[HN Gopher] Motorola GrapheneOS devices will be bootloader unloc...
___________________________________________________________________
Motorola GrapheneOS devices will be bootloader
unlockable/relockable
Author : pabs3
Score : 1190 points
Date : 2026-03-04 00:58 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (grapheneos.social)
(TXT) w3m dump (grapheneos.social)
| jMyles wrote:
| Even though there doesn't seem to be huge mainstream consumer
| demand for this (although I actually question how well consumer
| demand for privacy and customization can ever be ascertained when
| the price signals are corrupted by a market where the winning
| players are essentially chosen by the state, as is arguably the
| case with both TSMC and Qualcomm), it still feels like the world
| simply couldn't go on with both iOS and Android become caged,
| cheapened, fragile shadows of the visions we once had for them
| (particularly AOSP).
| dietr1ch wrote:
| I think we can only expect the demand for privacy to grow into
| the future given that people tracking in a trenchcoat schemes
| are popping up everywhere through governmental and private
| efforts trying to gather data for ads and control.
| windexh8er wrote:
| Not to be flippant but who cares? People don't know there's an
| option. I've run Graphene for years and will gladly pay a
| premium for it. Beyond the bolstered security the battery life
| is exponentially better than a default Android device because
| of all the constant background traffic that Google doesn't
| allow any control over that you instantly have a choice with on
| GrapheneOS.
|
| And as soon as you start showing these things to people they do
| start to care and ask how. So the fact that the mainstream is
| ignorant and doesn't care enough _yet_ doesn 't matter because
| it's very likely a much larger segment of users will care when
| the tech evangelists they trust stop using IOS and Google
| Android. That's how these things started and that's how they
| could very well play out in this scenario as well.
| jMyles wrote:
| Yes, I agree in full. Did you think I was taking a position
| contrary to this one?
| dmix wrote:
| Not all markets are trendy B2C stuff. The Motorola press
| release specifically mentioned B2B/corporate sales where
| security is important and there's plenty of government,
| journalist, non-profits/activists, etc usecases on top of the
| usual corporate locked-down environments like banking.
| keerthiko wrote:
| Does anyone know where I can read more about which devices will
| be supported? GrapheneOS website devices FAQ doesn't list any
| Motorola devices, and the press release doesn't have much either.
| MYEUHD wrote:
| Future Motorola devices (or maybe a subset of them?) will
| support GrapheneOS
|
| > We're collaborating on future devices
|
| https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116159602850585685
| wolvoleo wrote:
| There's no details yet, but I was reading it won't likely
| emerge until 2027 so ostensibly these will be models that are
| yet to be announced. Might even be models dedicated to
| grapheneos (and other open source roms as they mentioned here)
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| This project is in hype stage. No work seems to have been done,
| yet.
|
| Samsung had something as ambitious years ago, but it went
| nowhere https://www.xda-developers.com/samsung-promised-make-
| old-pho...
|
| Stay tuned
| vbezhenar wrote:
| As I understand that situation, GrapheneOS developers are super
| picky about hardware they want to support. So out of all
| android phones they decided to support only Google Pixel
| because only these phones provide good enough hardware support
| for security features they want to provide.
|
| So likely no existing Motorola phones are good enough and only
| new ones, developed in collaboration with GrapheneOS
| developers, will be suitable.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I'm pretty sure strcat was saying on a previous thread that it
| will only be future models, so nothing in their current line up
| in guaranteed to be compatible.
| _vere wrote:
| They said on Twitter that future devices in the Razr (foldable)
| and signature line will be supported. The current devices by
| Motorola do not fulfill their hardware requirements, so no need
| to buy one yet. This is speculation on my part, but its not
| unthinkable that non-flagship support could happen eventually,
| although mid tier SoCs generally don't have the hardware
| required to support graphene (hardware memory tagging,
| sufficiently open secure element, etc), so in the medium term,
| it's unlikely that anything but the flagships will be supported
| by graphene.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47214645
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| Given that Google has said they'll be delaying source code
| release for Android to every X months intervals (iirc), how is
| GrapheneOS planning to handle security updates? Will they just be
| Google's binary blobs?
| zeech wrote:
| Graphene already uses binary blobs (though one can disable them
| if they want). Info at [0].
|
| [0] https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-
| security-p...
| khimaros wrote:
| this isn't quite right. the blobs are produced by GrapheneOS
| and are reproducible once the source code embargo lifts.
| zeech wrote:
| Whoops, nice catch - comment edited.
| izacus wrote:
| Motorola is a partner that has access to Android source sooner.
| Aachen wrote:
| Isn't that about feature releases? My understanding was that
| security patches are separate from this
|
| edit: looked up the announcement
| https://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-development-...
| but it doesn't even mention the word security. I don't know
| enough about the manufacturer side of things to say whether
| this means there's also no security updates while they work on
| new features
| Zak wrote:
| I'm glad to hear that. That means these devices will be a popular
| target, perhaps _the_ popular target for alternative operating
| systems both Android-based and non-Android Linux.
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| with the advent of AI assists, I can't wait for people to start
| hooking up SoCs, GPUs, and other components burdened by
| proprietary driver and firmware to logic analyzers, and letting
| AI have a crack at it. I wonder what'll happen - this might
| well be the end of proprietary blobs, and I'm here for it.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| That would be wonderful but cracking proprietary blobs which
| may be and probably are encrypted, would take massive amount
| of time, and later rework could take a lot of tokens and
| broken SoCs. Nowadays electronics are driven by software so
| one bit off and voltage can get 9V instead of 3V for example
| mptest wrote:
| the end of proprietary blobs has to be the oddest set of
| words that excites me
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| Oh, This might be one of the few ideas I approve AI use of.
|
| Cursor spent like Million dollars on creating a browser which
| people were able to make later with a 200$/100$ subscription
| in the same amount of days as cursor with human assistance.
|
| I don't think that this can be "autonomous", we assumed that
| making browsers could be autonomous process but it wasn't.
| That was the take I took from it all.
|
| Will this be an example of autonomous tho? I think we still
| need a human experienced with reverse engineering in the loop
| but it might significantly improve their workflow
|
| I wish if cursor, instead of having burnt million $ to
| something worthless essentially, Could have atleast done this
| experiment.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Historically Moto devices have already had eg. pretty good
| lineageos support (
| https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/#motorola ).
| t1234s wrote:
| With Motorola being owned by the Chinese company Lenovo can these
| new devices be used in secure environments? I remember when
| Lenovo took over making ThinkPads they were banned in some secure
| environments because of Lenovo links to CCP.
| lacunary wrote:
| what does "secure environment" mean?
| mattnewton wrote:
| Not OP but I guess it's where the threat model includes
| worrying about the foreign government actors. Like US
| infrastructure, government contracting or some major tech
| companies.
| zeech wrote:
| Good point. It's a good thing that, say, Google is notoriously
| independent from the US government, and has never had any ties
| to it whatsoever.
| nitinreddy88 wrote:
| You might want to add /s tag to it.
| cwnyth wrote:
| This isn't Reddit.
| fransje26 wrote:
| No worries, the team Literal is alive and well on HN..
| maxloh wrote:
| > Lenovo originated as an offshoot of a state-owned research
| institute.
|
| From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenovo
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| The true reason you can't trust a Chinese company, and other
| countries can't trust US companies, is the Western patent
| regime that allows various companies to sit on patents for
| absurd amounts of times, preventing others from selling you
| completely clean hardware on which every piece of software can
| be replaced.
| Charon77 wrote:
| The whole point about having an open platform from boot is you
| don't have to trust it. You run your own code from first power
| on.
|
| Is it possible that it's backdoored, have a secret opcode /
| management engine? Probably, but that goes to everyone, as it's
| not practical to analyze what's in the chip (unless you're
| decapping them and all)
|
| I don't know what secure environments you're talking about, if
| it's an airgapped system then you should be secure even when
| what's inside 'tries to get out'.
| Haven880 wrote:
| Korean and western made stuff guarantee to have such thing.
| CNC devices in Russia stopped working. Even NVIDIA gpu has
| back door according to China and NVIDIA had to settle this
| matter behind the scene with China government. At this point,
| your phone is 100% backdoorable by western government. The
| only thing protect you is you are non-threat and too small to
| be bother with.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Is there documentation that GrapheneOS Pixels or iPhones
| are backdoored by governments to the extent that any person
| can be targeted?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| No? Okay.
| tho2i3423400 wrote:
| At this point in time, esp. given the raving lunacy of the US
| White House, those of us outside the "West", wonder the same
| thing about US companies.
| eckelhesten wrote:
| Honestly I'd prefer Chinese backdoors over western ones.
| China is still a land far far away and I couldn't care less
| about what they'd do with my data, unlike western alphabet
| boys who could freeze my accounts and assets for
| "wrongthinking" in the future.
| tjpnz wrote:
| Just make sure you don't have any family in China and don't
| plan to transit through HK anytime in the future.
| rationalist wrote:
| One has to be careful when flying. Your flight's origin
| or destination might not be in China, and may not even be
| through Chinese airspace, but if there is an in-flight
| emergency, an airport in China might be the closest
| landing spot.
| iso-logi wrote:
| Occasionally, they'll "stage" an in-flight emergency,
| forcing a landing in China and arrest you.
|
| The US invented it.
| margalabargala wrote:
| This isn't something the average random GrapheneOS user
| needs to worry about.
|
| Doing this has a non negligible political cost. They
| would only do it for a high value target. If you're that
| person, you're presumably aware.
| rationalist wrote:
| The person(s)* this has happened to, was/were not aware.
|
| * I only recall one news report of this happening years
| ago.
| richsouth wrote:
| THIS so much! I'm more at risk from the US and my own (UK)
| government than the Chinese, and in answer to the questions
| below: - No I don't know anyone from or in China - I'm
| highly unlikely to go anywhere near China (or fly over it,
| around it) - I'm poor
|
| So unless my local Chinese takeaway is classed as Chinese
| soil, I'll more than happily buy my phone from there
|
| Most phones are already made over there anyway so know
| knows what kind of backdoor, listening devices are coded
| into the chips they put into 'Western Company's' phones.
| Haven880 wrote:
| Iphone is made by Chinese companies too. Same with Tesla. A lot
| of those components made by purely Chinese companies and yes
| can be trace to individuals who are CCP. It is extremely hard
| to source another purely away from any Chinese connections. If
| you say the main company is USA, you seems to ignore how the
| pager exploding setup was done. Go into any IT rooms in USA and
| you audit it as zero from China even if you ignore Taiwan as
| recognized by American law as part of China. We can't buy
| anything truly made non-China. Even F35 has some components
| (and that is official, unofficial we dont know) made in China.
| Google want to sell Motorola to American companies, not even
| Pentagon or NSA bother back then. Think about it, how hard to
| engineer a backdoor exactly same components (say capacitor) or
| motors during shipment for those phones.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Depends on what environment you mean. Chinese secure
| environments would see a Chinese OEM as an advantage vs. Google
| Pixels. In the US yeah you'd want a Pixel.
|
| European tech is in shambles and everyone else is barely
| holding it together outside of tech.
| lucasfin000 wrote:
| That's the entire point of verified boot with custom keys, you
| don't need to trust Motorola or Lenovo. You can control what
| runs from the first boot, the threat model for a compromised
| supply chain is different from a backdoored chip. If you are
| worried about the latter that applies to every manufacturer
| including Google & Apple.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Do we know if there there be Widevine L1 keys that aren't deleted
| on unlock? (Certain phones restore access to L1 on bootloader
| relock, as long as AVB passes, including with custom keys.)
| LelouBil wrote:
| Well, I'll surely be buying a Motorola device when GrapheneOS
| support lands.
|
| I've been running on several half-working recent android ports to
| my Xiaomi Mi 9t for many years now.
|
| If I can get a modern phone, modern android, my privacy preserved
| and a hackable phone (to the extent an unlockable bootloader
| allows, which isn't a given nowadays, I especially hate how
| Xiaomi does it), I'm 100% sold.
|
| We'll see when it comes out I guess!
| smashah wrote:
| Whatever this device is is at the top of my list for my next
| phone.
| yegle wrote:
| I think Pixel phones are also unlockable/relockable?
| H8crilA wrote:
| This is how you can install GrapheneOS on these. Also, if
| you're wondering how does the security of something like this
| work: if you change the boot hash then the phone forgets all
| the hardware-stored secrets, for example the disk encryption
| keys.
| dietr1ch wrote:
| Samsung did restrict side-loading recently,
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47202808
|
| I'm sure that Google will do something like that as soon as it
| faced the US's carrot and stick they signed-up for.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| That's not really sideloading, though. The stock recovery
| doesn't let you install apps or anything like that, it's
| meant for loading official versions of Samsung operating
| systems onto devices that got corrupted somehow.
|
| You can probably try to use the stock recovery to flash a
| custom ROM, but I doubt it'll work. Custom ROMs rely on tools
| like TWRP or LineageOS Recovery for a reason.
| yooastan wrote:
| A physical keyboard device with GrapheneOS would mog
| mrbuttons454 wrote:
| Hopefully it gets a port to the Clicks Communicator. From what
| I understand the bootloader will be unlockable.
| WithinReason wrote:
| Just buy a keyboard case for it, no need for permanent
| attachment. Or carry a tiny bluetooth keyboard in your pocket:
|
| https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0FWC8G2Q8/
| bitwize wrote:
| Ah, Doohoeek, a time-honored, trusted brand.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| I'd rather buy from Doohickey.
| backscratches wrote:
| The future is now (or 2027)! 4" screen and hardware keyboard
| and graphene!
|
| https://www.clicks.tech/en/products/clicks-keyboard-for-moto...
|
| I cannot overstate my excitement.
| mmh0000 wrote:
| If true. And I put a big if on that.
|
| I WILL be buying their flagship model.
|
| My go to for Graphene has been used Pixels from eBay. Because I
| can't give money to Google in good conscience.
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| I too have been buying used Pixels, mostly for environmental
| reasons. But from a local shop phonebot. Got 3 phones from
| there, no issues at all.
| Barbing wrote:
| Buying used introduces such a big supply chain risk. I stay
| safe by buying direct and asking the NSA not to open the
| shipment in the order notes.
|
| (y'all know this one https://arstechnica.com/tech-
| policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa... )
| gf000 wrote:
| What is the supposed threat model here?
|
| Mr. Rich Guy sells me his personal device he used in the
| previous year because he wants new shiny phone, but he may
| have the very slightest chance of being a super evil
| genius? The government selling tampered phones on ebay,
| when they could just.. go directly to vendors and put their
| backdoors directly into new phones/software?
|
| Sorry for the light snark, but this attack vector seems way
| too complicated for not much benefit. Unless you are some
| very VIP person being personally targeted.
| smusamashah wrote:
| Didn't know more people are doing this. I am also using a used
| Pixel 4a which I got from eBay. Still has good battery. I don't
| see any reason to upgrade any time soon.
| DANmode wrote:
| Security patches.
| throawayonthe wrote:
| and support for hw memory tagging :p
| duskdozer wrote:
| imo the RAM bloat/overly aggressive OS. on a similar aged
| device without zswap I couldn't run more than one maybe two
| things without the OS killing everything in the background. I
| think it was better before I got stuck updating to 15
| boltzmann-brain wrote:
| Speaking of battery, veeeeery soon phones will have mandated
| replaceable batteries in the EU. I'm just hoping my current
| moto (a $99 job perfectly adequate for absolutely everything
| I do) survives until then.
|
| Aside: I've noticed over the years that phones die in one of
| the following ways: - too fast charging (battery dies, charge
| controller dies) - usb port dies - screen broken - all sorts
| of falls
|
| A lether folio case, gorilla glass, and a Qi charging adapter
| solve all of those problems (the charging adapter also limits
| the current by virtue of being inefficient). It has a
| magnetic connector (it's a simple two-pin job and it doesn't
| have any issues) - in the rare occasion I want to charge up
| real quick, I can still hook up directly via usb c, and
| meanwhile the port is stuffed with the converter's plug which
| prevents it from accumulating dirt and fluff.
|
| I'm glad to say that even despite many falls, some directly
| onto the screen, the phone itself still works very well, even
| if the case and glass protector are obviously ragged.
|
| I hope once unlockable Moto's come around I'll be able to
| keep that one for a long while as well.
| Aachen wrote:
| When you say replaceable, do you mean repairable or
| swappable? Like, does it need to be done without tools
| (probably takes <1 minute) or would it take me 2 hours with
| a load of tools (no change from today) just that there's a
| legal requirement for them to be commercially available?
|
| Fwiw, besides people that crack the screen I have not seen
| any of the failures you've mentioned. The only phone I saw
| someone replace, for reasons other than software support,
| was myself because the gnss chip was cooked after 3 years
| (would track me perfectly, like if I step to the right it
| would notice, but with an offset of hundreds of metres so
| I'm in another town). All other phones I've owned are still
| perfectly functioning (the oldest Android phone I have,
| 2012, has a more reliable battery than my daily driver!), I
| don't use any case or screen protector. They're just
| software-wise obsolete because no updates and developers
| require the newer android apis
| throawayonthe wrote:
| well, it isn't receiving security updates
| https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support
| dataflow wrote:
| You should really try to buy any phone used if you can, whether
| Pixel or Google or not.
| scrollop wrote:
| Why?
| dataflow wrote:
| For the environment? To reduce e-waste? And you'll almost
| certainly save substantial money too.
| palata wrote:
| How good is it for the environment / e-waste? If you buy
| a used phone every year from someone buying a new phone
| every year, it means that you both use one phone every
| two years, right? It's a lot worse than buying a new
| phone and keeping it for 8 years.
|
| If I said "I buy new phones regularly, but I sell them in
| second hand, for the environment". Would you consider I
| actually make an effort for the environment?
| dataflow wrote:
| > If you buy a used phone every year from someone buying
| a new phone every year, it means that you both use one
| phone every two years, right? It's a lot worse than
| buying a new phone and keeping it for 8 years.
|
| Because when someone says "buy used" they're obviously
| telling you to buy the antiques your grandma used to love
| back in the day on an annual basis. Anything newer than
| that especially from the last year or two would be new
| and insane to consider, especially if you keep it more
| than a year. You really owned me with the flawless
| argument there.
| palata wrote:
| I don't understand what you say, but you sound like you
| did not like my question.
|
| I was merely pointing out that "buying used" is not
| necessarily better than "buying new but keeping for 8
| years". Many people "buy used" but often.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Doesn't buying a used pixel encourage the sale of new pixels by
| demonstrating a healthy resale value?
| nhumrich wrote:
| I don't think the market of people buying used phones for the
| purpose of graphene is going to make a dent in profits for
| Google. It raises resale value maybe by say, $0, considering
| the price is set by the average consumer
| jstanley wrote:
| Well then buying them directly from Google would have no
| effect either.
| pschastain wrote:
| Except that Google would then get the profits
|
| It's not about Google, it's about OP's personal values
| jstanley wrote:
| But if you think buying on the secondhand market doesn't
| impact the market, why do you think buying from the OEM
| does?
|
| It's one phone's worth of demand either way.
| Markoff wrote:
| that depends what you consider a healthy resale value, I
| bought my Pixel 6a with no issues for 100EUR :-) (and not
| because I care about Google's business, I don't have gapps in
| my phone, I just like good deals/VFM)
| aniviacat wrote:
| I never considered resale value when buying a phone. Is that
| really something people look for?
| okanat wrote:
| I often hear resale talk from iPhone buyers.
| rationalist wrote:
| How much of that is self-justification for convincing
| themselves to buy something expensive?
| tamimio wrote:
| This whole thing feels like a subversion, instead of having
| graphene independent from devices and widen the attack vector,
| now the spooks can just focus on the "supported official device"
| only. That being said, the hardware isn't open source (cell modem
| is enough to expose you), some binary blobs for the firmware
| aren't open source, motorola is a US company with all what that
| means, if you are after anonymity or even privacy, I would stay
| away from it entirely, you will be like a person putting a full
| mask on while on public, except that mask is scanning your face
| in real time. You will stand out like a sore thumb, your best
| strategy is blending in, so the automated systems scanners won't
| flag you and thus put you under further monitoring.
|
| The timing is super weird too, when all corporations are pushing
| for digital ID, are actively lobbying to deanonymize the users,
| cooperating with gov too to have a smooth pipeline for such
| process, and motorola the known company of having defense
| contracts, are suddenly caring about open source privacy?! Cmon
| scuff3d wrote:
| Jesus Christ...
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Lots of speculation, correlation and not a lot of reasonable
| conclusions.
| tamimio wrote:
| The only speculation part is the timing, the rest are facts,
| only a naive will think a smart phone is ever private or
| anonymous. Your phone has a unique ID tied to the hardware
| that can ID you, your cell modem isn't open source and is
| equipped with builtin high accuracy GNSS, plus other hardware
| and its non open drivers that can be exploited, among many
| attack vectors that are easily exploited on modern
| smartphones. This issue isn't unique to phones too, many
| modern laptops are also part of it, TPM and plenty of
| hardware that aren't really open, the only exception is a
| laptop can be used in an air gapped environment, not really
| the case with a smartphone, because assuming you managed to
| do so, it defeated its purpose to start with.
|
| The conclusion here is if you are after anonymity then you
| should ditch your phone entirely, having a "secure OS" won't
| provide such goal but it might bring more attention to you
| than using of-the-shelf average phone.
| gf000 wrote:
| You can't have secure software running on arbitrary insecure
| hardware.
| jamesnorden wrote:
| >This whole thing feels like a subversion, instead of having
| graphene independent from devices and widen the attack vector,
| now the spooks can just focus on the "supported official
| device" only.
|
| Graphene is currently only supported on Pixels, so not sure
| what you mean by that.
|
| >motorola is a US company
|
| Motorola is owned by Lenovo, a Chinese company.
| rationalist wrote:
| You know what would be good for security:
|
| Having physical disconnect switches (Bluetooth/Wifi, Modem,
| Power, Microphone/Speaker), and integrated lens cover like Lenovo
| laptops (at least for the front camera whereas a case can cover
| the rear cameras).
|
| On a side-note:
|
| Triple active SIM would be amazing, but one can dream. I would
| love to have a phone that has an active AT&T, T-Mobile, and
| Verizon SIM at the same time.
| Scrounger wrote:
| Google Fi will auto-switch between AT&T and T-Mobile but not
| Verizon, AFAIK.
| mjg59 wrote:
| Fi launched with Sprint and T-Mobile roaming and added US
| Cellular, but is presently T-Mobile only. I don't think AT&T
| has ever been a supporter carrier.
| adrianwaj wrote:
| Also a disconnect switch for the telco signal. Yet in my
| experience, even when turned off, a phone may send out a signal
| periodically anyway for tracking / triangulation purposes.
|
| However to avoid that, removal of the battery is required. A
| disconnect switch for power would do the same?
|
| I think moving to micro-PCs is the answer, and then having an
| add-on to get a telco-signal. Why trust Motorola? Start at
| grass roots where possible. Everything needs to be open-source
| and based on open standards. No trojans, telemetry or remote
| overrides.
|
| Maybe the product is an adapter case for a Pi that adds a
| screen, battery, antenna and whatever else is required to make
| it a smartphone alternative?
|
| Also, looking forward to Mecha Comet.
| rationalist wrote:
| > switch for the telco signal
|
| Sorry, that's what I meant when I said Modem.
|
| > A disconnect switch for power would do the same?
|
| I would think so. I don't necessarily care about removable
| batteries because I use a portable power bank. Why carry an
| extra battery that only works for one device, when I can
| carry a "battery" that works for many devices?
| staplers wrote:
| I think moving to micro-PCs is the answer
|
| Would be shocked if hardware is affordable enough for such a
| thing in a decade
| adrianwaj wrote:
| This is the most cost-effective mini PC right now, that
| I've found. Also, one of the smallest.
|
| https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005575993915.html
|
| I'm not so fond of it because it has a fan. But if you
| could use it at home, and then had a "phone conversion
| housing" you could attach it to a belt and have a
| smartphone. Run wired earbuds out it. Have a trackpoint
| nub.
|
| Here is a $15 screen.
| https://medium.com/@lee.harding/building-a-real-time-hn-
| disp...
|
| There's something elegant about only requiring 1 computing
| device for everything. Even put it in the car!
|
| It's what Steve Jobs would want.
| scheme271 wrote:
| The power draw looks like it's at least 4W with a max of
| maybe 45W. That's maybe 7 hr with a 10000 mAh battery
| assuming it's sleeping the entire time and not really
| doing anything. Not very practical for people used to a
| small phone lasting all day without a charge.
| lejalv wrote:
| I wholeheartedly concur (see also: Linux phones), but what
| about device attestation requiring iOS or Google Play
| Integrity? That's my main worry, as age verification seems
| poised to making us dependent on those.
|
| Example: the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) wallet, discussed in
| multiple GH issues e.g. https://github.com/eu-digital-
| identity-wallet/av-doc-technic...
| NewJazz wrote:
| _Triple active SIM would be amazing, but one can dream. I would
| love to have a phone that has an active AT &T, T-Mobile, and
| Verizon SIM at the same time._
|
| You can fit several esims on one of these adapters AIUI.
|
| https://jmp.chat/esim-adapter
| tensegrist wrote:
| i'm surprised this works, in the sense that there aren't tons
| of technical safeguards and/or lawsuits getting in the way of
| someone doing this
| rationalist wrote:
| That doesn't allow you to have all of them active at the same
| time. You can already store multiple eSIMs in newer Pixel and
| iPhones (you just cannot use more than two SIMs/eSIMs at a
| time).
|
| Stored SIMs/eSIMs is not the same as active SIMs/eSIMs.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > You know what would be good for security: Having physical
| disconnect switches
|
| Wouldn't those become failure points? Anything mechanical will
| not only wear, but will be affected by dust, dirt, sand, dead
| skin cells, body oils, etc.
| mmooss wrote:
| It depends on how durable they make the switches.
| Lightswitches, for example, tend to be durable.
| yehoshuapw wrote:
| the smaller something of that type is, the harder to make
| it durable (I think)
| dotancohen wrote:
| Light switches do not go with hundreds of thousands of
| people to the beach, the desert, left in hot cars, rained
| on, sat on, dropped, pressed against sweaty facts, etc.
| gf000 wrote:
| That's just security theater. If you can't trust the very
| CPU/OS that it only uses the camera/microphone when the
| notification is on, then what are you even doing with that
| device?
| duskdozer wrote:
| Removable battery
| ForHackernews wrote:
| They are not a major OEM, but the Hiroh phone is going to offer
| hardware cutoff switches and and a de-googled OS:
| https://www.notebookcheck.net/Murena-taking-pre-orders-for-t...
| zikduruqe wrote:
| > I would love to have a phone that has an active AT&T,
| T-Mobile, and Verizon SIM at the same time.
|
| If you are not aware, US Mobile offers a Super Carrier package
| that one account can use all three.
| https://www.usmobile.com/networks
|
| I don't use them, only read about it on r/nocontract.
| rationalist wrote:
| That's interesting, but it doesn't allow you to use all three
| at the same time unless you have a phone that can have three
| active SIMs.
|
| Stored SIMs/eSIMs is not the same as active SIMs/eSIMs.
| Aachen wrote:
| Just get a SIM from another country and use roam like at home.
| I can use any network here as though it's my home network.
|
| The provider isn't required to support this (they can give me 2
| weeks' notice any time) but I use very little of my
| subscription (the smallest one they have) so I assume they're
| happy with the deal and don't have to pay the roaming carriers
| much
| m00dy wrote:
| I think banking apps especially the ones in UK, won't work on
| this device.
| domh wrote:
| NatWest and Monzo work fine on my Pixel 9a running GrapheneOS.
| Community maintained list of supported banking apps here:
|
| https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...
|
| Google Wallet is not supported at all.
| m00dy wrote:
| with avbroot ?
| domh wrote:
| I didn't have to do any resigning or repacking apks. It
| just worked installed from the play store.
| aembleton wrote:
| Curve works and you can set that up as a replacement for
| Google Pay.
| Fokamul wrote:
| Banking apps will be catastrophe in the future. Petition your
| bank, you want to use PC web app with certificate
| authentication.
|
| If they don't support it -> notify them and change bank. Enough
| people doing this, something will change.
| dns_snek wrote:
| Good luck with that. Of all the things people don't really
| care about, I think that might be at the far end of the list.
|
| Certification authentication is neat technology in principle,
| I use it internally, but in my experience anyone who
| recognizes it also hates it passionately. It's the thing that
| seemingly stops working every time their taxes are due,
| courtesy of terrible government software.
|
| If I started telling people that they should be demanding
| certificate authentication from their banks, they'd probably
| think that I escaped an asylum.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| As domh mentioned, some (not all) banking apps do seem to work
| well at the moment. My concern would be that what works today
| may not work tomorrow. My HSBC app seems to get more crippled
| with every update and it wouldn't surprise me at all if a
| future update rendered it unusable on GrapheneOS (which is the
| main thing stopping me from moving to it).
|
| It's probably a pipe dream but I do hope that someone like
| Motorola officially supporting GrapheneOS will make businesses
| take support somewhat seriously. If nothing else you sound less
| like a crazy person when you tell your bank's customer support
| "I bought a Motorola phone and now your app doesn't work" than
| "I flashed a custom ROM to my Pixel and now your app doesn't
| work".
| strcat wrote:
| 90% of banking apps work on GrapheneOS. Curve Pay works for
| tap-to-pay.
|
| https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...
| has a UK section.
| farkanoid wrote:
| Not sure how I feel about this. Motorola seems to be the
| exclusive provider of encrypted cellular networks and associated
| devices to the Israeli military [1][2].
|
| I'm under the impression that basebands still require a
| proprietary/binary blob, basically rendering the security
| features of the underlying Open Source OS useless, since it sits
| between the user and outside connectivity.
|
| How can GrapheneOS ensure that there are no hidden backdoors (ie:
| Pegasus-like spyware, which was created by ex-IDF soldiers via
| NSO Group), etc, in the baseband?
|
| [1] https://www.whoprofits.org/companies/company/3808
|
| [2] https://www.motorolasolutions.com/newsroom/press-
| releases/mo...
| spaqin wrote:
| In the same way they can(not) do it on Pixel phones - and I
| would be surprised if Google was not already cooperating with
| the state actors. You do what you can. Even open source drivers
| (which are not gonna happen when operating within tightly
| regulated radio bands) won't help if there's a hardware
| backdoor.
| Barbing wrote:
| Ah nice so leave the phones in another room
|
| Easy but for missing Step 1 of "Colocate with friends and
| business partners"
| lotyrin wrote:
| Just only ever speak in a language of your own invention
| that uses both cryptographic and steganographic techniques
| which you invented while colocated, maybe.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| I can't wait until we're all mentats each speaking our
| custom encrypted pidgin. That will surely help with
| communication and world peace!
|
| Not your keys, not your speech!
| vladms wrote:
| I personally am more afraid of what "someone" can convince
| other people to do rather than listening to me. Sadly there
| are enough people that are easily manipulated that probably
| the "smarter" people are completely ignored.
|
| If I would be to place a bet I would place it on mass
| propaganda targeting people below average - it might be
| simpler, easier and cost effective. So lots of this talk
| about "encryption", "privacy" might be in fact great for
| those "actors": smart people worry about their precious
| technology and principles, while "they" talk to "the
| masses".
| Terr_ wrote:
| The way I see it, I don't have much direct control over the
| actualities of that kind of nation-state spying stuff.
| However:
|
| 1. I _can_ direct my consumer-dollars towards the vendors
| that promise to respect ownership and privacy in general, and
| they will also have the most to lose if they are _caught_
| enabling spying.
|
| 2. Defense in depth. Security features generally add to the
| spying's difficulty, expense, or risk of detection, and that
| in turn decreases the incentive for abuse.
| 627467 wrote:
| Motorola Solutions != motorola mobility
|
| Ill leave you to investigate how != they are
| herewulf wrote:
| This. I know some people who work for the former and they are
| always having to say "no, I don't work for _that_ Motorola ".
| The shared name is entirely historic.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Mobility is in Merchandise Mart, Solutions is in
| Schaumburg.
|
| Used to be anyways. (My office was a floor below in the
| mart)
| farkanoid wrote:
| I did. There's long term patent cross-licensing agreements
| between the two companies. Motorola mobility may be a
| separate company now, but they didn't start from scratch.
| 627467 wrote:
| > they didnt start from scratch
|
| > long term patern cross licensing
|
| > israel
|
| > pegasus
|
| Basically lots of judgment based off of superficial facts
| with little understanding of implications and the actual
| consequences of those facts.
| farkanoid wrote:
| Well, you sure showed me.
| cromka wrote:
| They did. You're nitpicking to not lose face while you
| could have easily say "OK, didn't know they were separate
| brands" and we'd all move on with our lives.
| karel-3d wrote:
| The mororola mobility is a Chinese company with Chinese
| management. They bought the brand and the patent portfolio.
| They sure as hell are not supplying Israel or NSA.
| DANmode wrote:
| Will Graphene not require Moto to offer an IOMMU like Pixels
| do?
| user2722 wrote:
| Ya, I believe that's the correct answer. I believe there is
| an IOMMU or equivalent on modern phones to prevent those
| doubts binary blobs bring.
| strcat wrote:
| They already have it and it isn't part of what needs to be
| developed. Qualcomm does that for them.
| worldsavior wrote:
| I'd say you're paranoid. Nobody cares about you, and they won't
| invest billions just so they can see your hot nude pictures.
| There are much easier ways to get information out of a phone,
| no need for a backdoor.
|
| If there were ever any backdoor in some phone, it would have
| been found. No smartphone company is gonna take that chance
| that someone will find their backdoor, it will literally kill
| the company.
| Xunjin wrote:
| Whether parent is paranoid or not, Pegasus literally is used
| to spy, just because the state might not care about his hot
| nude pictures does not mean they don't care about other phone
| usage.
|
| "While NSO Group markets Pegasus as a product for fighting
| crime and terrorism, governments around the world have
| routinely used the spyware to surveil journalists, lawyers,
| political dissidents, and human rights activists."[0]
|
| Information these they can be much as powerful as a bomb, for
| example, I could learn more about your calls and discover
| that you do something immoral but not illegal and use it to
| blackmail you.
|
| 0.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(spyware)
| lejalv wrote:
| As if spying on "governments around the world have
| routinely used the spyware to surveil journalists, lawyers,
| political dissidents, and human rights activists" wasn't
| already alarming, Pegasus has also been used to spy elected
| officials.
|
| A recent court case investigating spying on 37 elected
| representatives [1] (including the prime minister, three
| ministers, and regional politicians) had to be closed in
| 2023 and again in 2026 "for lack of cooperation of the
| Israeli government".
|
| [1] https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20220510/pegasus-espiados-
| sanch... (spanish) [2]
| https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20260122/juez-archiva-caso-
| pega... (spanish)
| saikia81 wrote:
| I'm guessing you missed out on the Snowden revelations? Or
| the news articles about federal agents literally laughing at
| private dick pics.
|
| And your second paragraph seems to go on the premise that the
| average person care if there is a backdoor.
|
| I don't know why you wouldn't take security seriously, when
| even the US government is telling everyone to be careful
| where they supply their devices because of spying. Just don't
| trust them to point the finger the right way.
| krior wrote:
| Sometimes you become a target purely by chance. You may
| witness something you should not have seen, are at the wrong
| place at the wrong time, the "algorithm" glitches and
| increases your "thread level" by 5000%. In most of these
| situations preparations like running graphene os can be quite
| the boon.
|
| Or think of friends and family. When they become the target,
| you are prepared, you have the knowledge and tools ready, you
| can be the guide that helps them navigate a hostile digital
| world.
| romanovcode wrote:
| > Nobody cares about you
|
| This is such a low-iq argument I cannot even. Yes, nobody
| cares about OP, you, me, whatever - until they do. Not to
| mention general harvesting for profiling and propaganda
| reasons.
|
| General: What do people in this city/country/region/etc are
| thinking - This is the main one where the data is used and
| collected, then grouped. It is extremely powerful information
| for targeted agenda whichever it might be.
|
| Targeted: Oh, you or someone from your close ones went to a
| political protest? Too bad we have all this information to
| put you and your family in jail - This is where suddenly they
| will care about you, even when it is NOT YOU but someone from
| your close circles were the ones upsetting them.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| The UK government is known to spy on anti genocide
| protestors.
|
| The US government is known to spy on anti ICE protestors.
|
| If you have an opinion your government doesn't like, or a
| potential future government doesn't like, there's a good
| chance you have or will be spied on.
|
| Perhaps _you_ lack a single opinion worth caring about, but
| most people do not.
| pschastain wrote:
| And I'd say you don't understand how state-sponsored tracking
| and spying operates
| imcritic wrote:
| I'd say you aren't smart or are a shill.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| Let me give you another perspective - you cannot fight a
| foreign state that wants to hack your device and access your
| personal data. Even Apple iPhones, who often taut how "secure"
| their devices are, remain vulnerable to state spywares. A
| secured device, at most, will protect your data from the police
| or lay cracker or malware, who lack the means to use more
| sophisticated methods to access your data. When Android forks
| (like Lineage OS or Graphene OS) advertise that their Oses are
| more "secure", with better "data protection", what they mean is
| that their OSes try and prevent data leakages to the OS vendors
| (like Google or Apple or other BigTech) or to online services
| integrated with the OS or through system and user installed
| apps. In other words, "privacy and security" primarily means
| that they try and prevent _surveillance capitalism_.
| chpatrick wrote:
| Actually Graphene has been shown to be resilient (uniquely)
| to some of the forensic tools used by governments.
| M95D wrote:
| Probably because nobody targeted them yet.
| latentsea wrote:
| Which demographics do you think run GrapheneOS as a daily
| driver other than people who have shit to hide? They've
| definitely been targeted.
| NotPractical wrote:
| ...apparently most of HN, judging by these recent
| threads?
| DANmode wrote:
| Yeah, I hide that I'm using apps from other spyware apps.
|
| What of it?
| gruez wrote:
| cellbrite specifically has grapheneos in its support
| matrix.
| fsflover wrote:
| Perhaps you may be interested in Librem 5 or Pinephone, both of
| which have hardware kill switches for modem and available
| schematics. The latter even has most of the modem software
| freed.
| gf000 wrote:
| Security theater, it has absolutely no use. If you can't
| trust your hardware that it won't actively listen to the
| microphone without your knowledge and permission then what
| are you even doing with that device?!
| fsflover wrote:
| I do trust my device. However in specific circumstances
| where privacy may be critical, an additional protection
| might save me even from a state-sponsored attack.
| strcat wrote:
| Those devices have atrocious security at a hardware, firmware
| and software level. Their microphone kill switch also doesn't
| prevent audio recording. They aren't open hardware despite
| many attempts to mislead people with the marketing.
|
| > The latter even has most of the modem software freed.
|
| Pinephones have entirely closed source baseband firmware.
| They use a highly unusual cellular radio which includes both
| an incredibly outdated Qualcomm baseband processor with
| atrocious updates and security combined with an extremely
| outdated proprietary fork of Android running on an extra CPU
| core which isn't present in any mainstream smartphone. It's
| only replacing the unusual extra OS which has been done. That
| whole component doesn't exist on other smartphones and the
| only reason it's possible to replace it is because the whole
| radio has absolutely atrocious security. The radio is
| connected via a far higher attack surface USB connection
| providing far less isolation for the OS and the USB
| connection can be used to flash the proprietary Android OS
| via the fastboot protocol. The baseband firmware itself
| doesn't have any replacement available.
| daneel_w wrote:
| _> Pinephones have entirely closed source baseband
| firmware.
|
| > The baseband firmware itself doesn't have any replacement
| available._
|
| Same with the Google Pixels and their Samsung Exynos modem.
| Neither you nor GrapheneOS users have any idea at all
| what's going on in their cellular transceivers. What will
| it be for the upcoming Motorola phone?
| ysnp wrote:
| Hi daneel, what would you like GrapheneOS to do while you
| develop your own formally verified, open hardware, open
| source firmware/OS baseband processor they can use? Sit
| on their hands doing nothing or making the best of the
| least worst options currently available?
| daneel_w wrote:
| The Pixels already are the best of the least worst
| options currently available. Anything new must
| categorically bring improvements, and the closed source
| firmware of the Pixels is a pressing point.
| DANmode wrote:
| > Neither you nor GrapheneOS users have any idea at all
| what's going on in their cellular transceivers
|
| Pixel has an IOMMU - are you implying that's being
| defeated, or that you weren't aware of it?
| daneel_w wrote:
| Neither. It's great that the Pixels' baseband ACPU
| doesn't have free reign in system memory, but if we're
| gonna underline the deficient state of the cellular modem
| in the Pine Phone we should also remind ourselves that
| the firmware situation with the Pixels is an almost
| equally sore thumb.
| raffael_de wrote:
| > Not sure how I feel about this. Motorola seems to be the
| exclusive provider of encrypted cellular networks and
| associated devices to the Israeli military [1][2].
|
| makes me feel good about it.
| Aeglaecia wrote:
| what exactly makes you feel good about a privacy black hole
| with the worlds foremost anti privacy captain at the helm ?
| imcritic wrote:
| The opportunity to be blown up by your phone upon a trigger
| pulled by mossad. Obviously.
| worldsavior wrote:
| Are you a terrorist? No? Then you have nothing to worry
| about :)
| farkanoid wrote:
| If you have anything to hide you have nothing to fear,
| eh?
|
| Former Mossad Chief Yosi Cohen bragged about having booby
| trapped and otherwise compromised devices in pretty much
| every country. [1]
|
| [1] https://the307.substack.com/p/former-mossad-chief-
| brags-that...
| strcat wrote:
| You're confusing Motorola Mobility with Motorola
| Solutions. These haven't been part of the same company
| since 2011. We would happily support devices from
| Motorola Solutions with their collaboration too but have
| no contact or partnership with them as they're an
| entirely different company. We want to support more
| devices meeting our requirements and if people have
| issues with one of the choices due to their opinions on
| geopolitics they can use another.
| LollipopYakuza wrote:
| This is a fallacious argument that has been thoroughly
| debunked countless times, and frankly it has no place on
| a platform where we expect a baseline level of digital
| literacy. Privacy isn't about hiding crimes, it's about
| limiting how much power one government has over you.
| History has shown stuff that's totally fine today can be
| treated like a problem tomorrow. A surveillance system
| built under a "good" government can be handed to a shady
| one.
| strcat wrote:
| You're confusing Motorola Mobility with Motorola
| Solutions. These haven't been part of the same company
| since 2011. We would happily support devices from
| Motorola Solutions with their collaboration too but have
| no contact or partnership with them as they're an
| entirely different company. We want to support more
| devices meeting our requirements and if people have
| issues with one of the choices due to their opinions on
| geopolitics they can use another.
| raffael_de wrote:
| all technology companies are to some extent in cahoots with
| secret agencies. but israel has no room for mistakes, they
| only work with the best. no doubt they will ask for
| backdoors. but no phone is safe from governments anyway -
| grapheneos or not.
| strcat wrote:
| You're confusing Motorola Mobility with Motorola Solutions.
| These haven't been part of the same company since 2011. We
| would happily support devices from Motorola Solutions with
| their collaboration too but have no contact or partnership
| with them as they're an entirely different company. We want
| to support more devices meeting our requirements and if
| people have issues with one of the choices due to their
| opinions on geopolitics they can use another.
| aniviacat wrote:
| Motorola phones are made by Motorola Mobility, not Motorola
| Solutions.
|
| Motorola Mobility is largely owned by the Chinese government.
|
| The Chinese government is not gonna share your data with
| Israel/USA.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47215079
| greenchair wrote:
| true, they want it for themselves
| embedding-shape wrote:
| If you're not in country X which spies on you, but you live
| in country Y, is it preferable to have country X or Y to
| spy on you, given one is further away and cannot really
| impact your daily life, compared to the other country?
| Dectanable wrote:
| Israel has sold nuclear US state secrets to China. Don't hold
| your breath.
| https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-
| israe...
| alt227 wrote:
| Serves them right for giving confidential equipment to
| terrorists.
|
| The key quote in this article is:
|
| "Israel has a long record of getting U.S. military
| technology to China. "
| M95D wrote:
| None of it matters. If the device has a SIM card (virtual or
| physical), it will execute commands sent over the network. It's
| required by the GSM/LTE standards. The best you can hope for is
| to have separate SoC for the OS and separate SoC for the
| GSM/LTE connectivity, but that means double the power
| consumption.
|
| See presentation at DEFCON21 about SIM cards:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31D94QOo2gY
| Aachen wrote:
| defcon21 is from the pre-snowden world (2013), for anyone
| else wondering. Mobile landscape (our reliance on them, the
| central role they play in our lives) back then was a little
| bit different and indeed I'd not be surprised if most models
| support that the carrier can remotely read out any memory
| location or something
| montroser wrote:
| So, what is Motorola's incentive here? I love it, but why are
| they pursuing this? It's an enterprise / government play around
| auditable privacy and security?
| debazel wrote:
| My guess is that this is a great way for them to standout, fill
| a niche, and get tons of free advertisements in order to gain
| back some of their Android market share.
|
| Motorola has effectively lost in the Android market and are on
| downward spiral into irrelevance (already there?), so they have
| to do something different.
| Ugvx wrote:
| Add to that existing grapheneos users at best only care about
| good enough performance and a good camera, the selling
| feature is security and so a lot less overhead to market such
| a phone. Those who want the latest features will continue to
| buy pixels, Samsung, and iphones. The only thing I feel is
| missing from the picture at a quick glance is a tablet for
| the few who want a secure tablet device.
| scblock wrote:
| "Those who want the latest features will continue to buy
| pixels"
|
| My friend the GrapheneOS supported devices list is nothing
| but pixels, including the very latest models. It'll be good
| to have more supported devices.
|
| https://grapheneos.org/faq#supported-devices
| atoav wrote:
| Sell devices who want to get out of the grip of US software
| monopolies. This is not unpopular in the rest of the world.
| stefanka wrote:
| Digital sovereignty. Europe is a big market and Motorola could
| gain traction this way
| ajvs wrote:
| They know their software and update story sucks, so partnering
| with a company which promises to handle all that and they have
| an existing audience means they'll sell a lot more of that
| model.
| palata wrote:
| GrapheneOS currently has like half a million users and growing.
| And many of those users would love to not be forced to have a
| Google Pixel (even if those are really good phone).
|
| The question for Motorola is: "given the cost of meeting
| GrapheneOS' requirements, how many more devices will we sell?".
| Hundreds of thousands of devices is not nothing, I guess. Plus
| they get free consulting from the team building the most secure
| phone OS out there.
|
| I really don't understand why smaller smartphone manufacturers
| didn't fight before for that. Say Fairphone: I don't know about
| today, but a few years ago they finally got profitable by
| selling something like 200 thousands units a year. If they had
| designed a phone to be supported by GrapheneOS, that would
| surely have increased their sales quite a bit. Now that ship
| has sailed, GrapheneOS will be focused on Motorola for a few
| years.
| sourcegrift wrote:
| Why doesn't someone collaborate with pine64? Chasing after any
| flavour of android is going to be an exercise in masochism
| NewJazz wrote:
| Because, and I really mean no offense to them, their phones
| fucking suck. Like, dogshit slow hardware with terrible drivers
| and a modem that barely works with last gen tech.
|
| Their most advanced phone is based on a >10 year old SoC, that
| wasn't even that good when it was first released.
| gf000 wrote:
| And even then they still don't live up to their promises, it
| is still not open hardware - there are a bunch of proprietary
| firmware, but especially silicon on these devices.
| Ugvx wrote:
| Grapheneos has well established its role in the android
| ecosystem. Having developed and upstreamed features that have
| as a whole, improved the security of android.
|
| Pine64 has targeted a very different market around
| extensibility and hacker/maker mindset. However while their
| phones have a lot of potential, security measures are half
| baked (microphone cutoff switch doesn't actually cut off the
| microphone), performance mediocre, and demand missing. While I
| love my pinephone pro, its not a dailiable device. A phone that
| cannot access common services like your bank account are non
| viable for 99% of users.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Apps. Any phone without access to the Android or iOS ecosystem
| is doomed to fail.
|
| The only solution would be an emulation layer.
| mrbn100ful wrote:
| Like Waydroid or Appsupport (only on SailfishOS) :p
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Plain Linux on phones is still quite bad. It's not unusable
| like it was a few years ago, but it's still not good enough to
| gain any traction. Jolla is trying, desperately, and it's not
| working, even with the ever growing anti-American sentiments.
|
| For Motorola to partner with one of the Linux phone projects,
| someone would have to invest significant resources in
| mainlining the drivers, replacing blobs with open source
| drivers where feasible, and maintaining that code when new
| upstream firmware and drivers make it downstream with patches
| and fixes. Looking at postmarketOS, you can see it takes years
| of community effort to port a device to the point of becoming
| useful. Once the software is done, the hardware is outdated
| enough that Motorola won't be making any money on sales any
| more.
|
| In theory all of this would be a lot easier if Qualcomm,
| MediaTek, and the other SoC manufacturers would take the burden
| of mainlining drivers upon themselves the way Intel and AMD do.
| With the recent high-end Qualcomm chips, the company does seem
| to put in some effort, but these companies simply don't care
| about Linux support.
|
| GrapheneOS is an Android fork so of course they're partnering
| with an Android company. They also don't have the capacity to
| maintain their own kernel + security patches + drivers, which
| is why they rely on upstream maintenance (from Google,
| historically) with their own Android-level improvements to
| remain secure.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| I wonder if I'm gonna be able to flash my existing Edge 70.
| microtonal wrote:
| Unlikely, current devices do not have the required security
| features. The plan to support some devices of the 2027 lineup.
| notorandit wrote:
| It depends, but it is promising.
|
| If devs can have access to all of the hardware and related
| documentation and source code, then this is to become very good
| news.
|
| PCs became popular and widespread because of that: openness.
| alexander9866 wrote:
| Does this have more security, Please let me know share the
| details
| jaypatelani wrote:
| I hoped they would have gone with HMD or BlackBerry.
| forkerenok wrote:
| Why? Multiple times in the last 8 or so years I've considered
| both Nokia (HMD) and Motorola. Looking at reviews and specs I
| decided every time in favor of Motorola, despite liking the
| design of Nokia's more, and didn't regret it.
| zikduruqe wrote:
| I was secretly hoping Framework would have produced a phone
| that would collaborate with GrapheneOS. I know it is a stretch,
| but one can dream.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I wish Framework would release one of its regular laptops,
| beefy battery and all, except it runs Android (on an ARM
| processor of course).
|
| I mean, they already have RISC-V.
|
| https://frame.work/se/en/products/deep-computing-risc-v-
| main...
| sandreas wrote:
| If anyone from Motorola is reading this: Please add a smaller
| device to your Portfolio, about max the size of a Pixel 8. I'm
| not hoping for an audio jack any more but at least small it could
| be.
|
| All in all: Thank you for making this possible.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| The whole Moto G series has audio jacks, at least as of a year
| or so ago. I hope that Graphene makes it to those affordable
| models. I don't need high end cameras or AI on my phone. In
| fact AI is quite unwanted.
| panny wrote:
| Lol, no, according to graphene, an aux jack is a security
| problem. So is a microsd. But the hole punch with the camera
| pointed at your face, that's just fine.
|
| When my current phone dies, I'm basically returning to a dumb
| phone with a removable battery. Now that Xperia dropped open
| source, every phone out there is terrible and I just don't
| want any of them. Anything that would support a ROM has
| features to make my skin crawl.
| sheiyei wrote:
| It's a shame that modern banking (and communication with my
| family) needs a smartphone.
| Aachen wrote:
| Does it? My banking works in any browser that supports
| javascript, and chatting has been possible on desktops
| (and laptops etc.) longer than it has on phones
| throawayonthe wrote:
| why do you say "according to graphene?" have they said
| those things? or do you just mean the currently supported
| devices don't have these
| _vere wrote:
| Their hardware requirements do not say this, where'd you
| get that idea? Graphene has stated they'll work with the
| Motorola team on supporting their devices, starting with
| the successors of the Razr foldable and the signature line,
| but there really hasn't been any talk about how additional
| peripherals like aux would be a no-go. USB is also a
| security concern, which is why they give you the option to
| disable it outright, disable data or disable until after-
| first-unlock. I don't see what would keep them from
| implementing this for aux, although since it's
| unidirectional I'm not sure if it even makes sense to
| compare aux to USB. They've supported pixels with aux ports
| in the past, and I don't think it's inclusion would be a
| blocking criteria. The comment about the camera is also
| kinda misguided. They zero out the camera input if you
| disable it, unlike traditional android. You can have a
| camera toggle in your quick settings and keep it disabled
| literally all the time. Enabling it when you bring up any
| camera related app takes either pin or biometrics, having
| the hardware here really shouldn't be a concern since you
| can look at how the code handling it works yourself. I'm
| not trying to convince you to use a pixel or a Motorola
| phone, do what you want, but at least be informed about
| stuff like this when you state things as if they are facts.
| panny wrote:
| >but there really hasn't been any talk about how
| additional peripherals like aux would be a no-go.
|
| It's water under the bridge. You're NEVER getting a
| Graphene phone that supports a microsd. It won't happen.
| The AUX jack, you will biligerently be told to get a USB
| DAC or otherwise you are an old man yelling at clouds.
|
| Graphene and Motorola will work together by happy
| accident. Tell ya what though, if they make a GrapheneOS
| phone with 3.5mm, dual sim, microsd, and >no notch or
| hole punch< and I will buy it. I won't even care how much
| it costs. All the Xperias I've owned were among the most
| expensive phones on the market.
| _vere wrote:
| It's unlikely for the Razr line to support microsd since
| those are foldables, and flagships like the signature
| line generally tend not to, but nowhere on their hardware
| requirements list does it say that a potentially
| supported device cannot have a microsd card slot, thats
| just wrong. There is nothing about a memory slot that
| would make the phone less safe inherently, they already
| support USB drives, internal emmc memory isnt that much
| more crazy than that, right? I just think its super weird
| to be like preemtively mad at them for an imagined
| aversion to supporting hardware that doesnt exist. I get
| that the people involved with the project can be a little
| prickly when you ask them for advice about stuff, but
| what do you expect them to do here? They support the
| devices they do not out of some sort of adherence to a
| skewed model of security, they actually genuinely need
| the hardware to be able to do all of the things they ask
| for, which currently literally only the pixel line
| offers. If a manufacturer like Sony who tends to do aux,
| microsd slots and no holepunch cameras were to adapt to
| their hardware standards
| (https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices) there would
| likely be an effort by people to get these supported, its
| not the lack of will from the devs, its the lack of
| support from phone manufacturers that has kept the line
| of supported devices constrained to pixels.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > since it's unidirectional I'm not sure if it even makes
| sense to compare aux to USB
|
| Most phone aux support microphones and acting as an
| antenna for FM radio reception. I don't see how either
| could be used for a security exploit however.
| Aachen wrote:
| > I don't see what would keep them from implementing this
| for aux, although since it's unidirectional
|
| No electric circuit is unidirectional. Beyond the
| pause/play and volume commands that it supports (edit:
| and mic as mentioned in a sibling comment), Graphene
| would probably reason it's an easy way to externally read
| voltage levels and so an unnamed entity can mount side
| channel attacks with backdoored headphones
| M95D wrote:
| Modern dumb phones are just smartphones with a dumb UI.
| Aachen wrote:
| Citation needed. A lot of dumb phones still only support
| 2g, for example, and you need to watch out that you don't
| buy a model that won't work anymore when carriers take
| that off the air. No smartphone hardware has that issue
| fsflover wrote:
| > When my current phone dies, I'm basically returning to a
| dumb phone with a removable battery.
|
| Why not a smartphone with the jack, microsd, and a hardware
| kill switch for camera?
| Aachen wrote:
| I haven't found a >=2025 phone (I started looking in the
| summer) with a headphone jack that I can actually use
| more conveniently than a tablet. Everything now requires
| two hands, not counting warrantyless china phones like
| the jelly star, or ones with a chipset that would have
| been considered fast in 2018
|
| As for the camera, a webcam sticker seems much more
| convenient than needing to mess with the hardware
| internals
| fsflover wrote:
| > haven't found a >=2025 phone
|
| Why such a restriction?
|
| > or ones with a chipset that would have been considered
| fast in 2018
|
| https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/
|
| > webcam sticker seems much more convenient
|
| Except there is also a microphone.
|
| > than needing to mess with the hardware internals
|
| What do you mean? My phone has a convenient, external
| hardware kill switch. No messing with internals is
| necessary.
| Aachen wrote:
| > Why such a restriction?
|
| Sorry, that wasn't clear: I meant any phone that I can
| purchase as of 2025. I was looking for several months and
| made a decision about 2 months ago. A second-hand Pixel
| was a big compromise but I don't see another option
|
| > https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/
|
| Do you also have thoughts to add or am I supposed to read
| and respond to 2000 words of material here?
|
| The reason I'm looking at specs is not because I have no
| idea what I need. Not sure if there's another possible
| reading or if the link insinuates that. The software I
| use (e.g.: OsmAnd) is noticeably faster on more modern
| systems and was downright sluggish on my previous phone.
| I could buy my current chipset again, it's doable for
| now, but neither fluent nor future-proof. The chip's
| inefficiency also means it's completely empty after 2.5
| hours of use (while I'm out mapping, taking notes,
| recording positions and sometimes pictures, listening to
| music... I ask a lot of the battery), whereas newer chips
| can do the same work with less energy
|
| I also need a modern chipset for accurate GNSS. The phone
| I get from work has dual-frequency GNSS and makes razor
| sharp traces which are much more usable for my mapping
| hobby, especially in urban or forested areas or behind
| coated windows like trains or cars (car navigation isn't
| that niche, my current phone does a pretty poor job at
| that)
|
| But yeah, let's not focus on specs. Who cares about any
| of this right? That's what I'd say if I sold a really
| basic phone
|
| > Except there is also a microphone.
|
| Respond to the person above. Hardware toggles wasn't my
| argument but theirs. Great that your librem has this but
| the thread is about GrapheneOS
|
| Edit: lol that was yourself. You posted about a camera
| toggle, not me or anyone else
| fsflover wrote:
| > Do you also have thoughts to add or am I supposed to
| read and respond to 2000 words of material here?
|
| The idea is that relatively low specs do not necessarily
| mean low performance. It depends on the software a lot.
| For example, SXMo provides a smooth experience with maps
| and Youtube even on a Pinephone. The battery life may be
| a problem though.
|
| > the thread is about GrapheneOS
|
| The subthread you started is about a phone "with a
| headphone jack that I can actually use more conveniently
| than a tablet", so I thought I could intervene with some
| other options. I might be wrong though.
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| It sounds bizarre to me that an analog aux port is a
| security problem and that bluetooth audio is not, or that
| the phone's built in microphone is not. I never want to use
| bluetooth and tbh I've sometimes wanted a phone with no
| microphone, so that if I wanted to make a phone call I'd
| have to plug in my wired headset. That gets rid of the
| microphone as a listening device.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| I think I went through the first ~3 or so generations of the
| Motorola Moto G, and they were great for the price, besides
| the fact that each generation it got bigger and bigger,
| defeating the original motivation I bought them in the first
| place. Eventually the iPhone 12 Mini was released and I moved
| to iPhone at that point.
|
| I also hope that the new GrapheneOS device from Motorola will
| be in the "smaller" size factor so it actually fits in my
| (apparently) tiny hands, but to be honest I'm probably
| getting one regardless, as iOS gets worse and worse every
| time I update it.
| amunozo wrote:
| I was thinking the same thing. My smartphone is reaching the
| end of its life, and I really like something smaller.
| simonmales wrote:
| The small form factor phones simply do not sell. Some great
| thoughts on the topic:
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR9zBsKELVs *
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZdbbN3FCzE Not about small
| form factor, rather enthusiast phones don't last
|
| Currently running a Sony Xperia 5 V which farm factor is
| acceptable, and still will get a number of months of updates.
| And the winning point is that the bootloader can be unlocked
| and is supported by LineageOS.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Ironically I always find when these new devices like the
| fairphone come out, I'm disappointed and don't buy it because
| the screens are actually too small. They tend to focus on an
| unuseable middle point (probably in an attempt to please
| everyone).
|
| All the flagships have huge screens, the big guys would have
| paid millions on market research, I can't understand why they
| arent just trying to achieve flagship parity (in terms of
| specs not price or software). No one is going to say it's
| unreasonable and they save themselves the market research
| joe_mamba wrote:
| _> And the winning point is that the bootloader can be
| unlocked and is supported by LineageOS_
|
| Don't banking, security and payment apps detect the unlocked
| bootloader and prevent them from working on lineageos? At
| least that's what happened to me after i flashed lineage on
| my old tablet.
|
| Because then what's the point of a smartphone if it can't do
| banking, payment, shopping, ticketing, etc? Use it as a
| gimped pocket web browser and ebook reader? There's not gonna
| be any mass market adoption for such "smartphones" until they
| can run all apps out of the box like vanilla androids and IOS
| phones.
|
| Your average consumer isn't gonna wanna fuck around with
| signing keys and bootloader relock. Hell, even this tech
| savvy HN user doesn't want to do that because he has better
| things to do with his time. The days from my childhood when I
| always rooted my Android phone, installed custom ROMs with
| custom kernels, magisk, titanium backup, cerberus to make the
| phone "my own" are long behind me.
| jbstack wrote:
| What we need is a way for the OS to trick banking apps into
| thinking they are running on the platform they expect.
| microtonal wrote:
| You cannot, the OS does not have that level of access.
| Attestation is anchored in a (typically) non-replaceable
| bootloader and trusted execution environment, both of
| which the OS does not have access to. A remote server can
| verify that the attestation chain is signed by a
| hardware-backed key and contains the verified boot status
| and verification key. If you would change this
| information, it would be detected by the remote server,
| since the signature would not be valid anymore.
| throawayonthe wrote:
| (at least on pixels and apparently this future motorolla,)
| it can be re-locked, so it passes the integrity check;
| however there is an additional layer that needs google
| signing keys, which of course means you can't pass that one
| if you can't ship the keys
|
| funnily enough my banking app works but the mcdonalds app
| doesn't, lol
| szszrk wrote:
| Mcdonalds decided it's "unsafe" to run their app in
| private space of Android. In literally the most locked
| down part :) Marketing must have gotten a nice bonus for
| that mental effort.
|
| I can run banking apps like that, corporate apps like
| that, but I can't show a QR code to order happy meal.
| sunaookami wrote:
| You can't even use the McDonald's app if you have an
| overlay. I use KineStop and in the car I'm already
| choosing what to order and I can't click anything until I
| turn off KineStop...
|
| In comparison the Burger King app works without problems
| and is very fast.
| bzzzt wrote:
| I've read about a few incidents where people could order
| for free or below cost so I'm not surprised their app
| developers are a little paranoid.
| joking wrote:
| if you can order for free or below cost doing anything in
| the app, you are not paranoid, you are directly stupid,
| is like being able to modify the shopping cart total in
| the browser and the server accepting that as the correct
| price. Everything should be server side validated where
| you have the full control of it.
| bzzzt wrote:
| Tell that to marketing types running coupon campaigns not
| realizing coupons are essentially money...
| szszrk wrote:
| Could be related.
|
| It was likely their management doing random shit to fix
| it. Instead of fixing real problem, which was bogus
| campaign rules. Reddit was full of people abusing their
| app discounts and ordering insane amount of food for
| free. It was well described.
|
| None of that was due to app security holes. It was an
| issue in their promotional campaign. It was still working
| after those "secure" app limitations appeared.
| kopirgan wrote:
| So you can send a remittance for $1m but not order fries.
| It believes that health is wealth.
| carpenecopinum wrote:
| There is the option to register the signing key of the ROM
| with the bootloader and then relocking it, thereby making
| those apps happy again.
|
| The biggest issue is that there is a different way to do
| this for every device, so most custom ROMs don't bother.
| It's relatively simple and automatable for Pixel devices,
| so the GrapheneOS installer takes care of it. e/OS/, which
| is based on Lineage, allows this for some devices, iirc.
| notpushkin wrote:
| DivestOS supported it, too. Probably the closest thing to
| LineageOS with a relockable bootloader (and it worked
| with microG!).
| lifis wrote:
| Switch to a bank that offers a fully functional web or
| Android app, as opposed to only allowing Google Android
| microtonal wrote:
| I'm all in favor of voting with your wallet, though
| easier said then done when your mortgage, long-term
| saving accounts, etc. are tied up with your bank account.
|
| That said, my banking and credit card apps work fine on
| GrapheneOS.
| Narushia wrote:
| Not possible in Finland. :( I'm using the one bank (OP)
| that _used to_ allow rooted devices to use their app, but
| even they eventually blocked it via SafetyNet.
| Markoff wrote:
| > The small form factor phones simply do not sell.
|
| yeah, clearly nobody buys Samsung Galaxy S series for years,
| they are like the least popular Android phone model... /s
|
| I'm running Pixel 6a (which was followed bu successors with
| worse screen:body ratio for years and only now the new Pixels
| finally matched and slightly improved the ratio, what a
| progress), but considering all the HW issues (baterries and
| displays) with Pixels I'd rather avoid it, the worst case
| will buy as next phone Xiaomi and hopefully somehow unlock
| it, if there is no suitable Motorola
|
| edit: added HW issues explanation since I am rate limited on
| comments
| arboles wrote:
| What are the HW issues with Pixels?
| jsheard wrote:
| > yeah, clearly nobody buys Samsung Galaxy S series for
| years, they are like the least popular Android phone
| model... /s
|
| I don't think the smaller Galaxy S models are what people
| generally mean when they talk about small phones, those are
| still much bigger than the iPhone Mini was.
|
| https://www.phonearena.com/phones/size/Samsung-
| Galaxy-S26,Ap...
| Markoff wrote:
| it's literally one of the smallest Android phones with
| good specs
|
| here you have filtered Android phones since 2020 under
| 71mm with OIS camera
|
| https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2020&nWidt
| hMa...
|
| it's basically just Samsung S series, Pixels, overpriced
| bad value Sony and few exotic/abandoned phones (Asus is
| done with phones, they had always horrible SW, Xiaomi
| only model 12 many years ago, Meizu not available outside
| China)
| dzonga wrote:
| yeah pixel used to be great. probably the best phone I ever
| owned after iPhone SE was a Pixel 3a.
|
| till I got the abomination that was a pixel 6a. fucking
| overheated - then finally battery exploded. Other pixels
| suffer the same problems as well - overheating n display
| being finnicky.
| Milpotel wrote:
| > The small form factor phones simply do not sell.
|
| And still in every phone topic people complain about phones
| being too big... I'd love to have a smaller affordable
| smartphone.
| beeforpork wrote:
| Same here. And I have a friend who keeps his small IPhone
| because they stopped building smaller phones, too. There is
| a demand, maybe not that big.
|
| For me, I want to be able to operate the phone with one
| hand, and the large screen makes it difficult to reach all
| the spots on the screen even with large hands. I do operate
| my Fairphone 5 with one hand, but it is super awkward and
| at some point, the phone will fall into a gully because I
| cannot hold it tight while navigating.
|
| And I wouldn't mind 2mm more thickness if this means the
| cameras are flush with the back and the battery is larger.
| kirito1337 wrote:
| my sm-a260f is too smoll
| happymellon wrote:
| > There is a demand, maybe not that big.
|
| Whenever I see this when talking about small phones, I'm
| reminded of the stats, where the iPhone minis were a
| small proportion of iPhone sales but still by themselves
| outsold most manufacturers.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39104057
| paol wrote:
| I was in the same boat and literally this week bought a
| Pixel 8. It's a 2 year old phone but with the extended
| support period that's no longer a problem, and being old
| means you can get it new for about EUR300 or refurbished
| for even less.
|
| The other option is the Samsung S2x line, which you can
| apply the same strategy to.
| rglullis wrote:
| The issue of "enthusiast phones" is not the same as for small
| phones. The problem that MKBHD is describing is that a
| company that starts as an enthusiast phone can not grow by
| getting the niche larger, so they need to start competing in
| the "average consumer" market. But a large, established
| company like Motorola and Samsung can for sure segment their
| product line to serve a particular demand.
|
| I think the issue of small phones is that, while there people
| saying they would buy if it was available, no one is saying
| "I would buy one small phone at flagship prices, even if they
| don't have flagship features".
| Zak wrote:
| I suspect there's a large overlap between people who want a
| small phone and people who only upgrade their phone when
| there's a pressing need. I am in both groups.
|
| The root cause is that the phone is not a primary device
| for me. It's what I use when bringing a PC is too much
| trouble.
| Propelloni wrote:
| I run a Xperia 10 V. Great phone, great form factor, easy to
| unlock. It runs for days, almost a week, on one battery
| charge. Sony is doing something right here.
| Tarsul wrote:
| I got the same or similar but let's not kid ourselves that
| this is in any way small. It would have been giant by 2015
| standards. That's how much the overton window has shifted.
| Aachen wrote:
| > small form factor phones simply do not sell
|
| Are we really sure "nobody actually wants it"? I need to help
| my family select the smallest possible phone every time.
| Meanwhile choices are dwindling and the remaining 2 models
| are either overpriced or outdated and so I need to tell them
| it's better to take a (whatever currently goes for) "medium
| sized" model, which shifts upwards every time I/they need a
| new one. No wonder that people don't buy small phones anymore
| if they don't exist
|
| I don't buy this nonsense about small phones being a niche
| when so many people are actively seeking them out, both
| online and offline in my practical experience
|
| It's just harder to make, heat dissipation or battery will be
| restricted, doubly so if you're a niche manufacturer without
| a big budget, or one who tries to keep it repairable and
| needs the extra space for screws. So I can understand that
| Fairphone doesn't release a small model (even if it means I
| simply cannot use it: I actually put my money down and bought
| one, but sadly had to sell it onwards after a few weeks of
| trying) but for Graphenorola I'm not sure that restriction
| exists. It may just not please everyone if the chip is
| underclocked for heat and battery efficiency reasons and so
| they're not likely to. Doesn't mean there's no market for a
| small variant for any manufacturer that has more than one
| device on the market
|
| My mom's and my current phone (same model) is what I'd call
| medium sized (per 2019 standards, when it was new) and the
| battery life sucks, but I'd buy this model again anyway if it
| came out with a >=2025 SoC because I can actually use it
| unlike nearly any other phone on the market. Not properly
| reach the top, but at least the left side so that'll have to
| do
| TwoFerMaggie wrote:
| I watched the first video. One point they didn't mentioned is
| that their android example of the "last small flagship
| phone", asus zenfone 9/10, is about the same size as an
| iphone 12/13, not the mini.
|
| Do regular iphones sell well? If so, the small flagship
| phones are not dead, because iphones are not dead. If iphones
| are not counted as small phones, then the small android
| flagship phones are dead long time ago.
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Oh, the guy who is still mentally on the level when he
| started his channel. And these shenanigans.... putting a
| phone in a mini coffin. sigh
|
| Why it has to be a flagship? Sell them cheap. It's like AAA
| game makers cry about ballooning costs, and they make 60 hour
| games that literally nobody plays through....
| sandreas wrote:
| I'm not necessarily asking for a "small" phone as in 4.5" or
| less.
|
| I'd like to have an Option around 6" and 150x70x9mm, which is
| not really small. Surprisingly the Pixel 8 has a smaller
| footprint than the Pixel *a variants while having a bigger
| display.
|
| So my request would be a device around the size of the Pixel
| 8, having a similar battery size and if possible a headphone
| jack at a reasonable price point (350 bucks).
|
| I consider the pixel 8 as really solid device for graphene
| OS.
|
| They don't even need to fix the longpress for headphone
| remotes... Just a device that is the right size.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Would a flip phone suffice?
| raffael_de wrote:
| wouldn't trust a flip phone with a display fold. i want
| small, thin and light.
| a-french-anon wrote:
| That's "small"? Here I am with my 5.2" Xperia XA2 thinking I'll
| be forced to go back to dumbphones in the future... along with
| many others, I guess.
| Aachen wrote:
| No, it's not small, but it's afaik the smallest model you can
| find that's still unlockable and runs any ungoogled OS
|
| > I'll be forced to go back to dumbphones in the future...
| along with many others, I guess.
|
| Going back to a dumbphone for me would mean changing my
| outdoor hobbies (like contributing to openstreetmap), so I'll
| take my losses and continue on a smartphone, but I share the
| sentiment. Power to you if you do it!
| babuskov wrote:
| +1 from me.
|
| Motorola has such great quality/price ratio and the user
| experience is decent. There's still some nagging and such but
| overall it's much better than the competition.
|
| But I still can't get over my old iPhone 6. That phone size was
| just perfect. Easy to hold and do everything with one hand,
| easy to fit into any pocket.
|
| I really want an Android like that. I don't need 3 cameras and
| bunch of other nonsense.
| venusenvy47 wrote:
| Also Motorola, make this phone available in the US:
| https://m.gsmarena.com/motorola_edge_50_neo-13224.php
|
| It's the smallest phone available with a real telephoto lens. I
| think it was only available in India, but I got one on eBay
| because it has those two features (not huge with telephoto) I
| was looking for. I moved to it from a Pixel 6a because I refuse
| to go any bigger in physical size.
| coldpie wrote:
| Check out their Razr Plus or Razr Ultra. The external display
| is 4" and fully functional, and it unfolds into a full-size
| phablet for when you need that. I'm a small-phone-liker and
| I've found it to be a great device, I'm very happy with mine.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| Is this feature gonna be on All phones including Low-end/mid-end
| (4-8Gb ram) and their flagship phones?
|
| It's gonna be huge if that's the case because Pixel's here are
| expensive, their second hand prices are in "non-global"
| countries[0] and you have to pay a premium. Also I live in
| world's largest second-hand phone market and it can have its
| worries as well.
|
| You can't say to anyone who wants privacy, oh just buy a second-
| hand pixel. It's just not that easy.
|
| But if Motorola can launch multiple phones and there are always
| gonna be some deals one way or another (with cards) and as
| motorola phones are pretty competitive in price, Finally we can
| have phones worldwide where privacy isn't charged extra.
|
| I have spent some hours looking at online second hand phone
| stores to find but due to its somewhat rarity, I always feel like
| being frugal, I am just paying extra for privacy and so I am
| really happy with decision from motorola using their supply chain
| of phones and partnering up with Graphene.
|
| I was gonna buy a phone for myself, I was thinking a second hand
| pixel phone but given the things I said earlier at this point, I
| might as well wait for a few more months to get the moto phone.
|
| I just hope that they launch an affordable phone with grapheneos.
| I really don't care about specs as I have been able to live my
| life with 7 year old motorola phones too in 2026 for sometime.
|
| I will definitely recommend my family Motorola phones in the
| future and slowly convert everyone to motorola if motorola
| releases an affordable phone with actual privacy.
|
| [0]:https://www.xcitium.com/blog/news/why-is-google-pixel-not-
| gl...
| backscratches wrote:
| graphene has said only flagships at first, but eventually they
| hope to end up on lower tier devices.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| Looks like I might have to wait for sometime then but still I
| am pretty excited about it yea!
| wobfan wrote:
| The biggest argument for me to buy one of these phones - when
| they actually arrive - next to running GrapheneOS, will be
| whether these phones, like all others, are way too big to use
| with only one hand. Like, I don't have a lot of requirements.
| Just make it run GrapheneOS and let it be >6 inches. I'll
| immediately buy it.
| pastrami_panda wrote:
| Larger than 6 inches, got it!
|
| Assuming you meant < 6 inches I'm all for it as well, it would
| be another incredible usp for these devices.
| strcat wrote:
| The initial supported devices will be flagships. They have
| regular, fold and flip variants of the flagships. The main
| advantage of flip phones is better one-handed use.
| milkytron wrote:
| This is great to hear, I've been wanting a flip phone for a
| while. GrapheneOS on a Moto Razr would actually be
| incredible. Thank you for all of your hard work and being
| active in this thread. I'm looking forward to getting my
| hands on a Motorola with GrapheneOS :)
| Elfener wrote:
| I would love to see devices with a non-destroyed (corners cut
| off, random hole for the front camera) screen.
| dashzebra wrote:
| I much prefer maximizing screen to body ratio, even if some
| sacrifices have to be made: rounded corners and punchhole cam.
|
| I'm also pretty sure rounded corners are stronger on impact.
| Liftyee wrote:
| You still get the same rectangular screen size for a given size
| of phone body, unless you want no front camera and sharp square
| corners. You still get an entire 16:9 screen area in the middle
| of a rounded corner screen, just with extra screen replacing
| the bezels on each end.
| dminik wrote:
| I'm fine with rounded corners. But I would also like a phone
| without a selfie camera. I just don't ever use it. If my phone
| can spy on me then that's the only use the front camera has
| ever had.
| krior wrote:
| just put a sticker on it
| pschastain wrote:
| Still lost screen real estate
| Jaykob1 wrote:
| Hello Moto!
| fluffypony wrote:
| I don't want to gush about this too much, but it's SUCH a big
| deal. Graphene has languished with hardware support for so long -
| they basically only had Pixel devices as first-class citizens,
| which are not bad devices per se, but it's hard when you're
| spending most of your time doing something without the
| manufacturer's support.
|
| There is a very real possibility that we end up with devices that
| can play modern mobile games at high frame rates on a secure,
| privacy-focused mobile OS, which is a huge step towards general
| adoption of something like this as a daily driver.
| monegator wrote:
| "general" people really play actual games on phones? I thought
| the general public at most played with time waster freemium
| games
| archievillain wrote:
| I wouldn't consider gachas to be "actual games" (sue me), but
| yeah, they do tend to have way more complex gameplay and
| graphics than the timewaster freemium games of yore. Genshin
| Impact is essentially a single-player MMO, it has an open
| world and lots of characters and different weapons etc etc.
| monegator wrote:
| still wouldn't bet the general phone audience find those
| games to be the the deciding factor in a phone
| DrewADesign wrote:
| I think it would be on par with camera quality-- really
| important to some, bot not a huge deal for most.
|
| Good enough quality screen for solid video media
| performance, generally, would be an absolute must I
| imagine.
| applfanboysbgon wrote:
| The "general phone audience" is some 5 billion people. If
| even 10% of them want to play games, on what is in the
| current year likely to be their primary if not only
| computer, that's already a market segment of 500 million.
| It wouldn't honestly surprise me if the number is closer
| to 15 or 20%, mobile gaming is extremely popular.
| monegator wrote:
| i would be surprised if it was more than 1-2% for those
| "graphic intensive games"
|
| normies use consoles, sometimes PCs
|
| my personal beef, after a camera that gets decent photos
| in low light, would be an accurate GPS that doesn't crap
| out after half an hour
| SietrixDev wrote:
| And yet Apple was at some point called one of the largest
| gaming companies in the world by revenue
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/06/05/apple-one-of-the-
| biggest...
| applfanboysbgon wrote:
| I think a lot of HN users, living in our own PC-oriented
| bubble, may not have realised the world has completely
| passed PCs by and that smartphones _are_ the personal
| computers of the current generation. While PS5 and Switch
| each have about 100-150 million in sales, there are an
| estimated 3 billion mobile game players. Are a majority
| of those "mobile game players" playing Flappy Bird,
| sure. But again, even 10% of that number being interested
| in "real games" would outnumber PS5 and Switch players
| combined. Fortnite and PUBG each have hundreds of
| millions of active users, most are on console but around
| 20% appear to be on mobile from a quick search. Genshin
| Impact also has tens of of millions MAU, a non-neglible
| percentage of which are mobile players. There are
| hundreds of millions of people for whom being able to
| play 3D games on their phone matters.
| kuboble wrote:
| Anecdotally,
|
| In public transport I see almost as many people playing
| games on their phones as those watching videos.
| throawayonthe wrote:
| mobile has been the largest gaming market for years now,
| wdym?
| worksonmine wrote:
| > There is a very real possibility that we end up with devices
| that can play modern mobile games at high frame rates on a
| secure, privacy-focused mobile OS, which is a huge step towards
| general adoption of something like this as a daily driver.
|
| This might be true, but the priorities are depressing.
| Markoff wrote:
| it's quite a big deal Motorola will have officialy devices with
| unlockable bootloader now that Samsung is ditching it and
| Xiaomi is making unlocking almost impossible, Sony reintroduced
| it but has probably the worst VFM in the market, so having
| Motorola with pretty good VFM (better than Pixel outside US) is
| big news, though they don't really make smaller phones and I'm
| worried about camera quality or gcam stability
| thot_experiment wrote:
| I'm not holding my breath but it would be amazing to have root
| and be able to tap to pay without constantly playing cat and
| mouse with google.
| HugoTea wrote:
| GrapheneOS doesn't give you root access, citing security
| issues it introduces. You could re-compile your own copy with
| root access, though not sure if we'll then be back to some
| non-certified OS that can't make payments...
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Yikes. Nevermind. The whole phone security model is one of
| the worst things to happen to computing, the concept that
| you shouldn't own your device for safety is so fucked.
| b112 wrote:
| I think is great, _if_ there are no ramifications when
| skilled people unlock it.
|
| There's just too much hacking going on, malicious
| behaviour, to allow uneducated masses to have root on a
| phone. I've seen so many people just not understanding
| the outcome of their actions. You'd get people rooting
| because some shady app lied about why, and just wanted
| control.
|
| And we don't need more botnets. And it's why banks
| sometimes throw a fit.
|
| So if a recompile does the trick, and no downside, then
| it'd be fine.
| palata wrote:
| > the concept that you shouldn't own your device for
| safety is so fucked.
|
| That's not it. The concept is "if you _choose_ to install
| _this particular OS_ on the device _you own_ , then it
| comes with _this particular security model_ ". That's
| totally fine. If you own your device, you can run Linux
| on it and you'll have root access.
|
| "Not owning your device" means "not being able to install
| the OS you want on it". I want to own my device,
| obviously. But it does not mean that I own the developers
| of every OS in the world and that they should do whatever
| I tell them to do, _for free_.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| I mean sure but I should be able to have DMA on some
| level, like I should be able to rootkit whatever software
| on my device, because it's on my device.
| zenmac wrote:
| A non rooted device is NOT really my device, just seems
| like a leased device.
|
| If we want to use banking app we have to use a non-
| rooted/leased device. That is what is really messed up.
| Personally I only use bank now that has website for
| banking. If they don't have a web site only app, then it
| is a red alert for the company.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Android is not UNIX, and that's a good thing. The root
| account was a historical mistake and not having access to
| it doesn't mean you don't own your device. That mindset
| is just trying to project how things worked with a half
| century old operating system with how modern operating
| systems work.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| What a disgusting take. It's actually so depressing to
| see anyone say this, presumably sincerely. It's how all
| the modern operating systems I use work.
|
| It's what makes computers so wonderful and powerful, you
| can just have it do whatever you want. Turning that into
| "whatever google decides i should be allowed to do" is
| not gonna lead us to a bright future.
| charcircuit wrote:
| With Turing completeness you can do whatever computation
| you want. If you want to go outside of Turing
| completeness and starting interacting with the real world
| or other apps that is when security models need to exist.
| There isn't a reason to allow a program to act however it
| wants. Why should we allow for programs to secretly spy
| on a user's mic with no visual indication. It's okay to
| bound what is possible with a device. This already
| happens in practice with other operating systems. Redhat
| can still be useful even if you don't have permission to
| write new CPU instructions (only Intel and Amd have they
| signing keys to add new instructions). Sure Intel may be
| limiting what you can do, but it still is a useful
| machine without it that many people successfully use and
| gain value from every day. Even as a smaller example root
| on Linux has limits on how it can interact with the
| kernel. It may be root, but there are still limits on
| what it can do without loading a kernel module to modify
| things. If you want a less secure operating system where
| things are less secure like allowing the user to be spied
| on you can make your own, but the average person wants to
| have a secure device.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Yeah and security models are fine. Having root on my
| device isn't the same as running everything as root. e.x.
| I want to access my files on my device over SSH so i
| don't have to keep plugging my phone in, sadly turing
| completeness doesn't get me there when I can't give my
| SSH daemon access to the filesystem. These are all solved
| problems, we're just CHOOSING not to expose the solutions
| to the end user under the guise of security in order to
| retain control.
| gruez wrote:
| >You could re-compile your own copy with root access,
| though not sure if we'll then be back to some non-certified
| OS that can't make payments...
|
| GrapheneOS is already non-certified, for most apps that
| care, because it can't pass STRONG_INTEGRITY with play
| protect.
| diacritical wrote:
| Unfortunately from what I read a couple of times, including a
| month or so ago, GrapheneOS discourages and doesn't support
| rooting the phone for security reasons that seem vague to me
| and don't appeal to my need to actually own my phone and OS.
| You could still root it with some third party tools from what
| I know, but not having root as the default makes it less of a
| secure FOSS OS and more of a closed down toy.
|
| As for payment apps and other crap that refuses to run if I,
| the owner and administrator of my own device, don't have
| admin access, I would just refuse to run it. What's next -
| websites refusing to work if I have root on my Linux desktop?
| kevincox wrote:
| Yeah, this is the deal breaker for me as well. The fact
| that I own my device is non-negotiable. It is the reason I
| left the stock OS and I'm not going back. The idea that I
| can't access my own files if an app doesn't explicitly give
| me access is wild to me. I understand there are security
| risks of a root permission but it is important to have that
| fallback when you need it and the existing permissions
| aren't sufficient.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| The "access your own files" thing is so insane! Hard to
| describe my feelings [negative] when I found out that all
| of my voice notes were in the voice recorder and the
| easiest way to get them out was to manually send each one
| to myself over discord. Google helpfully mentions that
| you can just "download them through google takeout" and
| doesn't leave any option for people who don't just give
| all their personal data to google.
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| I use a FOSS voice recorder app from F-Droid. It's just
| called "Voice Recorder" with an orange icon. It does
| exactly what it says, records audio from your microphone,
| lets you play them back. They're just files on the
| device.
|
| Anytime I need a "simple" utility, I check f-droid first
| to get the one-trick-pony app over spyware from the play
| store.
|
| Other utilities I use are: WorkTimer: pomodoro app
| DiskUsage: self explanatory Http Request Shortcuts: setup
| home screen app shortcuts that run http requests
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Yeah I swapped to using the f-droid version after that
| debacle, though the one i use has a green icon. XD
| rudhdb773b wrote:
| It's pretty easy to make your own `userdebug` build of
| GrapheneOS using their official build instructions
|
| That's what I do to get `adb root` and full file system
| access.
| stavros wrote:
| Hm, what do you mean? What app has to let you access your
| files? Is this Graphene-specific?
| kevincox wrote:
| Any files created by apps in their main data directories
| are inaccessible on most distributions of Android (I
| think it is actually required to be Google certified).
| The exception is apps that go out of their way to store
| files in user accessible directories or provide a feature
| to export or share data out of the app.
|
| By rooting your device you can access the app data
| directories as you wish.
| stavros wrote:
| Ah, you mean /data/data, I see, thanks. I forgot as I've
| usually had rooted devices (until they stopped Google Pay
| working).
| strcat wrote:
| There's nothing GrapheneOS-specific about it and it
| doesn't prevent rooting. LineageOS doesn't officially
| support it any more than GrapheneOS does. It doesn't stop
| people doing it for either. Our recommendations aren't
| law.
| palata wrote:
| > [I want root,] The fact that I own my device is non-
| negotiable.
|
| I read that a lot, and I agree that I want to own my
| device. But that does not mean that I should have root
| access on the OS I _choose_ to install on it.
|
| _Owning my device_ means that I should be able to
| install whatever OS I want. It does not mean _at all_
| that OS developers must do whatever I tell you to do.
| kevincox wrote:
| Yes, that is why it is a deal breaker. I'll choose to run
| a different OS. I didn't say that GrapheneOS must support
| root. Just that I won't run it if they don't.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| What should that support look like? Maybe have a
| userdebug build already built and available? I don't
| include a root account on hardened container images for
| some of the same reasons they cite. So including it for
| everyone and creating a way to activate it is suboptimal
| for people who don't want that trade off. A parallel
| build pipeline seems the most reasonable to me?
| kevincox wrote:
| Yeah, I would be fine with a different build stream. I do
| think it could be sufficiently secure in a single stream
| but it will always be increased attack surface so the
| safest option is to do separate builds.
|
| I also don't include a root account in my container
| images, but you probably have a root account on the sever
| that runs them in case you need to debug something. But
| you can probably also build and deploy a new container.
| At the end of the day you almost always want some last-
| resort way to access the data stored in case something
| goes very wrong. Whether that is for backups, "hostile"
| data export or for other reasons it is important to me.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I don't actually. Devs don't get root at my employer.
| Even on a vm. I have rootless podman, and can be root in
| a container. Even our gitlab instances don't have any
| privileged runners. So kaneko etc.
| palata wrote:
| And I'm fine with you wanting root on the device you own.
| But you were implying that not having root means that you
| don't own your device. I disagree with that. You can
| totally own your device and not be root.
|
| I think it is important, because I read _a lot_ of
| comments that imply that "owning their device" means
| "owning the developers". And that's a wrong fight.
|
| The real fight is that it should be illegal to prevent me
| from installing my preferred OS on a general-purpose
| computer.
| kevincox wrote:
| Fair enough. Owning means having a choice. The unlockable
| bootloader enables that. But for me the choice of OS will
| be one that lets me access all files on the device should
| I need to.
| strcat wrote:
| LineageOS also discourages and doesn't support replacing
| the core of the OS with a rootkit providing persistent
| app accessible root. GrapheneOS is no different from
| LineageOS in that regard. People do this with GrapheneOS
| regardless of our strong recommendation not do it. Our
| reasons for discouraging it aren't vague. It very
| directly harms the security model and is not a good
| approach to implementing any of the features hacked
| together through it. Those features should be properly
| implemented to fit within the overall approach taken by
| GrapheneOS. Giving root access to a huge portion of the
| OS harms security even if you never use the feature. It
| does not mean you can't do it, we only recommend you
| don't.
| kevincox wrote:
| LineageOS provides ADB root access in stock builds. Sure,
| it isn't as convenient as some su apps but at least I can
| use ADB to access every file on the device. It probably
| also improves the attack surface compared to a su app.
|
| > It very directly harms the security model
|
| What do you mean by this? You mean that it is a "god
| permission" that bypasses other permissions? If so then
| yes, with great power comes great responsibility and it
| shouldn't be used lightly.
|
| > and is not a good approach to implementing any of the
| features hacked together through it.
|
| Maybe not, but is there an alternative? What is your
| recommended way to access all files of any app? This is
| my primary use case. Modification would also be valuable
| but I would be ok with read-only access.
|
| > Giving root access to a huge portion of the OS harms
| security even if you never use the feature.
|
| Can you explain why root access must be given to a huge
| portion of the OS? Why can't it be limited to specific
| apps or features (like ADB shell)?
|
| > It does not mean you can't do it, we only recommend you
| don't.
|
| Of course. It is your right to recommend whatever you
| want :)
| gruez wrote:
| >but not having root as the default makes it less of a
| secure FOSS OS and more of a closed down toy.
|
| I don't get it, it's "less of a secure FOSS OS" to not have
| root by default, but it's secure to run random apps as root
| and breaking android's security model? What's the threat
| model here?
| treyd wrote:
| Those "random apps" are foss terminal emulators and other
| various foss apps I explicitly installed.
| strcat wrote:
| LineageOS also discourages and doesn't support replacing
| the core of the OS with a rootkit providing persistent app
| accessible root. GrapheneOS is no different from LineageOS
| in that regard. People do this with GrapheneOS regardless
| of our strong recommendation not do it. Our reasons for
| discouraging it aren't vague. It very directly harms the
| security model and is not a good approach to implementing
| any of the features hacked together through it. Those
| features should be properly implemented to fit within the
| overall approach taken by GrapheneOS. Giving root access to
| a huge portion of the OS harms security even if you never
| use the feature. It does not mean you can't do it, we only
| recommend you don't.
| Narushia wrote:
| I agree that the features should ideally be provided by
| the base system so that the user does not have to "hack
| them in" with root-powered apps. But the reality is that
| most Android "distros" simply do not support the features
| that I would consider basic functionality. I mainly root
| for three reasons:
|
| - Backing up all app data via Neo Backup. Android has an
| auto-backup feature that backs up app data to the user's
| Google Drive, but unfortunately the app developer can
| simply opt out of this, and the user cannot do anything
| about it. This means that app data may be lost when
| migrating to a new phone, as the app data is stored in
| directories that are not accessible in the filesystem
| without root.
|
| - High-quality call recording via Call Recorder. For some
| reason, some (most?) phones do not allow apps to access
| the raw incoming audio stream. Non-root apps have to rely
| on capturing the other end through the microphone, which
| is horrible.
|
| - /etc/hosts-based ad blocking while using a VPN via
| AdAway. DNS-based ad blocking is possible via apps like
| AdGuard, which use a local VPN to accomplish this.
| Unfortunately, Android only allows one VPN connection at
| a time, which means that without root I would not be able
| to use a VPN for any other purpose while simultaneously
| blocking ads.
|
| ---
|
| I have no experience with GrapheneOS, so I'd be
| interested to hear if these features are possible on it
| without rooting. If not, can I request these features
| somewhere?
| Andromxda wrote:
| Rooting is a very bad idea. https://madaidans-
| insecurities.github.io/android.html#rootin... But
| GrapheneOS is fully open source and provides great build
| instructions, so you can always make your own build and
| add whatever features or privileged apps you like within
| the standard AOSP frameworks for privileged apps with
| system integration.
|
| > Backing up all app data via Neo Backup
|
| GrapheneOS includes Seedvault by default.
| https://grapheneos.org/features#encrypted-backups
|
| > High-quality call recording via Call Recorder
|
| Call recording is built into the Dialer app on
| GrapheneOS. https://grapheneos.org/features#encrypted-
| backups:~:text=Cal....
|
| > DNS-based ad blocking is possible via apps like AdGuard
|
| DNS-based blocking can also be accomplished by using
| Android's native Private DNS feature with a resolver that
| blocks ads. You could even host your own on a VPS if you
| are more comfortable running name resolution and DNS-
| level adblocking on infrastructure you control.
|
| The RethinkDNS app also lets you use DNS-level adblocking
| and a VPN at the same time.
| https://grapheneos.org/faq#ad-blocking-apps
|
| > I have no experience with GrapheneOS, so I'd be
| interested to hear if these features are possible on it
| without rooting.
|
| I recommend giving https://grapheneos.org/features a
| read.
|
| > If not, can I request these features somewhere?
|
| Check out the issue tracker on GitHub:
| https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-tracker/issues
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Rooting is only a bad idea if there is an alternative.
| Unfortunately I have to root my devices because there
| isn't an alternative method to provide me, the physical
| owner of the device with control over the device. I would
| much prefer not to generally have root on my phone but to
| be able to access root externally or via a hardware
| switch or some other scheme. ADB root is fine.
|
| The alternative to "running as root" isn't "not having
| access to root".
| microtonal wrote:
| As far as I know, root and tap to pay are pretty much
| mutually exclusive, at least if you meant Google Pay?
| Unlocked and rooted devices do not pass remote attestation.
| And it's not just something you can fake when you have root,
| since it is anchored in hardware (the attestation certificate
| chain is signed by a hardware-backed key and contains the
| verified boot state and verified boot key).
| thot_experiment wrote:
| I can tap to pay with google pay on my rooted pixel while
| the spoof key isn't blacklisted, IIRC it uses dumped
| credentials extracted from other devices but I can reliably
| spoof Play Integrity and SafetyNet. It would be nice to not
| have an adversarial relationship with my things for once.
| stavros wrote:
| "While the spoof key isn't blacklisted" is the critical
| bit. Soon, all the keys will be, as these old devices age
| away from being too common to blacklist.
| kace91 wrote:
| The key enabler is the camera. Manage a flagship level result
| in a Motorola, that's the main reason people pay for High end
| devices nowadays.
|
| I'm seeing enthusiasts go out of their way to get vivos and
| xiaomis now that they are surpassing the western counterparts
| based solely on that.
|
| I think it's doable, pixels did it with meh hardware for years.
| But I'm not sure if there's enough overlap between people who
| care about selfie quality and open source enthusiasts.
| strcat wrote:
| Motorola Signature and Motorola Razr Fold are ranked above
| the Pixel 10 Pro on https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/.
| Pixels have fantastic camera hardware and software which is
| fully functional on GrapheneOS which isn't something we need
| to lose on a Motorola flagship. There will be much better CPU
| and GPU performance via Snapdragon too. The compromises are
| mostly in terms of getting some security improvements while
| losing others but we'll still be able to meet all of our
| official security requirements.
| kace91 wrote:
| I haven't been able to see actual results that match those
| tests in the Motorolas sadly. Maybe it's more accurate in
| technical terms but I haven't found good results in
| practice.
|
| >Pixels have fantastic camera hardware and software which
| is fully functional on GrapheneOS which isn't something we
| need to lose on a Motorola flagship.
|
| This is very interesting to me! Does graphene OS manage to
| keep google's processing? How does that work?
| Itoldmyselfso wrote:
| Pixel camera app is fully supported by GOS, you just
| install it from Play store (or from other sources). If
| you don't have Google Photos installed the last photo
| preview won't work, but you can install a 'shim' app that
| fixes it without need for Photos app:
| https://github.com/lukaspieper/Gcam-Services-Provider
|
| https://grapheneos.org/usage#pixel-camera
| bubblethink wrote:
| This is such a strange comment that is full of contradictions.
| Pixels are supported _because_ the manufacturer supports
| alternate OSes. I don 't get what languishing means here. Pixel
| hardware lags behind the latest Snapdragon hardware, but it's
| not something that average people know or care about. So, you
| can gush all you want, but I don't see why it's a big deal.
| It's great that they found an OEM and it's great for the
| overall health of the project, but not because of gaming or the
| latest Snapdragon.
| user2722 wrote:
| I do hope however having a Snapdragon device will be
| beneficial to having postmarketOS support.
|
| For now having Android-type OS on a daily driver is a must,
| but for older devices (thinking of 10 years time) I'd like to
| explore an OS which doesn't depend of Google open-source
| drops and delayed security open-source drops, which is the
| situation for ROMs without an ODM partner.
| bubblethink wrote:
| Do you mean to say that postmarketOS is somehow better on
| non Pixel devices? I would assume that Pixels are closest
| to upstream and have the longest software support life in
| Android world.
| opan wrote:
| pmOS runs well on a couple OnePlus phones (6, 6T). For
| whatever reason the Snapdragon 845 and 865 have decent
| mainline support. I expect the OnePlus 8T to join the
| prior list of phones in the near future. You can
| similarly look at which gaming handhelds are supported by
| ROCKNIX and what SoC they use to get an idea for which
| ARM SoCs have decent mainline support. I expect the vast
| majority of phones and other ARM devices to not be very
| well-supported. RockChip is usually the safest bet, but
| I've been pleasantly surprised with some Snapdragon
| stuff.
| gchamonlive wrote:
| Does pixel support alternate OSes or it just doesn't get in
| the way of custom firmware developers?
|
| And for the gaming aspect, there is a huge market for mobile
| gaming, specially in Asia, so having a manufacturer like
| Motorola adopting GrapheneOS as a first class citizen will
| improve the chances that high performance applications will
| have better performance in such OSes which is a big win.
| throawayonthe wrote:
| i mean, that sounds like a subjective distinction, but it
| lets you unlock the bootloader and then re-lock it with
| your own keys so eh..?
| sharperguy wrote:
| they used to publish a buildable AOSP tree for the device
| which is no longer the case
| gchamonlive wrote:
| If you conceive a device to be shipped with a specific OS
| that's a completely different relationship with the
| developer than just giving the keys to the kingdom and
| wishing good luck, so I hardly think this is subjective
| ysnp wrote:
| The Google Pixel has first-class support for alternate OSes
| (not custom firmware like a Chromebook). The OEM has to go
| out of their way to support avb_custom_key as mentioned in
| https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/avb/+/ma
| s... and I believe the GrapheneOS founder strcat was
| heavily involved in helping Google design this feature and
| flow for Android Verified Boot.
| t0bia_s wrote:
| Lets hope those Motorola devices will be smaller then current
| Pixels.
| ysnp wrote:
| Since ~2023 all Motorola phones with Snapdragon SoCs (the
| ones most likely to support MTE as needed by GrapheneOS
| first) have been larger or equal to 6.5" screens.
| goldenarm wrote:
| Motorola reps reading this : I almost bought the Motorola
| Signature, but changed my mind after hearing of all the adware
| and crapware that you continuously install on your devices.
|
| If you want to invest into software, this should be #1 of your
| list.
| toastal wrote:
| Would be super dope if they brought back headphone jack Google
| teased Samsung over then a year later removed entirely. I haven't
| even once considered GrapheneOS since I refuse to go without
| basic I/O.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| This is great news - would love to run Sailfish OS on it. Wonder
| if it can dual boot?
| strcat wrote:
| SailfishOS doesn't use the security features which are being
| worked on and doesn't keep up with kernel, driver and firmware
| updates. It doesn't use secure elements, verified boot or
| hardware memory tagging so it doesn't need the work being done
| on those things. They don't have similar requirements for
| hardware and have little use for what's being worked on for
| these devices.
|
| The portions of SailfishOS specific to it are largely closed
| source including the user interface and application layer. It
| isn't possible to fork the overall operating system. It has
| much worse privacy and drastically worse security than the
| Android Open Source Project even without taking the GrapheneOS
| improvements into account. It's in an entirely different space
| and this has no connection to it.
| adriatp wrote:
| Better marketing is impossible, Motorola has just positioned
| itself as a very strong buying option.
|
| In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
| Fokamul wrote:
| Does anyone know how many binary blobs chips in Motorola will
| have?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| I think this is great news, but I thought GrapheneOS considered
| unlocked bootloaders to be a terrible security risk? What's
| changed?
| backscratches wrote:
| Unlocked baotloaders are mandatory to install graphene, but so
| is the ability to re-lock the bootloader.
| Aachen wrote:
| Not if it comes preinstalled though. Isn't that the point of
| the partnership?
| petu wrote:
| Doesn't seem to be, announcement only talks about
| GrapheneOS compatibility.
| prmoustache wrote:
| You always have to temporarily unlock your bootloader to
| install graphene.
|
| The key point is being able to lock it again after
| installation.
| strcat wrote:
| It has always been a hardware requirement to be able to unlock
| the device, install GrapheneOS and lock the device again.
| Verified boot has been a requirement since it was introduced
| for Pixels and the is main benefit of locking the device. There
| are additional security features enabled by verified boot. The
| overall hardware requirements are listed at
| https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices.
| flawn wrote:
| It would be amazing if GrapheneOS would distribute rooted
| versions of their OS with locked bootloader
| kevincox wrote:
| Yeah, I would install this in a heartbeat. I am very close to
| building myself but manually updating the phone every week or
| two is a big effort. I could use one of the third-party OTA
| builds but that is extending trust much more than I need to.
| Aachen wrote:
| Is there an overview somewhere of stable third parties that
| do these builds? I might want to use one of them and didn't
| know this was a thing. Not having access to my own data is
| the only reason I haven't installed the OS yet
| flawn wrote:
| The problem is that even if you build this yourself, and
| sign it with your keys, the signature of the builds will
| not lead to positive hardware attestation. This, as noted
| by @palata, is required for passing Play Integrity Checks,
| and in turn is the requirement for using banking, tap2pay &
| co.
|
| It's really a bummer that Google probably won't certify
| pre-rooted devices. It would obviously only do harm to them
| and not fit into the scheme of our big tech companies
| pushing anti-circumvention laws, but some high-spirited
| side inside of me still has hope.
| Aachen wrote:
| I'm not using those. Would be cool if I could access my
| own data _and_ lie to software vendors about that, but I
| 'm not very interested in playing that game every time
| they release another update for the detector. I'd rather
| use free software and have a free device. The apps I use
| currently on Android have no problem with root
| Aachen wrote:
| That would be as big as Signal stepping away from the phone
| number requirement. Sadly I've lost hope on both of these, no
| idea why obviously good things (I'd say pro choice if it didn't
| have another connotation) are always such a no-go
| strcat wrote:
| Persistent app-accessible root greatly regresses OS security
| and breaks the verified boot security model. We're definitely
| not going to increase the number of build variants from 40 to
| 80 in order to provide an insecure option which would take
| away from efforts to properly implement features instead of
| doing it via hacks using apps running commands as root. If
| you want it you can make your own builds with it instead of
| us doubling the number of builds and deltas we need to make.
| Most of the people doing it are modifying the official builds
| and resigning them. Anyone who can understand the
| consequences of app-accessible root is capable of doing that.
| Aachen wrote:
| Hi strcat, we had this conversation often enough that I'm
| starting to recognise the username. It's the same every
| time: Graphene argues it's dangerous, tech-savvy users want
| it but aren't necessarily interested in the upkeep (even if
| they're technically capable of making such a build), plus
| missing security patches (part of the point of this OS,
| otherwise you can use Lineage or whatever), and Graphene is
| under no obligation to provide anything to anyone. Same
| arguments today as they were from the start except now
| maybe the security patches' embargo time makes it even more
| hostile to do custom builds by power users
| handedness wrote:
| "Every time someone makes the same unreasonable demand of
| you, you offer the same explanation of why their demand
| is unreasonable."
| fsflover wrote:
| Removing access of users to their device is not security.
| At least not when users do not want this.
| handedness wrote:
| Your choosing to frame it that way is, at best, fraught.
| Aachen wrote:
| Read what I wrote, "demanding" was addressed (though with
| the word obligation, functionally the same here):
|
| > and Graphene is under no obligation to provide anything
| to anyone.
|
| And here I thought it felt repetitive _between_ (sub)
| threads
| dns_snek wrote:
| You say you understand that they're under no obligation
| to do anything, you already knew their reasoning, yet you
| still wrote a comment [seemingly] complaining about it.
| Was there a different purpose to it?
| palata wrote:
| I don't think they will ever do that. If they want to compete
| with Android, they need hardware attestation [1], which
| requires that they get recognised as a trusted Android
| alternative.
|
| If they distributed rooted versions, then banks and the likes
| would not be willing to trust them.
|
| [1]: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-
| gu...
| strcat wrote:
| Persistent app-accessible root greatly regresses OS security
| and breaks the verified boot security model. We're definitely
| not going to increase the number of build variants from 40 to
| 80 in order to provide an insecure option which would take away
| from efforts to properly implement features instead of doing it
| via hacks using apps running commands as root. If you want it
| you can make your own builds with it instead of us doubling the
| number of builds and deltas we need to make. Most of the people
| doing it are modifying the official builds and resigning them.
| Anyone who can understand the consequences of app-accessible
| root is capable of doing that.
| flawn wrote:
| I get that but the core issue is not inconvenience but the
| fact that also doing that still locks you out of applications
| that many people call essential (tap2pay, banking, streaming,
| other various apps relying on Play Integrity).
|
| Google is actively locking down the ecosystem in that regard
| and it would be amazing having a company that caters to
| people that are savvy AND would like to still be attested for
| integrity tests (assuming Google would be OK with that, but
| as mentioned in another comment unlikely)
| allreduce wrote:
| Are there more security disadvantages besides the obvious
| when giving one app like Termux root access? The obvious
| being that you trust Termux and all binaries running in it
| with total access to your system.
|
| I am mainly looking to access my filesystem. Currently a lot
| of things I want to do (backing up app data, scripting,
| mounting network drives) are hobbled by the bad wrappers
| around the same.
|
| I know this might be out of scope, but is there any plan to
| re-enable direct filesystem access in a more secure way? Even
| via ADB it would be useful. It just seems like madness to me
| that a lot of basics tasks are impossible or incredibly
| convoluted, because everything has to go through weird
| wrapper interfaces and Java/Kotlin code someone has to write
| (instead of just using the filesystem and OS which is right
| there).
|
| Thanks for the great work by the way.
| yc-kraln wrote:
| Can't wait to see the Sailfish/Motorola crossover, honestly.
| yason wrote:
| GrapheneOS always strikes me as "perfect is the enemy of good". I
| don't necessarily need top-notch security features, I've been all
| right with all kinds of Android phones. The things I'd like are:
|
| - ability to sandbox Google Play and Google Apps so that they
| live in their nice little Google bubble and have no control over
| my phone overall
|
| - ability to run all applications sandboxed with fake permissions
| that I can whitelist for each application and without letting the
| app know it doesn't have the permissions it wants. Want location?
| Give the app a location point I've fixed for that app. (Or pass
| through real GPS location if I've chosen so.) Want contacts? Give
| the app empty contacts list. Or if I've allowed, give the app the
| contacts I've whitelisted.
|
| The Android/Google ecosystem is all right in itself, I just want
| to limit all of it inside a cage that I control. I want the exact
| same for my browser: I want webpages to run in a highly
| controlled sandbox with my choice of spoofed environment and
| permissions instead of assuming any power over my system. Or my
| Linux desktop where I firejail or sandbox certain proprietary
| apps outside of my distro's repositories.
| hypfer wrote:
| Sounds like you might not be the target audience of GrapheneOS
| then?
|
| That's fine. You don't have to be
| carpenecopinum wrote:
| I mean, GrapheneOS hits at least 2/3 of your demands pretty
| well. The Play services are "regular" apps with permissions
| that you can take away. For contacts and files you get
| "scopes", i.e. you decide what the app can see, while the app
| is left to believe that it can see everything there is.
|
| That said, I think the marketing of GrapheneOS could be better.
| Every introduction of GrapheneOS I've seen paints the image of
| Graphene being "Absolute security, no compromises", whereas in
| reality GrapheneOS is the most "Things need to work, no
| compromises. Then make the rest as safe as possible" custom ROM
| that I've used thus far (in particular regarding them allowing
| you to install Google Play, rather than using MicroG).
| yason wrote:
| I would certainly be using GrapheneOS if only I could get one
| to run on something else than a Pixel.
|
| I have a perfectly good phone whose bootloader can be
| unlocked and I can install LineageOS or other AOSP
| installations there but all I'm aware of and I've researched
| come short on the sandboxing and permissions. I'd be willing
| to use GrapheneOS without support for specific security
| hardware (if only they supported that configuration) just for
| the features mentioned but Pixel phones are just too
| expensive. I've always been more than happy with a decent
| low-tier phone and I don't see a technical reason to change
| that. Nothing wrong with my phone.
| jasonvorhe wrote:
| Pixel A's are quite affordable. GrapheneOS is open source
| so if there was a need, people could get it to run on
| insecure devices that aren't Pixels. Expecting that to be
| done by GrapheneOS developers who care about security just
| seems weird.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _Pixel A 's are quite affordable_
|
| There's first-world, upper-middle-class affordable
| (~$500) and then there's global affordable (<$250).
| Gander5739 wrote:
| I got a Pixel 7 secondhand (but good condition) for the
| equivalent of about $270. It would have been less but I
| needed 256 gb of storage.
| palata wrote:
| > I would certainly be using GrapheneOS if only I could get
| one to run on something else than a Pixel.
|
| But the whole idea of GrapheneOS is the reason why it
| (currently) only runs on Pixels. On other phones you can
| run anything based on LineageOS...
|
| I don't want GrapheneOS to compromise on that: if I didn't
| care about it, I would use any other alternative. To me
| it's a bit like saying "I would be using Linux if it was a
| lot more like Windows" (that's something I often understand
| when Windows users explain what it would take for them to
| use Linux). But I, as a Linux user, _really_ don 't want
| Linux to look a lot more like Windows.
| glenneroo wrote:
| FTFA: it will run on upcoming Motorola devices as well.
| yason wrote:
| Yes, that's why I was reading this thread :)
|
| Doesn't help with the current situation though but I hope
| the partnering between Motorola and GrapheneOS is still
| up and going in a few years when I'll next have to
| replace my phone.
| opan wrote:
| I'm personally happy with LineageOS on OnePlus stuff, but
| have you considered getting a Pixel that's 2 gens or so old
| from eBay? I find old flagships drop in price pretty quick
| and are often a better deal than a new low-end phone.
| strcat wrote:
| Mock Location exists but our Location Scopes feature will
| largely replace it for non-development use. Camera,
| Microphone and other scopes features will be provided too. We
| haven't fully fleshed out what the ones for other permission
| groups such as Phone will look like yet but it's planned.
| gvurrdon wrote:
| Would there be any means of preventing apps from seeing
| one's phone number, IMEI etc.?
| tarruda wrote:
| One thing that annoys me is the ability that my mobile carrier
| has to just throw ad popups.
|
| Is that something that GrapheneOS fixes?
| pluc wrote:
| Your carrier does what now?
| tarruda wrote:
| I have a pixel 8a with a TIM SIM card and every once in a
| while I see an ad popup on my phone.
| deno wrote:
| Go to [Settings] >> [Apps] >> [Special app access] >>
| [Display over other apps] and check if any preinstalled
| carrier apps or anything suspicious has this permission
| granted.
| tarruda wrote:
| Just checked, and only "Phone" and "Google" have this
| permission.
|
| There are no preinstalled apps, I bought this phone clean
| on Germany and then added a Brazil's SIM card when I got
| back.
|
| Could it be that the SIM card has some control over the
| Phone app?
| deno wrote:
| Apparently this is handled by the privileged STK[1]
| service. It can launch browser which is I think what's
| happening.
|
| GrapheneOS presently doesn't do anything different in
| this case, they pull it from AOSP without modifications.
| However you can disable it using the frontend app (SIM
| Toolkit) as someone pointed out, but as far as I can tell
| this requires the applet on SIM card to cooperate (offer
| the opt out).
|
| Otherwise you can disable the STK altogether with ADB but
| that will also block you out of other SIM card
| interactive functions, which might not be a big deal
| however.
|
| Edit: "We plan to add the ability to restrict the
| capabilities of SIM Toolkit as an attack surface
| reduction measure. (2022)"[2] and open issue[3].
|
| [1] https://wladimir-tm4pda.github.io/porting/stk.html
|
| [2] https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/1492-blocking-sim-
| toolkit-m...
|
| [3] https://github.com/GrapheneOS/os-issue-
| tracker/issues/875
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Can't you just change your carrier?
| tarruda wrote:
| I would rather have a phone that doesn't let my carrier
| show random messages whenever they feel like it.
| pluc wrote:
| Like a popup how? What kind of dialog is it? It's more
| likely to be an app that's bundled by your carrier than
| your carrier MitM'ing ads into your stuff which is kinda
| what it sounded like
| tarruda wrote:
| Just a message popup, a window with dark background and
| some text ad on it.
|
| I did not buy this phone from a carrier, just added the
| SIM card later.
|
| Really surprised to learn this doesn't happen to others.
| Always assumed that the SIM card had some special
| privilege given by Android.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Sounds like your carrier is abusing STK to display ads.
|
| See https://www.browserstack.com/guide/stop-popup-
| messages-in-an...
|
| Caveat: if they're doing that, then they're almost
| certainly data mining your data streams (e.g. dns lookups
| etc.)
|
| I wouldn't feel secure on such a carrier unless I also
| VPN'd traffic to a reputable provider (Nord, Express, or
| Proton) and forced DNS over TLS to known servers.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| SIM cards can come with apps preloaded. There was a
| carrier in Mexico that would load a SIM app for Dominos
| Pizza and you could order a pizza from your phone if you
| were on that carrier. I learned this because of some
| carrier certification feedback I had to disposition at
| one job.
| weebull wrote:
| Wtf!? I didn't know that was possible.
| niam wrote:
| That relates more to the public rhetoric surrounding Graphene
| than with how the OS itself operates imo. It's pretty practical
| and enables (or allows you to enable) everything that a typical
| Android does, except where Google Play Integrity checks fail,
| which is not in Graphene's control (e.g Google Wallet
| payments).
|
| People bill it as making a ton of usability compromises in the
| name of security, but that doesn't match my experience. The
| only redeeming observation is that your phone _does_ lean
| towards secure-er and ungoogled defaults, which _does_ break
| functionality that a lot of people expect to "just work" OOTB.
| But it's trivial to restore it, and the upfront effort getting
| things to work is amortized over the lifetime of the device.
| It's maybe an hour's worth of work.
|
| The counterfactual world where users need to forumcrawl how to
| get to secure/private defaults seems worse to me. By contrast,
| it's pretty easy to recognize when an app isn't working.
| II2II wrote:
| I agree with your post, but I wanted to point out one thing:
|
| > People bill it as making a ton of usability compromises in
| the name of security, but that doesn't match my experience.
|
| When you are talking about something like GrapheneOS, most of
| the people who are talking about usability compromises aren't
| worth listening to since they are looking for something that
| is pretty much the exact opposite of what GrapheneOS is
| trying to provide. While there are likely some legitimate
| criticisms in the mix, the compromises required for "works by
| default, for everyone" are pretty much the opposite of what
| GrapheneOS is.
| strcat wrote:
| It's worth noting tap-to-pay is available via Curve Pay and
| other options in Europe. We intend to get the Google Pay
| issue resolved.
| unicornporn wrote:
| > Want location? Give the app a location point I've fixed for
| that app.
|
| How do I do that? Been using Graphene for many years but did
| not know this was possible.
| whatsupdog wrote:
| I want to know too.
| strcat wrote:
| There's a standard Mock Location feature in Android usable
| for it. We're making a better per-app Location Scopes
| feature as a replacement. Mock Location is global which has
| bad usability.
| Dusseldorf wrote:
| You can't; OP was making a list of GrapheneOS wants without
| realizing they were mostly just describing how GOS works.
| That bit was the only miss.
| strcat wrote:
| There's a standard Mock Location feature in Android usable
| for it. We're making a better per-app Location Scopes
| feature as a replacement. Mock Location is global which has
| bad usability.
| unicornporn wrote:
| Thanks. So, a misunderstanding from the OP and not a
| feature specific to Graphene?
|
| > We're making a better per-app Location Scopes feature
|
| Cool!
| strcat wrote:
| There's a standard Mock Location feature in Android usable
| for it. We're making a better per-app Location Scopes feature
| as a replacement. Mock Location is global which has bad
| usability.
| II2II wrote:
| > GrapheneOS always strikes me as "perfect is the enemy of
| good".
|
| GrapheneOS, as it ships, is rather bleak but you also need to
| consider that it is addressing the concerns of a very broad
| audience. That ranges from people who want to completely get
| rid of data leaking apps to those who want the apps but expect
| them to be sandboxed. Shipping two different versions won't
| really help them. It would only make more work on their end,
| with the results only reflecting two extremes. You are going to
| have some people willing to put up with some apps, but not
| others. You are going to have some people wanting some of those
| apps feeding fake data, but not others.
|
| It's probably best to think of GrapheneOS as a base system that
| you build up to serve your personal needs, rather than thinking
| of them shipping it in a "perfect" state. While a handful of
| people will be happy with it in its default state, many will
| install something like F-Droid along with a collection of
| privacy preserving apps. Many others will install the Google
| Play Store along with a personally curated list of apps that
| reflect their needs, providing or denying access to their data
| as they see fit.
|
| I believe the "build up" approach is the only viable way to
| handle this situation since we are talking about a group of
| users who are actively seeking out a third-party OS since they
| are particular about their needs. This isn't the typical
| consumer who will (gleefully or begrudgingly) put up with
| whatever the device vendor feeds them.
| strcat wrote:
| Our approach is why we have a partnership with Motorola where
| we're working with Motorola and Qualcomm on improving
| security of the devices to meet our requirements. It takes
| longer to get things done the way we want but that's part of
| the purpose of GrapheneOS. For example, it took us longer to
| have our own network-based location and geocoding but now we
| have great implementations of both. Our network-based
| location currently closely matches iOS but is going to have
| full offline support developed for it. We're working on our
| own local model text-to-speech at the moment too, although
| our focus is currently Android 16 QPR3 related work as a
| higher priority which delayed it. We do plan to overhaul or
| replace all the legacy AOSP apps, but our priority has been
| working on things people can't simply replace by installing
| more apps.
| whatsupdog wrote:
| > Want location? Give the app a location point I've fixed for
| that app.
|
| How do you do that in graphene os?
| dns_snek wrote:
| That's doesn't seem to be a thing [yet]. All I managed to
| find was this comment from the developer which talks about it
| (CTRL+F, "location"):
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42536302
| strcat wrote:
| There's a standard Mock Location feature in Android usable
| for it. We're making a better per-app Location Scopes
| feature as a replacement. Mock Location is global which has
| bad usability.
| dns_snek wrote:
| That's true. Do those caveats from that older comment
| still apply? Will apps be able to tell that location is
| being spoofed when using location scopes?
| strcat wrote:
| There's a standard Mock Location feature in Android usable
| for it. We're making a better per-app Location Scopes feature
| as a replacement. Mock Location is global which has bad
| usability.
| birdsongs wrote:
| In what ways has the pursuit of perfection harmed the good in
| their development? (Your words, I don't agree.)
|
| Graphene does _everything_ you 're asking, except for the niche
| fixed location feature you specifically want, which you're
| welcome to request, or just implement yourself and make a PR.
|
| I'm going to be a bit snarky here, but I always find the
| entitlement around features in open source software baffling.
| This isn't a multi billion dollar corporation selling you
| something. It's enthusiasts making you something (honestly,
| incredible), for free, in their spare time, outside of their
| daily jobs. They're doing their absolute best here.
| aaron_m04 wrote:
| Yes, but do these enthusiasts care at all if it meets some
| need for the users? I suspect that they do.
|
| And how can they find out how well it meets that need other
| than receiving (respectful!) feedback?
| the_real_cher wrote:
| I want them to implement a feature where the phone prints
| money.
| birdsongs wrote:
| I don't follow. The poster above my comment complained that
| graphene os was lacking a list of features is already has,
| so I corrected that.
|
| > Yes, but do these enthusiasts care at all if it meets
| some need for the users? ... And how can they find out how
| well it meets that need other than receiving (respectful!)
| feedback?
|
| What makes you think they don't? Can you point to any
| instances of them ignoring the community at large?
|
| You can open an issue in any of the open source
| repositories and request a feature. Others can vote and
| comment on it. Or you can discuss it in the very lively
| forum. All methods used to steer the project towards the
| desires of the users.
|
| In case you can't find them: https://github.com/GrapheneOS
| https://discuss.grapheneos.org/
|
| This whole conversation just feels weird and specious to
| me.
| strcat wrote:
| Our approach is why we have a partnership with Motorola where
| we're working with Motorola and Qualcomm on improving
| security of the devices to meet our requirements. It takes
| longer to get things done the way we want but that's part of
| the purpose of GrapheneOS. For example, it took us longer to
| have our own network-based location and geocoding but now we
| have great implementations of both. Our network-based
| location currently closely matches iOS but is going to have
| full offline support developed for it. We're working on our
| own local model text-to-speech at the moment too, although
| our focus is currently Android 16 QPR3 related work as a
| higher priority which delayed it. We do plan to overhaul or
| replace all the legacy AOSP apps, but our priority has been
| working on things people can't simply replace by installing
| more apps.
| CivBase wrote:
| > In what ways has the pursuit of perfection harmed the good
| in their development?
|
| Their lack of device support means I am still running
| Google's Android and will continue to be until a GraphineOS-
| supported device that meets my needs becomes available. This
| means I'm not just lacking in security, but I'm also stuck
| with Google and all of their anti-consumer practices.
|
| Running GraphineOS without all the security features they
| want would be better for me than what I currently have.
| palata wrote:
| When the complaint people have about a product is "I can't
| use it and I really wish I could", I feel like it's a good
| problem :-).
|
| > Running GraphineOS without all the security features they
| want would be better for me than what I currently have.
|
| But then it would be like running LineageOS, which is a
| great (but different) project. Why not using LineageOS?
| subscribed wrote:
| And this is somehow harming who?
|
| You're free to fork it to adapt it to your device.
|
| The expectation that the entire project brand must be
| diluted (by lowering the security) to support _you_
| specifically, or you feel wronged, is a little, my
| apologies -- absurd.
| fsflover wrote:
| > GrapheneOS always strikes me as "perfect is the enemy of
| good"... I've been all right with all kinds of Android phones
|
| I fully agree with you. I never received a reasonable reply to
| this from GrapheneOS fans or developers. Latest attempt:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47182376
| gruez wrote:
| >Latest attempt:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47182376
|
| Your Qubes OS comparison doesn't really work because Android
| distributions need extra work to support each new device,
| whereas for Qubes OS, they're probably using some
| virtualization framework that makes it pretty trivial to add
| support for CPUs without virtualization. There's nothing
| stopping you from starting a new fork that supports your
| motorola phone, for instance.
| fsflover wrote:
| I understand that supporting new phones is a lot of extra
| work. My only question is whether the developers of
| GrapheneOS would accept patches from community for such
| support without full set of security features.
| throawayonthe wrote:
| "accepting patches" is still a lot of work and often
| means taking on the maintenance burden; i suspect that if
| qubes had to do extra hardware enablement
| work/maintenance for VT-d-less devices they might've had
| the same position
| handedness wrote:
| Qubes hasn't always shipped Xen patches nearly as quickly
| as I would like. It's the unfortunate reality of the
| situation they're in, simultaneously trying to catch up
| with broad-spectrum device support, with a miles-long HCL
| with many entries having sub-threads attempting to
| resolve significant compatibility issues. Don't buy
| hardware that's too new, don't buy hardware that's too
| old, certified hardware doesn't necessarily stay
| certified, and so on. It's a mess.
|
| I love what they're doing and it's my preferred daily
| driver, but from a security standpoint they're still
| pushing molasses up a sandy hill.
| handedness wrote:
| You keep coming back to this. GrapheneOS accepting
| community patches with a reduced feature set (hardware
| security) degrades the nature of the project. It's an
| absurd proposal.
|
| Fork it, make your own. Not only are they OK with that,
| they're actively supportive of it.
|
| Criticizing them for not actively supporting the
| Balkanization and unavoidable dilution of the security
| and therefore total value of their project makes me
| wonder whether the strength with which you hold your
| opinions has any meaningful connection to the extent to
| which you even understand the subject matter. It's just
| mind-boggling the things you assert every single time an
| OS you don't even use comes up.
|
| Your love of Qubes OS (which I share) somehow even
| increasingly seems rooted in something that just isn't
| reality. If it were, you'd be able to fairly assess both
| projects and see the relative strengths and weakneses of
| both with useful accuracy.
|
| As it stands, you're just spouting harmful noise. Please
| don't do that.
| strcat wrote:
| GrapheneOS is not QubesOS. We have our own approach and
| goals. Our approach includes heavily focusing on our
| resources on our mission which includes needing to do a lot
| of hardware-related work to deploy features like hardware
| memory tagging. We're actively working with Motorola and
| Qualcomm on improving their hardware to meet our
| requirements. We're also going to work with Qualcomm on
| improving Linux kernel security. It's not part of our mission
| to support devices where we can't provide our core feature
| set. It would drain a huge amount of our resources and lead
| to people buying those instead of devices with real
| GrapheneOS providing all the features. Supporting devices
| with less than 7 years of support also isn't very appealing
| when we have those via Pixels and can have the same for the
| new devices.
|
| GrapheneOS does support budget devices. Pixel 8a, Pixel 9a
| and Pixel 10a are budget devices. It's true that they aren't
| on the low side of budget pricing at launch but they have 7
| years of support from launch. Pixel 8a is approaching 2 years
| old but has over 5 years of support remaining. The only
| limitation in practice is that Pixels aren't sold officially
| in enough countries yet, which can be solved by our Motorola
| partnership. We don't need more than a range of devices
| fulfilling what most people want which are available
| internationally. People would still need to go out of the way
| to buy a device with GrapheneOS support if we supported more
| than the 20 models we do.
|
| You're also ignoring all of the work we have to do on devices
| which is already a massive amount with 20 supported models of
| Pixels. We build specialized releases with minimum attack
| surface for each with plans to use per-device RANDSTRUCT and
| other similar features too. We could make most of the OS
| builds generic as AOSP has support for it but it goes against
| our goals. We also have to test it on each device ourselves
| before Alpha. Each device needs to be tested more broadly by
| our community.
|
| Our goals have never included supported a huge range of
| devices. It would drain our limited resources and destroy our
| ability to provide what we do. It would water down what
| GrapheneOS provides and sabotage our ability to partner with
| OEMs. It simply doesn't interest us. People are free to use
| LineageOS but we strongly recommend avoiding the supposed
| privacy-focused forks of it which are worse at privacy and
| security. On nearly any device you won't get basic kernel,
| driver and firmware updates with LineageOS and it's not a
| privacy or security hardened OS. Their time is largely spent
| on device support and it massively slows down how quickly
| they can do updates too. They wouldn't have time to work on
| the kinds of privacy features we do let alone the security
| ones. It isn't as if they're not working hard on their
| project, they just chose different things to work on and we
| aren't choosing those over what we work on.
|
| GrapheneOS will run on more than Pixels soon. It will start
| with a regular flagship and then both flip/fold variants. It
| can then start supporting lower end devices once they
| improve. The OEM is going to be helping us implement and
| maintain it which is the only reason it's going to be
| practical to do it. We already struggle to support as many
| devices as we do but it's going to be easier on our end to
| support the ones from Motorola than supporting Pixels due to
| collaboration.
| handedness wrote:
| There it is.
| handedness wrote:
| If you feel like you can't get a reasonable reply from anyone
| on a given subject, it's possible that the subject matter is
| purely indefensible and everyone but you is wrong about it,
| or it's possible that there's one constant in all this which
| you're overlooking.
|
| Anyway, in terms of laptop/desktop security, Apple's doing
| the best job of anyone on that front at present and is still
| moving in the direction of improvement. Overall, modern
| Pixels running GrapheneOS are still the most resistant to a
| variety attacks, compared to just about any consumer device
| with any practical value.
|
| Most laptop/desktop hardware architecture is wildly
| vulnerable in some specific ways that Pixels and iPhones just
| aren't, and no amount of OS enhancements built on that
| foundation will fully overcome its limitations. Your
| refutation to that is typically, "But, Google." I get it. I'm
| no fan of Google, but their architectural chops on modern
| Pixels is excellent.
|
| Suggesting in the next breath that people look at the Librem
| 5 or PinePhone while criticizing the security of GrapheneOS
| makes me think you might just be completely out to lunch on
| this one. The Purism project is just not a serious security
| project in so many ways, and while I appreciate the appeal of
| hardware switches, the rest of their approach makes the
| hardware switches and domestic supply chain option and
| shipping protocols little more than security theatrics. The
| Librem 5 is so easily compromised that the switches are
| practically a necessity, I suppose, because the hardware and
| the software (from the OS to device drivers and--gasp--closed
| blobs!) just isn't trustworthy. With the clever rhetorical
| games they play to overstate the reality of the device it's
| difficult to place any trust in them.
|
| 'You shouldn't use this device because Google drove the
| architecture,' just isn't as compelling to me as, 'you should
| use this device with outdated drivers, no secure element, no
| sandboxing, and no IOMMU, no hardware resistance to attacks,
| baseband isolation that's literally an all-or-nothing
| affair,' and so on, is a _terrible_ followup recommendation
| which completely undermines credibility.
|
| You're citing hypothetical weaknesses as a reason to dismiss
| GrapheneOS while advocating devices with numerous
| demonstrable weaknesses. The Librem 5 not only isn't very
| resistant to attacks, it's highly vulnerable to attacks. And
| then you complain when serious people stop engaging with you.
| (Not being a serious person, I persist.)
|
| As a former PinePhone user, it's a wonderful effort and I
| love that they're doing what they're doing, but the device
| and its software is just completely lacking in security to
| any real degree. Which is fine, because that isn't the
| device's reason for being, but we shouldn't overstate its
| position, which you continually do.
|
| All that said, I genuinely think if you take the time to
| really fairly understand the situation, you'll find value in
| GrapheneOS as a project. Whether or not it's for you is
| another matter, but the only reason I'm bothering to quibble
| with a faceless stranger on the internet over the issue is
| because I think the project is one of the most important
| consumer-device security projects of this era, and I
| massively hope it succeeds. The planet will be better off for
| it if it does. And yet, every single time it comes up you
| make the same lazy dismissals of it, ignore substantive
| responses, then invariably play the victim when people
| eventually tire of playing your game.
|
| A broader ecosystem of supported devices is something I very
| much hope for, and am excited to seem take the step into
| working directly with one OEM, and I hope for more. The
| virtualization aspects of their roadmap are exciting, and I
| expect they'll bring great upstream contributions to whatever
| hypervisor they choose, as they have for AOSP. Their talks of
| targeting a laptop which meets their hardware requirements is
| incredibly exciting, and here's hoping it's a ThinkPad, which
| seems genuinely possible now.
|
| All this is the most compelling alternative to something like
| Apple, which, while great at leveraging the advantages of
| being the behemoth in the market, is too inherently motivated
| in its pursuit of commercial outcomes to be something I'm
| likely to want to use.
|
| I lack any real hope that you'll come around on this one, but
| if you're going to play the game of linking to prior
| discussions to settle an argument, at least I now have a
| comment to link to, too. Thanks for fueling my future
| efficiency.
| fsflover wrote:
| Thanks for your extended reply, but many of your points are
| strawman. I never suggested that Librem 5 or Pinephone were
| seriously more secure than GrapheneOS. They may be more
| secure in small ways, depending on your threat model, like
| avoiding Google or allowing to use the kill switches.
| However I explicitly said more than once that I would be
| happy to use GrapheneOS on a more libre hardware (Librem
| 5), even if the security may be lower. Some people value an
| additional bit of freedom more than cutting-edge security.
|
| > You're citing hypothetical weaknesses as a reason to
| dismiss GrapheneOS
|
| Where did I say this? I do not dismiss GrapheneOS, and I do
| wish them success. I agree this is a very important project
| (and I upvoted all their recent posts for more visibility).
| I just feel that some of their decisions harm them more
| than they think, which is the reason for my parent
| question.
|
| I suggest Librem 5 or Pinephone in my HN replies whenever I
| see people caring about mobile freedom more than about
| immediate security, which GrapheneOS provides. I do not
| suggest those phones as a more secure replacement of
| GrapheneOS devices.
|
| > we shouldn't overstate its position, which you
| continually do
|
| I do not see where I am doing this, see above. And I
| certainly didn't do it in my parent comment.
|
| > Their talks of targeting a laptop which meets their
| hardware requirements is incredibly exciting
|
| I have no idea how anything can be more secure than Qubes
| OS. I never received a reasonable answer to this question.
| And yes, virtualization (i.e., compartmentalization) is the
| best way to achieve security, in my opinion.
|
| > in terms of laptop/desktop security, Apple's doing the
| best job of anyone on that front at present and is still
| moving in the direction of improvement
|
| This is not even funny, given how many vulnerabilities are
| constantly being found in MacOS. You should just compare
| that with Qubes OS, which I use.
| handedness wrote:
| They aren't strawman. You pop up in Graphene OS threads
| like clockwork and recommend other devices. You say, "but
| Google hardware." I get not wanting to contribute to
| Google financially, I get not wanting their logo on a
| device, I get the general discomfort with anything
| Google. But it's akin to people being so anti-Google that
| even when Firefox on Android lacked nearly any sandboxing
| whatsoever and had downright reprehensible security
| practices, they'd continue to use Firefox on Android when
| visiting untrusted websites, because, well, at least it's
| not Google-adjacent. It's completely irrational and
| unjustifiable on anything but a totally emotional level.
|
| You conflate privacy with security here, "They may be
| more secure in small ways, depending on your threat
| model, like avoiding Google," and yet you don't
| articulate any demonstrated connection between using
| Google hardware with GrapheneOS and Google's ad tech
| business. The closest thing there is needing to connect
| to Wi-FI to unlock the bootloader, but that's easily
| addressed. You cite a hypothetical backdoor that Google
| may have placed in the hardware, but unless you're
| physically examining every chip running every OS (and
| there are several) in every device you own (even the ones
| you think you've disabled the MIE on), you simply can't
| know that. You have to account for that, but you talk
| about it in ways that imply a project which accounts for
| it better than others hasn't, while one that inherently
| can't, has.
|
| When they announce Motorola support, you're still on
| about avoiding Google. They literally can't win with you.
|
| If you think their decisions harm them more than they
| think, but can't understand the basic factors at play,
| it's hard to take your determinations seriously. Good
| governance of a complex project is hard, and people snipe
| from the sidelines with virtually no understanding of
| what the actual situation is. By all indications the
| project is incredibly well run in all ways that
| practically impact eventual end-user security.
|
| If you have no idea how anything can be more secure than
| Qubes OS, consider Qubes OS running on hardware with
| excellent security features, and the two being tightly
| integrated. There's your reasonable answer. That is
| literally the roadmap for Graphene OS. A hypervisor-based
| OS that's useful for end-user purposes by carefully
| layering on functionality to make a hypervisor-based OS
| some degree of usable.
|
| The less reasonable reasonable answer is that you'd have
| better security if you ran Xen itself, as everything
| Qubes adds to make it usable potentially weakens it. It's
| just the nature of the beast.
|
| It wouldn't surprise me if GrapheneOS lands on Xen for
| all the same reasons Joanna landed on Xen, and they end
| up contributing massively upstream to Xen security
| largely by tightly integrating it with said hardware. But
| I'm sure other patches will flow upstream with whatever
| project they choose, because their security chops are
| that good.
|
| Qubes OS also lacks resources. They're supporting a
| massively bigger variety of hardware with a comparatively
| tiny user and donor base. By all indications their
| finances are nowhere near sufficient for what they really
| need to do. The project is as good as it currently is
| almost entirely down to the incredible efforts by a very
| small number of amazing people. If nothing else, the
| speed at which they can iterate and evolve is highly
| constrained. Remove 1-2 key players from the equation and
| the project almost invariably collapses. That alone is
| constitutes a definite security vulnerability.
|
| Re: Apple, I'm talking hardware security. But even when
| you factor the software in, for a portfolio of consumer
| operating systems used by a billion and a half normies
| who expect it to do every normie task under the sun with
| very little frictional security overhead, Apple does a
| great job at security.
|
| Edited to add:
|
| > I would be happy to use GrapheneOS on a more libre
| hardware (Librem 5), even if the security may be lower.
| Some people value an additional bit of freedom more than
| cutting-edge security.
|
| OK, but that's a nonsensical wish at best. There are
| other AOSP forks out there that would meet your needs.
| Buy a non-Google Android phone and load another AOSP
| fork. Or, fork GrapheneOS and modify it to meet your
| needs, thought that would be a largely pointless
| exercise. Repeatedly criticizing the project every single
| time it comes up for not wanting to completely change its
| fundamental nature in an ill-defined attempt to satisfy
| your inclination is a real head-scratcher.
| handedness wrote:
| And I appreciate that you wish them success and think
| it's important. If you think so, please try to better
| understand the nature of what it is you're criticizing.
| If you're repeatedly met with push-back from numerous
| individuals but can't evolve in your understanding, you
| have to start asking yourself harder questions.
| subscribed wrote:
| Oh wow, sir or madam, I adore your dedication and
| persistence.
| subscribed wrote:
| Ahahah.... This thread doesn't show what you think does.
|
| Unfortunately you come out as whining that the project
| focused on security doesn't want to support insecure
| hardware.
|
| Go for it, fork, call it, say, ClayOS and have GOS on
| whatever you want. Why would someone else have to do
| something that's contrary to the project just because you
| want to lower the security?
|
| Bizarre. Just fork it mate.
| doug-moen wrote:
| The ability to fake the location on a per-app basis is called
| "location scopes". It is being worked on, as mentioned here:
|
| https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27926-per-profile-location-...
|
| Currently there is a Mock Location feature, but it is globally
| scoped and not what you asked for.
| ferguess_k wrote:
| I'd also like to remove as many apps as I want. If something
| breaks I'd eat it and re-install the whole system.
| strcat wrote:
| You can disable many system apps via the Settings UI. For
| ones where the naive heuristics or manual exceptions believe
| it may break something and have it disabled, you can use ADB.
| You can also uninstall apps from a profile including Owner
| with ADB instead of disabling them which is NOT a good idea
| but you can do it...
| throawayonthe wrote:
| i don't understand, doesn't that make graphene the opposite of
| what that saying refers to? it's a real life project that has
| almost all of the features you mention while not being lagged
| down by pursuit of perfectionism?
| strcat wrote:
| GrapheneOS has an OEM partnership with Motorola where they're
| working on improving their devices to meet our requirements
| because we won't lower our standards for updates and security
| features. A lot of work needs to be done for each supported
| device. There's a massive amount of work bringing the security-
| oriented, production-quality hardware memory tagging
| integration from Tensor to Snapdragon. We're working with
| Motorola and Qualcomm on it. If we simply ported it to many
| insecure devices we'd need have the time to work on features
| like this or the power to get an OEM and SoC vendor to work
| with us on it.
|
| GrapheneOS has Contact Scopes and Storage Scopes for pretending
| all of the contacts, media and storage permissions are granted
| with the app unable to access any additional user data without
| the user explicitly adding it on a case-by-case basis. Unlike
| the recent iOS feature, apps can't see the Contacts permission
| group isn't granted and it supports giving less data than the
| whole contact too. It also supports labels for groups of
| contacts shared between apps.
|
| Mock Location is a standard Android feature. We're working on a
| per-app Location Scopes replacement. We're also working on
| Camera Scopes and Microphone Scopes. We plan to continue down
| that road covering less major permissions too.
|
| Sandboxed Google Play already works near perfectly with close
| to 100% app compatibility. It's only apps disallowing using a
| non-stock OS via the Play Integrity API or to a lesser extent
| certain other methods which aren't compatible. McDonalds is a
| major example. X forbids password login but you can use
| Vanadium to login with a passkey and then use that in the app.
| ~10% of banking apps do it but not most. We've convinced
| multiple banks to permit GrapheneOS, and that's going to become
| MUCH easier now.
| jonpurdy wrote:
| This is very useful context. Especially around Contact Scopes
| etc. It's never made sense to me that iOS shares if the user
| is choosing to not share their contacts.
|
| Apple seems to basically do privacy-related things to an 80%
| level but not bothering with getting it totally correct. This
| makes business sense because the extra 20% is way more
| difficult, but it's great to see GrapheneOS going all the
| way.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| > We've convinced multiple banks to permit GrapheneOS, and
| that's going to become MUCH easier now.
|
| I did not know that. That is very interesting.
|
| On that topic, an honest question: what is the killer feature
| of banking apps that everyone is so hot on? Are we talking
| like retail banking or money transmitters? I am not using any
| bespoke banking apps, and I don't feel like I'm missing out,
| but maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.
|
| What _does_ detract from my GrapheneOS experience is the
| keyboard. It 's just ok. I need swipe typing though, and I
| haven't found anything even close to gboard glide.
| patrakov wrote:
| We are talking about banking and pseudo-banking apps with
| the following typical features:
|
| * A wallet for QR-code based payments backed by a national
| standard for their content and by the money in your bank
| account;
|
| * A software implementation of an NFC-enabled credit or
| debit card, or sometimes with a magnetic strip emulation in
| addition to that;
|
| * An interface to transfer money to other bank accounts in
| the same country or abroad, or to convert between local and
| foreign currency if you have a foreign currency bank
| account;
|
| * A way to pay common utility bills - in some cases, by
| scanning the QR code on the bill;
|
| * A way to manage banking and investment accounts - e.g.,
| if you want an extra savings account in Japanese yen with a
| new debit card attached to it, tap a few times and it's
| there;
|
| * A chat with bank representatives - for example, to
| provide supporting documents by photographing them, without
| ever visiting the bank;
|
| * A second factor (as in 2FA) to approve money transfers
| initiated from the desktop web browser, meeting the bank
| standards where TOTP can't meet them (e.g., due to the
| legal requirement to say what transaction the code is for).
|
| The real problem is that many banks are deprecating their
| browser-based interfaces and are turning app-only.
| Figs wrote:
| > The real problem is that many banks are deprecating
| their browser-based interfaces and are turning app-only.
|
| What bank does that? If my bank did that, I would find a
| new bank _immediately_. That is not OK.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| > On that topic, an honest question: what is the killer
| feature of banking apps that everyone is so hot on? Are we
| talking like retail banking or money transmitters? I am not
| using any bespoke banking apps, and I don't feel like I'm
| missing out, but maybe I just don't know what I'm missing.
|
| For me, the killer "feature" is that I need to generate an
| auth code on my bank's app to be able to log in to my
| account and make transfers via my browser (or I can use the
| app directly). In other words, it's considerably more
| difficult to actually do (retail) banking without my bank's
| app.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Got it. That makes more sense, i.e., that you're
| essentially required to use it rather than getting
| something in addition.
| aceazzameen wrote:
| For the keyboard I recently discovered HeliBoard. You have
| to add a gboard's library to enable glide typing, but so
| far I really like it.
|
| https://f-droid.org/packages/helium314.keyboard/
| ibejoeb wrote:
| Woah. I've been looking around for months. That's huge.
| Thanks.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| My bank's killer feature is that they're app-first and web-
| first because they only have one physical branch in San
| Antonio. They were one of the first banks in the nation to
| allow you to electronically represent checks for deposit,
| and they did that first through their web app and then
| later through their mobile app.
| john01dav wrote:
| What, exactly, is sandboxed Google play prevented from
| accessing? Can I feed it a fake location or disable location
| access? Is it prevented from running in the background 24/7?
| Can I force it and just it through a VPN? Or is it just
| blocked from accessing apps and files that aren't in the
| sandbox? There are many such questions and all could be
| considered "sandbox".
| Itoldmyselfso wrote:
| Sandboxed Google Play receives no special access at all, so
| you can deny it all permissions if you want, but you should
| grant network (and maybe notifications) permission for it
| to actually function.
|
| https://grapheneos.org/features#sandboxed-google-play
| bornfreddy wrote:
| Well that's a bit misleading answer. Some apps refuse to
| work if G services are disabled, so they clearly
| communicate with them. It would be nice to know what
| exactly G learned about the phone through those
| "sandboxed" apps.
| palata wrote:
| I denied the contacts permission to the Play Services. It
| just shows a notification when it tries to access them,
| which is actually not common at all.
| gf000 wrote:
| It's an Android service. But unlike on regular Android
| where Google play services have hard-coded special
| permissions, on Graphene it is an ordinary android
| service with all the same strict rules applying to it, as
| to any other service you could write.
|
| So an application of course can use other android
| services if it declared that, that's why it can see
| whether it's running or not. But you are in full control
| whether google play services is installed, and what it
| can use.
|
| Of course this may break certain apps (Google maps
| location sharing will probably not work with the location
| permission denied for play services), which may or may
| not degrade gracefully.
| subscribed wrote:
| This is your lucky day!
|
| First is very comprehensively delivered, second is halfway
| done, halfway in progress.
|
| Good luck!
| broadsidepicnic wrote:
| One of the greatest things I miss from Samsung after some time
| with GrapheneOS is the dex.
|
| The current provided desktop mode is rudimentary, and mostly
| working. But it has so much potential. We could have all in one
| device with us, and just plug that into an usb-c dock. Or watch
| things on big screens in hotels if a mouse emulation on
| touchscreen like samsung would be supported.
|
| Or, as Samsung already has created this, maybe that could be
| somehow ported to GrapheneOS via some 3rd party patcher? I'd
| really like to use samsung clock and gallery, as well, as those
| are quite a lot better than AOSP ones.
|
| I like GrapheneOS, and the promise of it. Just a few minor things
| and it would be awesome instead of really good.
| Aachen wrote:
| > The current provided desktop mode is rudimentary, and mostly
| working. But it has so much potential. We could have all in one
| device with us, and just plug that into an usb-c dock.
|
| An acquaintance at a local hackerspace has no laptop, just a
| Fairphone 5 and a device that _looks_ like a laptop but is
| really just an external screen and keyboard. He connects his
| Ubuntu Touch phone and uses that as a laptop, developing
| software on it etc.
|
| It's not perfect as a phone (Android apps work rather well from
| what I've seen (I think the emulator is called Waydroid), but
| e.g. passing through Bluetooth is an issue so there are
| limitations) but maybe that's an interesting option for you as
| well
| repparw wrote:
| Motorola was the only one that had something similar AFAIK
| (Moto's Ready For)
|
| Though I'd expect that all efforts focus on the new Android
| Desktop Mode now, and then Samsung Dex turns into something
| akin to what OneUI does with Android, instead of being its own
| thing
| kirito1337 wrote:
| I run a SM-A260F and a SM-T225N wdy think ?, theyre both
| unsupported even though they have great potential (the first one
| is very used in my country)
| ptrl600 wrote:
| Looks like a shoo-in for my next phone!
| jasonvorhe wrote:
| Isn't this just basically what you get out of the box on
| GrapheneOS?
| palata wrote:
| Yeah I think the message is really "Motorola will meet the
| requirements of GrapheneOS in the future".
| throwaway12pol wrote:
| Thank god (or China) for not needing Google devices for Graphene
| in the future! Motorola devices are 10x more affordable in my
| country, as Pixel phones aren't even officially here and must be
| imported with high taxes, while Motorola has official stores and
| even builds phones locally!
| haolez wrote:
| If I buy a recent Motorola device, will it be possible to upgrade
| to Graphene in the future? I'm looking for a new device right
| now.
| gf000 wrote:
| Unlikely. The reason graphene doesn't run on non-pixels even
| today is that it depends on certain hardware features that most
| vendors (beside Google) lacks.
|
| I wouldn't think this applies to Motorola.
| miloignis wrote:
| No, the devices GrapheneOS supports won't be out until 2027
| (and may only be the flagship models?)
| Collectivism wrote:
| please remake the motorola flipout, please remake the motorola
| flipout
| emilfihlman wrote:
| This is huge and amazing!
| t0bia_s wrote:
| Hopefully those Motorola devices will be smaller than Pixels.
| strcat wrote:
| The initial supported devices will be flagships. They have
| regular, fold and flip variants of the flagships. The main
| advantage of flip phones is better one-handed use.
| butz wrote:
| Will this help running Linux mobile OS'es on Motorola phones,
| like postmarketOS?
| Frannky wrote:
| Damn I would love to buy it. In the past I tried different mods
| trying to get rid of google, the problem was always the same, lot
| of little annoyances making it very painful for daily usage. A de
| Googled phone without annoyances and security would be very cool.
|
| Another interesting thing is that I haven't had any reason to buy
| a new phone in a very long time so we are probably in a time
| where the hardware is commodotized enough for motorola to be able
| to ship exactly what I need.
|
| Never thought I would have think of routing for Motorola in 2026
| but you never know!
| RGamma wrote:
| > We'll likely be able to make hardened builds of firmware and
| drivers which can be released in an official way for easy builds
| without needing to extract anything from the GrapheneOS or
| Motorola OS factory images.
|
| That's great to see. I'm getting flashbacks of doing the "find
| the blobs" game years ago with LineageOS.
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| I will be ordering one as soon as they release evenn if its a
| downgrade, because I want to see this succeed.
|
| I also am willing to suffer lower specs in short term if it
| benefits me in the long run.
| distantranges wrote:
| The only thing that keeps me from switching to GrapheneOS on my
| Pixel 10 pro is satellite SOS which isn't supported on
| GrapheneOS. It's something important to me as I do mountain
| sports and in some locations there is no network signal.
|
| I know that in the US Verizon and Tmobile customers have access
| to satellite connectivity and it's possible to get this feature
| working on a GrapheneOS phone if you are one of their customers,
| but I am in Europe and European providers don't provide satellite
| connectivity.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| There are a couple of apps I use that I kind of need: jb4 and
| Mando ECS (both for my car). Would be nice if they worked -
| anyone know?
|
| My S21 FE 5G is still fine (for now), going on 3 years. But I'm
| sure Samsung will cripple the battery life at some point..
| Ms-J wrote:
| While it's nice to have somewhat of a choice between terrible and
| bad, we need a Linux based OS that doesn't depend on Google at
| all.
|
| While I'm at it, I don't trust GrapheneOS. The devs injecting
| certain types of politics into the project.
|
| But it's better than both Apple and Google who both are known to
| spy and have tons of backdoors.
| ysnp wrote:
| Can anyone from Motorola confirm that the form submission and
| time delay requirements will be removed?
| shubhamintech wrote:
| The enterprise angle makes more sense than consumer. Regulated
| industries and gov orgs need auditable device stacks, and Pixel
| being the only viable GrapheneOS hardware was always a fragile
| dependency for a security-first product. The real question is
| whether Motorola executes at the hardware partnership level or
| whether this is a marketing play. 2027 will be telling.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-04 23:00 UTC)