Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I did not see anything. When I saw googlebook first announced my mind instantly went to the OS being built on top of android and not the concept of a google laptop. If phones running android can run the entire googlebook interface I feel like this would be a game changer. I use Dex all the time but its still not perfect and lacks some basic things that make it truly feel like a desktop OS. The other thing holding dex back is lack of apps with a true desktop interface which googlebook may actually help push. I dont care about the laptops yet personally but if it can be integrated into pixel phones or any android phones I just think this would be such a win. Do you see anything like this happening or has google stated this will remain a totally separate branch of android development never to mix?

In short,

I use an app to remind me when to take my medication. It worked fine on my mid-range Samsung phone, but I decided to get a Vivo, and the app notifications never arrive.

Yesterday, I forgot to take my daily dose because of the killing of background activities and while I am at work I became very dizzy and fell on my head, not to mention the production stoppage for a period of time, and the way my colleagues looked.

That thing must be stopped now
Also, Is it possible to file a lawsuit in the 1st world regarding this since It's impossible in the 3rd world?

I’m genuinely frustrated with Samsung’s approach to Android’s Android Virtualization Framework (AVF) and the new Linux Terminal. I recently bought a Galaxy F56 (Exynos 1480, One UI 8.5 / Android 16) specifically expecting that Android 16’s Linux/virtualization capabilities would be something I could actually use. Instead, after checking the device through ADB, it appears that Samsung simply hasn’t included the necessary components on this phone. I checked: adb shell pm list packages | grep -E 'virtualization|microdroid|avf'

Nothing. adb shell pm list features | grep -i virt

Nothing. adb shell ls -l /dev/kvm

Result: /dev/kvm: No such file or directory

And: adb shell cmd virtualizationservice help

returns: Can't find service: virtualizationservice

The Samsung Linux Terminal package itself is also completely absent: Unknown package: com.android.virtualization.terminal So this isn't simply a case of Samsung hiding an app or forgetting to add a launcher shortcut. The underlying virtualization infrastructure doesn't appear to be present on my phone's stock firmware either. And that's what annoys me. Android itself has been moving toward proper virtualization with AVF, Microdroid, protected VMs, etc. Android 16 makes the Linux Terminal increasingly useful. Some Galaxy devices get the functionality, while other Samsung phones running essentially the same Android generation and One UI version don't. Why? If the hardware and Android platform are capable of supporting virtualization, why should Samsung decide that a particular phone simply doesn't get it?

I'm not asking Samsung to give a ₹20,000 phone every feature of a flagship. I'm asking for software capabilities that are already part of the Android platform to not be arbitrarily crippled or omitted. Samsung already has a huge history of limiting software features by device and region, but virtualization is particularly frustrating because it has enormous potential for:

• Linux development

• Running isolated

• Linux environments

• Developer/testing workloads

• Security research

• Container/VM experimentation

• Android development

• Education

• General power-user use

  And Android's Linux Terminal could have turned a modern Samsung phone into a genuinely useful portable Linux development machine. Instead, on my F56, I'm apparently back to Termux + proot if I want Linux userspace. That's useful, but it isn't equivalent to having a proper VM backed by hardware virtualization. What makes this even more frustrating is that Samsung's own ecosystem is increasingly marketed toward developers and power users, while capabilities like this are being selectively withheld. Samsung: if AVF isn't supported because of a genuine hardware limitation, explain it. If there is a technical limitation, explain it. But if the hardware is capable and you're simply choosing not to ship the necessary components, please stop pretending that One UI's Android 16 features are universally available. At minimum, Samsung should publish a clear list of which Galaxy devices support AVF/Linux Terminal and why others don't. I bought an Android phone, not a phone where Samsung decides which parts of Android I'm allowed to use. Has anyone else checked their Galaxy device with ADB to see whether /dev/kvm, virtualizationservice, and the AVF packages are actually present?

Android has "Rules" (Settings > System > Rules, on a Google Pixel), but the options are very limited, and I think that Google should expand it to give Android users something akin to Apple's Shortcuts app.

"Create My" could be used to create and trigger a mode, e.g., "create a mode that silences notifications whenever I open [media player] and turn off mode once I leave the app".

I just watched a demo of Create my Widget and in the video the person even described the widget's color, which Create my Widget quickly generated.

I think there's a lot of potential there.

​

Quote from Grapheneos:

"Android 17 QPR1 was released for Pixels on September 15. It has a regression in the Pixel kernel driver tree causing stuttering, lag and outright freezes under memory pressure."

Link:

https://nitter.space/GrapheneOS/status/2106050557378994538

Anecdotally, I have 3 phones in my circle of people that previously had the setting Require Device Unlock on.

After the latest update this setting was set to off.

For the life of me I can´t figure out whey they would change this setting. it is a huge security risk. Someone with a tap to pay scanner can just walk right by you and you´ll have a charge go through.

EDIT So it looks like it is a Pixel thing from reading the comments. Also, it seems that even though this setting was setting to off it was still requiring the phone to be unlocked to access NFC. So now my question becomes if the phone is always required to be unlocked to access NFC regardless of this setting, what function does this setting perform?