Post Av4O5vdeYaDFcluDCq by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
(DIR) More posts by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
(DIR) Post #Av4G8VjEXxRgV9Ehfc by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T21:47:12Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
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.
(DIR) Post #Av4G8a0Oe5YDlXISye by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T21:48:52Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Normally, we would have announced the availability experimental releases based on Android 16 already. Unfortunately, Android 16 dropped device/hardware support from the Android Open Source Project and we're going to need to put it together ourselves without being prepared for it.
(DIR) Post #Av4G8cN9qQwj6hxfjU by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T21:52:41Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
We'll be starting from the Android 15 QPR2 device support code and stripping it down to a bare minimum. Pixel 9a is a special case and will be more work.Our hardware-based USB-C port control feature will no longer work with this approach and we need to replace half of the code.
(DIR) Post #Av4G8i5eaQVeq9omHY by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T21:56:10Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
We received early notice of Android 16 removing the device support code from AOSP but were unable to confirm it or determine the details. We have existing automated tooling for this we can significantly extend to generate what we need. It will be difficult and a major regression.
(DIR) Post #Av4G8nIxCP7T0r4yCu by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T21:59:46Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Paying an ODM to make a Snapdragon device for us is increasingly appealing. We would have all the device support code we need, could build it with compiler-based hardening and would be able to harden a lot of the device's firmware. We could also make secure element applets.
(DIR) Post #Av4G8sPsC6corlM4Bc by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T22:03:59Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
We want to be building privacy and security features. We don't want to be wasting our efforts on adding device support and other basic functionality to AOSP. It appears the only way we're going to be able to do that is paying millions of dollars to an ODM to have a proper base.
(DIR) Post #Av4G8xjYQML5MFbM3c by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T22:05:20Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
As an example of what we would be able to do even with an entirely standard reference device, we could add hardware support for our duress PIN/password feature to the secure element so that successfully exploiting the OS could not bypass it. We could do a whole lot with firmware.
(DIR) Post #Av4G93PvIGCWz6SlI8 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T22:11:58Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
Pixels meeting our requirements is why many of them were and are being purchased. We've reported MANY vulnerabilities over the years which have been fixed for Android and Pixels. We've proposed hardware, firmware and many software level security enhancements they've adopted.
(DIR) Post #Av4O5uGDgDsFLnvz2e by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T23:35:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@valpackett They can't do what we need. We've talked to other OEMs. Fairphone's devices have atrocious security and poor long term firmware/software support. They lack proper updates from the start and are missing more of our requirements than a typical Snapdragon Android device. They're further from providing what we need than most OEMs. We don't think they're capable of building what we need and they haven't shown interest. No secure element means disk encryption doesn't work for most users.
(DIR) Post #Av4O5vdeYaDFcluDCq by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T23:35:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@valpackett Our hardware requirements are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. These are not going to be greatly watered down in order to support existing devices. The only devices currently meeting these requirements are Pixels. There are OEMs like Samsung providing the security features but without proper non-stock OS support.
(DIR) Post #Av5fZQs1PSQnGTEypM by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T22:31:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
We would prefer not having to pay millions of dollars to have a phone produced for us. It's entirely doable but we would need to repeat it every few years. We'd rather work with an OEM with aligned goals and willing to provide first class GrapheneOS support to sell more devices.
(DIR) Post #Av5fZS4ovMGN0SEiPo by yoseph@mastodon.gougere.fr
2025-06-13T06:43:08Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS Have you tried to reach out to HMD (https://hmd.com) ?
(DIR) Post #Av5fZWUqUXSQiKRYXI by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-12T22:33:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Pixels have substantially benefited from meeting our requirements and having GrapheneOS available for them. We know there's a significant market for an OEM working with us to make a more secure device with hardware-based security features not available on Pixels or iPhones.
(DIR) Post #Av7WStm32OKDbqAy6C by mkljczk@pl.fediverse.pl
2025-06-14T11:59:13.129155Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yoseph @GrapheneOS would be great if they had a reasonable update policy
(DIR) Post #AvZDzBa6Xrngm5yLDM by rzeta0@mastodon.social
2025-06-13T00:39:39Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS Sorry I'm not an expert.What does dropping hardware support from AOSP mean?Does it mean google removed code that allowed AOSP to run on actual hardware by removing hardware descriptions and drivers, leaving AOSP a generic "driverless" OS?
(DIR) Post #AvZDzCQZOnlfOoWEzY by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-13T00:42:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rzeta0 They removed most of the support for Pixels and similar devices. They only kept the kernel drivers and some additional hardware-related repositories which may be considered more generic than Pixels. We finished the generic port to Android 16 and the port of the Pixel kernels to Android 16 but the rest is going to be significantly harder to build out of the Android 15 QPR2 code. It got a lot harder to support Pixels for no particular reason. Their reasoning is cutting costs even more.
(DIR) Post #AvZDzDOTo3gqOcY5NA by rzeta0@mastodon.social
2025-06-13T00:49:10Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS But google themselves must ship the code to support pixels themselves..... which suggests it isn't cost cutting but a hostile move to make AOSP less useful to 3rd parties, and to make Google's ecosystem more proprietary.Have I misunderstood something in this reasoning?
(DIR) Post #AvZDzHCDfaGABkqLom by rzeta0@mastodon.social
2025-06-13T00:50:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS I'm still on the pixel4a grapheneOs and have been saving up for a supported device. I'll hold off for now until there's more certainty.