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.
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.
Fam, it's 2025, the last time what you say was entirely reasonable was, what, 1986?
GOS has lots of time to - even before their very own conception - to see the writing on the wall.
Um, does the Pixel not work anymore? Did you pay for open source access of the device code?
How is that relevant? The main issue is corpos like google deliberately making it difficult for people to do things with their open-source software that they don't want them to, forcing them to rely on their approved downstream version of the software which has built-in "features" that enable them to sell your data (or use your data to sell ad placements) and squeeze more money out of the product.
The person said
what exactly did you pay for when you bought your phone is my question. The Pixel keeps working doesn't it? Did the purchase contract state that you get perpetual open source access to any further updates of the Android operating system?
I'm not saying that Google is doing anything good here. I'm just saying that the argument of "get the thing you paid for" is not applicable here. You paid for a phone, you got the phone. You can still put any software you want on it. You just don't get the newest development in an open source form, which was always just based on Google's goodwill and never part of any purchasing agreement.
You're not just paying for the hardware, you're paying for a device with certain functionality and compatibility that you expect to not lose as the result of future updates. Just because corpos think it's ok to abdicate their responsibility to the consumer by separating hardware and software in the legal contract doesn't mean that they're not violating the social contract when the device loses functionality as the result of a software change.
But that's the thing, this only affects GrapheneOS, GrapheneOS was never even implied to be supported. The Pixel default OS still works perfectly well and is getting updates and everything.
Just because most of the user base is unaffected, that means that it's okay to defy the expected convention and change something (which does still affect some of the user base) without any justification other than "because we can"?
Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing. But the original person said they paid Google for getting GrapheneOS on their Pixel and thus they should get GrapheneOS, all of which I'm saying is that they did not pay Google for that and thus this specific argument is invalid.