Lepton from Valve to run Android games on Linux is now open source

And there I was the other day, wondering which solution I should use to try and run Warframe's Android version on my computer...

Awesome news! Looks much more interesting to run simple things than other solutions like Waydroid.

Linux fast becoming the gaming platform which spins up imitation platforms the way The Matrix runs human minds in pods.

sshhh, it thinks its an Android.

This seems interesting!
Curious what games will be played though!
I can't remember the last game I played a lot on android.. Might have been King of Thieves..
But that has become so immensely pay to win.

So, reading the description up there, I get the impression that this isn't aimed at end users wanting try Android APKs on their Steam Frame. Instead, it's a framework for developers to easily port their existing Android-based games (VR or otherwise) to Steam.

I think I assumed that this would be like Proton and we'd just load APKs as non-Steam games and they'd just work. Clearly not!

Quoting: scaineSo, reading the description up there, I get the impression that this isn't aimed at end users wanting try Android APKs on their Steam Frame. Instead, it's a framework for developers to easily port their existing Android-based games (VR or otherwise) to Steam.

I think I assumed that this would be like Proton and we'd just load APKs as non-Steam games and they'd just work. Clearly not!

I read it (i.e. their GitLab instance) slightly differently.

To me it looks less like a traditional “porting framework” and more like a Proton-style Android runtime built around rootless Podman (yay!), which in my opinion fits this use case better than upstream Waydroid's choice of LXC, and arguably better than Docker.

So I think the long-term idea really is close to “click Play and the Android game just runs”, but probably for properly packaged Steam titles first, rather than arbitrary APK sideloading on day one.

One of my gripes with Waydroid is that it boots and maintains an entire persistent Android userspace in one container. Lepton already moves away from that by launching Android titles in separate rootless containers. What it doesn't yet do is treat arbitrary Android apps as seamless, individually containerized Linux desktop apps, but I could definitely see this work pushing things in that direction.

And, honestly, that makes me even more excited about it!

yakuza 0 kiryu opening suitcase gif

Incredible,this will undoubtedly be a better solution than anything else currently available on Linux, such as Waydroid, which still has many compatibility issues.

Could it lead to Lepton run android streaming apps?

Does this mean apps like iplayer, YouTube will also be available.

Gotta hand it to Valve, doing the right thing again.

It's not like they always do the right thing, but they do the right thing a lot more than other companies their size.

Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 17 Sep 2026 at 6:32 pm UTC

Quoting: Purple Library GuyGotta hand it to Valve, doing the right thing again.

It's not like they always do the right thing, but they do the right thing a lot more than other companies their size.

They are the only company I am happy to give my money to.

Quoting: MohandevirCould it lead to Lepton run android streaming apps?

No, not through Lepton.

Lepton is not designed for general Android use, instead opting to keep the bare minimum functionality required to launch into games. (External Link: You need to be logged in to view this.)

Waydroid, Anbox, Halium and Hybris might(the projects it's based on and are benefiting from Valve's source code release).

Yes, they're a company just like any other

Are they though?

Chose to stay private.

Never made a bad video game.

Doesn't milk their franchises dry.

Contributes greatly to the Linux community.

Open-sources some of their products.

Stayed a relatively small company at around 250-300ish employees.

Big enough to make a dent in the world, but still small enough for its employees to know who they're working for.

Makes you wonder why more companies out there don't follow their example. It turns out that making great products that make the world a better place, providing a good service, and treating people well is very profitable.

Quoting: AdrianDoes this mean apps like iplayer, YouTube will also be available.

Not necessarily. If my understanding is correct, it seems they care almost only for games being playable, and thus it seems it implements a small subset of Android stuff, just what most games use. Apps that do intensive use of Android APIs might not work (and Youtube might be one of these apps).

Quoting: Slaxer

Chose to stay private.

The more I see, the more it seems that *public* companies are the problem. As soon as you are public, your share price matters, and your share holders can sue you.

Private companies can have a goal beyond money.
Public companies cannot.

Quoting: KeyBounceThe more I see, the more it seems that *public* companies are the problem. As soon as you are public, your share price matters, and your share holders can sue you.

Private companies can have a goal beyond money.
Public companies cannot.

Yeah, true. People who are only there to see the stock value go up get put in charge, then they start doing things to make themselves look more valuable than they actually are, and all sorts of other bullshit. The way Valve operates seems much easier, less stressful, and more profitable in the long run than being a dancing monkey for shareholders.

As if I haven't glazed Valve enough, there is one other thing I forgot to mention that sets them apart from everyone else. Fan-made projects don't seem to bother them. When a bunch of Half-Life fans got together to make Black Mesa (HL1 remake), Valve not only did NOT sue them or send them a cease and desist letter, they actually supported them and approved of their project. I don't know anyone else that operates like that. Nintendo would probably kill people if they could do it legally.

Quoting: KeyBounce

Quoting: Slaxer

Chose to stay private.

The more I see, the more it seems that *public* companies are the problem. As soon as you are public, your share price matters, and your share holders can sue you.

Private companies can have a goal beyond money.
Public companies cannot.

Can. But often don't. And they have fewer reporting requirements, so it's easier for them to do dodgy things with nobody noticing. There's a reason "private equity" has become a swearword. Staying private gives more leeway for owners to give in to their better impulses, certainly . . . but a whole lot of people, in the process of getting that rich, kind of discarded most of those.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KeyBounce

Quoting: Slaxer

Chose to stay private.

The more I see, the more it seems that *public* companies are the problem. As soon as you are public, your share price matters, and your share holders can sue you.

Private companies can have a goal beyond money.
Public companies cannot.

Can. But often don't. And they have fewer reporting requirements, so it's easier for them to do dodgy things with nobody noticing. There's a reason "private equity" has become a swearword. Staying private gives more leeway for owners to give in to their better impulses, certainly . . . but a whole lot of people, in the process of getting that rich, kind of discarded most of those.

I agree with all your points but, to be fair, a private equity firm is still focused on investment and all that goes along with it. It is less focused on the production of goods and services, except as the business they invest in brings in enough profits to generate dividends (essentially, they are still shareholders but the shares are not traded publicly).

I do not see private equity firms as being the same as a privately-owned business that is focused on the production of goods and services. Instead, I see them as just another form of investment vehicle.

Last edited by Caldathras on 22 Sep 2026 at 6:11 pm UTC

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KeyBounce

Quoting: Slaxer

Chose to stay private.

The more I see, the more it seems that *public* companies are the problem. As soon as you are public, your share price matters, and your share holders can sue you.

Private companies can have a goal beyond money.
Public companies cannot.

Can. But often don't. And they have fewer reporting requirements, so it's easier for them to do dodgy things with nobody noticing. There's a reason "private equity" has become a swearword. Staying private gives more leeway for owners to give in to their better impulses, certainly . . . but a whole lot of people, in the process of getting that rich, kind of discarded most of those.

I agree with all your points but, to be fair, a private equity firm is still focused on investment and all that goes along with it. It is less focused on the production of goods and services, except as the business they invest in brings in enough profits to generate dividends (essentially, they are still shareholders but the shares are not traded publicly).

I do not see private equity firms as being the same as a privately-owned business that is focused on the production of goods and services. Instead, I see them as just another form of investment vehicle.

You have a point. But for instance, the Koch brothers' (now just the remaining Koch brother) wealth comes from a massive private firm that does oil stuff. And they're incredibly scuzzy; if the US goes fascist, their propaganda networks get a disproportionate share of the credit.