this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
507 points (99.4% liked)

Privacy

2779 readers
43 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
 

GrapheneOS statement on Mastodon: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114661914197695338

Calyx made an official statement on this development here: https://calyxos.org/news/2025/06/11/android-16-plans/

Concerning stuff. Hopefully a workaround or solution is found at some point, but if not, I'm already thinking of how to manage without them.

I can't see myself going back to a standard Android phone, so I suppose worse case scenario, I'd have to settle with LineageOS, or potentially abandon Android altogether and see if I can manage with discrete separate devices to fulfill the same needs, such as:

  • a pocketable mini-Linux PC like a MNT Pocket Reform, which has the ability to use cellular networks. Should be able to text, browse web, and maybe GPS? Alternatively, perhaps the Mecha Comet?
  • Small pocket-able dumb camera
  • MP3 player
  • Dumb-phone kept in a faraday bag when not in use?

EDIT:

Update on the situation from GrapheneOS in this thread (using Redlib, a proxy of Reddit)

The biggest problem for GrapheneOS is not the change to AOSP but rather our lead developer since 2022 being forcibly conscripted to fight in a war in April. That's why we've been asking for help since April.

In April, we were contacted by someone about upcoming changes to AOSP impacting us including the removal of device support in Android 16. We talked about it internally but didn't know if the information was credible. We prepared as much as we could for the Android 16 port but didn't know exactly what would happen with device support. If we had clearer information on it and knew it was accurate, we could have prepared much more in advanced.

Porting to Android 16 is required to continue shipping full Android privacy/security patches regardless of device. Only the latest stable release gets full privacy/security patches, which was the May release of Android 15 QPR2 and is not Android 16. Older releases only get backports.

Pixels also only have their driver and firmware patches for Android 16, although we're working on a release within the next 24 hours with backports of the most important firmware patches. We would normally have an experimental Android 16 release out already, if they hadn't made changes to AOSP.

There are further changes coming to AOSP. It is not only what is talked about there.

In another comment:

We're going to be continuing GrapheneOS but in the long term we'll need to shift to our own devices with an OEM partner.

It's not only Pixels which are going to be impacted. Pixels are still the only devices meeting our hardware requirements (https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices). It's clear we need our own hardware in partnership with an OEM that's serious about security and capable of delivering on it. We've had several attempts at OEM partnerships but they were unable to provide what we needed. It will cost millions of dollars to get a device meeting our basic requirements. We can do that, but we hoped for an OEM wanting to work with us instead of us needing to pay for everything through raising funds. We didn't end up finding a good OEM to work with that way so we'll do it the hard way.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 103 points 4 days ago

Google can suck my fat fucking graphenis

[–] rolling@lemmy.world 90 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I think it was optimistic to think that GrapheneOS would survive long term while the only phones they worked with was made by, you know, Google. I understand their security requirements and respect that they did not make exceptions to be able to work with other devices, but I hope they now change their approach to this considering the alternative.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 47 points 4 days ago (18 children)

Relying on Google was always ridiculous. People thought they could have their cake (a device with cutting-edge hardware) and eat it too (not be spied on for ads to support this). It was always clear that Google will eventually fight against custom OS on their phones.

[–] kassiopaea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 4 days ago (8 children)

To be fair, it's entirely reasonable to be able to expect that paying money for something should get you the thing you paid for. It's just the current dystopia that we live in where corpos can't be satisfied with anything other than the continuous extraction of money from every possible consumer.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Hopefully they can redivert their energy and skills towards supporting Linux phones to be fully free and independent of Google shenanigans.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The biggest problem for GrapheneOS is not the change to AOSP but rather our lead developer since 2022 being forcibly conscripted to fight in a war in April.

Is the lead developer ukrainian?

edit Answering my own question, yes: https://dev.ua/en/news/mobilizatsiia-v-grapheneos-1745408138

Damn.

I hope dude at least get a position building FPV drones or piloting them, and not like actually going to the front lines. Or something like building secure communication. Such knowledge to be thrown in the front line would be a waste.

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 56 points 4 days ago (5 children)

For fucks sake. Got me a pixel not even a year ago especially for Graphene -_-

[–] Boredlookingape@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago

Literally just bought a pixel 3 days ago.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I just switched phones and I specifically gave up on my wish for GrapheneOS seeing it all but married to the Pixel line. I get that Pixels were popular but this was just a terrible decision on their part given the goal of GrapheneOS overall...

Honestly, this is like rallying against Toyota by only buying Corollas

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Its not about popularity. to be frank, the performance of Pixels is mediocre at best. It is neither particularly fast, nor does it have a particularly long battery life, nor is it overly stylish.

The strength lies in the dedicated security hardware and the fact that you can re-lock the bootloader, which is extremely rare. plus 7 to 10 years support with updates.

In terms of privacy and security the combination of Pixel Hardware and GrapheneOS Software could be considered the holy grail. There is just no other hardware right now that comes even close.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago

That is, of course, until today when Google pulled the rug from under it...

As I have said, there may have been a sound technical decision back in the day but from where I see it, most people attracted to a non-google Android probably were not kin on having to buy from google anyway... like choosing to be Vegetarian but only when eating at Montana's Steak House

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

There's technical reasons Graphene went with Pixel - it's the only phone with the security hardware required for their security direction.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

I understand... but again, strategically that meant they are as free from Google as Google allows them to be (case in point)

I am not 100% knowledgeable as to the history and mission of GrapheneOS, I checked them out trying to de-google. But when I found out that I must buy a flagship Google phone to use GrapheneOS, it immediately defeated the purpose I was trying to achieve

[–] Lonewolfmcquade@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago

Yup. My pixel arrived 2 weeks ago. Just loaded Graphene last week. Haven't even put the sim card in it yet. FFS

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

...just bought the second one a month ago.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] carrylex@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Summary for people who don't like to read for 10 minutes:

Only Google Pixels are currently affected

from Calyx's post:

  • Google did not publish any device-specific source code for supported, modern Pixel devices.
  • In previous years, Google released full device trees alongside new Android versions. This allowed developers to build and boot AOSP on Pixel hardware relatively easily.
  • With Android 16, only the platform/framework code has been released. The device trees are missing, at least for now.

So let's don't panic and just wait a few days until more information is available...

[–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 32 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I'm ignorant on the matter: why is it happening? Isn't Android open source?

[–] who@feddit.org 64 points 4 days ago

The Calyx statement explains it.

Google released the Android Open Source Project code for this new version of their OS, but not device-specific code for the new Pixel models. GrapheneOS targets only Pixel devices, so they cannot continue development without access to that code, at least not as they have been so far.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 55 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Google regretting Android being open source and closing off access to the Pixel hardware source.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 16 points 4 days ago (3 children)

they saw how iphone is so walled in, and the customers none the wiser.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sturlabragason@lemmy.world 39 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Link says it: “On June 10th, Google released Android 16 to AOSP - but without Pixel device-specific source code.”

And

“Why Android 16 is different

Android 16 was released to AOSP yesterday but with a one big difference than typical releases:

Google did not publish any device-specific source code for supported, modern Pixel devices. In previous years, Google released full device trees alongside new Android versions. This allowed developers to build and boot AOSP on Pixel hardware relatively easily. With Android 16, only the platform/framework code has been released. The device trees are missing, at least for now. This means AOSP 16 cannot currently be built or run on any recent Pixel device easily just using official source.”

[–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This is such a stupid decision...

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Why? It's pretty clear that Google is mostly done with users having choices, particularly indovidual users, and all the more so on Google-branded hardware.

Manifest V3, Play Integrity, the attempt of introducing Web Integrity. How many more examples do you need to see?

This seems like a perfectly logical decision in that direction.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Which is why we need to be pushing for Linux OS for mobile & methods to get them installed.

E.g: There's no PostMarketOS g UbuntuTouch for pixel 4, 4XL & 4a

We also need apps

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Problem with phones is all the components have embedded firmwares, acting like small undocumented computers. This is a whole layer of cluster-fuckery for documenting drivers. You can check how for example the MS Surface has rather good Linux support....Except for the wencam, which has an intel module directly controlling the sensor, which is completely undocumented. Result -> ANy of these newer laptops have non-existent camera support. Imagine the same but not just the camera, but the GSM modem, the wifi, the storage adapter, NFC module, the battery...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Replacing a smartphone with hardware that fills your smartphone needs is more expensive than I'd like.

  • MNT Pocket Reform: €1,050.00, or $1,215.86
  • 2013 Sony HX50, used: $220

Over $1400 and a lot of space for devices that, together, perform roughly the same functions as a new $800 smartphone.

How do phones manage to fit such decent cameras into their tiny chassis while still keeping the price down and also being a phone? I've seen explanations about how incredibly cutting-edge tech makes it into phone cameras, but it's hard to fathom how the surveillance inside of them subsidizes the camera costs.

(Regardless, I would love recommendations for a good all-around digital camera that can actually compete with a phone's camera app: low light conditions, macro, a little zoom, gps tagging, preferably fit in your pocket. Even if it's old)

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Woah, I missed that the MNT mini laptop costs that much, that's wildly out of my budget. I think the Mecha thing is much cheaper (and a better form factor), though I'm not sure if it can use cellular networks.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

There will be many ways to get an extremely secure OS running on a mobile device. The problem is apps. Specifically, apps that are plugged into corporate clouds, i.e. an absolute ton of them.

The general problem IMO is that people are addicted to mobile computing. The tough form factor and performance specs mean that the hardware is locked down. Which puts free software at a major disadvantage.

The web platform is our last best hope. Keeping it competitive is going to be a political challenge as much as a technical one.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And apparently one of, if not the lead dev for GrapheneOS was conscripted, so they're working w/ less experienced devs to prep Android 16 w/ GrapheneOS changes.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago

Fuck Russia.

Yeah, I can see this driving more adoption of Linux phones. Ubuntu touch comes to mind. Might give it a whirl when/if /e/os runs into trouble

[–] falynns@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Global conglomerates are not your friend.

[–] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Okay, let's say GrapheneOS is dead. That was a nice 10 years, so I've not kept up to this scene.

What's the next best thing left standing? LineageOS?

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I think you're missing the point. If this is confirmed as a policy change, it's not GrapheneOS that's dead... It's the Pixel as a mod-friendly device. And of course GrapheneOS runs only on that.

So the first thing you need to ask yourself is what's the next best device. I have a Fairphone, I like it, they are extremely supportive of the community (so far as to help porting PostmarketOS on 10 years old phones). Then you decide which Android ROM is the best. CalyxOS for instance sounds pretty good.

Using a Fairphone does include a few compromises in terms of security compared to a Pixel. How important that is to you is something you'll have to decide.

For me it's pretty fine. If, like almost everyone around here, you are a human rights activist in Iran. Then maybe you should just keep running GrapheneOS on you Pixel with Android 15 for a few more years.

Hopefully within a couple years we sort this mess out, and a new reference device emerges with a hardware security features that are not too much of a step down from the Pixels.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›