Conversation

If a vendors want, they can take that and ship a device that others can use with their own OS, while still having all the standard hardware/firmware security features. This is the part Google does. What they don't do is releasing usable device support code for use with AOSP.
1
There are vendors doing a better job with releasing usable AOSP device support code for their devices. If you have the impression that Pixels are anything close to the best at that, it's very wrong. Pixels just have the best hardware/firmware privacy and security properties.
1
It would be so much easier to support a device from one of the vendors publishing fully usable device support code. The time it takes them to switch over to new major releases is also a huge help to downstream variants of the public AOSP. Also, not adopting quarterly releases.
1
Due to Treble, you don't need them to support Android 11 to use AOSP 11 with their device support code. Most of the pain we have with Pixels is due to us not using Treble, because we want to build the vendor image, while from their perspective it's abstracted hardware details.
1
The way that Treble works is that you build a system image from AOSP and can run that on any device. Building boot and vendor is separate, and you can update them independently. For Pixels, Google hasn't tried to publish code for building / assembling the vendor image.
2
BTW, the way android-prepare-vendor does things for Pixels is obsolete and based on the hassle we had with the Nexus 9, 5X and 6P. It's not how it would be approached now. You would start by just using their vendor image and would then transition to building it + listing files.
2
Google doesn't really do this for Pixels. They don't treat support for building AOSP for Pixels as something that they are externally releasing. Pixels being used as the internal reference devices for development is misleading. You're wrong to present it as an issue with AOSP.
2