AOSP Isn't Dead, But Google Just Landed a Huge Blow To Custom ROM Developers (androidauthority.com) 45
Google has removed device trees and driver binaries for Pixel phones from the Android 16 source code release, significantly complicating custom ROM development for those devices. The Android-maker intentionally omitted these resources as it shifts its Android Open Source Project reference target from Pixel hardware to a virtual device called "Cuttlefish."
The change forces custom ROM developers to reverse-engineer configurations they previously received directly from Google. Nolen Johnson from LineageOS said the process will become "painful," requiring developers to "blindly guess and reverse engineer from the prebuilt binaries what changes are needed each month." Google also squashed the Pixel kernel source code's commit history, eliminating another reference point developers used for features and security patches.
Google VP Seang Chau dismissed speculation that AOSP itself is ending, stating the project "is NOT going away." However, the changes effectively bring Pixel devices down to the same difficult development level as other Android phones.
The change forces custom ROM developers to reverse-engineer configurations they previously received directly from Google. Nolen Johnson from LineageOS said the process will become "painful," requiring developers to "blindly guess and reverse engineer from the prebuilt binaries what changes are needed each month." Google also squashed the Pixel kernel source code's commit history, eliminating another reference point developers used for features and security patches.
Google VP Seang Chau dismissed speculation that AOSP itself is ending, stating the project "is NOT going away." However, the changes effectively bring Pixel devices down to the same difficult development level as other Android phones.
Sucks for them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sucks for them (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this proves that Google's willing to take a hit to hardware sales if they can prevent people from escaping their surveillance capitalism business.
It shows where Google's profit really comes from.
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't Be Evil" - Google 30 years ago
"Be Evil" - Google now.
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't Be Evil" - Google 30 years ago
"Be Evil" - Google now.
To be fair, I would have settled for "Don't be a dick." -- which is what this is.
I like my Pixel 5a hopefully I'll still be able to switch to an already existing custom ROM with it at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
I just bought a pixel device exactly because the custom ROM communities were recommending it. This has always been one of Linux's and Linus's main justifictions for why they were right to stay away from free software puratinism and allow proprietary drivers. Hopefully this leads to a final effort to merge linux mobile back into Linux, to get stock kernels onto mobile devices and to remove Google from the ecosystem. We need a new bitkeeper moment.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd more say:
"Don't Be Evil" - Google 30 years ago
"Make Money" - Google now.
It's not evil for evil's sake, it's evil for money's sake. If they could make more money by not being evil they would.
Re:Sucks for them (Score:4, Interesting)
It's got nothing to do with that, and everything to do with them not wanting anyone else to be able to monitor their Pixel hardware development without a costly (time/resources) reverse engineering effort.
If they cared about people replacing the OS they would just lock the bootloader or withdraw AOSP completely. It doesn't make sense to just bring Pixel phones down to the same level as every other phone, when they have the power to easily go further, if that is their goal.
Re: (Score:2)
everything to do with them not wanting anyone else to be able to monitor their Pixel hardware development without a costly (time/resources) reverse engineering effort.
It's not a "costly" reverse engineering effort if you are a competing corporation. Just a small reverse engineering effort.
A company like Apple can easily spend the few pennies on that effort, and it's not even a barrier.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you genuinely believe the hit to hardware sales will be more than a rounding error?
They sell 10M a year (as of 2023, can't find an exact number for 2024). Do you think they sell 100k that would not buy it due to no AOSP support? I would guess 10k would be a stretch.
Re: (Score:2)
This will be going away, and something else is going to fill the void.
Will it though? What's the business case. It's only a small handful of customers and several players in the market already (e.g. Fairphone). It doesn't make much financial sense to invest a lot to go after so few, especially when the alternative vendor lockin approach is so lucrative with business 2 business deals.
Re: (Score:2)
something else is going to fill the void. Some smart manufacturer, if there was any, could make a move here.
Sony Xperias. Sony has several devices in an AOSP programme with step by step guides, firmware binaries, configurations repos on github https://developer.sony.com/ope... [sony.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They are/were active with Sailfish (via libhybris) too. Trouble is, I haven't seen a sony phone for a decade since they no longer have a sales or retail presence in my country/region, so I'd be relying on grey imports.
HMD would be my hope. They've committed to supporting hardware on certain models through ifixit. Committing to software would tie in.
Re: (Score:1)
So many dead Pixels on this toilet Earth.
Can pixel owners request kernel source code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wonder what would happen if a pixel owner requested the source code for the kernel from Google. Would they honor the GPL and provide all the kernel source, including their own patches, to build the exact same kernel that is shipped in their firmware?
I suspect Google would simply send him a link to the official kernel source github and conveniently ignore all the other bits they added to the kernel that absolutely have to fall under the terms of the GPL since they are distributing it in their firmware.
Android is such a disappointing wasteland full of proprietary blobs and locked boot loaders, and the alternate firmware scene is bewildering (hate how it's all done in random 50-page web forum posts), thanks to Google's unwillingness to treat Android more like the open way in which Linux distributions are developed and exist.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. I hate Apple with a passion and have never purchased an Apple product, but Google's been rising exponentially on my hate-list, so my next phone might even be an iPhone.
If I can't effectively run open-source Android on the device of my choosing, I might as well just forget about Android and go with a company that's not surveilling me constantly to feed me ads.
Re:Can pixel owners request kernel source code? (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate Apple with a passion and have never purchased an Apple product, but Google's been rising exponentially on my hate-list, so my next phone might even be an iPhone.
This is basically the tech equivalent of a Bernie supporter voting for Trump. You may be protesting that you didn't get what you wanted, but you'll end up with an end result that's objectively worse than just tolerating the enshittification of the side you are already on. If you hate Google taking away your custom ROMs, you're going to really hate Apple's walled garden and everything it entails.
Plus, you better absolutely love Liquid "ass" (see Apple's YouTube thumbnail flub if you didn't get the reference), because this fall they're cramming that UI change down everyone's throats whether they want it or not. That's probably gonna drive me back to Android, because as much as I prefer avoiding Google, I'm not willing to suffer through a miserably bad UI out of principle.
Re: (Score:1)
+1 Funny!
Re: (Score:2)
It has less to do with software or hardware quality, and more to do with Google's business model, which is to invade your privacy and surveil you.
At least Apple makes its money from hardware/software sales (and of course, fees for having your apps on the Apple store.)
I dislike them both. My favorite phone was my trusty Nokia N900, which ran Linux. But it stopped being maintained and eventually the hardware died.
If my next phone isn't an iPhone, it'll be a dumb phone or a Linux smartphone.
Re: Can pixel owners request kernel source code? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to get the next iphone mini, then they cancelled it.
Then I was going to get the next SE and then they cancelled it.
Apple was so close to having me switch.
At this point I'm going to be getting some terribly budget phone to get something not giant and it's super frustrating.
Phones are so HUGE now, but apparently that's the only thing people like.
Re: (Score:1)
Phones are so HUGE now, but apparently that's the only thing people like.
A lot of people like to be able to see what's on the screen. I know I do.
Re: (Score:1)
Some therapy might help with all that hate.
Re: Can pixel owners request kernel source code? (Score:2)
All they have to do is distribute them as binary module blobs, just like nvidia does. Nothing stops them from living in the ramfs image at rest in that form.
Re: (Score:2)
All they have to do is distribute them as binary module blobs, just like nvidia does.
That would work. The binary blobs for the drivers are what people need to build their custom ROMs.
The so-called binary blobs are what Google used to supply and no longer will supply.
This is a huge violation of the GPL and Users' basic software freedoms to ship a device users can't modify the software on. It means that the Android OS is not even open source; despite the fact that they appropriated the work of open sour
Re: (Score:2)
NVidia doesn't distribute kernels, just their blobs, so they can get away with it. When I download the driver and install it, I'm the one tainting the kernel. Google, on the other hand ships the kernel and their own drivers and blobs.
It's an open question whether Ubuntu can legally ship ZFS support since they are shipping both the GPL kernel and the incompatibly-licensed ZFS modules.
Re: (Score:2)
Just git clone it from here: https://android.googlesource.c... [googlesource.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And that creates a binary equivalent to the kernel running on my pixel that could be drop-in replacement for the stock kernel? I highly doubt it.
Google has managed to do to the GPL and open source in general what MS only dreamed about back in the Linux cancer days. What a world we live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it creates the same binary your Pixel runs. Google use a common kernel for all devices running a given version of Android. All the hardware specific stuff is loaded as modules at runtime, it's not baked into the kernel.
One of the main reasons for doing that is because then they can use an LTS kernel, and it becomes much easier to issue security patches for all Android devices. Even if the manufacturer doesn't update the kernel, mitigation can be done via modules or in userspace. Having a known, standar
Re: (Score:2)
And android still lags and has frame rate hiccups.
Re:Can pixel owners request kernel source code? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would they honor the GPL and provide all the kernel source, including their own patches, to build the exact same kernel that is shipped in their firmware?
That wouldn't get you very far at all. The actual kernel (called Android Common Kernel or ACK) isn't the issue here and is itself published fully open source. The issue is all the Android specific things bolted on top - including drivers which in Android are not really part of the kernel itself. In Android everything not required to boot the kernel and mount the files system is handed off via a "Generic Kernel Image" modules which interface with vendor specific drivers. These were not part of the kernel itself and as such there's no GPL requirement to provide the source. For Pixel devices they have historically been included in AOSP. It seems going forward this may no longer be the case.
Reverse engineer (Score:3)
Huawei and Harmony OS (Score:2)
I wonder if Huawei have any plans to open up Harmony in such a way that it can be used on other hardware platforms other than their own....
Re: (Score:3)
Do you want to be the one who audits the code for all the CCP backdoors? And even then a lot of people would probably never trust it.
GrapheneOS? (Score:1)
Pixels are not the only phone out there? (Score:2)
Are binaries used by Pixel somehow applicable to other devices? If not, then it's hardly the end if AOSP in general and Pixel ROM developers should try finding out how other devices handle the lack of binaries and learn, rather than dramatise.
Re: (Score:3)
Are binaries used by Pixel somehow applicable to other devices? If not, then it's hardly the end if AOSP in general and Pixel ROM developers should try finding out how other devices handle the lack of binaries and learn, rather than dramatise.
The driver binaries are very device specific (and is why having them in the AOSP made it easier for the Custom ROM developers to choose the Pixel as a target). Now, the Pixel's will be just like other devices, and extracting the binaries will need to follow the well known (but harder) process that the Custom ROM developers do for other devices. It is not exactly unusual for a programmer to take to complaining (and sometimes publicly on social media) when their lives get harder, but they can always choose
Sounds anti-competitive (Score:2)
Maybe a $500M fine by the EU could help out?
Good faith (Score:2)
Hey Google, since we know no one from your company reads this...
What does this mean for "mainline"? You had made various mission statements that you wanted to work directly with the Linux kernel team in upstreaming your changes and branching the Android tree off LTS releases.
So within a reasonable timeframe, maybe one or two LTS releases after launch, one should expect to build a Pixel device directly off Android sources through the source code you've already sent to Linus.
As for 'binary blobs', please work
That's the second blow (Score:2)
The first one was that they closed AOSP development and now only release sources after a release, so ROM developers can only start after the official ROM is finished.
But... (Score:2)