this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
568 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

71396 readers
4692 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
568
AOSP isn't dead, but Google just landed a huge blow to custom ROM developers (www.androidauthority.com)
submitted 2 days ago by lzfm@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

TL;DR

  • Google has made it harder to build custom Android ROMs for Pixel phones by omitting their device trees and driver binaries from the latest AOSP release.

  • The company says this is because it’s shifting its AOSP reference target from Pixel hardware to a virtual device called “Cuttlefish” to be more neutral.

  • While Google insists AOSP isn’t going away, developers must now reverse-engineer changes, making the process for supporting Pixel devices more difficult.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Feyd@programming.dev 102 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The company says this is because it’s shifting its AOSP reference target from Pixel hardware to a virtual device called “Cuttlefish” to be more neutral.

This actually probably make sense, but they could still be cool and have pixel drivers be open source in a different repo if that was the only reason.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 61 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, just that this has shit to do with the stated reasons. Google hasn't been an open source ally for quite some time now

[–] Toes@ani.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you think it may be related to the monopoly issues they are currently facing?

[–] passepartout@feddit.org 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Would be great indeed, but "more neutral" in this case seems to mean vendor agnostic by abstracting the hardware away and have anything run on a closed source google container.