Google losing a US antitrust case and likely losing several more soon, they’re preparing for Android and Chrome being split into separate companies. If Android gets split off, they want to retain Pixels. AOSP \<\> Pixel \<\> Chromoium - Vanadium if this is actually the case, then GOS needs to build a full SoC or RE pixel drivers, economically speaking the latter is cheaper. will Vanadium take a hit? :eyes: source code history of kernel drivers of Pixels won’t be published as per > The kernel drivers are still open source but the source code history going forward isn’t going to be published. That will make it much harder to debug issues and maintain it. The main issue is that the board configuration and userspace code is no longer being published. We’ll need to switch to prebuilt code for those parts which requires building a system for it. We will need to do more reverse engineering and a lot more work on device support. It’s entirely doable, but unexpected. --- ## Post 38 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-13T15:17:44Z > [@anon51983832](#): > > f the Pixel 8, for example, were to stay on Android 15, could it still continue receiving these versions with security patches? Or am I wrong? As I understand, already-releases devices are less affected since all the relevant frameworks were releases for A15, and therefore they can more easily make the necessary frameworks for A16, they just need to adapt it. All devices that didn’t get Android 15 frameworks, or any Android xx.0 framework for that matter, it will be far more difficult for them to have those frameworks. Note that I am using frameworks to refer to the thing Google removed for A16 (some binaries and branch trees I believe.) > [@securitybrahh](#): > > will Vanadium take a hit? :eyes: I don’t see why. * * * We will get one more Android 15 -based update, which will backport firmware and drive security patches, then it will switch to Android 16. [BlueSky](https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3lrhskjtyf22c) --- ## Post 39 by @DragonBird — 2025-06-13T17:27:50Z Man, and just as I was getting excited to try GrapheneOS. Will this affect the Pixel 9? I was planning to get that one and try GrapheneOS on it. --- ## Post 40 by @gregandcin — 2025-06-13T17:29:03Z I have a Pixel 9 with GOS, still have to wait for them to finish their porting process for Android 16. It’ll be awhile before we get that, but they are back porting some stuff to the current Android 15 builds --- ## Post 41 by @Grunge164 — 2025-06-13T21:07:30Z While we haven’t crossed the bridge of having to choose only between Stock Android vs iOS - and I really hope we will never ever have to cross that bridge - I’m curious, in the current state, why the general consensus among the community here seems to be favoring iOS more than stock Android? I read somewhere in this community how Apple also collects more data than you might actually think and their Apple Ads ecosystem is also increasingly contributing to their revenue - albeit not as big as Google one. However, to me it sounds like it’s just going to be about time before it becomes one. Not to mention, how iOS in particular just did everything they can to keep you stay in their garden. For example, the other day I had to help migrate my partner’s passwords from keychain + web browsers to Proton Pass. Good heavens… it was excruciatingly painful to do so. If iOS has a bit more “freedom” like its macOS counterpart (I’m a Mac user, just not iPhone), that would make a big difference to me, at least, from convenience perspective. EDIT: I realized my reply may veer following replies off the main topic. If anyone knows of a thread where this could convo fits better, pls let me know :smiley: --- ## Post 42 by @The_Centurion — 2025-06-13T21:31:52Z It’s been a while since I’ve delved heavily into the stock iOS vs stock Android debate (like easily 2-3 years). From what I remember, Apple is far more secure and keeps most of your data on their servers whereas Google sends the majority of the data collected to third party servers. I think the number was something like Apple only sending out about 30% of the data they collect and Google sending out something like 75%. Granted, this may have changed since I last read into this. If you had to live in a glass house, would you rather live in the one with regular glass or the one with tinted glass? I think most would pick the tinted glass because it at least creates _some_ element of privacy. That’s how the Apple vs Google debate was explained to me. Neither one is a friend to the privacy community but one is objectively worse than the other. --- ## Post 43 by @Milus — 2025-06-14T15:04:41Z I think it was Apple who had servers in China. Anyway, I would avoid puting wrong information in a privacy focused forum. Users Data is too valuable for Google (they can´t afford any data leak), to send it/sell it/ put it to/in 3rd parties. --- ## Post 44 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-14T18:34:39Z > [@Milus](#): > > I think it was Apple who had servers in China. They have, as Chinese law requires iphones bought in China store icloud backups in chinese servers. --- ## Post 45 by @anon61753997 — 2025-06-14T19:09:21Z Apple doesn’t own the whole _physical infrastructure_ of iCloud. [It relies on (rent) Amazon Web Service, Google Cloud, etc.](https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/apple-spend-least-15-billion-aws-over-five-years/) in the west. The same thing happens in China. As far as I know, the only cloud service that Apple completely owns both the hardware side and the software side is Private Cloud Compute. > [@Milus](#): > > I think it was Apple who had servers in China. Yeah. Google’s services are banned in China. Apple’s services aren’t. --- ## Post 46 by @kugina376 — 2025-06-14T23:25:23Z Maybe this is a dumb question, but do you think there’s any point in us Pixel users complaining to Google about their latest changes? Could it actually make a difference? --- ## Post 47 by @anonfox — 2025-06-14T23:35:17Z > [@Grunge164](#): > > it was excruciatingly painful to do so Safari \>\> Export \>\> Passwords --- ## Post 48 by @crossroads — 2025-06-15T05:57:07Z > [@kugina376](#): > > Maybe this is a dumb question, but do you think there’s any point in us Pixel users complaining to Google about their latest changes? Could it actually make a difference? If all GrapheneOS and custom ROM users stop buying Pixel phones, Google won’t even notice the difference in their financial reports --- ## Post 49 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-15T09:57:28Z Remember that Google doesnt really sell the Pixels _for profit_. The main profit comes from what users do in an unmodified Pixel that Google profits from: target ad experiences, analytics, selling ad spots and so on… Not supporting Alternative OSes may give Google more profit… I think we should actually _complain_ to lawmakers and politicians that Google is taking away our freedom to the things that we own and that Google should probably divest from Pixel and Android. Google Anti-trust breakup should also involve Android as well… --- ## Post 50 by @sha123 — 2025-06-15T11:28:18Z > [@anon73250778](#): > > Google Anti-trust breakup should also involve Android as well… The whole anti-trust thing is likely the reason, why this even happened in the first place. Do you really think Chromium or AOSP will be developed more open, if other big tech companies like Microsoft take over? What motivation should Google have to keep Google Pixels as open as they used to for third-party OSes, once they have to give up on Android and some other company takes over? This anti-trust process could have terrible consequences for custom OSes, Chromium forks and other projects depending on Google (e.g. Firefox). --- ## Post 51 by @dumpster — 2025-06-15T12:07:44Z In my early days of using Android, I was slow to buy in to its ecosystem, using my phone as little more than a traditional phone. I liked the promise of custom ROMs, but thought it seemed very brittle that they all were downstream of AOSP. What would happen to them if something happened to AOSP? Desktop/server linux doesn’t have this problem. When Red Hat killed CentOS development, users had their choice of CentOS forks to switch to, not to mention the world of other server linux distros. --- ## Post 52 by @anon63378630 — 2025-06-15T13:05:13Z > [@dumpster](#): > > CentOS forks to switch to this isn’t the same. they are still directly derived from the Red Hat sources. And while Red Hat contributes to many projects, many are still indepentent, and aren’t as monolithic as AOSP --- ## Post 53 by @anon80779245 — 2025-06-15T13:59:52Z > [@sha123](#): > > What motivation should Google have to keep Google Pixels as open as they used to for third-party OSes, once they have to give up on Android and some other company takes over? Even if Judge Mehta agrees with all of DOJ’s demand (unlikely), the DOJ is only asking that Android be divested **if** Google Search remains a monopoly, within 5 years I believe. So Android isn’t going to leave Google anytime soon. > [@sha123](#): > > Chromium forks and other projects depending on Google (e.g. Firefox). Disagree, but there are already threads for that. [Google must sell Chrome to end search monopoly, says US justice department](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/google-must-sell-chrome-to-end-search-monopoly-says-us-justice-department/22647) [OpenAI would buy Google’s Chrome, exec testifies at trial](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/openai-would-buy-googles-chrome-exec-testifies-at-trial/26933) > [@sha123](#): > > What motivation should Google have to keep Google Pixels as open as they used to for third-party OSes IF they lose Android, they will have every incentive to allow Pixels to leave Android for other OS to screw over the company that took control of Android (by hoping users leave and this company therefore loses market-share) --- ## Post 54 by @The_Centurion — 2025-06-16T22:31:40Z There’s a reason I prefaced my post the way I did. If you have more up to date information than what I shared, please include that so you can dispel whatever ‘wrong information’ you are claiming I am spreading. I did quick search to fact check myself on my dated information and found [this article](https://www.tomsguide.com/phones/android-vs-ios-research-reveals-phones-that-ping-foreign-servers-more) that stated the following; > Don’t let the number fool you, though. While Apple sent almost 1,000 more queries, 60% of them went directly to Apple, where they’re safer. On Android, only 24% went to [Google](https://www.tomsguide.com/tag/google), with the rest going to third-party servers worldwide. For example, the iPhone averaged one Russian server daily, and the Android phone averaged 13. For [Chinese servers](https://www.tomsguide.com/us/are-chinese-smartphones-safe,news-25624.html), the iPhone didn’t contact any, while the Android connected to five per day. --- ## Post 55 by @anon63378630 — 2025-06-16T23:48:58Z That article has nothing to do with the systems, and all to do with the shit apps that exist. --- ## Post 56 by @dumpster — 2025-06-17T06:18:04Z The method of that experiment is pretty wonky: > Ernestas Naprys of [Cybernews](https://cybernews.com/editorial/android-phone-top-apps-contact-russia-china/) performed the research by taking a brand new iPhone and [Android phone](https://www.tomsguide.com/us/best-android-phones,review-6051.html) and installing the top 100 free apps from each platform’s app store. He also created new social media accounts and authorized them in apps that would allow it. That’s like going to two different cities and sharing needles with local junkies, then ranking the cities based on which diseases you contract. --- ## Post 57 by @anonymous261 — 2025-06-19T18:05:43Z @jans23 I suspect this situation will likely put the NitroPhone and NitroTablet at risk. Has Nitrokey talked with GrapheneOS about this? Graphene has also been reaching out to different OEMs, and has even been considering making their own phones. Given the fact that Nitrokey has experience in manufacturing hardware and assembling computers, would helping Graphene make hardware be something Nitrokey could consider? --- ## Post 58 by @KevPham — 2025-06-19T18:17:47Z Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t they modifying existing Pixel devices by installing Graphene OS and removing the camera modules? Closest possible OEM might be fairphone, but they are for obvious reasons not on the list. --- ## Post 59 by @anonymous261 — 2025-06-19T18:26:04Z I know they’re not an OEM, but they still make and specialize in hardware. They are also really familiar with GrapheneOS --- ## Post 60 by @KevPham — 2025-06-19T18:34:08Z I figure a huge jump would be to transition into the smartphone market :sweat_smile: But yes, let’s hear back from Nitrokey first before further discussing this. Maybe it is a lot easier than I thought to become an OEM. --- ## Post 61 by @jans23 — 2025-06-20T09:33:33Z We are in contact with GrapheneOS about this situation. Even though we produce hardware, our company is far away from what you need by a smart phone OEM. If there would be a GrapheneOS phone in the future we will be happy to collaborate with them regarding funding, purchasing, selling… --- ## Post 62 by @dreamless8813 — 2025-06-21T05:20:04Z I know Fairphone has struggled on the software side and had less than stellar security in the past, but a Fairphone running grapheneOS might be my perfect phone. I don’t like having to pick between security and repairability so I’ve been sticking with my old iPhone 11 for now. --- ## Post 63 by @Milus — 2025-06-21T18:26:48Z So, I do have a question and I couldn´t find an answer. How are drivers update handled? Are they part of the pixel updates that are now not accessible for GrapheneOS or are they distributed directly by vendors? Because, if GrapheneOS does not have timely updates for hardware level attacks, it can no longer be the “most secure” OS on the market. --- ## Post 64 by @user1 — 2025-06-21T19:50:43Z > **[GrapheneOS (@grapheneos.org)](https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3ls4oxxneec2q)** > > Many companies and individuals are trying to mislead people about the future of GrapheneOS to promote their insecure products and services. GrapheneOS is not going anywhere. We've made it clear we're shipping Android 16 soon and that the supported... --- ## Post 65 by @null — 2025-06-23T19:34:48Z Sadly, I don’t think there are must hope for a new OEM GrapheneOS phone. There are to many risk for the OEM working with GrapheneOS especially if it is a startup. I can’t really see any OEMs who want to risk money on it. I’m not trying to make flame war, I’m just giving my 2 cents. --- ## Post 66 by @Desolate8546 — 2025-06-23T19:52:02Z There seems to be some progress in that regard: [https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114729018035689722](https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114729018035689722) --- ## Post 73 by @graym — 2025-06-24T14:34:46Z I’ll be honest here and say I’m having a struggle with this. In my scenario I was so close to making the switch to GOS. Been running both a Pixel 8a and an iPhone 13. The idea was that since my iPhone is starting to have battery issues I would not buy a new iPhone but transition to the Pixel 8a with GOS this summer. I took the red pill and went through the process of learning about iOS and Apple as a company and grew to desire wanting to be free of that ecosystem. Now I feel like the rug has been pulled out from under me by the other player on the market, Google. On the one hand, I don’t want to reward Google for doing this by running Android and now I’d be settling to stick with Apple…. The immediate thought I had was I would just pause and see how long it takes to get Android 16 running and how many issues does it have. I also understand that I could potentially use the Pixel for several years without issue. But honestly, like others have said here, I’m very concerned about the longevity of the GOS project now. My threat model does not include trying to hide from dangerous people or anything like that. I like to think I’m a regular person who just wants to be more private and not just “give away the store”. All this to say, I’m at the point now where I am entertaining the question of iOS v. Android (stock). The default position here is that iOS is the next best choice to GOS for both privacy and security. I have never used Android before I started with GOS, so I want to make sure I’m not looking at this through a biased lens. Can a case be made at all for Android as a better choice than iOS going forward (assuming a world where GOS is not a viable option)? Things that I think about when it comes to the future: with Apple you can’t repair phone, you basically rent the device (need an account that they can shut down) and only have access to what Apple allows. If we are having a conversation that is forward looking here, consider the fact that iPhone sales are flat and as a public company Apple’s shareholders demand growth. Where is that coming from? It is coming from “Services” (subscriptions and reoccurring fees) but also from…. Advertising. Add in AI that will have/has the ability to read messages (including signal messages?) and I ask the question: does it really make Apple better than Google? I’m truly looking for input here. I fear we are going to be at a point of making bad compromises and I don’t want to just fall back to my default iOS position without having at least asked the question. Furthermore, all of this has become a little bit of an obsession and can’t just keep spinning my wheels anymore. --- ## Post 74 by @KevPham — 2025-06-24T15:02:36Z > [@graym](#): > > Can a case be made at all for Android as a better choice than iOS going forward (assuming a world where GOS is not a viable option)? Let’s assume that you are comparing a stock Pixel with an iPhone. Both have the advantage of having the latest security updates compared to other OEMs. They also have similar advanced protection modes if you are a targeted individual. The only reason why you would choose the stock Pixel is more freedom over customization. You can **choose** whether to use the Play Store or not. You still have the choice of disabling many invasive Google services after tinkering with settings. However, complete degoogling is frankly difficult without the assistance of a custom ROM like Graphene OS. Choosing between a stock Pixel or an iPhone boils over to your desire for security over privacy. Security-wise, you are better off NOT installing outside apps or doing anything sensitive on both phones. OpSec/basic common sense works best in this case, and to be frank, the last thing you need to worry about is Google or Apple with state-level threat models. If you don’t think security is that much of a concern and care more about micro-managing the privacy experience of your phone, you might as well use stock Android and accept the risks behind doing so. Normally, Graphene OS can help you with both factors. But note that these conversations are merely speculation and not indicative of the project’s health. Please do not worry excessively about this issue without actual confirmation of any changes by the GOS team. Privacy Guides will make sure that an official recommendation is made in such scenerio. --- ## Post 75 by @Regime6045 — 2025-06-24T16:15:08Z > [@graym](#): > > iOS v. Android (stock) I’m going to say, if you’re willing to tinker and “resist”, and if value freedom, then it’s still Android. You can use it without a Google account, you can get all your apps from F-Droid or Github, you can block all Google connections or all connections from specific apps with an firewall-like app such as RethinkDNS, you can “debloat” and remove preinstalled packages (including Play Servics) using adb, … --- ## Post 81 by @privacyisconsent — 2025-06-25T16:47:47Z Is there a reason why Google can’t just re-publish the device trees, driver binaries etc. on a separate Google controlled site from the AOSP repository? The current speculated reason is that Google want to retain control of the Pixel line of Android phones in the event that they are divested of AOSP. So they have made Cuttlefish the ‘official’ reference device now instead. Are they worried that continuing to provide that support for the Pixel phones would harm Cuttlefish in terms of adoption? --- ## Post 82 by @mangomango — 2025-06-25T22:27:20Z > **[GrapheneOS (@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social)](https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114746156716596891)** > > @maumau@chaos.social @kkarhan@infosec.space @BryanGreyson@social.tchncs.de @fairphone@mas.to An OEM capable of providing all of our requirements in 2026 is talking to us and beginning early work on GrapheneOS support. We can't say more about it than... > An OEM capable of providing all of our requirements in 2026 is talking to us and beginning early work on GrapheneOS support. We can’t say more about it than that. They’re very capable of making a high quality and widely available device. They seem to get that there’s substantial interest in a truly highly private and secure smartphone. A lot of companies are driven off by all the products in the space supposedly providing it regardless of substance. Don’t get too excited either, I want want nobody to be disappointed later haha --- ## Post 83 by @mika — 2025-06-26T00:31:22Z Oh man, a Fairphone with Graphene would be a dream! --- ## Post 84 by @anonymous261 — 2025-06-26T01:07:55Z If you scroll to the post directly above, you can see Graphene’s opinion on this subject > Their devices don’t meet our security requirements. Fairphone 6 is not going to meet them. Other OEMs are talking to us and have more interest in providing high privacy and security devices. > /e/OS does not keep up with crucial privacy/security patches or keep important privacy/security features intact. It’s extraordinarily insecure and non-private, contrary to the marketing. Fairphone is partnered with them and shares responsibility for all of this. --- ## Post 85 by @dreamless8813 — 2025-06-26T01:56:14Z I recognize Fairphone isn’t the right OEM now but a dedicated GrapheneOS phone from them or an edition that the GrapheneOS group could sell would be awesome. I just really want a repairable phone and it seems like the kind of thing the privacy community would get behind too. Framework has said they’re not planning a phone so it seems like our best option is Fairphone. :man_shrugging: --- ## Post 86 by @anon81793608 — 2025-06-26T01:56:53Z It’d be interesting to know the financials of GrapheneOS. I’m shocked they think they can survive this and dictate terms with an OEM. Sure the userbase may be rabid but are they really sitting on that big of a pile of cash that they can keep it running? I donated maybe $200 and maybe the rest of you did too, but I don’t see how they can keep going with $600 and a team that’s getting conscripted to the army or whatever is going on over there. There must be some whale out there pumping them with XMR. --- ## Post 87 by @mangomango — 2025-06-26T05:09:56Z Vitalik Buterin and Jack Dorsey gave them great amounts of noney and some people make big donations anonimously. Thry said on Mastodon they have “a couple millions” dollars. They said a good part of it comes from the valuation of cryptos they received. --- ## Post 88 by @mika — 2025-06-26T14:31:26Z Oh damn, I misunderstood the post. Maybe someday… --- ## Post 89 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-28T13:36:17Z I bet its Samsung. But I have a feeling we will be getting the ass binned Exynos that failed to meet their flagship Galaxy phone standards. I don’t mind. I just want a decent phone with excellent security and privacy. I’m OK with not having the best camera in phone as well. This can be fixed by having a dedicated point and shoot camera. --- ## Post 90 by @anon39279085 — 2025-06-28T13:40:04Z > [@anon73250778](#): > > But I have a feeling we will be getting the ass binned Exynos that failed to meet their flagship Galaxy phone standards. there’s no such thing as “ass binned Exynos”, false. The rest good point I wouldn’t bet on Samsung but I would be pleasantly surprised if so. --- ## Post 91 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-28T13:46:14Z > [@anon39279085](#): > > there’s no such thing as “ass binned Exynos [https://xdaforums.com/t/your-exynos-chip-binning.3596434/](https://xdaforums.com/t/your-exynos-chip-binning.3596434/) You can get a very bad chip as kind of a real life RNG. This also happens in computer CPU chips. Good bins can do higher clock frequencies and are more efficient. There even was a market once for good CPUs that overclock well until both Intel and AMD pushed the limit of the chips and bins them according to performance where good bins go to their highest end and the lowest end buns go to their base models. --- ## Post 92 by @anon39279085 — 2025-06-28T14:16:01Z Silicon Lottery != Binned CPUs (see example below of binned cpus) and yes the majority will not care, only overclockers care about this kind of thing. Granted yes Exynos still doesn’t catch up to something like Qualcomm but this is not something as bad as you think it is, it’s just samsung being unable to catch up. and SoC do not have this kind of problem generally. No it does not happen to any Computer CPU, and binned ones would be in a different name (see 5600X3D(/5500X3D), 7600X3D for example, those are binned 5800X3D(/5700X3D) and 7800X3D respectively but they’re not misleading the consumer here as it is properly named). Also see i9 14900KS, Basically best silicon 14900K but guranteed --- ## Post 93 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-28T14:41:35Z > [@anon39279085](#): > > Silicon Lottery != Binned CPUs (see example below of binned cpus) and yes the majority will not care, only overclockers care about this kind of thing. I was merely speculating, with regards to binning/silicon lottery. I am thinking so because if it going to be a Samsung phone, no way will they let their prime/good chips go to us - they would rather have them be sold as top of the line Galaxies. I have a feeling that will not be getting a first class experience like we are having with Pixel devices should Samsung allow us to open their ecosystem for a specific security phone. * * * Honestly I’d wish for something like Blackberry because I kind of want a QWERTY phone. But RIM/Blackberry Limited is not the kind of company I want for any phone given their track record. * * * --- ## Post 94 by @anon39279085 — 2025-06-28T14:56:58Z very fair it could very well be like: At best we get last year exynos like 2400 or 2200 at worst we’ll just get the exynos 1000 series --- ## Post 95 by @null — 2025-06-28T16:49:38Z Does Samsung manufacturering phones for other bands? --- ## Post 96 by @LoSee21 — 2025-06-28T17:58:10Z It could also be a Nokia HMD smartphone to strengthen their brand with easy to fix smartphones, but not top notch. --- ## Post 97 by @anon39279085 — 2025-06-28T18:19:09Z what I said, wouldn’t be betting on any brand/OEM I would be very surprised if it’s Samsung but if it’s HMD instead, and they have like a HMD Fusion GOS edition or something. Then literally take my money I don’t care about saving anymore. (Considering HMD’s repairability of their phones) --- ## Post 98 by @crossroads — 2025-06-28T19:34:16Z I would be happy if that’s the case but I doubt. They were using Unisoc chips in many of their models (but SD 7s2 in Skyline), provide only 2 years of update, it’s hard to find spare parts for Fusion and Skyline, no custom ROMs since 2018, so it would be a big change. --- ## Post 99 by @anon39279085 — 2025-06-28T20:27:36Z still not betting on anything as it, ironically, can be anyone anything so I would just wait, I’m just saying if they so happen to be in some cases. In other words speculative. --- ## Post 100 by @anon73250778 — 2025-06-28T22:40:27Z I said Samsung because GOS team evaluated it and said that is was the next best thing if only the secure element was kept functioning even after the bootloader was unlocked. * * * @null AFAIK, no. But the parent company itself is not above that because Samsung also sells LCD/LED panels to other companies. --- ## Post 102 by @Milus — 2025-07-06T07:49:33Z I think it is really clear that custom RON developers work is much much harder, GrapheneOS team is still struggling to have a stable release. I am not sure how long is this sustainable. --- ## Post 103 by @TwoBibleTree — 2025-07-06T10:03:07Z Come on don’t be so negative. Even if worst case scenario google decides to stop collaborating and closes android from custom roms on pixel phones, I’m sure the GOS team would find another way to develop their OS on another type of phone. And besides, GOS is not the only one in this struggle. As I understand it, this change impacts other custom roms developers as well (Lineageos, Calyxos, …). So, they can always team-up or maybe make a contract with a company to manufacture phones that meet their requirements and “fork” android or god knows what else. I’m sure developers will find another way as usual. I mean people have been hacking the iphone for years now, to jailbreak it and to install tweaks that are forbidden by apple. I mean this is the most complicated reverse-engineering task ever and they still manage to do it very rapidly. You know I really love this community here at [privacyguides.org](http://privacyguides.org), but sometimes you guys look like the slightest obstacle, not matter how small, make you lose all your faith and trust in a product/service/project just like with the bitwarden drama. Man relax and read their post on mastodon, GOS is still here and alive and they clearly believe in their work, so be confident. I am, and I just bought a pixel phone just for GOS. --- ## Post 104 by @anon63378630 — 2025-07-06T10:42:50Z > [@Milus](#): > > GrapheneOS team is still struggling to have a stable release I’ve been running GrapheneOS 16 for a few days now, it is perfectly daily drivable. --- ## Post 105 by @landordragen — 2025-07-06T11:12:56Z And so do I. Actually I don’t even notice a difference between 15 and 16, stable wise. --- ## Post 106 by @crossroads — 2025-07-06T11:34:22Z > [@TwoBibleTree](#): > > way to develop their OS on another type of phone. And no support (apps available) from main organizations, companies, governments. Basically like linux phones today, maybe some Android emulation, so no banks, ids, payments… I mean, Microsoft couldn’t push 3rd mobile OS with their resources, so there is no way anything else would succeed. --- ## Post 107 by @anon39279085 — 2025-07-06T12:11:00Z until you use the profiles feature, it is so buggy, hopefully it is fixed in A16. Bugs I find from my years aside, indeed very daily drivable --- ## Post 109 by @anonymous370 — 2025-07-09T17:47:13Z > [@null](#): > > I’ll just drop it here Mr braxman take on it. Why do you think it is a good idea to promote their misinformation and snake-oil products? --- ## Post 110 by @null — 2025-07-09T17:59:13Z Cute that you think it is a promotion. --- ## Post 111 by @anonymous370 — 2025-07-09T18:20:50Z not even 5 minutes in and it is filled to the brim with misinformation: - “mentally unstable leader of GrapheneOS” - “negative cult he cultivates” - “instead of just changing portions of Android called the Android framework, which is typically the only thing changed by other customs roms, and this means accessing the linux layer and deeper parts of the source code” - wrong - “google could have deliberatly made this decision to cut off grapheneos and calyxos, maybe it is because of other reasons, we don’t know” - we know it is because of the antitrust - “the linux level source code in android is now inaccessible on pixels” - wrong - “the effect of this on GrapheneOS is that while it can still make changes to the open source called AOSP otherwise called the Android framework, low level device code can no longer be altered on a google pixel” - wrong - “this has so many effects including killing features such as verified boot, changing the libc libraries, or low level linux functions” - wrong, wrong and wrong --- ## Post 112 by @any1 — 2025-07-09T19:19:59Z Didn’t watch the video, but he’s probably talking nonsense trying to shill his own phone. --- ## Post 113 by @null — 2025-07-09T19:43:37Z > [@anonymous370](#): > > - “mentally unstable leader of GrapheneOS” > - “negative cult he cultivates” Ah yes two keyboard warriors at war, how cute. :sneezing_face: > [@anonymous370](#): > > “google could have deliberatly made this decision to cut off grapheneos and calyxos, maybe it is because of other reasons, we don’t know” > > - we know it is because of the antitrust Isn’t that just a theory? I haven’t seen anything official from Google? > [@any1](#): > > Didn’t watch the video, but he’s probably talking nonsense trying to shill his own phone. So true :rofl: the last part of the video is just shilling his own phone. --- ## Post 114 by @Regime6045 — 2025-07-10T13:20:53Z Good news: I got the update to Android 16 on GrapheneOS today. --- ## Post 115 by @LoSee21 — 2025-09-11T06:58:16Z Seems like a good GOS fit.. Finnish phone maker HMD Global is launching a business unit called HMD Secure to target governments and other security-critical customers, and has its first device ready to go. Its security features are said to include an anti-tamper design with intrusion detection, dual encryption support (file-based and virtual full disk encryption), secure boot, a fingerprint reader, and a screen stealth mode. HMD says it offers three tailored OS variants for its new device – Industrial, Tactical, and Secure Partner Platform, plus custom OS builds, full auditability, and remote secure management. > **[Nokia successor HMD spawns secure device biz](https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/09/hmd_ivalo_xe/)** > > : Ivalo XE handset targets governments and security critical sectors, though Qualcomm silicon keeps it tied to the US --- ## Post 116 by @Milus — 2025-09-11T09:48:15Z Seems like a GOS fit alright. Well, it seems that it will ship in Q1 2026, that´s not too far away. Wait and see! --- ## Post 117 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-11T15:31:10Z QPR1 still not release to AOSP? --- ## Post 118 by @anon63378630 — 2025-09-11T15:35:16Z Nope --- ## Post 119 by @any1 — 2025-09-11T17:16:46Z > **[Android 16 QPR1’s source code is nowhere to be found, but Google swears it’s...](https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-qpr1-source-code-delay-3596650/)** > > Google has yet to release the source code for Android 16 QPR1, sparking fears about the company's commitment to AOSP. > We reached out to Google a few days ago for comment on whether and when it plans to release the source code for Android 16 QPR1. In a statement to _Android Authority_, Google confirmed it will release the source code “in the coming weeks.” The company didn’t explain the reason for the delay or offer a more specific timeline, but its statement reassures developers that the code is coming — just later than usual. --- ## Post 120 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-12T08:55:33Z It seem obvious now that Google wants to kill “ROMs.” But they prefer doing it small step by small step. Very sad indeed. GrapheneOS might offer a closed-source channel in result. This is because Google is now also delaying security patches by 2-3 months to let OEMs time to patch. --- ## Post 121 by @Regime6045 — 2025-09-12T13:32:48Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > It seem obvious now that Google wants to kill “ROMs.” But why? It can’t be more than 1% of Android users, if even that. Just because they’re missing out on selling ads to these, they’re taking away all the openness of Android? The only advantages Android had over iOS were: - cheaper devices available - openness and the ability to sideload and tinker and degoogle and all the other stuff nerds liked Now they’re gradually taking the second one away; why wouldn’t I just get an iPhone then? --- ## Post 122 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-12T13:57:56Z Who knows why. I think it could just be that they don’t need it to be truly open-souce anymore. It was probably a great helper of adoption. Think small smartphone manufacturers : they could just launch a phone and put Android on it. No authorisation required or fee. Same for smart TVs, etc. Maybe now Android is so popular that they think they can restrict access and not huft the ecosystem. --- ## Post 123 by @any1 — 2025-09-26T13:57:38Z > [@Encounter5729](#): > > GrapheneOS might offer a closed-source channel in result. This is because Google is now also delaying security patches by 2-3 months to let OEMs time to patch. It is now available in the [new release](https://grapheneos.org/releases#2025092500) (still in alpha at the moment) to opt in to use the additional security patches from November and December. --- ## Post 124 by @Encounter5729 — 2025-09-26T14:06:35Z I am really torn about this. Great for security, but GOS proposing those release is going to validate Google delaying open-sourcing critical security patches. It feels illegal to me. Why is a company allowed to purposely not release patches that will secure millions of AOSP devices? --- ## Post 125 by @win11.shading291 — 2025-09-26T16:39:40Z Men, 2025 is exhausting in terms of privacy. It almost feel coordinated…. --- ## Post 126 by @anon57862721 — 2025-09-26T16:52:01Z It is. All governments hate GOS. Pretty sure nation states (or their intelligence services) have put pressure on Google to make this happen. --- ## Post 127 by @anon73250778 — 2025-09-27T04:03:33Z I hope not. I hope its just Google being idiotic with its antitrust and being overly protective of its Android ecosystem as it ever so slightly slips out of their control. --- ## Post 128 by @privacyisconsent — 2025-09-27T07:35:17Z I understand why speculation is rampant in this thread, but I am not sure why people believe it has anything to do with custom OS distributions or GrapheneOS. Any harms to those projects seem entirely incidental to them and I doubt they alter their business plans around that. [Blog - Divested Computing](https://divested.dev/pages/blog#2025-08-27-android-issues) from SkewedZeppelin provides a nice overview of some of the bad decisions Google are making. I honestly think the only way to know if custom Android distrubitions are in the scope of their targets is if they **remove/disable bootloader unlocking for future Pixel phones**. This hasn’t been the case for the Pixel 10 series release, so we’ll see if things change with the Pixel 10a/Pixel 11.