zlacker

[return to "Google Pixels are no longer the AOSP reference device"]
1. coffee+fm[view] [source] 2025-06-12 18:36:12
>>tripdo+(OP)
Judge me if you must, but the only reason I recently bought a Pixel was because of the intention on sticking GrapheneOS on it the second I got it out of the box. And it really worked great for me so far... Unless it's something to do with work, I don't (intentionally) touch anything that has to do with Google, as I dislike too many things about them.

And yes, they're not obligated to provide those binary blobs, but since they've been doing it for such a long while, not announcing it well in advance, like they do with the so many services they choose to discontinue, just adds to that list of things I dislike about them.

Yeah, yeah, it's a bit more work to publish those binaries and make sure they work. But they still kind of have to do that, for themselves. So I think it's fair to assume why they did it. Because they made a choice to take a small loss on the devices they would sell for the few GrapheneOS users, and cash in on the walled garden, data mining, ads serving, yada yada, whatever brings the extra money after the initial phone sale.

◧◩
2. bitpus+xH[view] [source] 2025-06-12 20:10:52
>>coffee+fm
> And yes, they're not obligated to provide those binary blobs, but since they've been doing it for such a long while, not announcing it well in advance, like they do with the so many services they choose to discontinue, just adds to that list of things I dislike about them.

This is such a strange position. "I rely on an undocumented behavior, and I'm upset that things changed".

If you're a software engineer, you know not to depend on these kind of things, and there's no way to expect the library / framework author to reason about how people are using it.

What if someone else came up and said I'm using Pixel as a doorstop, and now that Pixel has a camera bump, it doesnt work anymore - I hate the company. Strange indeed.

◧◩◪
3. Jeremy+KJ[view] [source] 2025-06-12 20:22:34
>>bitpus+xH
> This is such a strange position. "I rely on an undocumented behavior, and I'm upset that things changed".

Their support of Pixels with AOSP has been well documented! This has always been one of their selling points, as a sort of reference device. I've exclusively bought Pixel phones in recent years and this is one of the primary reasons.

Of course Google never made any guarantees, and a rug pull was always possible, but it's absolutely still disappointing and well worth commenting upon.

◧◩◪◨
4. bitpus+BK[view] [source] 2025-06-12 20:27:24
>>Jeremy+KJ
I dont recall Pixel device being sold saying "Buy our device and install GrapheneOS on it". I'd like to be wrong, so I'm happy to read articles if you have any.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. lipowi+D01[view] [source] 2025-06-12 22:19:37
>>bitpus+BK
Nothing I bought in the produce aisle today had instructions for use. Should I leave it to rot?

AOSP recipes themselves list reference devices and they could have updated this with their announcement in March if they didn't want external developers procuring these things as bricks for their gardens. GrapheneOS is just a community of a AOSP derivative there are any number of AOSP derived things people may have been doing with these devices.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. bitpus+u81[view] [source] 2025-06-12 23:27:00
>>lipowi+D01
I have a Macbook, and if I try to install Windows of it and fails, should I be angry with Apple? Should Apple be on the hook to make it work?

Or, how about Hackintosh (from yesteryear). Apple gave 0 support for it all those years when folks made it work, and one day it went away - and I dont remember saying Apple, please support Hackintosh.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. lipowi+t91[view] [source] 2025-06-12 23:36:41
>>bitpus+u81
Huh? Google gives everyone in the world instructions to make derivatives of AOSP and they could install them[1] on the reference devices which were all nexus/pixel. Google said nothing until they suddenly didn't deliver for those devices.

They made related announcements in March and certainly saw interpretations of their announcement by interested AOSP derivative maintainers.

That's not remotely the same as I figured how to boot X against so and so's wishes and now it stopped working.

[1] https://source.android.com/docs/setup/test/running

[go to top]