Comment by Aachen
10 days ago
> 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).
> Also some people (me) value independence from Google more than the highest degree of security (which relies on Google hardware).
The requirements are indeed minimal. I have no problem with your valuing independence from Google, but please don't misrepresent GrapheneOS' requirements as the highest degree of security because not even they have said that. They have actually mentioned wanting to be more involved in the hardware/firmware side to implement more pro-user changes.
They are mostly basic requirements that Android OEMs should be embarrassed not to meet in 2026.
> This is a contradiction. There is nothing "minimal" about a requirement that excludes every device but one.
I don't get your logic. Requirements are a choice. It's very easy to create requirements that exclude every device but one.
Example: "It has to be the Samsung Galaxy S23". Done.
Now you can disagree with those requirements, but that's completely different from saying that the requirements are wrong.
5 replies →
You are not independent from Google if you purchase an android device from another manufacturer. You're then having your data sent to both Google and that manufacturer, resulting in far worse privacy overall than with just Google, not to mention worse security at hardware level. If you don't want to "support" Google, just buy any used Pixel 6 to 10 series.
2 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)
> That's like saying Tulip blocked
I agree, but you are the one who talked about "blocking". I did not :-).
2 replies →