Comment by palata
9 days ago
The whole reason why GrapheneOS is superior to its alternative is because they do all that.
I also with they could support non-Google phones, but that's a problem coming from the manufacturers, not from GrapheneOS.
My understanding is that there are close to half a million GrapheneOS users. And many potential users don't want to buy a Google phone. So it feels like it is starting to become worth considering for manufacturers...
I don't get why Fairphone doesn't look into that. Is it because they are not aware, or is it too hard for them to make hardware that is compliant with what GrapheneOS requires? Hundreds of thousands of devices may not count so much for Samsung, but they must definitely count for Fairphone.
> The whole reason why GrapheneOS is superior to its alternative is because they do all that.
What is "its alternative"?
> I also wish they could support non-Google phones, but that's a problem coming from the manufacturers, not from GrapheneOS.
The manufacturers aren't blocking the installing of GrapheneOS...
> What is "its alternative"?
I meant alternativeS, sorry. Well, anything AOSP-based that is not Android.
> The manufacturers aren't blocking the installing of GrapheneOS...
Of course they are not. But they produce hardware that is not secure enough for GrapheneOS to consider. I wish they saw value in GrapheneOS and produced hardware that met their requirements.
It's actually weird, because I'm convinced that it's completely worth it: just add those requirements to the design of one new model, and a potential of hundreds of thousands of people may buy it just for GrapheneOS.
GOS has minimum hardware requirements and most of the available smartphones don't meet them
This is a contradiction. There is nothing "minimal" about a requirement that excludes every device but one. Also some people (me) value independence from Google more than the highest degree of security (which relies on Google hardware).
10 replies →
That's like saying Tulip blocked the installation of Vista because they didn't install enough RAM to run it
The OS makers don't have to go out of their way to support a device they don't want to (that's the beauty of open source passion projects), but it's also not like any manufacturer (that allows bootloader unlocking or ships an unlocked bootloader) is blocking GrapheneOS or anyone else from doing it, which the quote implies in my reading (maybe other people read it differently)
3 replies →