I'm so glad GrapheneOS is willing and able to pick up the pieces and polish Android into a usable product as Google continues to drive its clunker into the ground. The only question is if GOS can rescue Android before Google sends it off a cliff.
Usually I am the one making fun of people who have been claiming that "the new update made everything buggy and slow and reduced battery life" with every update for the past 15 years, but this time this one's actually real and hitting my base Pixel 8 hard. Hopefully the October update fixes it.
In the meanwhile you can try this temporary fix: Go to Developer Options->Apps>Background Process Limit and change the limit from Standard to "at most 4processes" [1]
I had assumed this was just Google effectively "ending support" for my 9a by forcing some AI thing into my lowish RAM. I can't believe even the latest Pixel users are having this problem since I thought they actually QA those.
Sorry but at this point, for me it is shame on every Googler for continuing at a company that has absolutely no interest in user experience anymore. It's on you, directly or indirectly.
The linked post seems to say that Pixel 11 hasn’t received QPR1 so far and might not have this bug?
Pixel 11 series received a bug fix release near the start of September 2026 with the 2026-09-01 patch level. That update wasn't Android 17 QPR1 and also doesn't include the September 2026 Pixel firmware/driver security patches. Perhaps they noticed this issue and cancelled it.
I'll be interested to see if downstreams of AOSP ultimately weaponize updates against Google. For the kernel that's a minefield but Google made plenty of stuff Apache/MIT to keep its options open..
As a custom ROM maintainer in that position, it's unlikely to cause a difference since Google has effectively monopolized their Play Integrity API for attestation. Even Graphene itself runs into this roadblock, and why in the current day it's still a minority user group using it or other ROMs
It's a post about google screwing up their process and also pushing a bad update to a ton of people, and other people cleaning up their mess. I'm glad "open source is working" but that's a small part of the picture and I don't see why that would remove the point of the blog post.
Software bugs happen. That's a given. If GOS thinks they are above bugs, they are a) either not doing anything significant b) lying.
Am I surprised that a bug happened in Pixel? Sure. Is there a cause to call for better processes? Yes. But saying "well well well, I fixed the bug" just comes across very amateur.
It's concerning to hear about the disarray within the internal workings of Android, they've spoken quite a lot about this recently such as getting access to the code and having to make manual requests.
I'm curious if there's any back up plan to an operating system used by billions. One would think, and hope, the EU would have an alternative ready to go at a moment's notice. Android is literally too big to fail, but I doubt the EU would be ready even though you could consider the failing of Android a national security emergency.
I would like to know more about what's going on at Google that are causing these issues.
I read a lot of comments like this, saying "we should have an alternative". And I agree that it would be really cool, BUT:
AOSP and the Android SDK are open source. GrapheneOS is exactly an alternative to Google Android. Sure, Google could shut down the Play Store (but alternative stores exist), or destroy the Play Services (but even then, there is microG).
I am happy that Google is still contributing to Android because they have a ton of money and many brilliant engineers, even though as a company it seems like it's somehow trying to burn it to the ground. But I am optimistic: it would be possible to build on top of the open source parts of Android if needed.
AOSP is open-source, but unlike Linux distros, AOSP per se doesn't really support any platform other than the Android emulator. To support real devices you need devicetree/firmware/drivers from a vendor. So it's concerning to see this move from Google, which is also the device vendor for all currently supported GrapheneOS devices.
Linux also doesn’t have device trees and firmware for most phones. E.g. many Ubuntu Touch ports just use the device tree, firmware, and kernel tree provided by the manufacturer for Android.
So from that perspective there is not really a difference between AOSP and Linux, you need support from the device vendor. But AOSP is many times more secure than the traditional Linux desktop and has many times more apps available (most of which do not require Play Integrity).
Well to support real devices you need the device manufacturer to not prevent you from supporting it. Samsung can totally make a smartphone that does not support Android today. But I'm not sure what you are trying to say with that...
> So it's concerning to see this move from Google, which is also the device vendor for all currently supported GrapheneOS devices.
It is, and the solution to that is the partnership with Motorola.
The EU Commission at least seems comfortable with requiring that everyone uses Google approved versions of Android, because it makes their authoritarian push for mandatory age verification easier to enforce.
Most national governments in the EU are probably too authoritarian technology-wise to recognize the importance of supporting a project like GrapheneOS as well.
I want GOS to succeed; I'm afraid their exceptional technical and developmental skills could be made mostly ineffective by their foot-gun conduct. Fanboys urging them on or defending everything they do are driving them toward a cliff.
GOS can just talk about the upside, their solution to this problem. That's great work. But they often choose to denigrate others, which is destructive, damages relationships (the most essential assets - especially when you have no money to offer!), and is myopic: GOS's sh-t stinks too; they f- things up too. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us.
It seems especially dangerous being entirely dependant on Google's goodwill; Google has zero need for GOS. I'd think Motorola, who now has money and reputation depending on GOS's success, would tell GOS to zip it. If I were in that industry and looking to partner, I might love GOS's technology but their behavior would be hard to overcome. For example, I love OpenBSD, but who partners with them? And OpenBSD isn't dependant on someone else.
Just zip it, be professional, focus on what you are doing and not on others. Great job on this fix!
>Just zip it, be professional, focus on what you are doing and not on others.
How do you propose they "focus on what [they're] doing and not on others" when their entire project is dependent on other's (Google's) work that directly impacts their own users? There's nothing about this blog post that is unprofessional. GrapheneOS released a patch for a rather severe performance bug, which is outside the scope of their normal work, so they provided context into why they made the decision to do so.
We can hug the engineers that have to fix this while at the same time criticizing the process that led to this.
Google has betas for QPRs and yet this was not caught. It makes you wonder if Google is dogfooding the devices themselves or at least the devices that are not the latest gen and have 16GB memory.
The other issue is that it often takes weeks or months to fix show-stopping issues. Compare to e.g. Apple who rolled out a fix for Apple Watch 12/Ultra reboots or the iPhone 18 Pro Face ID issues within a week.
There are seriously things wrong in their process if they don’t catch these bugs and/or fix them quickly. (Or the other possibility is that they are understaffed.)
Those phrases are true and they helped by making a patch, which Google will most likely end up merging. So what's your point? Should GrapheneOS blogs treat Google as if they're an individual with feelings having a bad day? The same Google that routinely and deliberately hampers the development of GrapheneOS and other similar projects?
Google pushed out bugged code ostensibly breaking millions of phones, mine included. They have the means to fix it in a short amount of time like GrapheneOS devs did, but they won't do it, so GrapheneOS took the initiative.
There are plenty of messages on this site where the GOS lead assumed the best while Google tightened the rope.. Google was never the right choice for a partner when being able to choose only one hardware vendor. Google made changes to AOSP that are basically infringement of GPL using the usual embargo security theater. GOS making some noise is good for their business since if they don't, even their existing user base will assume they will be squashed like a bug.
> But they often choose to denigrate others, which is destructive, damages relationships
It used to be like that (and to be fair, all the similar communities were contributing to the drama, not just GOS), I agree, but I genuinely feel like it has become a lot more professional lately. Like I haven't seen drama in... at least 6 months?
Now I almost exclusively see them explain their technical decisions, which is very interesting.
Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about something else. Well... yeah IMO Google deserves it as it (as a company) is predatory.
Don't get me wrong, there are brilliant engineers at Google and I'm glad they are paid to contribute to open source projects like Android. But it doesn't make Google less evil.
And criticising a company is very different from "denigrating people". I don't think that the Google entity has feelings, does it?
If you have a relationship with a business, try publicly denigrating them and see what the response is. Google the entity has a reputation, and that affects their revenue and reflects strongly on the people who work there - 'Google' means something on a resume.
Google’s relation with GrapheneOS is: make their lives harder by moving kernel trees from Git to Google Drive with a form that sometimes doesn’t get processed in weeks; block tap-to-pay and a bunch of apps with Play Integrity; closing the AOSP trees and only do major release and QPR2 drops; remove Pixel device trees etc. from AOSP even though they were sold as reference devices.
What relationship does GrapheneOS have with Google? My understanding is that they fork the open source stuff made by Google, and as a response Google (the entity) does everything they can to screw GrapheneOS.
“Denigrate” implies unfair criticism. Whether the OP is doing that is a matter of opinion, but it’s certainly possible to read it as straight criticism, i.e. not unfair and not denigrating.
> It seems especially dangerous being entirely dependant on Google's goodwill; Google has zero need for GOS.
Google's justification for Android over Apple is it being open source and attracting this crowd and people they recommend it to. They have a very strong need for it or they would have stopped contributing years ago.
> GOS can just talk about the upside, their solution to this problem. That's great work. But they often choose to denigrate others, which is destructive, damages relationships (the most essential assets - especially when you have no money to offer!), and is myopic: GOS's sh-t stinks too; they f- things up too.
Look up false equivalence.
GOS isn't a trillion dollar company with a massive possible budget for quality control. Google can do better and they should do better.
If Google's internal issues (or deliberate withholding of source code) is causing a small group to surpass them in product quality then that is something to talk about. Especially without the ad tracking and data collecting money Google brings in.
If it gets Google to improve AOSP then all the better.
> would tell GOS to zip it.
> Just zip it, be professional,
This is very rude-esp for a group trying to make Android better. I downvoted you.
All the justification in the world won't help GOS. Do they want to be justified or do they want GOS to succeed?
At work you can say things and say them in a manner that you think is justified, or you can behave in ways that let you keep your job. I want GOS to succeed.
wow, well said. This explains why I always felt a bit off about GOS. I'm reminded of Igalia, who does a ton of work on Safari but always comes across as professional and dependent.
There's a certain humility in how Igalia conducts business, and they contribute sooo much to the web ecosystem.
> GOS can just talk about the upside, their solution to this problem. That's great work. But they often choose to denigrate others, which is destructive, damages relationships…
Sorry, but no. This sentiment isn’t too different from politics in the US right now where the politicians that “call it like it is” are significantly more popular than the “traditional take the high road speech” candidates. It’s a lame thought process.
I appreciate GrapheneOS telling it like it is, and their language highlights the failings of Google. It’s unacceptable that the maintainer of Android/AOSP is performing like this.
> I'd think Motorola, who now has money and reputation depending on GOS's success, would tell GOS to zip it. If I were in that industry and looking to partner, I might love GOS's technology but their behavior would be hard to overcome.
This has little to no effect on Motorola. They didn’t even promote their partnership with GOS and mostly only GOS users and tech enthusiasts are even aware of this partnership. People who need / want GOS don’t care about the attitude of the developers as long as they deliver beneficial things and don’t go off the fascist/racist/socially unacceptable deep end (and even that is debatable just look at Omarchy and it’s sponsors as well as Brave). The average consumer could not care less and will continue to be unaware of GOS at best, and at worst view it as negatively as the press tries to portray it when the government tries to attack someone’s digital civil liberties.
> This sentiment isn’t too different from politics in the US right now
That's a pretty big stretch; the stakes and actors differ vastly.
> I appreciate GrapheneOS telling it like it is,
You may like it but it may hurt GOS's prospects. It deters others from working with GOS (I expect, based on common sense of the professional world), and Google has tremendous power over GOS.
Is the trade-off worth it? Is hearing what you want worth risking GOS's future, and possibly reducing its resources, distribution, and reputation?
The scrappy newcomer can say what they want - indeed, it gets attention. But once you have something worth protecting - a product and a reputation - you have competing interests: say what you want or further your product and name?
1: https://redlib.catsarch.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/1wr1767/c...
The lags are actually quite unpleasant and noticable, i wonder how it wasn't caught before the release.
Sorry but at this point, for me it is shame on every Googler for continuing at a company that has absolutely no interest in user experience anymore. It's on you, directly or indirectly.
Pixel 11 series received a bug fix release near the start of September 2026 with the 2026-09-01 patch level. That update wasn't Android 17 QPR1 and also doesn't include the September 2026 Pixel firmware/driver security patches. Perhaps they noticed this issue and cancelled it.
Am I surprised that a bug happened in Pixel? Sure. Is there a cause to call for better processes? Yes. But saying "well well well, I fixed the bug" just comes across very amateur.
The point of the post is not that grapheneos made the fix, it's that they had to.
This is such a rarity to see in today's world. I'm glad GrapheneOS is getting the support it needs. I wish that happened more often.
I'm curious if there's any back up plan to an operating system used by billions. One would think, and hope, the EU would have an alternative ready to go at a moment's notice. Android is literally too big to fail, but I doubt the EU would be ready even though you could consider the failing of Android a national security emergency.
I would like to know more about what's going on at Google that are causing these issues.
AOSP and the Android SDK are open source. GrapheneOS is exactly an alternative to Google Android. Sure, Google could shut down the Play Store (but alternative stores exist), or destroy the Play Services (but even then, there is microG).
I am happy that Google is still contributing to Android because they have a ton of money and many brilliant engineers, even though as a company it seems like it's somehow trying to burn it to the ground. But I am optimistic: it would be possible to build on top of the open source parts of Android if needed.
So from that perspective there is not really a difference between AOSP and Linux, you need support from the device vendor. But AOSP is many times more secure than the traditional Linux desktop and has many times more apps available (most of which do not require Play Integrity).
> So it's concerning to see this move from Google, which is also the device vendor for all currently supported GrapheneOS devices.
It is, and the solution to that is the partnership with Motorola.
Most national governments in the EU are probably too authoritarian technology-wise to recognize the importance of supporting a project like GrapheneOS as well.
GOS can just talk about the upside, their solution to this problem. That's great work. But they often choose to denigrate others, which is destructive, damages relationships (the most essential assets - especially when you have no money to offer!), and is myopic: GOS's sh-t stinks too; they f- things up too. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us.
It seems especially dangerous being entirely dependant on Google's goodwill; Google has zero need for GOS. I'd think Motorola, who now has money and reputation depending on GOS's success, would tell GOS to zip it. If I were in that industry and looking to partner, I might love GOS's technology but their behavior would be hard to overcome. For example, I love OpenBSD, but who partners with them? And OpenBSD isn't dependant on someone else.
Just zip it, be professional, focus on what you are doing and not on others. Great job on this fix!
How do you propose they "focus on what [they're] doing and not on others" when their entire project is dependent on other's (Google's) work that directly impacts their own users? There's nothing about this blog post that is unprofessional. GrapheneOS released a patch for a rather severe performance bug, which is outside the scope of their normal work, so they provided context into why they made the decision to do so.
The article uses phrases like "completely broken", "awful", and "<delay> wouldn't be a surprise". Which might be true but it's not helping.
Google has betas for QPRs and yet this was not caught. It makes you wonder if Google is dogfooding the devices themselves or at least the devices that are not the latest gen and have 16GB memory.
The other issue is that it often takes weeks or months to fix show-stopping issues. Compare to e.g. Apple who rolled out a fix for Apple Watch 12/Ultra reboots or the iPhone 18 Pro Face ID issues within a week.
There are seriously things wrong in their process if they don’t catch these bugs and/or fix them quickly. (Or the other possibility is that they are understaffed.)
Google pushed out bugged code ostensibly breaking millions of phones, mine included. They have the means to fix it in a short amount of time like GrapheneOS devs did, but they won't do it, so GrapheneOS took the initiative.
It used to be like that (and to be fair, all the similar communities were contributing to the drama, not just GOS), I agree, but I genuinely feel like it has become a lot more professional lately. Like I haven't seen drama in... at least 6 months?
Now I almost exclusively see them explain their technical decisions, which is very interesting.
Don't get me wrong, there are brilliant engineers at Google and I'm glad they are paid to contribute to open source projects like Android. But it doesn't make Google less evil.
And criticising a company is very different from "denigrating people". I don't think that the Google entity has feelings, does it?
> Google the entity has a reputation
Yep: "EvilCorp"
Google's justification for Android over Apple is it being open source and attracting this crowd and people they recommend it to. They have a very strong need for it or they would have stopped contributing years ago.
> GOS can just talk about the upside, their solution to this problem. That's great work. But they often choose to denigrate others, which is destructive, damages relationships (the most essential assets - especially when you have no money to offer!), and is myopic: GOS's sh-t stinks too; they f- things up too.
Look up false equivalence.
GOS isn't a trillion dollar company with a massive possible budget for quality control. Google can do better and they should do better.
If Google's internal issues (or deliberate withholding of source code) is causing a small group to surpass them in product quality then that is something to talk about. Especially without the ad tracking and data collecting money Google brings in.
If it gets Google to improve AOSP then all the better.
> would tell GOS to zip it. > Just zip it, be professional,
This is very rude-esp for a group trying to make Android better. I downvoted you.
At work you can say things and say them in a manner that you think is justified, or you can behave in ways that let you keep your job. I want GOS to succeed.
I saw nothing in the post that is even close to that.
> I want GOS to succeed.
By making poor arguments on HN and being rude to them? Sounds productive.
You think you can do better? Contribute to another/Make your own fork of Android and help the community reduce it's dependence on Google.
There's a certain humility in how Igalia conducts business, and they contribute sooo much to the web ecosystem.
Sorry, but no. This sentiment isn’t too different from politics in the US right now where the politicians that “call it like it is” are significantly more popular than the “traditional take the high road speech” candidates. It’s a lame thought process.
I appreciate GrapheneOS telling it like it is, and their language highlights the failings of Google. It’s unacceptable that the maintainer of Android/AOSP is performing like this.
> I'd think Motorola, who now has money and reputation depending on GOS's success, would tell GOS to zip it. If I were in that industry and looking to partner, I might love GOS's technology but their behavior would be hard to overcome.
This has little to no effect on Motorola. They didn’t even promote their partnership with GOS and mostly only GOS users and tech enthusiasts are even aware of this partnership. People who need / want GOS don’t care about the attitude of the developers as long as they deliver beneficial things and don’t go off the fascist/racist/socially unacceptable deep end (and even that is debatable just look at Omarchy and it’s sponsors as well as Brave). The average consumer could not care less and will continue to be unaware of GOS at best, and at worst view it as negatively as the press tries to portray it when the government tries to attack someone’s digital civil liberties.
That's a pretty big stretch; the stakes and actors differ vastly.
> I appreciate GrapheneOS telling it like it is,
You may like it but it may hurt GOS's prospects. It deters others from working with GOS (I expect, based on common sense of the professional world), and Google has tremendous power over GOS.
Is the trade-off worth it? Is hearing what you want worth risking GOS's future, and possibly reducing its resources, distribution, and reputation?
The scrappy newcomer can say what they want - indeed, it gets attention. But once you have something worth protecting - a product and a reputation - you have competing interests: say what you want or further your product and name?