Pixel 10 was so bad I had to trade it in after using for a month. The version I got was 128GB for a whopping $600. This was my first Google device after Nexus days and I was bitterly disappointed with weird performance bugs and battery drain issues. The software does little to make up for the issues.
The replacement I got is a Motorola razr ultra folding phone.. similar perf point with 16G RAM and 512G storage. This phone is legit.
We plan to support future versions of the Motorola Signature, Razr Fold and Razr Ultra. We'll have at least a non-folding Signature successor in 2027 but aren't yet sure if the folding devices will provide what we need.
We're confident it's going to be much better hardware than Pixels and that our users will be happy with it. Our initial goal was only providing competitive security with Pixels but it's now clear we can do better in most areas. Google will likely have a significantly better secure element for a while but that can change too.
What's the point of the Pixel 11 and later now that they aren't supported by AOSP and are no longer going to be best in class for security? The updates and security features are why GrapheneOS uses them. We have ~500k users on the Pixel 6 through Pixel 10a and many of those users had multiple previous Pixel and Nexus devices for GrapheneOS. Our userbase is rapidly growing at an increasing rate and was already significant for Pixels.
Yes but all phones coming out now are going to be complete turds really. They're all going to cut corners to offset the exploding cost of storage and ram.
It was removed from the non-Fold devices in the US. They kept it for other countries due to only considering the US carriers to be ready for eSIM-only.
It was removed from the whole non-folding Pixel 10 series in the US. It still has the SIM card slot elsewhere. We had to return a Pixel 10 bricked due to a firmware bug and it was the US model since we'd bought it in the US and sent it overseas with a forwarding service. Google's repair partner shop was quite confused about the lack of a SIM card slot to get the IMEI and we only had a serial number but they figured out using the serial number instead.
There's still dual SIM support either way and you can store dozens of inactive eSIMs. The main downside of eSIMs is widespread lack of transfer support by carriers.
"Pixel 11 series is a lot more expensive for an incremental improvement to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and reduced RAM for the Pro base models. They finally caught up to the last generation of Qualcomm cellular radio. It's overpriced, the upgrades aren't impressive and losing MTE is appalling."
What, MTE is such a promising tech and for security and now that we need all security we can get. WTF this is terrible development. You cant go backwards when the world needs getting even more secure.
Such a shame. Google themselves barely utilised it in their stock builds. I wonder if there is some silicon or development overhead they decided to cut.
I'm optimistic about the Motorola partnership and when my 9 Pro is EOL I'll definitely look at how that's played out.
Google likely cut MTE to reduce the die space required by CPU cache. It saves them money on a feature they never deployed by default and only used for a few processes as part of Android Advanced Protection Mode (AAPM) without enabling it in the Linux kernel. Their security team should have gotten it deployed by default for a large portion of the OS by now and then it would have been much harder to justify removing it. The small performance impact of asymmetric mode is irrelevant for the vast majority of the OS and it can also be used in the near zero cost asynchronous mode. We use synchronous in the kernel for security reasons but they didn't have to do that.
It's a completely different story for GrapheneOS where it means losing one of the main kernel and userspace security protections. This is one of the only ways we can significantly harden the Linux kernel with existing security features. The Linux kernel has always been a huge security liability for Android and AI models are making that much more obvious to everyone.
Google will likely end up heavily using MTE in the future. Pixel 11 devices won't be able to benefit from it. They're at the start of 7 years of updates but they won't be getting the benefit of future updates enabling MTE. Pixel 8 and later will benefit from Google likely expanding use of MTE for AAPM and eventually beginning to use it by default. It's unlikely Google will stop working on expanding MTE due to the Pixel 11 hardware decision. Multiple other OEMs are interested in MTE for devices made for businesses and governments even if Google decided it wasn't worth the cost for Pixels.
I don't understand much from MTE/Android or MIE/iOS but the explanation is also confusing when:
- They claim Apple did a great job integrating MIE in iOS
- iOS doesn't encourage to opt into MTE ... Apple's docs warn developers of performance and stability issues
So it seems like even for iOS, this special security feature is only available for Apple own iOS app (at most?).
Then also:
> Even Signal doesn't opt-in. Our approach enables forcing using MTE in the standard allocators regardless.
So does that mean that Signal and any other apps are enrolled in MTE on Graphene?
iOS uses MTE for nearly all of the important parts of the OS. It uses MTE within the kernel and for a substantial portion of the base OS processes. They focused on deploying it to the most security relevant processes first but it's deployed for a large portion of the OS beyond those. Apple has done a very good job protecting the OS with it. They've done a very poor job getting the app ecosystem to adopt it.
Android has more app ecosystem adoption than iOS due to having a better open source app ecosystem where GrapheneOS users have asked apps to enable it by default. Many GrapheneOS users are also force enabling MTE for user installed apps via our recommended toggle for it. Those users are reporting invalid memory access to developers via our dedicated notification system for invalid memory accesses it catches. For Android app developers, not opting into MTE doesn't mean their app won't be used with MTE due to GrapheneOS.
GrapheneOS uses MTE for the kernel and nearly every userspace process including all the base OS apps. We've had to fix many upstream Linux kernel and Pixel kernel driver bugs found by MTE. However, we aren't trying to fix the Pixel userspace drivers code ourselves so we have a few userspace processes excluded from MTE caused by userspace driver library/service bugs.
We recommend users enable our toggle for enabling MTE by default for every user installed app not explicitly marked as incompatible in our compatibility database. GrapheneOS has user-facing notifications for invalid memory accesses caught by MTE providing a traceback to share with the app developers. Users can use the per-app toggle to work around it if it makes an app unusable. We take the same approach for other aggressive exploit protections provided by GrapheneOS. Exploit protections with only rare compatibility issues are enabled by default for apps with a per-app toggle to opt-out and no toggle for the global default.
I see a significant difference between making a security feature available but opt-in during a teething phase, and removing the feature altogether. Am I missing something?
This isn't terrible development, it's simply that GrapheneOS devs can't do miracles
They can't just continue supporting phones if they have security downgrades, especially if it's an important feature.
I think they mean "this is a terrible development" in the sense that this is terrible news/turn of events. They arent criticizing GrapheneOSs software development.
Lost any remaining respect for Pixel with the decisions they've made for Pixel 11. The product design and hardware teams have both tried to one up each other and who can deliver the bigger pile of steaming crap.
Pixel 11 has an incremental upgrade to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and less RAM for the base Pro models. It has a new major version of the secure element (Titan M3) which likely greatly improves Before First Unlock state security for users without a strong passphrase. It has a better radio from a performance and efficiency perspective but it's still a more than yearly generation behind Qualcomm. The cellular radio firmware is also likely a security downgrade but the userspace code is more secure due to moving to AOSP IMS code. If these devices hadn't removed MTE, then they would have been a sidegrade with marginally better security. Removing MTE ruins these devices for GrapheneOS. We could still support the Pixel 11 series but it would be greatly rolling back overall security to before the Pixel 8. It does at least have PAC and BTI but MTE was the main improvement with the Pixel 8 rather than those.
IMO they peaked with the Nexus 6 - camera has gotten worse and they make up with it in software or try to. You could and can see this at night or stacked shots in N6 vs pixel 4,5,6.
They bought the best phone hardware and software companies (Motorola and Android) and gutted them both.
They do make limited use of it for Android Advanced Protection Mode (AAPM) introduced in Android 16. It no longer provides this upgrade for protection against exploits on the Pixel 11. They could substantially expand AAPM to using it across much more of the OS and could also start using it without AAPM since there's no significant downside to using it for most of the userspace code outside of the kernel.
It's funny how much Google lies about Android being 'secure' [1] and how much GrapheneOS, for free, improves the security of everyone with their work. Google should be, immediately, merging all patches/changes GrapheneOS makes and releasing a new build of Android to AOSP. Instead, users are subject to weak efforts to protect their security and privacy while Google parade about how good and amazing they are. They mention [1] 'This unencrypted data can be used to build user profiles or, in the hands of malicious actors'...And can't see the irony. They ARE the malicious actor and they absolutely build profiles about everyone. Whatever happened to the 'privacy sandbox' initiative again?
Anyone who values Graphene's work will purchase one of their Motorola devices, whatever the cost, otherwise it seems your choices are going to be giving up more data and control to Google, because they are clearly, obviously and systematically trying to remove GOS from Pixels (lack of source code, removing hardware features, making it purposely difficult to support pixels).
I predict by 2030 GrapheneOS will not support any new pixels entirely. The existing pixels will eventually die off and that will be that.
> Well the current Motorola Signature (2026) is 3 times the price of a Pixel.
I understand the sentiment, certainly, but the price difference depends a lot on which model we're comparing to. The Signature will be the flagship from Motorola, and I'll be very, very surprised if it's 3x the price of the Pixel flagship.
Presumably someone who was planning to buy something like the Pixel 10a would be more interested in the non-flagship Motorola devices with GOS support, which are expected to launch later.
It's obvious they see open access to users data as a threat to their business model. No, they haven't suddenly decided to care about your privacy, they want to deny other actors access so you need to get data directly via them. They will obviously still collect it themselves via their numerous methods (play services, chrome, ad networks etc).
For consistency, given all the phones GrapheneOS refused to support for not meeting their requirements, the Pixel 11 should not be supported, to my eyes.
It does suck for those who already got one expecting GrapheneOS support
Good riddance to Google. I'm happy GOS is no longer dependent on their hardware.
My concern is that Motorola is a Chinese company. Sure, Pixel and Apple phones are made in China too, but they're overseen by American companies. How can we know these Motorola phones will not one day be placed on the "do not trust" list like e.g. Huawei phones?
The US government puts them on the list. I don't care that they are on the list, but it does mean they can't sell the devices in the United States. If that ever happened to Motorola, and there were still no other devices that Graphene OS supports, then there would be no options left.
> placed on the do not trust list?? who places them on this list?
The President of the United States, or members of the Federal Government that have the various levers of power.
> and why do you listen to the people who place them there
If they won't allow the devices to be imported then it's not really an option. Which also means they wouldn't be allowed to connect to the cell network.
Or they could be barred from all Federal or State facilities, having to be left in a faraday bag upon entry.
Federal grants and loans to states and companies could be denied if company policy allows the use of those devices for corporate communications and purchasing decisions, etc.
You can get a Pixel 10 or wait for the upcoming Motorola flagship with GrapheneOS support. Pixel 11 only has an incremental CPU upgrade and the same GPU as the Pixel 11 anyway. It isn't much of a hardware upgrade and is even a downgrade for RAM with the base Pro devices. It's more expensive than the Pixel 10 was too.
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
Motorola doesn't have a great track records for flagships smartphones. I will keep finger crossed that we won't have to choose again between security and features but either way it's a great news, and I truly hope that GrapheneOS will be adopted by more manufacturers in the future
Is the Motorola partnership that they're ensuring support in the phone, and helping the port with docs/support perhaps, or is it even actually shipping with GrapheneOS?
You can get a Pixel 10 or wait for the upcoming Motorola flagship with GrapheneOS support. Pixel 11 only has an incremental CPU upgrade and the same GPU as the Pixel 11 anyway. It isn't much of a hardware upgrade and is even a downgrade for RAM with the base Pro devices. It's more expensive than the Pixel 10 was too.
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
Feeling like my Pixel 9 Pro was the best timed hardware buy I've made in recent years.
The 10 dropped the physical SIM slot and Google started with their device tree shenanigans that year, with little to no improvements in exchange.
I've got 16GB of RAM and 512GB in an ecosystem that shows every sign of regressing in capacities due to component price inflation.
Very interested to see what Motorola does next year, however.
Pixel 10 was so bad I had to trade it in after using for a month. The version I got was 128GB for a whopping $600. This was my first Google device after Nexus days and I was bitterly disappointed with weird performance bugs and battery drain issues. The software does little to make up for the issues.
The replacement I got is a Motorola razr ultra folding phone.. similar perf point with 16G RAM and 512G storage. This phone is legit.
We plan to support future versions of the Motorola Signature, Razr Fold and Razr Ultra. We'll have at least a non-folding Signature successor in 2027 but aren't yet sure if the folding devices will provide what we need.
We're confident it's going to be much better hardware than Pixels and that our users will be happy with it. Our initial goal was only providing competitive security with Pixels but it's now clear we can do better in most areas. Google will likely have a significantly better secure element for a while but that can change too.
What's the point of the Pixel 11 and later now that they aren't supported by AOSP and are no longer going to be best in class for security? The updates and security features are why GrapheneOS uses them. We have ~500k users on the Pixel 6 through Pixel 10a and many of those users had multiple previous Pixel and Nexus devices for GrapheneOS. Our userbase is rapidly growing at an increasing rate and was already significant for Pixels.
6 replies →
Ahm… phones have as much memory as my laptop? Man, here was I thinking a Pixel 7 would make a good Graphene device.
21 replies →
At what point do we blame google for going the route of regressive and damaging business tacitcs to earn a penny while burning a dollar?
The 11 is a complete turd. Less RAM than the 10.
Sticking with a 9 Pro or 10 Pro is the smart move right now. I’m actually considering spending $400 to get a broken 9 Pro XL fixed…
Yes but all phones coming out now are going to be complete turds really. They're all going to cut corners to offset the exploding cost of storage and ram.
"The 10 dropped the physical SIM slot"
I'm assuming that's a country specific/dependent thing?
(My pixel 10 does have a physical sim slot).
It was removed from the non-Fold devices in the US. They kept it for other countries due to only considering the US carriers to be ready for eSIM-only.
1 reply →
> The 10 dropped the physical SIM slot
Not sure about the 10, but at least the 10 Pro still has one.
It was removed from the whole non-folding Pixel 10 series in the US. It still has the SIM card slot elsewhere. We had to return a Pixel 10 bricked due to a firmware bug and it was the US model since we'd bought it in the US and sent it overseas with a forwarding service. Google's repair partner shop was quite confused about the lack of a SIM card slot to get the IMEI and we only had a serial number but they figured out using the serial number instead.
There's still dual SIM support either way and you can store dozens of inactive eSIMs. The main downside of eSIMs is widespread lack of transfer support by carriers.
8 replies →
it might be worth considering that for many Phones different hardware is sold _under the same marketing name_.
The most common versions (in the "west) are AFIK:
- US version vs. international version
(just the most common divide of Phones you will see "in the west", e.g. if a brand sell to China, that also is normally it's own sub-versions.)
the most common differences include:
- different modems
- US phones being carrier locked (which is not normal outside of the US and a few other countries)
- US phones not having sim card slots, the international version of the same (Android) Phones, often still has a physical sim card slot
Can confirm, pixel 10 is esim only.
1 reply →
Not in the United States. Only the Fold still has a physical SIM slot.
[dead]
"Pixel 11 series is a lot more expensive for an incremental improvement to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and reduced RAM for the Pro base models. They finally caught up to the last generation of Qualcomm cellular radio. It's overpriced, the upgrades aren't impressive and losing MTE is appalling."
I guess that's a thumbs down then?
What, MTE is such a promising tech and for security and now that we need all security we can get. WTF this is terrible development. You cant go backwards when the world needs getting even more secure.
Such a shame. Google themselves barely utilised it in their stock builds. I wonder if there is some silicon or development overhead they decided to cut.
I'm optimistic about the Motorola partnership and when my 9 Pro is EOL I'll definitely look at how that's played out.
Google likely cut MTE to reduce the die space required by CPU cache. It saves them money on a feature they never deployed by default and only used for a few processes as part of Android Advanced Protection Mode (AAPM) without enabling it in the Linux kernel. Their security team should have gotten it deployed by default for a large portion of the OS by now and then it would have been much harder to justify removing it. The small performance impact of asymmetric mode is irrelevant for the vast majority of the OS and it can also be used in the near zero cost asynchronous mode. We use synchronous in the kernel for security reasons but they didn't have to do that.
It's a completely different story for GrapheneOS where it means losing one of the main kernel and userspace security protections. This is one of the only ways we can significantly harden the Linux kernel with existing security features. The Linux kernel has always been a huge security liability for Android and AI models are making that much more obvious to everyone.
Google will likely end up heavily using MTE in the future. Pixel 11 devices won't be able to benefit from it. They're at the start of 7 years of updates but they won't be getting the benefit of future updates enabling MTE. Pixel 8 and later will benefit from Google likely expanding use of MTE for AAPM and eventually beginning to use it by default. It's unlikely Google will stop working on expanding MTE due to the Pixel 11 hardware decision. Multiple other OEMs are interested in MTE for devices made for businesses and governments even if Google decided it wasn't worth the cost for Pixels.
7 replies →
I don't understand much from MTE/Android or MIE/iOS but the explanation is also confusing when:
- They claim Apple did a great job integrating MIE in iOS - iOS doesn't encourage to opt into MTE ... Apple's docs warn developers of performance and stability issues
So it seems like even for iOS, this special security feature is only available for Apple own iOS app (at most?).
Then also:
> Even Signal doesn't opt-in. Our approach enables forcing using MTE in the standard allocators regardless.
So does that mean that Signal and any other apps are enrolled in MTE on Graphene?
iOS uses MTE for nearly all of the important parts of the OS. It uses MTE within the kernel and for a substantial portion of the base OS processes. They focused on deploying it to the most security relevant processes first but it's deployed for a large portion of the OS beyond those. Apple has done a very good job protecting the OS with it. They've done a very poor job getting the app ecosystem to adopt it.
Android has more app ecosystem adoption than iOS due to having a better open source app ecosystem where GrapheneOS users have asked apps to enable it by default. Many GrapheneOS users are also force enabling MTE for user installed apps via our recommended toggle for it. Those users are reporting invalid memory access to developers via our dedicated notification system for invalid memory accesses it catches. For Android app developers, not opting into MTE doesn't mean their app won't be used with MTE due to GrapheneOS.
GrapheneOS uses MTE for the kernel and nearly every userspace process including all the base OS apps. We've had to fix many upstream Linux kernel and Pixel kernel driver bugs found by MTE. However, we aren't trying to fix the Pixel userspace drivers code ourselves so we have a few userspace processes excluded from MTE caused by userspace driver library/service bugs.
We recommend users enable our toggle for enabling MTE by default for every user installed app not explicitly marked as incompatible in our compatibility database. GrapheneOS has user-facing notifications for invalid memory accesses caught by MTE providing a traceback to share with the app developers. Users can use the per-app toggle to work around it if it makes an app unusable. We take the same approach for other aggressive exploit protections provided by GrapheneOS. Exploit protections with only rare compatibility issues are enabled by default for apps with a per-app toggle to opt-out and no toggle for the global default.
I see a significant difference between making a security feature available but opt-in during a teething phase, and removing the feature altogether. Am I missing something?
This isn't terrible development, it's simply that GrapheneOS devs can't do miracles They can't just continue supporting phones if they have security downgrades, especially if it's an important feature.
I think they mean "this is a terrible development" in the sense that this is terrible news/turn of events. They arent criticizing GrapheneOSs software development.
Lost any remaining respect for Pixel with the decisions they've made for Pixel 11. The product design and hardware teams have both tried to one up each other and who can deliver the bigger pile of steaming crap.
They also say that the Pixel 11 is a very very tiny improvement wrt the Pixel 10, with less RAM and more expensive.
So basically they say don't buy it, wait for the Motorola phones.
Pixel 11 has an incremental upgrade to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and less RAM for the base Pro models. It has a new major version of the secure element (Titan M3) which likely greatly improves Before First Unlock state security for users without a strong passphrase. It has a better radio from a performance and efficiency perspective but it's still a more than yearly generation behind Qualcomm. The cellular radio firmware is also likely a security downgrade but the userspace code is more secure due to moving to AOSP IMS code. If these devices hadn't removed MTE, then they would have been a sidegrade with marginally better security. Removing MTE ruins these devices for GrapheneOS. We could still support the Pixel 11 series but it would be greatly rolling back overall security to before the Pixel 8. It does at least have PAC and BTI but MTE was the main improvement with the Pixel 8 rather than those.
[flagged]
4 replies →
They have their reasons. Pixels are only getting worse and worse after the 9
IMO they peaked with the Nexus 6 - camera has gotten worse and they make up with it in software or try to. You could and can see this at night or stacked shots in N6 vs pixel 4,5,6.
They bought the best phone hardware and software companies (Motorola and Android) and gutted them both.
9 replies →
Fediverse link: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117179231167297908
Can someone from AOSP/Pixel hardware security shed some light? This is strange timing, especially when the approach has been validated by Apple also.
Probably just that Google doesn't use it so why pay for it? They're not obligated to support whatever GrapheneOS wants.
They do make limited use of it for Android Advanced Protection Mode (AAPM) introduced in Android 16. It no longer provides this upgrade for protection against exploits on the Pixel 11. They could substantially expand AAPM to using it across much more of the OS and could also start using it without AAPM since there's no significant downside to using it for most of the userspace code outside of the kernel.
5 replies →
I have a pipe dream that Apple will pull a 180 and offer support for GrapheneOS.
Lol, I'm very curious what's in that pipe. It must be some exceedingly hallucinagenic stuff.
If the sky falls, we shall catch larks.
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/41564-pixel-11-doesnt-meet-...
I'm guessing this is why the pixel 8-10 models have been in such high demand recently
I wish ShiftPhone - which is fitting all my other needs - would offer a config that would work for GrapheneOS.
I just don't get why smaller OEMs don't seem to care about meeting Graphene's requirements.
GrapheneOS has 500k users and growing, and most GrapheneOS users would be more than happy to leave the Pixels because of Google's bullshit.
It's funny how much Google lies about Android being 'secure' [1] and how much GrapheneOS, for free, improves the security of everyone with their work. Google should be, immediately, merging all patches/changes GrapheneOS makes and releasing a new build of Android to AOSP. Instead, users are subject to weak efforts to protect their security and privacy while Google parade about how good and amazing they are. They mention [1] 'This unencrypted data can be used to build user profiles or, in the hands of malicious actors'...And can't see the irony. They ARE the malicious actor and they absolutely build profiles about everyone. Whatever happened to the 'privacy sandbox' initiative again?
Anyone who values Graphene's work will purchase one of their Motorola devices, whatever the cost, otherwise it seems your choices are going to be giving up more data and control to Google, because they are clearly, obviously and systematically trying to remove GOS from Pixels (lack of source code, removing hardware features, making it purposely difficult to support pixels).
I predict by 2030 GrapheneOS will not support any new pixels entirely. The existing pixels will eventually die off and that will be that.
[1]: https://blog.google/security/new-android-network-security-pr...
> Anyone who values Graphene's work will purchase one of their Motorola devices, whatever the cost
Well the current Motorola Signature (2026) is 3 times the price of a Pixel. Not everyone can afford "whatever the cost".
I hope Motorola will just get more and more phones to support GrapheneOS.
> Well the current Motorola Signature (2026) is 3 times the price of a Pixel.
I understand the sentiment, certainly, but the price difference depends a lot on which model we're comparing to. The Signature will be the flagship from Motorola, and I'll be very, very surprised if it's 3x the price of the Pixel flagship.
Presumably someone who was planning to buy something like the Pixel 10a would be more interested in the non-flagship Motorola devices with GOS support, which are expected to launch later.
Here's a direct comparison with the Pixel 11:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Google-Pixel-11-Unlocked-Smartphone...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Motorola-Signature-XT2603-2-SIM-Fre...
That's the 16GB variant of the Signature. There's also a cheaper 12GB variant, which is particularly competitively priced in India:
https://www.motorola.in/smartphones-motorola-signature/p?sku...
Can GOS continue to support existing pixels if AOSP drops support for them I wonder?
But it's easy to say 'whatever the cost' if you're wealthy :) For many people especially outside the US it's not that simple.
AOSP already dropped support for Pixels with Android 16 and GrapheneOS has continued to support Pixels.
They see the irony, they know the irony, they know their money comes from that irony being ignored so they will never lampshade it.
It's obvious they see open access to users data as a threat to their business model. No, they haven't suddenly decided to care about your privacy, they want to deny other actors access so you need to get data directly via them. They will obviously still collect it themselves via their numerous methods (play services, chrome, ad networks etc).
For consistency, given all the phones GrapheneOS refused to support for not meeting their requirements, the Pixel 11 should not be supported, to my eyes.
It does suck for those who already got one expecting GrapheneOS support
Good riddance to Google. I'm happy GOS is no longer dependent on their hardware.
My concern is that Motorola is a Chinese company. Sure, Pixel and Apple phones are made in China too, but they're overseen by American companies. How can we know these Motorola phones will not one day be placed on the "do not trust" list like e.g. Huawei phones?
You should buy one before that happens then. Maybe buy several. Or get a proxy in Europe to smuggle them for you.
It's upcoming Motorola devices providing GrapheneOS support rather than current ones.
1 reply →
Gor Huawei the main thing was that they didn't have access to Google services, so would graphene users care?
placed on the do not trust list?? who places them on this list? and why do you listen to the people who place them there.
The US government puts them on the list. I don't care that they are on the list, but it does mean they can't sell the devices in the United States. If that ever happened to Motorola, and there were still no other devices that Graphene OS supports, then there would be no options left.
1 reply →
> placed on the do not trust list?? who places them on this list?
The President of the United States, or members of the Federal Government that have the various levers of power.
> and why do you listen to the people who place them there
If they won't allow the devices to be imported then it's not really an option. Which also means they wouldn't be allowed to connect to the cell network.
Or they could be barred from all Federal or State facilities, having to be left in a faraday bag upon entry.
Federal grants and loans to states and companies could be denied if company policy allows the use of those devices for corporate communications and purchasing decisions, etc.
Urgh I was about to buy one for GOS. Maybe back to iPhone it is.
You can get a Pixel 10 or wait for the upcoming Motorola flagship with GrapheneOS support. Pixel 11 only has an incremental CPU upgrade and the same GPU as the Pixel 11 anyway. It isn't much of a hardware upgrade and is even a downgrade for RAM with the base Pro devices. It's more expensive than the Pixel 10 was too.
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
Motorola doesn't have a great track records for flagships smartphones. I will keep finger crossed that we won't have to choose again between security and features but either way it's a great news, and I truly hope that GrapheneOS will be adopted by more manufacturers in the future
2 replies →
Eagerly waiting for the Motorola flagship! Will it be released worldwide?
1 reply →
Is the Motorola partnership that they're ensuring support in the phone, and helping the port with docs/support perhaps, or is it even actually shipping with GrapheneOS?
5 replies →
One thing about Motorola. They aren't known for supporting devices long term with fast updates.
Is there any guarantee that in 4 years this device will be getting monthly patches, source and builds regularly?
8 replies →
Same here! I had everything lined up to import the phone just for GrapheneOS!
Google just can't help being a fucking disappointment at every single opportunity!
You can get a Pixel 10 or wait for the upcoming Motorola flagship with GrapheneOS support. Pixel 11 only has an incremental CPU upgrade and the same GPU as the Pixel 11 anyway. It isn't much of a hardware upgrade and is even a downgrade for RAM with the base Pro devices. It's more expensive than the Pixel 10 was too.
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
Just buy whichever device GOS does support right now. It's always been very picky about device support.
They have bare minimum sane standards for device support but it seems picky from the outside because most Android OEMs are incompetent.
7 replies →