4 ms·

I honestly don't think anyone would care. They have a "leg up" for what 3 months every 3 months? Nobody buys a Pixel because of this minute software advantage.

I honestly don't think anyone would care. They have a "leg up" for what 3 months every 3 months? Nobody buys a Pixel because of this minute software advantage. Maybe get Motorola or Samsung to support security updates for six years and get back to Pixel users.

grapheneos 8d ago
Pixel 9a and earlier were officially sold as Android Open Source Project reference devices. Google made a commitment to providing 7 years of updates from launch for 8th/9th gen Pixels. Google then arbitrarily declared they were no longer AOSP reference devices with the release of Android 16 and stopped providing those updates. Many people bought Pixels due to this and it wasn't fulfilled. GrapheneOS has been able to continue support with a massive amount of work including reverse engineering, but other operating systems haven't been as successful and mostly haven't even moved to Android 17 yet or supported 10th gen Pixels. There are currently around 400k to 600k active Pixels with GrapheneOS. There have been far more than that when including the past devices our users have purchased. Pixels are a small segment of the overall market and that's substantial. If you add in people on other operating systems such as LineageOS then there are even more people using Pixels with another OS. A significant portion of people who bought Pixels did so because they were AOSP reference devices. Samsung provides 7 years of support with monthly updates for their flagship devices. Unlike the Pixel OS, Samsung ships a lot of the security preview patches early. Motorola Signature (2026) has 7 years of support. The upcoming successor to it is the first non-Pixel meeting all of the update and hardware security feature requirements for GrapheneOS. Pixel 11 currently doesn't meet our security requirements due to at least temporary lack of MTE support which may get added in Android 17 QPR2. The upcoming Motorola device is also going to be using a 6.18 kernel at launch rather than 6.12. We would have launched Pixel 11 series support already if they met our security requirements. It's likely they will down the road but it's not clear why they omitted firmware and software support for a major security feature at launch. It's the firmware part which impacts us.
- cecexacjrgec 8d ago
  > Many people bought Pixels due to this and it wasn't fulfilled. Did they though? Or is this just conjecture? Because, honestly, Pixels are not even available worldwide so a few AOSP enthusiasts dropping off and going to Graphene hardly seems concerning for the mighty G. AOSP reference was a tagline for a few nerds that still wanted the Nexus devices of yore, but it was clear from day one that Google wanted their Pixel phones to be their iPhones.
  - teekert 8d ago
    I did
    - cecexacjrgec 7d ago
      > a few AOSP enthusiasts dropping off > I did Precisely my point.
      - LoganDark 7d ago
        This is literally gaslighting; using someone's opinion as proof that nobody else holds it.
        izacus 7d ago
        No, this isn't what gaslighting is or means.
        LoganDark 7d ago
        Saying that holding a particular opinion makes you irrelevant is not gaslighting? It's not nice to respond to a frustrated developer by saying they don't exist. It feels comparable to saying someone's concerns are not real, which does amount to gaslighting to me.
        fluidcruft 7d ago
        Gaslighting is making a person question the validity of their own true memories.
- fluidcruft 8d ago
  I'm pretty sure the commitment has always been is for security updates, not for the latest OS. My first phone was a Motorola that shipped with Eclair. Froyo had already been released and Motorola had a release date for Froyo scheduled in their website. They changed their mind. I don't trust Motorola one iota. Google has never lied to me they way they Motorola has. Good luck.
  - grapheneos 7d ago
    No, there's a clear commitment to 5-7 years of major OS updates in addition to security updates. Both commitments have been broken for the Pixel 6 through Pixel 9a. Those were sold as Android Open Source Project (AOSP) reference devices but had the updates to it prematurely cut off with Android 16. Pixel 10 and later weren't sold as AOSP reference devices so there was no commitment to providing it, but that's not the case for the earlier devices.
- NetMageSCW 7d ago
  “many people”? Almost no one cared when they bought Pixel is more like it. Many people bought Pixel because they saw it in a store or online. A few people bought Pixel because it was supposed to represent the leading edge of Android and it still does. Almost no one bought Pixel for AOSP reasons or even know what AOSP is.
  - khriss 7d ago
    > Many people bought Pixel because they saw it in a store or online That's usually reserved for iPhones and Samsungs. Pixels have a tiny marketshare compared to Apple and Samsung. The GP is right when they say a significant portion of buyers bought a Pixel believing Google's claim that it was the 'purest' Android experience since it was a reference AOSP device.
teekert 8d ago
Thats a long time for a critical security patch to land (like this one [0], although it looks like it has been fixed now, at least in their alpha channel, which is annoying (not their fault) because we really need this patch). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4974151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4974151
- fluidcruft 7d ago
  That link has nothing to do with android or google or graphene or security patches whatsoever.
  - teekert 7d ago
    Oops, a 0 was dropped: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741510

grapheneos 8d ago

Pixel 9a and earlier were officially sold as Android Open Source Project reference devices. Google made a commitment to providing 7 years of updates from launch for 8th/9th gen Pixels. Google then arbitrarily declared they were no longer AOSP reference devices with the release of Android 16 and stopped providing those updates. Many people bought Pixels due to this and it wasn't fulfilled. GrapheneOS has been able to continue support with a massive amount of work including reverse engineering, but other operating systems haven't been as successful and mostly haven't even moved to Android 17 yet or supported 10th gen Pixels. There are currently around 400k to 600k active Pixels with GrapheneOS. There have been far more than that when including the past devices our users have purchased. Pixels are a small segment of the overall market and that's substantial. If you add in people on other operating systems such as LineageOS then there are even more people using Pixels with another OS. A significant portion of people who bought Pixels did so because they were AOSP reference devices. Samsung provides 7 years of support with monthly updates for their flagship devices. Unlike the Pixel OS, Samsung ships a lot of the security preview patches early. Motorola Signature (2026) has 7 years of support. The upcoming successor to it is the first non-Pixel meeting all of the update and hardware security feature requirements for GrapheneOS. Pixel 11 currently doesn't meet our security requirements due to at least temporary lack of MTE support which may get added in Android 17 QPR2. The upcoming Motorola device is also going to be using a 6.18 kernel at launch rather than 6.12. We would have launched Pixel 11 series support already if they met our security requirements. It's likely they will down the road but it's not clear why they omitted firmware and software support for a major security feature at launch. It's the firmware part which impacts us.

cecexacjrgec 8d ago
> Many people bought Pixels due to this and it wasn't fulfilled. Did they though? Or is this just conjecture? Because, honestly, Pixels are not even available worldwide so a few AOSP enthusiasts dropping off and going to Graphene hardly seems concerning for the mighty G. AOSP reference was a tagline for a few nerds that still wanted the Nexus devices of yore, but it was clear from day one that Google wanted their Pixel phones to be their iPhones.
- teekert 8d ago
  I did
  - cecexacjrgec 7d ago
    > a few AOSP enthusiasts dropping off > I did Precisely my point.
    - LoganDark 7d ago
      This is literally gaslighting; using someone's opinion as proof that nobody else holds it.
      - izacus 7d ago
        No, this isn't what gaslighting is or means.
        LoganDark 7d ago
        Saying that holding a particular opinion makes you irrelevant is not gaslighting? It's not nice to respond to a frustrated developer by saying they don't exist. It feels comparable to saying someone's concerns are not real, which does amount to gaslighting to me.
        fluidcruft 7d ago
        Gaslighting is making a person question the validity of their own true memories.
fluidcruft 8d ago
I'm pretty sure the commitment has always been is for security updates, not for the latest OS. My first phone was a Motorola that shipped with Eclair. Froyo had already been released and Motorola had a release date for Froyo scheduled in their website. They changed their mind. I don't trust Motorola one iota. Google has never lied to me they way they Motorola has. Good luck.
- grapheneos 7d ago
  No, there's a clear commitment to 5-7 years of major OS updates in addition to security updates. Both commitments have been broken for the Pixel 6 through Pixel 9a. Those were sold as Android Open Source Project (AOSP) reference devices but had the updates to it prematurely cut off with Android 16. Pixel 10 and later weren't sold as AOSP reference devices so there was no commitment to providing it, but that's not the case for the earlier devices.
NetMageSCW 7d ago
“many people”? Almost no one cared when they bought Pixel is more like it. Many people bought Pixel because they saw it in a store or online. A few people bought Pixel because it was supposed to represent the leading edge of Android and it still does. Almost no one bought Pixel for AOSP reasons or even know what AOSP is.
- khriss 7d ago
  > Many people bought Pixel because they saw it in a store or online That's usually reserved for iPhones and Samsungs. Pixels have a tiny marketshare compared to Apple and Samsung. The GP is right when they say a significant portion of buyers bought a Pixel believing Google's claim that it was the 'purest' Android experience since it was a reference AOSP device.

teekert 8d ago

Thats a long time for a critical security patch to land (like this one [0], although it looks like it has been fixed now, at least in their alpha channel, which is annoying (not their fault) because we really need this patch). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4974151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4974151

fluidcruft 7d ago
That link has nothing to do with android or google or graphene or security patches whatsoever.
- teekert 7d ago
  Oops, a 0 was dropped: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741510 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49741510