tl;dw:
1. it's expensive
2. requires online connection and account to unlock bootloader
3. lenovo (the parent company) had shady behavior in the past
gruez 20 hours ago
tl;dw:
1. it's expensive
2. requires online connection and account to unlock bootloader
3. lenovo (the parent company) had shady behavior in the past
LikelySupernova 20 hours ago
bushwart 20 hours ago
seanw444 20 hours ago
That's horrible. I'm surprised the GOS team is okay with this.
627467 12 hours ago
microtonal 7 hours ago
dmm 19 hours ago
From the grapheneos installation instructions: """ On device model variants (SKUs) which support being sold as locked devices by carriers, enabling OEM unlocking requires internet access so that the stock OS can check if the device was sold as locked by a carrier. """
subscribed 14 hours ago
You can do the Pixel unlocking whilst driving by the random McD.
I'm quite surprised it flies with the team.
gruez 14 hours ago
That's not much of a distinction considering that it's trivial to create an email/account (without a phone number, even!) with fake information.
subscribed 14 hours ago
One is 5 seconds on wifi, second is grumbly attempts to create throwaway email to create the throwaway account.
I agree in principle but disagree because I hate unnecessary friction.
aftbit 17 hours ago
2. This sucks but is basically required to protect against phone theft (though phones could be shipped in an unlock-once state, until you set them up)
3. So what? What company has never been shady?
summm 17 hours ago
subscribed 14 hours ago
Like, it will be Qualcomm, it will support unlockng, relocking, custom keys and will not have a secret debug key - otherwise there simply would be absolutely no deal with GoS.
IMO these new flagships will not be fully impacted by these issues (if at all), considering how much of the partnership initiative started* at Motorola.
It was likely them providing the GOS team with source code of some of the most critical patches, when Google withheld it for months waiting for Samsung to release patches.
Why? I guess to get the bragging rights to have the most secure android handsets in the world, to improve their own codebase (GOS pushed a lot of patches upstream and perhaps the hardware).
I'm cautiously optimistic - given how allergic the team are to the notion of the enforced compliance imposed by Google, I think it's likely these new flagships will be automatically unlocked in the same way pixels are.
microtonal 7 hours ago
I'm pretty sure reading on Mastodon that it was another OEM that provided them with embargoed patches, but I can't find the Toot now.
subscribed 3 hours ago
gfrecvh 15 hours ago
microtonal 7 hours ago
Hobadee 20 hours ago
bitpush 20 hours ago
joshuaissac 20 hours ago
They partnered with OnePlus globally, then signed an exclusive deal with Micromax in India, catching OnePlus by surprise as they had to now stop selling their CyanogenMod-loaded phones in India.
mnls 17 hours ago
As for Motorola, I also wasn’t crazy excited about the deal but I was hoping for a cheap phone with GrapheneOS. It seems that it will be only available on flagship phones. Which means paying more for having a flagship with better security and privacy but some basic broken services (It’s not 2002 any more, I need to do contactless payments with my phone. And don’t tell me it’s not Graphene's fault, when I pay more than $1000 for a phone, I don’t care whose fault that is).
And at this very point, I pretty much lost interest on anything GrapheneOS has to offer. Put GrapheneOS on a $200-$300 phone and then we'll talk
gfrecvh 15 hours ago
mnls 13 hours ago
DANmode 14 hours ago
It’s just yours.
microtonal 6 hours ago
For most people it's a non-argument though - they are feeding data into the Google ad machine every day (even more so if you are using a phone with Google-certified Android). But suddenly buying the Android phone with the best device security is a problem.
But from the rest of the message, they are setting up a set of constraints that is impossible to solve.
bpev 13 hours ago
I think I saw another post some other time that it was because only particular snapdragon chips support the features they need?
microtonal 7 hours ago
In fact, Snapdragon CPUs had no support for MTE until Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 (a flagship chip) and almost no Android phones outside Pixel and Samsung flagships have a separate secure processor (pretty much everyone else uses TrustZone, which is very vulnerable to attacks, see e.g. the recent vulnerability where most Mediatek phones could be extracted under a minute in BFU).
And don’t tell me it’s not Graphene's fault
Seriously, it is not GrapheneOS' fault and it does matter whose fault it is. With your mindset, nothing is going to change ever... If you cannot live without contactless payments, at least send a message to your regulator that Google is using Play Integrity to enforce its monopoly.
Grimeton 16 hours ago
GrapheneOS gives you a very secure device with some neat features that make it basically impossible to get to the data w/o the right pin (so we believe). To make that happen it uses some hardware features that make this possible (so the developers and we believe). You get a highly secure phone with an option to destroy the data on it by handing out the wrong pin. So if you don’t want the customs officer to see that shady stuff on your phone, this one is for you.
And the average Joe? Is that what he wants? Needs? Or is he rather looking for a phone that gives him back control over his data? No Google, no manufacturer spying on him. No option to remotely disable it, no microphone that you cannot trust to not be turned on anyway and so on? If that is what the average Joe is looking for then he doesn’t need GrapheneOS. All it takes is a custom ROM that removes these services.
However, I don’t really see the win here. Joe would move from stock ROM/Google/manufacturer to custom ROM/random developer on the intertubez and so would his trust. And even Joe knows trusting a random guy on the Interwebtubez is the last thing one should do.
The way I look at this Joe is just moving problems around, not solving a single one, creating ten new ones.
Besides that: If anyone really wants to change anything ROMs need to be made for $100 phones, but that’s not an option because the manufacturer won’t make the $$ back via the data so the phone needs to be more expensive in the first place.
slaps Nokia 6150
em-bee 15 hours ago
but that either applies to GrapheneOS as well, or there actually are trustworthy alternative ROMs out there. GrapheneOS being one, /e/OS being another, for example.
there are more that i am less familiar with, so i can't talk about them, but /e/OS is run by Gael Duval, who has been running a Linux distribution before that for many years. and even tough there are criticisms against /e/OS including the claim that it overstates its security and supposedly hasn't removed all google connections, i will trust Gael based on his reputation far above anything coming from google. even more so compared to other OEMs who stuff their android versions with bad apps that you can't remove.
so no, i am not trusting a random guy on the internet. i am trusting someone with a known reputation, someone who i have actually exchanged private messages with, someone who i could even meet in person if i were to come to the right conference.
microtonal 6 hours ago
Don't? He has mentioned in multiple interviews that security hardening is only for pedophiles and spies (sort of implicating GrapheneOS). They are inaccurate about /e/OS being degoogled. They install F-Droid packages through a proxy (CleanAPK.org) that they do not want to reveal the purpose or owner of, which combined with the Android Trust On First Use (TOFU) model is a big red flag. And then we haven't talked about all the kernel trees, firmware trees, and Android releases that are way behind and have hundreds of known vulnerabilities.
Either they are very incompetent or just fishy.
Cider9986 5 hours ago
See "Degoogling" section: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
OroPla 16 hours ago
infogulch 20 hours ago
Last thread about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49536384
Latest tweet by @GrapheneOS on the topic (today): https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2097219485937660272?s=20
> ... There's a decent chance usable MTE will ship in Android 17 QPR2 and we'll be able to support it. We can't promise that since it's not up to us and no information has been provided about why MTE was unavailable at launch and still disabled in 17 QPR2 Beta 4.
Cider9986 19 hours ago
BearOso 20 hours ago
- The Motorola flagship costs too much and he's worried it will no longer run on the Pixel 7a that he got for $200 or that there will be any cheap options.
But they said already there would be cheap options, and Motorola has a Moto G series that it would likely use.
- Worried about other stuff that existing Motorola Android phones do, like privacy violations.
...that definitely won't be in GrapheneOS, they wouldn't allow it.
- More things Motorola does as a company that are bad.
The current option being Google means, despite that, Motorola is probably better.
Grimeton 20 hours ago
BorisMelnik 20 hours ago
Grimeton 19 hours ago
VCFundedGenYer 19 hours ago
I would recommend being very careful with them.
Cider9986 19 hours ago
BearOso 16 hours ago
Cider9986 14 hours ago
gruez 19 hours ago
Using "failing the vibe check" as your first argument fails my vibe check.
>They are suddenly very AI obsessed, which is the antithesis of their platform.
1. If you're talking about their post defending the use of AI in development, and that the reviews are still done by humans, that hardly seems "very AI obsessed" to me, unless you subscribe to r/antiai or something.
2. How is the use AI "the antithesis of their platform"?
nicce 18 hours ago
Benefits are massive if you have the discipline to stay as master and don't let AI overtake everything and make you lazy.
subscribed 14 hours ago
And "they are suddenly very AI obsessed" sounds so alarming - can you point to something I could read?
aniviacat 20 hours ago
- GrapheneOS is only supported on Motorola's flagship devices, which the author deems too expensive
- Motorola historically has made unlocking the bootloader difficult, and GrapheneOS has not yet confirmed that this will become easier.
- The author does not trust Motorola.
pessimizer 20 hours ago
But of course, that's a can't win catch-22 situation; the comments really are very good and reassuring. I'd feel a lot better if they were partnering with 10 different Chinese manufacturers than Motorola, though.
edit: I want to see Graphene on $100 phones. That this is not a target is concerning, because if the average person had a choice between a $100 phone that had the guarantees of GrapheneOS and a $100 phone that had anything else on it, they would choose GrapheneOS. They'd be a household name in seconds; it would take government action to stop them from being the default and changing the expectations of the entire environment.
Cider9986 19 hours ago
Let me reassure you?
microtonal 6 hours ago
https://mastodon.social/@[email protected]/117236...
tl;dr mostly not allowed, but useful for PR reviewing/auditing, because adversaries use them as well.
So I am not sure what point you are making in this comment or your linked comment?
Cider9986 5 hours ago
Not a big deal. I agree and it was probably a mistake but it appears a little trigger happy.
The comment I replied to was bad for the record.
subscribed 14 hours ago
It simply won't work.
Of course you can fork it, adapt and run the less safe clone, but the official GOS won't.
...unless you accept refurbished ones, then the recommended minimum is Pixel 7a for approx 200€
(pixels 6, currently supported, approach EOL)