> GrapheneOS has officially confirmed a major new hardware partnership—one that marks the end of its long-standing Pixel exclusivity. According to the team, work with a major Android OEM began in June and is now moving toward the development of a next-generation smartphone built to meet GrapheneOS’ strict privacy and security standards.
Oh that's one of the best news in the smartphone world in a long time.
It's impossible to escape the Apple/Google duopoly but at least GrapheneOS makes the most out of Android regarding privacy.
I still wish we could get some kind of low resource, stable and mature Android clone instead of Google needlessly increasing complexity but this will over time break app compatibility (Google will make sure of it)
Edit: I do think Pixel devices used to be one of the best but still I'd like to choose my hardware and software separately interoperating via standards
I have been trying to come off of google and cloud by building — quite slowly — my own nas server which has 2 nodes in two geographic regions where I am building certain services like cloud storage and backup, webhosting etc. But I think there are a few key things that need to be community driven to really get rid of this duoply.
0. A privacy first approach would be something like this:
`You+App --Read/Write-> f_private(your_data) <--Write only- 3p` and App cannot communicate your data to 3p or google/apple.
Think of Yelp/Google Maps but with no _read_ permissions on location, functions can be run in a private middleware e.g. what's near an anonymous location or ads based on anonymous data. You can wipe your data from one button click and start again for EVERYTHING, no data is ever stored on a 3p server. Bonus: No more stupid horrible permission fiascos for app development that are just plain creepy.
1. An opensource data effort that can support (0) with critical infra e.g. precise positioning, anonymous or privacy preserving functions that don't reveal their data or processes to 3p.
Here is my favourite open source effort: Precise Location Positioning. A high recall, opensource, 3D building and sattelite-shadow Data-Infra effort[3]. This world class dataset on shadows and sattelites are a must. Most geo-location positioning tied to Radio signals is just a bandaid and fraught with privacy issues — thought there are heroic privacy first efforts in this direction[1][2] which though amazing will be playing catch-up with google already deploying [3].
I'm not knowledgeable enough -- what would it take to escape the Apple/Google duopoly?
I'm imagining a future where you buy a smartphone and when you do the first configuration, it asks you which services provider you want to use. Google and Apple are probably at the top of the list, but at the bottom there is "custom..." where you can specify the IP or host.domain of your own self-hosted setup.
Then, when you download an app, the app informs the app provider of this configuration and so your notifications (messenger, social media, games, banking, whatever) get delivered to that services provider and your phone gets them from there accordingly.
There are some good stuff on the software side that people mention, but a big one is the driver support. We would need device makers to upstream support so there is less worrying about reverse engineering or needing to run modified ROMs based on old builds. Or just publish specs on the hardware that is enough for implementation. Sure, you can buy a specific phone and run a de-googled android or linux, but that only really works for the hobbyist who wants to spend time doing this. Which makes it difficult to create a market that encourages developers of software to port their software or write new software. With out being able to broadly support devices, most people are gonna be better off running Google's android.
It's not the right solution long term, but you can't expect the entire ecosystem to appear overnight. Using it allows deferring the driver issue a bit while building out the rest of the ecosystem.
> I'm not knowledgeable enough -- what would it take to escape the Apple/Google duopoly?
At this point? Reliable emulation that can run 99% of Android apps, to provide a bridge until the platform is interesting enough for people to develop for it "natively".
I think the easiest way to do that would be to run Android in a VM.
> I think the easiest way to do that would be to run Android in a VM.
The problem is the critical payment and government ID apps that will never run in an Android VM because they intentionally break without hardware attestation.
Why not run Android directly, such as using Graphene OS. It's decades ahead in both OS architecture, developer tools, and developers compared to non Android based Linux operating systems.
Graphene uses the Google codebase, so Google is choosing its long-term development strategy and standards it will support. It's like choosing Chromium to escape Chrome.
The same can be said about the Linux codebase. Tomorrow Linus could private his branch and stop supporting public releases. If AOSP goes closed source then people can fork it and continue to maintain it.
If someone is making a new browser, considering you want to support the same web standards as everyone else, being independent is pretty low on the priority lists. In fact it is more of a liability since it could make for compatibility issues.
How do you run WhatsApp or Signal without a smartphone? Pretty hard.
If your answer is "don't use them", then you're not living in a country where the vast majority of communications are done on WhatsApp or Signal, good for you I guess.
Yes that's fair. I have a an old iPhone without a sim that I use as my master for those apps, but I keep it in a drawer since the desktop apps work fine. Funny enough the phone the app is installed on doesn't have to be the same phone you use to register by number, so the number I registered with is my flip phone
Access to Signal and Bitwarden are the only two apps I really need daily that keep me on a smartphone. I have tried using a feature phone in the last couple years, but honestly I might as well just not have a phone at that point as almost all my communication is via Signal.
Well if you rely on running Android apps, you still rely on Android.
Actually, if you rely on the app, you really on the Android SDK which is not open source.
Now if you could run AOSP but your own apps built with an open source SDK, that would be a different story. Some people seem to really want to do that with PWAs. I personnally tend to hate webapps, but I have to admit that they can be open source.
You could, but using containers requires that your kernel directly provide and secure Android-compatible functionality, such as binder. A VM gives you more options for abstracting that functionality.
If you expect to be "essentially android, but a little different", containers make sense. If you want to build an entirely different mobile OS, but provide Android compatibility, I think a VM is much more likely to give you the flexibility to not defer to Android design decisions.
> I think the easiest way to do that would be to run Android in a VM.
Sony's cameras used to have an Android userland that they used for their PlayMemories apps. No idea how exactly that one was implemented though, but it should be possible to get Android apps without going into being an Android fork.
Any one of us here could learn the skills to design a smartphone. It won't necessarily be good, but I remember that years ago, someone made one with a touchscreen hat and GSM hat atop a Raspberry Pi, rubber-banded to a power bank. I'm sure any one of us HN users could do this. And it worked. Quality only goes up from there.
The problem is it won't run any apps, so you'll need to carry this open-source secure phone in addition to your normal phone.
Or use everything via the web browser; but yes, I think apps are the main reason we can't just have a generic Linux phone OS on an open hardware platform
Apps make or break operating systems and app stores. Just ask Microsoft (Windows Phone) or Huawei (HarmonyOs). IIRC amazon was paying devs to publish to their app store or something like that.
Thankfully, some apps have both web and native mobile versions but for a modern digital life, the critical apps are sadly not on both versions.
This is not as simple as you're saying. Making a new phone not relying on proprietary drivers tied to Android is impossible without a huge effort: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21656355
> Any one of us here could learn the skills to design a smartphone.
Unless you're Fabrice Bellard who literally created a 4G softmodem - no. It takes a whole lot of people (or, again, one genius Fabrice Bellard clone) to design a smartphone. You'll need AT THE VERY LEAST:
1) a SoC that has reasonably open device drivers and specifications - without that, all attempts are moot
2) a hardware engineer to deal with the PCB
3) a low-level system engineer to deal with the initial bringup (aka, porting u-boot and maintaining it)
4) an RF engineer to deal with the black magic that is designing ultra high performance PCBs that deal with the RF stuff (2G-5G phone networks, BT, WiFi, NFC, GPS) and high-frequency buses (storage, RAM, baseband, USB, PCIe, CSI/DSI)
5) a GPU driver engineer of the class of Alyssa Rosenzweig to get the GPU drivers to behave (she literally provided better-compliant drivers than Apple)
6) a battery engineer to ensure you don't end up with something like the ill-fated last Galaxy Note (that had to be fully recalled due to battery issues)
7) a ton of software engineers to get the basic things running that people expect from a smartphone (e.g. phone calls, 911, SMS, MMS, a browser and enough userland libraries so that third-party developers can begin to port games)
8) hosting engineers that deal with reliably delivering OS updates, application updates and A-GPS data
9) a skilled purchase and finance department to acquire all components as well as skilled QA people to make sure you don't get screwed in your supply chain by someone cutting corners or trying to engage in outright fraud
10) plastics and metal design engineers for the housing and other related engineering, and you'll probably also need engineers specializing in mass production and assembly as injection molding is a skillset on its own
11) engineers specializing in low power domains to get something that doesn't eat through the entire battery in a matter of hours
12) UX, UI designers to get something people can actually use (partially, that's also compliance stuff - think of accessibility laws)
13) testers to test your device against an insane load of other things - headsets, headphones, consumer and enterprise wifi, car head units, mice/keyboards, game controllers, USB hubs, monitors, projectors, adapters, dongles, IPv6 in its various abominations, phone network-side vendors, how devices behave in trains, cars, airplanes, cruise ships, in temperature and humidity extremes, under water, in back pockets (bending!), in dirt, dust, rain, being drenched in all kinds of beverages, muck, snow, fog, right next to extremely powerful broadcast radio transmitters, high magnetic/electric fields, teeth both human (toddlers) and animal (cats and dogs)...
14) logistics experts to deal with shipping, returns, refunds, recalls
15) customer support
16) psychoacoustics and acoustics engineers to make sure your device doesn't sound like shit (both what you hear, and that includes safeguarding the speakers from burning out, and what others hear from you, aka the beamforming stuff that the Asahi people reverse engineered)
17) video/colorspace engineers to make sure the whole darn thing isn't off color
18) camera/optics engineers, even if you acquire camera units these need to be integrated properly
19) lawyers and domain experts to deal with the compliance crap: RoHS, CE, FCC, India's regulatory authority, licensing, binary blobs, video codecs, audio codecs, carrier compliance testing, HDMI, HDCP, the RF compliance crap that's needed for US compliance [1], tariffs, sanctions laws... the list is endless
20) advertising (although admittedly, word-of-mouth could be sufficient), and PR in general (including websites, print media, AtL/BtL marketing)
21) deals with app developers, lest you end up like Windows Mobile
22) security testers/experts to make sure your devices don't get 0wned by cellebrite, mossad, nsa, cia, ...
23) human resources experts ("people engineers") to herd all the cats
24) packaging engineers to make sure the product arrives at the customer's hands both looking appealing and undamaged (tbh, that's at least four distinct skillsets as well)
You're looking at a minimum of 2-4 million $ for the engineers alone, another 4-5 million $ for the compliance crap, many millions for the app deals and way more in upfront cash for components and logistics chains.
That's why every attempt at a reasonably open source phone design has either failed or is many years behind the mass market. And the list of organisations attempting to do so include household names of the likes of Mozilla. And that is also why/how ODMs exist... they all have figured out some "minimum viable design" that gets tweaked a bit for the customer brand, and that's it. Everyone else went bust. Including, as mentioned, Microsoft. Including former powerhouses such as HTC. It's simply too complex to keep up.
On HN, we could probably drum together people of all these skillsets, no doubt (it took me half an hour to think of all these people and I'm pretty certain I've missed important aspects still!), and even ones with enough money to burn. But even then: the competition are the richest companies on the planet: Apple, Google, Samsung. Good luck...
(And yes: a minimum viable phone - probably a lot of people here including myself could whip that up using a COTS 5G modem, a Raspberry Pi and a power bank. But that's a MVP, not something you can sell to anyone less nerdy than Richard Stallman, and it's based off of the work of a lot of the people I just spent 58 minutes to think of and write down)
You can escape the duopoly by using a GNI/Linux phone, Librem 5 or Pinephone, but don't expect any support from Google or Apple for them. I'm using the former as a daily driver.
> but still I'd like to choose my hardware and software separately interoperating via standards
This is why I can’t do GrapheneOS. Pixel devices do not suit my needs (& aren’t available). 2 of the big appeals for my going Android was 1) device options 2) ability to customize (appearance, apps from other sources, root access). Google has basically done everything to prevent #2 & GrapheneOS prevents #1. …This is why I also have a Linux phone to just leave these restrictions.
If you're stateside and want a shipping Linux phone today, [FuriLabs](http://furilabs.com) is another option.
Graphene is in a class of its own compared to both of these though and there's frankly no reason to bother unless you're trying to improve those ecosystems.
I admit to being shocked that such a common phrase isn’t widely understood, but this site has plenty of international traffic so I can only say thanks for the context comment. :)
Totally agree. Pixel devices are probably still the best Android offering, but I originally got into the ecosystem because it was less confined and that appears to be changing. While I'm likely not representative of most consumers, I would love it if I could choose both the right device and right software for my particular needs .
We will see how that goes. I love GrapheneOS, I've used it for years, but the details matter. An OEM partnership might promise a lot at the start, but a lot can change between now and delivery.
They depend on the Play Service and Play Store, that's for sure. But I'm pretty sure they know it's a risk already.
Don't get me wrong: they are locked-in, that's a fact. And to be fair they benefit from all the work of Google on the OS. But that's not a reason to desire to go further and lose even more control.
What's the alternative? I doubt even someone as big as Samsung will be willing or able to develop their own alternative OS (atleast one that can actually grab marketshare enough that critical apps get ported), and I can't imagine them wanting to hitch their wagon to the Linux alternatives.
> I doubt even someone as big as Samsung will be willing or able to develop their own alternative OS
Huawei pulled it out with HarmonyOS (I don't know how good/bad is it, and if it'll have staying power, but other companies are putting in the effort)
PS: btw, Samsung already had its own, non-Android OS with Bada (of course, developing a new OS is only the first step, getting it to be successful wouldn't be easy)
Huawei has a whole-ass Chinese government behind it with quite a lot of incentives to move away from Google. Samsung does not. Heck, China's making its own GPUs and x86 CPUs. They're not great, but when the incentives over there are that strong, the market forces are clearly in a whole different universe compared to the rest of the world.
Bada lasted, what, 3 years? So it did better than Firefox OS (unless you want to count KaiOS as the same thing), but not by much? Not a great look I'd say. And things haven't gotten any easier during the past 15 years, with Apple and Google's positions being more entrenched than ever.
> Huawei has a whole-ass Chinese government behind it
I don't like how Chinese companies systematically get reduced to "it's because the government can help them". The US TooBigTech get a ton of help from the US government, starting with political pressures when other countries want to regulate them.
Huawei have really good technology and very competent engineers. It's not the Chinese government that does the engineering.
DJI is years ahead of everybody else technologically, and that's again not the Chinese government doing the engineering. Let's stop believing that the US are superior in every single way and that someone else doing better means that they must be cheating.
Now that their market is established, I don't think open-source is a requirement anymore. They would of course share with hardware vendors strategically.
More and more functionality is locked behind closed-source play services. AOSP is basically useless at this point, it can't do much of anything without Google Play Services.
I'm writing this on a grapheneos pixel 5. I have the app for very-large-USbank and a few others. With 'exploit protection compatibility toggle' enabled they works fine. In what regard this applies to device attestation I couldn't say.
Damn, I just got a Pixel 10 pro XL for installing GrapheneOS. I hate how below average Pixel's hardware is and I wouldn't have minded waiting a couple of more years for this.
Has the OEM in question been revealed yet? Likely not one of the major OEMs because they all lock their bootloaders. I'm crossing my fingers it's Fairphone but that's because I love my FP5. The GrapheneOS devs have been pretty harsh towards Fairphone because of their slow updates.
Those are no longer big these days so no. Also, they're not going to restart a whole product category just for grapheneos.
As OnePlus is kinda dead and taken over by oppo, I'm guessing Sony. They have some similar collaboration in the past like with Jolla. My Sony XA2 was one of the few models that could run sailfish.
If you've run a open source project almost of any size, it's quite a task having to support it on various devices scenarios.
The GrapheneOS devs are doing the right thing for the longevity of the project. Focus on a small number of phones/hardware. It guarantees its long term success.
Excellent work I think, also the Pixel hardware design offers slightly better security with the baseband.
Pixel with GrapheneOS is still great. And it may take 1-2 years before GrapheneOS gets on this new device.
Now if you just bought a Pixel, it will be supported for 8 years, so by this time hopefully GrapheneOS will be available on many different devices :-).
Why was it that in the early PC days, IBM was unable to keep a lid on 'IBM compatible', allowing for the PC interoperability explosion, yet today, almost every phone has closed drivers, closed and locked bootloaders, and almost complete corporate control over our devices? Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
Nobody gave you the actual answer. IBM was under an antitrust decree and had to openly license their technology for a nominal fee. (Supposedly about $5/PC.) So yes, they were in a hurry and used generic parts, but they still had tons of patents on it. When they got out from under this, they came up with Microchannel.
This and also cryptography technology was not nearly as sophisticated and easily accessible as it is today, and where it existed it was pretty slow on the hardware of the time.
How much of it is cryptography? The only notable cryptographic locks are just the TPM-backed Widevine and the infamous Play Integrity, both rarely required due to how many older devices that would lock out.
There's no crypto, as far as I know, in all the binary blobs in the kernel, yet we still can't re-implement enough of them to even have a true Linux phone without reusing the manufacturer's kernel.
You're getting a lot of indirect responses. If you've ever tried to mod your android phone the answer is simple. Its google play services and hardware attestation for things like banking websites.
Its really easy to make a custom rom but hard to do serious "real life" stuff; companies don't want to make it easy. To most regular users, if they cant download apps from the google play store, and they can't use venmo\cashapp, then the OS is dead in the water from day 1
Yeah but lots of phones you can't get ROMs for from a reputable source, and I sure as heck don't have the know how or time to build one, even if possible, which a lot of times is not due to locking down bootloaders, drivers, etc.
When you buy a Windows PC, the first thing a lot of tech people will do is format it and put on a clean install of Windows without all of the OEM crapware, or in these days install Linux if grandma is just using email and Facebook anyway.
If you try to do that on your Android device, your bank app is broken, most importantly not because of anything the alternate OS is doing wrong, which causes the vast majority of people to not want to do it even if it means suffering the OEM crapware, with no way for the alternative OS to fix it. And that in turn allows the OEMs to get away with locked bootloaders etc., because then they're not losing sales to a competitor that lets you remove the crapware when nobody can do it either way.
Years ago I used to love playing around with roms on my phone on XDA and it worked OK. I don't know what folks use these days. But as recently as a few years ago I merely rooted my phone and I couldn't use a lot of apps, not just banking, but even some games.
This just shows that the barrier of entry of a new phone OS is more than $0. You can pay app developers to port their apps off of play services, you can pay developers to add support for your attestation keys. Considering how many billions of dollars Android makes for Google, there is a room for a return on investment for an alternate OS to enable investments into a new OS.
> You can pay app developers to port their apps off of play services, you can pay developers to add support for your attestation keys.
microsoft literally tried this back in the day when android/ios was rising against windows mobile... spoiler: it didn't work
an additional anecdote from my time then: they came to where i was working at the time and proposed funding a windows mobile version of our app (quite a large sum) but our supervisor finally said no, because the upkeep of now 3 apps would be too much for too few customers
you cant just throw money at devs and expect much unless you have the user base (potential market) to back it up
That's akin to creating a new browser and pay site owners to support your client. You can do it for a few dozen sites but that can't be your primary strategy.
We actually saw this play out twice with Microsoft's return to mobile (Windows phone) and web browsers, money is a pretty small part of it.
How much do you want to pay? Who will be paying? Big companies will probably laugh such an effort out of the room, nay, they will not even let you into the room to talk with them.
Have you ever tried to pay a bank to do something for you ?
Trying to get some scale, you're hypothesizing about giving 10 millions to HSBC to make business with your startup, when they're throwing away 500+ millions every year just to cover their money laundering.
But what what I'm asking for is only a small amount of engineering time to add 1 line to their gradle and change 1 line in their app's code. This isn't a deal spanning many engineering years doing on going work and having to measure how effective things are. It's a small change plus the overhead of making a deal and getting through the beurocracy.
I see it akin to the proverbial "not getting out of bed for less than XXXXX". You're getting out of bed every day, for free. But having someone make you do it for a specific reason will be an exponentially harder proposition.
> 1 line in their app
Aren't you asking them to maintain compatibility outside of Play Services and be on available on your platform ? That's a whole project, including their (or their contracting shop's) validating the whole new stack from a security and technical perspective, and a legal and business check on what that actually means to them.
Perhaps we can look at it from a darker perspective: if a random guy came to the bank to ask them support for their parralel phone ecosystem, the bank would at least want to know what they're getting into and what's in it for them. Especially if they're offered 10 millions for allegedly one line of code.
I just made up the figure. Perhaps 10 billion dollars is more enticing. Perhaps you have to purchase the company outright and then dictate they add support. My point is that it's not impossible to get the apps people need to work on an alternate Android OS. It is a matter of funding conpatibility. You can find a niche audience of people to start out with to make a competitive OS for them. And then overtime expand that audience more and more.
>Aren't you asking them to maintain compatibility
Typically the complaints about banks is that they use the Play Integrity library which doesn't trust other operating systems. So the ask is to support the Android API for integrity and to trust the key of the OS provider. This would be done via a new library to make integration easier and more foolproof.
Key clients requesting support for the alternative OS will be a way faster route IMHO. The same way nobody bribed banks to support android, they saw the market share and potential and decided by themselves it was a worth doing. Which is why it came so late.
I understand you're offering a way to get around the chicken and egg problem, I'm saying dealing with the supply part is crazy hard. Somewhat paying users to buy into your ecosystem despite the lack of support could be a better use of money (I'm thinking about Meta subsidizing Occulus until it got some traction, and I assume it's still in the red after so many years)
> the Android API
People loosely explain the lack of technical challenge, but from the institution's POV you're asking them to expand their trust from Google, a US company which will be solely responsible if anything critical happens...to potentially each single phone maker, whoever happens to be selling the device to your clients ?
If Google didn't exist that's what they'd do. But Play Services is a thing. The more I think about the less I see an incentive for any established player to do that move until customers are actively clamoring for it. There's just no upside otherwise.
Where do you think the creators will get this money from? Look at existing ones, they are cash strapped as they are, paying a million to get an app over beyond their budget, let alone 10 million
Investors. Trying to become a new competitor in an established industry often takes a large amount of capital. If you tried to create a business to compete in another industry, you'd also need to find investors or other forms of financing if you are cash strapped.
Investors are not dumb. The current duopoly is entrenched and merely asking for money to create an alternative os won't give you investment. Microsoft and Nokia among others failed big time even though they had plenty of money and competing operating systems. Investors give you money if they think you will be successful and return a multiple of that investment within a reasonable timeframe.
You need to solve the 3 player problem before you even ask for money: getting device manufacturers in even though you have no operating system, no devs and no users, getting devs even though you have no operating system, no devs, no users and no devices, getting users even though you have no device, no operating, no devs and no apps.
You need an MVP that shows promise towards all the above if you seek money.
This is like taxi on demand app business or the takeaway delivery business but with more players and with a higher minimum funds requirement. Plus the fact that unlike taxi apps or takeaway apps, choosing an operating system is a zero sum game so you are competing in the most direct way against well known and well established brands like iOs and Android who are funded by the richest companies on earth. Unlike Uber vs Lyft, where a user can install both and use both, your battlefield only has one victor. And given that other companies with more funding that you will ever see in your lifetime still failed, you have a virtually impossible task of explaining (before they even consider giving you a single cent) how you are going to be able to capture market share with your own solution to the 3 player problem.
Nokia and Microsoft only understood this right at the end: to avoid losing in the mobile os market, you need an ecosystem. Miss any of the elements and it all crumbles. Read Elop's memorable Burning Ship note on the final days of Nokia.
> Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
There are technical reasons, but as ever the real underlying causes are incentives. Companies realized that the OS is a profit center, something they can use to influence user behavior to their benefit. Before the goal was to be a hardware company and offer the best hardware possible for cost. Now the goal is to own as large a slice of your life as possible. It's more of a social shift than a technological one. So why would a company, in this new environment, invest resources in making their hardware compatible with competing software environments? They'd be undercutting themselves.
That's not to say that attempts to build interoperability don't exist, just that they happen due to what are essentially activist efforts, the human factor, acting in spite of and against market forces. That doesn't tend to win out, except (rarely) in the political realm.
i.e. if you want interoperable mobile hardware you need a law, the market's not going to save you one this one.
I don't believe that's the true problem. Booting operating system is not a problem. There's no standardized hardware abstraction layer in PC either, every OS brings their own set of drivers.
My guess is that modern hardware is too complicated for one hacker to write reliable drivers. That wasn't the case back in the 90-s, when Linux matured. So we are at mercy of hardware manufacturers and they happened to not be interested in open upstreamed drivers.
> My guess is that modern hardware is too complicated for one hacker to write reliable drivers.
Modern hardware has turned our operating systems into isolated "user OS" nodes in the schematics, completely sandboxed away from the real action. Our operating systems don't really operate systems anymore.
In the ARM world, there isn't even a standard way to boot, and there are no standard hardware interfaces - except maybe the interrupt controller, since it's part of the CPU and only ARM designs the CPUs.
On any PC, you can still use BIOS/UEFI services to get a basic framebuffer and keyboard input. You cannot do that on embedded ARM devices - you need to get several layers into the graphics stack to have a framebuffer. I tried it on the PinePhone, using existing source code as a reference, and the furthest I got was sending commands from the video port to the LCD controller and then not having an oscilloscope to see if the LCD controller replied back.
I worked with ARM boards, I know a bit about it. Booting into Linux is never hard, it's all about using uboot, sometimes with tiny patches on top. I think it's actually even easier with android phones, as you don't have access to the low level bootloader, you just use fastboot stuff.
Having basic framebuffer in BIOS/UEFI is neat for toy OSes, but not very relevant for something practical. You gotta need proper driver for GPU. And if you're just starting, UART console is actually more preferable way to interact with board, IMO.
Booting into a mainline Linux kernel on your average junk-level SBC with all the hardware working (without simply sticking to an Android-like downstream/proprietary BSP) is quite hard, and that's what you need in order to make a phone usable as a daily driver. That's really the root issue; mobile phones are built as embedded devices, with no consideration for running a generic OS kernel. This isn't even an Android issue, OpenMoko was the same deal. If anything, Android was the first mobile platform to even loosely approach any kind of PC-like openness.
> So why would a company, in this new environment, invest resources in making their hardware compatible with competing software environments?
Because that's what customers want to buy. People are paying premium iPhone prices for hardware with mediocre specs and then the hardware sells out when someone like Purism or Fairphone actually makes an open one. How many sales would you get if you did the same thing on a phone that was actually price/performance competitive with the closed ones?
Meanwhile all of that "profit center" talk is MBA hopium. Nobody is actually using the Xiaomi App Store, least of all the people who would put a different OS on their phone.
The real problem here is Google. Hardware attestation needs to be an antitrust violation the same as Microsoft intentionally breaking software when you tried to run it on a competing version of DOS and for exactly the same reason.
Which is another reason we need to strip this hardware attestation stuff out of the hardware. It either needs to use exclusively keys the user loaded into the device themselves or the keys aren't on the device whatsoever and then the "high value targets" verify the contents of the drive from a known-clean machine once they get it back from the adversarial foreign officials before putting it back into service. Or better yet, keep a separate laptop on each side of the border and then sync the data over the internet instead of losing physical control over the device at an adversarial border.
Plenty of adversarial countries have a competent security service. A foreign government can compromise the corporation's root signing key for the devices through technical attacks and through bribery, espionage, physical intrusion, etc. And they're not going to tell you that they have before using it against your high value targets, so how do you protect them? By not relying on systems with a single point of compromise.
I generally agree, but as a caveat sometimes it's cheaper, more robust and more efficient to build an integrated system without having to worry about interoperability. BYD's electric vehicle chasis for example, seems to greatly cut manufacturing costs, even if it makes swap-in repairs harder down the road.
But, I'd guess this accounts for a relatively small fraction of corporate decision on lock-in strategies for rent extraction - advanced users should be able to treat their cell phones OS like laptops, with the same basic concepts, eg just lock down the firmware for the radio output, to keep the carriers happy, and open everything else, maybe with a warranty void if you swap out your OS. Laws are needed for that, certainly.
The only thing proprietary in the early PC architecture was the BIOS. Everything else was pre-existing architecture from third parties, there was nothing to keep a lid on.
Since a PC was a big box of parts anyone could manufacture one. A modern phone is much more complicated.
As to why there aren’t a plethora: the market doesn’t demand it that much. The people doing it aren’t wildly successful. Perhaps that’s changing (I hope so) but I know very few people outside this community who have ever thought “I wish I could have a third party version of Android”.
Even the batteries are not interchangeable on phones. You'd think all phones should have the same exact battery, that this kind of standardization is beneficial for phone manufacturers as it helps them bargain with their parts suppliers but no for whatever reason we can't have that.
Edit: I am not saying just user replaceable. I mean standardized so the same cells in a 2024 phone also works on 2025...
The interfaces and the external dimensions can remain the same even as the internals change though, right? And you can have more or fewer cells. The cells don't have to be cylinders, either. They can be flat.
Who will make these custom battery pouches for old phones though? Think my old Poco x3 pro, not the iPhone 17. I am sure there are tons of people willing to make batteries for the iPhone 17 but I feel like the interest wanes as the phone gets older?
For older phones, the batteries we buy are likely also old stock left over if we can find some in stock anyway, right?
> Why was it that in the early PC days, IBM was unable to keep a lid on 'IBM compatible', allowing for the PC interoperability explosion
IBM didn't think to lock it down, the BIOS was the main blocker and was relatively quickly reverse-engineered (properly, not by copying over the BIOS source IBM had included in the reference manual). They tried to fix some with the MCA bus of the PS/2 but that flopped.
> almost every phone has closed drivers
Lots of hardware manufacturers refuse to provide anything else and balk at the idea of open drivers. And reverse engineering drivers is either not worth the hassle for the manufacturer or a risk of being sued.
> Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
Incentive. Specifically its complete lack of existence.
“In business, as in comedy, timing is everything, and time looked like it might be running out for an IBM PC. I'm visiting an IBMer who took up the challenge. In August 1979, as IBM's top management met to discuss their PC crisis, Bill Lowe ran a small lab in Boca Raton Florida.
Bill Lowe:
Hello Bob nice to see you.
BOB: Nice to see you again. I tried to match the IBM dress code how did I do?
BILL: That's terrific, that's terrific.
He knew the company was in a quandary. Wait another year and the PC industry would be too big even for IBM to take on. Chairman Frank Carey turned to the department heads and said HELP!!!
Bill Lowe
Head, IBM IBM PC Development Team 1980:
He kind of said well, what should we do, and I said well, we think we know what we would like to do if we were going to proceed with our own product and he said no, he said at IBM it would take four years and three hundred people to do anything, I mean it's just a fact of life. And I said no sir, we can provide with product in a year. And he abruptly ended the meeting, he said you're on Lowe, come back in two weeks and tell me what you need.
An IBM product in a year! Ridiculous! Down in the basement Bill still has the plan. To save time, instead of building a computer from scratch, they would buy components off the shelf and assemble them -- what in IBM speak was called 'open architecture.' IBM never did this. Two weeks later Bill proposed his heresy to the Chairman.
Bill Lowe:
And frankly this is it. The key decisions were to go with an open architecture, non IBM technology, non IBM software, non IBM sales and non IBM service. And we probably spent a full half of the presentation carrying the corporate management committee into this concept. Because this was a new concept for IBM at that point.
BOB: Was it a hard sell?
BILL: Mr. Carey bought it. And as result of him buying it, we got through it.
Cory Doctorow answers this in his book “The Internet Con”. IBM fought with DoJ for years. Today, it’s a felony to mess with anything locked down (anti circumvention)
It's not your phone, it's theirs. They're just letting you use it, and only if you're a good boy who follows all their policies and terms and conditions. Subvert this in any way and it's a felony.
The problem is doing it as a company. IBM wasn't defeated by hobbyists building their own PCs. They were defeated by other companies reverse engineering their BIOS and selling their own IBM compatible systems. This isn't possible anymore. It just means you get buried in lawsuits until you go bankrupt.
Well actually, it isn’t for individuals and certain groups, technically.
Rooting/jailbreaking have had exemptions for many years now, on a three year basis which has seemingly been continually renewed, by the Librarian of Congress.
Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies (2024)
The systems and software were vastly less complex and powerful in the 8088 days.
Very little of it was open, including the headliner apps of WordPerfect and 123.
Google had the benefit of three decades to study IBM's loss of control to prevent it with Android. Aside from China, they have been largely successful.
Other companies saw that IBM effectively lost control over their platform (and thus lost a large revenue stream), and are determined to not make the same mistake.
That's a long running effort, going all the way from lobbying (DMCA and their ilk), to all kinds of hardware root-of-trust, encrypted and signed firmware, OS kernels and drivers etc etc. And yes, today we have the transistor budgets to spend on things like this, which wasn't an option back when the PC architecture was devised.
The hardware was evolving way faster 40 years ago and in much consequent ways than these days. Plus number of users grew exponentially. So a company spending too much efforts on software could loose its edge on the hardware side. And locking hardware would be counterproductive since as it would limit new users.
These days things are way slower and the are no exponential growth in users. Plus fast cellular networks made the speed of local hardware much less relevant. So the software became way more important and so its control.
Because the original IBM PC was designed to be cheap and built in a hurry. IBM had a mandate for the original PC to use off the shelf components as much as possible. They also neglected to secure an exclusive license from Microsoft for DOS. 95% of building an IBM PC clone was buying the same parts and getting a DOS license from Microsoft (which they were very happy to sell you). Everyone saw what happened to IBM and just didn't do it that way again.
You can actually look at history and see what happens when IBM tries to wrest control of the PC platform back with the PS/2, which was a flop with consumers because it wasn't backwards compatible enough with IBM's own previous PCs or the wider PC market that developed. A bunch of PC clone manufacturers got together and came up with the EISA bus standard so they wouldn't have to pay IBM license fees for MCA, and made it backwards-compatible with ISA cards people already had. It was successful enough that IBM ended up adopting EISA for some of their PCs.
The other notable thing about the situation is that three companies ended up simultaneously responsible for a large part of the PC platform, originally -- IBM, Microsoft and Intel. They all worked in various ways to encourage competition to each other -- the reason we see OS competition on the PC platform is that IBM and Intel both found it in their interests to allow other OSes on the platform to reduce Microsoft's leverage over them. IBM in fact created one of the competing PC OSes out the gate, OS/2, which was originally an IBM/Microsoft joint project until they started feuding. Now, OS/2 is dead, but IBM's interest in being able to support their own OS instead of Microsoft's is a big reason the PC platform was built in an OS agnostic way. People criticize UEFI for locking down the PC platform more than the previous BIOS implementations, but UEFI is still _way_ more open than basically any other platform, most of which don't have a standard for bootloaders at all. It's really the absense of a standard for bootloaders that keeps most Android phones locked down. Two Android phones from the same OEM might have different bootloaders, much less two phones from different manufacturers. We've yet to see an alternate OS with the resources to support implementing their own bootloaders for a majority of Android phones.
The company making a device that is licensed by the FCC has to do everything that they can to mitigate the risk of an unlicensed broadcast on their devices.
> INTENTIONAL RADIATORS (Part 15, Subparts C through F and H)
> An intentional radiator (defined in Section 15.3 (o)) is a device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction that may be operated without an individual license.
> Examples include: wireless garage door openers, wireless microphones, RF universal remote control devices, cordless telephones, wireless alarm systems, Wi-Fi transmitters, and Bluetooth radio devices.
You might be able to get to the point where you have a broadcast license and can get approved to transmit in the cellphone radio spectrum and get FCC approval for doing so with your device... but if you were to distribute it and someone else was easily able to modify it who wasn't licensed and made it into a jammer you would also be liable.
The scale that the cellphone companies work at such liability is not something that they are comfortable with. So the devices they sell are locked down as hard as they can to make it clear that if someone was to modify a device they were selling it wasn't something that they intended or made easy.
I see people saying things like this all the time and then when I ask them for the specific text requiring them not to e.g. publish source code, nobody has been able to show me.
And a huge reason it seems like BS is this:
> PCs don't have that restriction.
There are obviously PCs with Wi-Fi and even cellular modems, so this can't be an excuse for a phone to not be at least as open as a PC.
> The company making a device that is licensed by the FCC has to do everything that they can to mitigate the risk of an unlicensed broadcast on their devices.
Where do you see this in the rules? The only thing I see that even comes close is the following sentence:
"Manufacturers and importers should use good engineering judgment before they market and sell these products, to minimize possible interference"
Maybe it's because I don't routinely deal with the FCC but to me, that language doesn't imply anything close to your ironclad rule you posted.
I'll also point out there are plenty of other devices that get sold that seemingly break your rule. SDRs, walkie talkies with the power to transmit for miles, basically every computer motherboard made since the year 2010, the Flipper, etc. At most, they simply have some fine print in the manual saying "you should probably have an FCC license to use this".
> MURS (Multi-Use Radio Service) – Two-way radios programmed to operate within the MURS (Multi-Use Radio Service) are not required to be licensed. They transmit at 2 watts or less and only operate on pre-set frequencies between 151 -154 MHz in the VHF band. MURS radios have a general lack of privacy, a limited coverage area, and frequent channel interference.
> ...
> GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service) – The General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) is another of the most popular and numerous licenses the FCC granted. GMRS licenses allow for radios to transmit up to 50 watts. GMRS licenses also allow for hand-held, mobile, and repeater devices. The GMRS spectrum has 22 channels that it shares with FRS and an additional 8 repeater channels that are exclusive to GMRS.
> Virtually Every Other Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Device – Virtually all two-way radios beyond the models mentioned above are subject to FCC licensing. In fact, any device that transmits at 4 watts or higher requires coordination (and, thereby, licensing) by the FCC.
which quotes 2.1033 Application for grant of certification. Paragraph 4(i):
> For devices including modular transmitters which are software defined radios and use software to control the radio or other parameters subject to the Commission’s rules, the description must include details of the equipment’s capabilities for software modification and upgradeability, including all frequency bands, power levels, modulation types, or other modes of operation for which the device is designed to operate, whether or not the device will be initially marketed with all modes enabled. The description must state which parties will be authorized to make software changes (e.g., the grantee, wireless service providers, other authorized parties) and the software controls that are provided to prevent unauthorized parties from enabling different modes of operation. Manufacturers must describe the methods used in the device to secure the software in their application for equipment authorization and must include a high level operational description or flow diagram of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters. The applicant must provide an attestation that only permissible modes of operation may be selected by a user.
and 2.1042 Certified modular transmitters. Paragraph (8)(e)
> Manufacturers of any radio including certified modular transmitters which includes a software defined radio must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a particular radio can be loaded into that radio. The software must not allow the installers or end-user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements.
It doesn't seem to be the entire project, just one dev (afaik) that's quite outspoken and does make accusations that they don't always seem to back with evidence. Also insofar as the actual "product" remains completely untouched by any spats it shouldn't be a dealbreaker for anyone wanting to use GOS, but of course it isn't ideal to have any drama attached.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
OEMs have quite a lot of extra steps before releasing any build to the public.
They have to pass xTS, the set of test suites required before getting certified by Google, possibly carrier certification, regulatory requirements and more depending on where the build will be released.
There are "quicker" release channels for security fixes, but I don't think it's common for OEMs to only ship those without any other change to the system.
I don't think Graphene does anything of sort, they take what's already certified in the Pixel builds and uses it.
Not like they could do much aside testing on the public part of xTS.
> OEMs have quite a lot of extra steps before releasing any build to the public.
AIUI updates are less stringent and burdensome than initial certification. Regardless much of the process is automated. Graphene has CI too. 3PL's taking 4 weeks to run automated tests is also absurd. There are some "manual steps" to run CTS-V but they shouldn't be weeks level burdensome either. This is the point, this is an industry problem.
The reason that the OEMs even have to deal with this 3PL test mess is for GMS certification, so again this is a policy decision that enforces a poor process. The bad properties of the process are not inherent to the problem space of validating builds against requirements. An industry problem.
> There are "quicker" release channels for security fixes, but I don't think it's common for OEMs to only ship those without any other change to the system.
Seems like a decision that is not user-centric.
> I don't think Graphene does anything of sort, they take what's already certified in the Pixel builds and uses it. Not like they could do much aside testing on the public part of xTS.
Private test suites for software are a toxic idea, it's in the same box as "SSO tax", and other such "pay for security" models. Given the software industry can't be trusted not to do this, I'm almost keen to see legislation to explicitly ban this practice.
> AIUI updates are less stringent and burdensome than initial certification
That's true having dealt with some of it, nonetheless I haven't found that much of a difference due to having to use 3PL.
There's more manual steps on top of CTSV for camera and GMS, but that's all there is to it.
The only real difference I've seen is on Google's side to actually say "ok" before it getting approved.
Carriers and regulations are better on that side, but assume you have a security fix in the modem, for some carriers you're supposed (emphasis here) to redo it...
> Seems like a decision that is not user-centric.
I can see how having two release channels one solely for security and a bigger one might be a burden on some.
But you hardly want to only fix security issues when you have a real bugfix you want to also release, so it makes sense to me the channels have to be merged.
> Private test suites for software are a toxic idea
To be fair on android side they're quite fine.
One is specifically for GMS compliance, one for camera verification, and one for security patches verification.
The latter is janky and not as updated as you'd think, so unless you really forget to apply patches it'll pass.
With that said, the amount of people running those test suites not for certification can probably be counted on a single hand, I think that's the least of the problems.
Yep. And GrapheneOS's changes to the kernels of devices they ship are laughably small, 20-30 commits at most. I don't think they even do any basic CVE checks on any of the source code.
Fuzzing, actual security analysis - all those things are done by Google.
Their contributions upstream go way back, I think someone could misread this comment that they've not contributed, and that would be an unfortunate misunderstanding.
GrapheneOS goes even further by allowing you to opt in to pre-embargo security releases, bypassing the vulnerable window between vendor disclosure and OEM patches. Awesome!
Great, so this means that the only way to get an Android release that's up-to-date on security patches is a binary-only distro - either Google Pixel, or the GrapheneOS preview channel.
Just wonderful. Google should know better than this, shame on the other OEMs that forced this mess.
I absolutely loved my Moto X with the walnut back. I switched to an iPhone when it stopped getting security patches.
It was built back when Google owned Motorola, before they sold off everything but the patent suite. And was intended to be their flagship phone - which the Pixel later became. Looking at the GrapheneOS FAQ, it doesn't look like I have a prayer of installing it on such an old device as it doesn't have the needed security hardware. Is there a lightweight Android install available?
So this is interesting, they release the patched binaries several months before anyone else does and several months before the source code of the patches is released?
This implies that anyone can download GrapheneOS firmware images and use binary diffing techniques to find what are still 0-day vulnerabilities on every Android other than GrapheneOS.
They have partnership an OEM who provides them with sources.
Currently they're only permitted to release binaries of the patches due to the embargo, this is why these patches are in the parallel stream/optional (so people unhappy with being unable to see the sources won't have them shoved down their throats).
I don't have URLs at hand at the moment but all these questions have been asked many times and explained extensively on their discussion forum.
I, for one, feel safe. I was patched since late October (IIRC) for the vulnerabilities that Android-related outlets were warning about in early December.
It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android is. And how Google and the big companies pretend old devices (these running Android 11, 12, 13, not updated for several years) are safe and secure. While all it takes is the user stumbling upon one malicious we page or getting a WhatsApp message they won't even see.
> It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android
Well that's untrue. I'd even venture to say that with how many OEMs there are it's insane how safe Android is. Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6, they can't control OEMs who might have ~10 people working on their devices.
If I don't misunderstand you, you're suggesting the Pixel 8 line is shown red/discontinued? If that's it, you're probably on a mobile browser which might cut off right after the Discontinued column. The table goes on next to that where you'll see that all Pixels since 6 are currently still supported.
You misunderstood. He’s saying that Google provides 7 years of device updates only for the Pixel 8 and later. That’s true: Pixel 6 and Pixel 7 only get 5 years of updates.
If you have a Pixel -> Graphene, if not -> Lineage.
I personally don't care about "security" all that much, my main reason for using Graphene is freedom to use my hardware in any way I wish. This means unrestricted ability to run any program on the phone from any source. Sideloading restrictions don't apply to Graphene, and it is also impossible for state actors to impose things such as client-side scanning of text messages. It's also immune to unwanted AI anti-features.
I use my own "cloud" infrastructure with my phone and I am not interested in using Google's. My Graphene device is configured to route all traffic through Wireguard tunnel and my DNS server. I also use exclusively use my own email server and "cloud" storage for all non-work related purposes. Graphene makes this easy by not leaking any information to Google.
Don't understand your statement about avoiding client-side scanning of text messages. I've always assumed it would be done by the apps themselves, e.g. WhatsApp, Telegram, etc..
That sounds amazing. I aspire to get a setup like yours. I am on a Pixel with the stock OS and I can't stand the way Google is pushing AI into everything on my phone.
I haven't switched it to Graphene OS yet because I read that there are issues with NFC and a few other things. I assume this new phone won't have those problems so I think that will be my catalyst to do a big overhaul.
GrapheneOS wants to make a FOSS Android with the security model that makes it hard for any bad party to break into the phone.
LineageOS wants to make a FOSS Android that respects user's privacy first and foremost - it implements security as best as it can but the level of security protections differs on different supported devices.
Good news is that if you have a boot passphrase, it's security is somewhat close to GrapheneOS - differing in that third parties with local access to the device can still brute-force their access whereas with GrapheneOS they can't - unless they have access to hardware level attacks.
How can LOS's security be somewhat close to GOS if it's worse than OEM? LOS lacks verified boot, hardware security features, it's often behind is security patches.. With "advanced protection" enabled stock OEMs are even more secure, but GOS is even more secure still. When it comes to EOL devices, LOS may be more secure than OEM depending on your threat model.
They can because they essentially support Google chipsets, which are not blobby like MediaTek or Qualcomm because Google for all its faults is still relatively open (except their recent change in release schedules is why the Pixel 10 series still only has experimental GrapheneOS support).
Yes, even Apple with its practically infinite resources took 14 years from when it acquired Infineon's mobile chipset unit to launching its C1 modem. So much of the telcos' allegedly open protocols are actually implementation-dependent that it takes a lot of testing on actual mobile networks to validate interop.
No, but they used to publish the source code for the drivers as part of AOSP. Now they no longer publish the device trees. Check out GrapheneOS' other Mastodon posts for the gory details.
Nice! Thanks for the link. I noticed they didn't mention MOCOR OS (for the new Nokia 3210), but then I remembered that that's not an Android version. I'll see if they can add it somewhere else.
Unrelated, but this led me to find gnuclad, which may be somewhat externally maintained and is used to create the cladogragms.
It might be important to mention, that Lineage OS is available on a number of the devices abandoned by their original vendors, so sometimes it may be a much better solution to get a Lineage OS onto their former "flagship" which stopped getting updates 18 months after the release.
So if the bootloader can be relocked and not passing Play Integrity scam is not a problem, Lineage may be a better option. Better than nothing, that is.
Graphene OS provides advanced security capabilities and a thorough defense-in-depth approach including a hardened supply chain. GOS aims to provide mechanisms to protect against 0day attacks. For example Celebrite can not open up GOS. GOS relys on hardware support provided by Pixels. Graphene OS works on getting their developments upstream.
GrapheneOS is a locked-down, security-hardened system that's good if you need absolutely maximal security (e.g. journalists, activists, folks targeted by state actors). LineageOS is a more of an open system for tinkerers who want to play outside Google's walled garden.
You can have root to control your own device on Lineage, but not Graphene.
It's not really locked down. You can toggle or enable some of the more activist-orientated features. The only limitation I'm aware of is that some apps requiring the strongest Play Integrity setting (ChatGPT, some banks, very few airline apps) just won't work on GrapheneOS.
Yes, but keep in mind individual apps like Signal need to run in the background at all times if you want to receive timely notifications on Graphene, because they cannot rely on the Google backend for that. If you have enough such apps, you may well find that battery life is shorter than on the stock OS.
Good point, I chose not to on my main "Owner" profile to be fully Google-free. I have the sandboxed Play Services on a separate profile I hardly ever use for testing purposes.
You can tell it's truly secure and private because the Cellebrite leak says they can't break it (one of very few!) and some governments assume you're a drug dealer if you use it. My next phone will run GrapheneOS.
Graphene has really caught my eye in the last several months, but unfortunately I couldn't find a good deal for Pixel phones (>128GB storage), used or new. That's the biggest bottleneck for adoption it seems. I just finally switched from an S10E to a S25Ultra (black friday deal brought down to $820), but not being able to use Graphene in the future hurts a bit for sure.
>Graphene has really caught my eye in the last several months, but unfortunately I couldn't find a good deal for Pixel phones (>128GB storage), used or new. [...] I just finally switched from an S10E to a S25Ultra (black friday deal brought down to $820),
One caveat--you have to be certain that you get a Pixel with an unlocked bootloader. There are a lot of Pixels (mostly sold by Verizon) that are unlocked for use with any carrier, but whose bootloaders remain locked. If you have one of these ex-Verizon phones, there is no way as of now to unlock the bootloader.
If neither of the two major players can make an open, secure, _simple_, easy-to-understand, bloat-free OS, then we somehow need another player.
Presently (and I confess, my bias to seek non-state solutions may show here), it seems that a non-trivial part of the duopoly stems from regulatory capture insofar as the duopoly isn't merely software, but extends all the way to TSMC and Qualcomm, whose operations seem to be completely subject to state dictates, both economic/regulatory and of the darker surveillance/statecraft variety (and of those, presumably some are classified).
I'm reminded of the server market 20ish years ago, where, although there were more than two players, the array of simple, flexible linux distros that are dominant today were somewhere between poorly documented and unavailable. I remember my university still running windows servers in ~2008 or so.
What do we need to do to achieve the same evolution that the last 2-3 decades of server OS's have seen? Is there presently a mobile linux OS that's worth jumping on? Is there simple hardware to go with it?
One comment mentioned Jolla. Another currently available option is [FuriLabs](http://furilabs.com). It runs atop Hallium/etc but you are effectively still able to daily drive a mobile Linux shell and contribute to the ecosystem if you want to see it grow.
Now with that said: so much work has gone in to Android (and by extension, Graphene) to improve on power usage/security/etc that I'm not sure I'd bother to actually run a mobile Linux device. The juice just doesn't feel worth the squeeze.
Furilabs was just in the news here because they discontinued their device models from a few years ago, and released a new device for a big price bump with _significantly worse_ hardware.
I know I would love to give them a try, but a 720 screen is an absolute non starter for me. It would be hard for anyone to sell me on just a FullHD (1080) screen in the era of QHD (2K) being industry standard.
Additionally, I believe their FAQ even admits that their already low power devices only get a few hours of battery life.
Small company that deals with what hardware they can get their hands on. They're shipping a device when others are not. It's a pretty straightforward equation right now; people who want to advance the ecosystem should consider it if they want a device they can drive and build for.
Otherwise there's no real reason to not just run Graphene.
> If neither of the two major players can make an open, secure, _simple_, easy-to-understand, bloat-free OS, then we somehow need another player.
I really hoped that Huawei would go for a fork of AOSP (they could even pull the changes from Google :-) ), but they chose to go with their proprietary HarmonyOS.
It was discussed here when it was announced. I believe it was determined the hardware is an ultra-low-budget Aliexpress design that normally retails for ~$100 that they had custom built with a mic cutoff switch added to it (probably the cause of a large portion of the hardware price increase). I dont remember the specifics, but even thr most optimistic were pretty sure it won't get hardware vendor support for even a full year based on the specific processor it contains.
WARNING: This is a Kickstarter device still, and needed funding to even create a proof of concept device last time it was discussed (extensively). It's a Flagship phone device and price, but with only the oldest of pans on how it's actually going to deliver some on of the promises.
The OS is not very relevant to the Pixel. Compare the Pixels you like that are new (GrapheneOS drops support as models become older flagships, I think for security reasons) and get that one. IIRC, currently only Pixel is allowed, because the bootloader can be opened without rooting the device.
Given what they choose to ship with their phones in some regions, id say that Samsung absolutely doesn't care about the security of their customers of they can get away with it.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
It supports devices just as long as the OEM does, which for modern Pixels is now 7 years, which is more than what Apple advertises for the iPhone. Considering people upgrade phones every 2 or 3 years, this is over double the amount of time of support than one would use the phone for. I disagree the support is for a short period of time.
https://tbot.substack.com/p/grapheneos-new-oem-partnership
> GrapheneOS has officially confirmed a major new hardware partnership—one that marks the end of its long-standing Pixel exclusivity. According to the team, work with a major Android OEM began in June and is now moving toward the development of a next-generation smartphone built to meet GrapheneOS’ strict privacy and security standards.
Oh that's one of the best news in the smartphone world in a long time.
It's impossible to escape the Apple/Google duopoly but at least GrapheneOS makes the most out of Android regarding privacy.
I still wish we could get some kind of low resource, stable and mature Android clone instead of Google needlessly increasing complexity but this will over time break app compatibility (Google will make sure of it)
Edit: I do think Pixel devices used to be one of the best but still I'd like to choose my hardware and software separately interoperating via standards
Even if google breaks compatibility, still using some compatibillity mode it's possible to run such apps right ?
I have been trying to come off of google and cloud by building — quite slowly — my own nas server which has 2 nodes in two geographic regions where I am building certain services like cloud storage and backup, webhosting etc. But I think there are a few key things that need to be community driven to really get rid of this duoply.
0. A privacy first approach would be something like this:
`You+App --Read/Write-> f_private(your_data) <--Write only- 3p` and App cannot communicate your data to 3p or google/apple.
Think of Yelp/Google Maps but with no _read_ permissions on location, functions can be run in a private middleware e.g. what's near an anonymous location or ads based on anonymous data. You can wipe your data from one button click and start again for EVERYTHING, no data is ever stored on a 3p server. Bonus: No more stupid horrible permission fiascos for app development that are just plain creepy.
1. An opensource data effort that can support (0) with critical infra e.g. precise positioning, anonymous or privacy preserving functions that don't reveal their data or processes to 3p.
Here is my favourite open source effort: Precise Location Positioning. A high recall, opensource, 3D building and sattelite-shadow Data-Infra effort[3]. This world class dataset on shadows and sattelites are a must. Most geo-location positioning tied to Radio signals is just a bandaid and fraught with privacy issues — thought there are heroic privacy first efforts in this direction[1][2] which though amazing will be playing catch-up with google already deploying [3].
[1]https://beacondb.net/
[2] https://github.com/wiglenet/m8b
[3] https://insidegnss.com/end-game-for-urban-gnss-googles-use-o...
I don't understand your syntax:
Does this mean a server where third parties can send code to run on your data, but cannot respond to them?They mean 3rd parties have wo permission instead of rwo to your data store
I'm not knowledgeable enough -- what would it take to escape the Apple/Google duopoly?
I'm imagining a future where you buy a smartphone and when you do the first configuration, it asks you which services provider you want to use. Google and Apple are probably at the top of the list, but at the bottom there is "custom..." where you can specify the IP or host.domain of your own self-hosted setup.
Then, when you download an app, the app informs the app provider of this configuration and so your notifications (messenger, social media, games, banking, whatever) get delivered to that services provider and your phone gets them from there accordingly.
Is there anything like that in the world today?
There are some good stuff on the software side that people mention, but a big one is the driver support. We would need device makers to upstream support so there is less worrying about reverse engineering or needing to run modified ROMs based on old builds. Or just publish specs on the hardware that is enough for implementation. Sure, you can buy a specific phone and run a de-googled android or linux, but that only really works for the hobbyist who wants to spend time doing this. Which makes it difficult to create a market that encourages developers of software to port their software or write new software. With out being able to broadly support devices, most people are gonna be better off running Google's android.
Halium [1] technically handles that right now.
It's not the right solution long term, but you can't expect the entire ecosystem to appear overnight. Using it allows deferring the driver issue a bit while building out the rest of the ecosystem.
[1] https://halium.org
> I'm not knowledgeable enough -- what would it take to escape the Apple/Google duopoly?
At this point? Reliable emulation that can run 99% of Android apps, to provide a bridge until the platform is interesting enough for people to develop for it "natively".
I think the easiest way to do that would be to run Android in a VM.
> I think the easiest way to do that would be to run Android in a VM.
The problem is the critical payment and government ID apps that will never run in an Android VM because they intentionally break without hardware attestation.
Why not run Android directly, such as using Graphene OS. It's decades ahead in both OS architecture, developer tools, and developers compared to non Android based Linux operating systems.
Graphene uses the Google codebase, so Google is choosing its long-term development strategy and standards it will support. It's like choosing Chromium to escape Chrome.
The same can be said about the Linux codebase. Tomorrow Linus could private his branch and stop supporting public releases. If AOSP goes closed source then people can fork it and continue to maintain it.
The Linux kernel cannot be relicensed. Linus does not hold copyright to most code.
Linus is not known for decisions hostile to the users. Google is.
Linux doesn’t really rely on Linus for coding anymore…
It does on Intel, AMD and a bunch of other huge corps though
Which is not the same as one single, hostile corp.
Not the worst choices!
Indeed. However, in terms of the independence, better choices exist.
If someone is making a new browser, considering you want to support the same web standards as everyone else, being independent is pretty low on the priority lists. In fact it is more of a liability since it could make for compatibility issues.
Graphene OS exists because Google lets it. You can't rely on competitors that can only exist in this manner
Has no one mentioned not using a smartphone as an option?
How do you run WhatsApp or Signal without a smartphone? Pretty hard.
If your answer is "don't use them", then you're not living in a country where the vast majority of communications are done on WhatsApp or Signal, good for you I guess.
Yes that's fair. I have a an old iPhone without a sim that I use as my master for those apps, but I keep it in a drawer since the desktop apps work fine. Funny enough the phone the app is installed on doesn't have to be the same phone you use to register by number, so the number I registered with is my flip phone
Access to Signal and Bitwarden are the only two apps I really need daily that keep me on a smartphone. I have tried using a feature phone in the last couple years, but honestly I might as well just not have a phone at that point as almost all my communication is via Signal.
Signal can be used without a phone using signal-cli. You can sign up with it and either attach your account to signal-desktop or keep using signal-cli
"You don't need a smartphone, you can just carry a laptop with you" :-)
It's not really an option. Beside various communication tools, many many banks require you to have a smartphone as their 2FA option.
Well if you rely on running Android apps, you still rely on Android.
Actually, if you rely on the app, you really on the Android SDK which is not open source.
Now if you could run AOSP but your own apps built with an open source SDK, that would be a different story. Some people seem to really want to do that with PWAs. I personnally tend to hate webapps, but I have to admit that they can be open source.
You can go the waydroid style with namespacing, or native containers if using the linux kernel. No need to do a full vm
You could, but using containers requires that your kernel directly provide and secure Android-compatible functionality, such as binder. A VM gives you more options for abstracting that functionality.
If you expect to be "essentially android, but a little different", containers make sense. If you want to build an entirely different mobile OS, but provide Android compatibility, I think a VM is much more likely to give you the flexibility to not defer to Android design decisions.
Similar to how Valve is managing the transition from Windows to Linux.
> I think the easiest way to do that would be to run Android in a VM.
Sony's cameras used to have an Android userland that they used for their PlayMemories apps. No idea how exactly that one was implemented though, but it should be possible to get Android apps without going into being an Android fork.
Any one of us here could learn the skills to design a smartphone. It won't necessarily be good, but I remember that years ago, someone made one with a touchscreen hat and GSM hat atop a Raspberry Pi, rubber-banded to a power bank. I'm sure any one of us HN users could do this. And it worked. Quality only goes up from there.
The problem is it won't run any apps, so you'll need to carry this open-source secure phone in addition to your normal phone.
Or use everything via the web browser; but yes, I think apps are the main reason we can't just have a generic Linux phone OS on an open hardware platform
We have generic Linux phone OSes: Mobian, PureOS, postmarketOS and more. They can even work as daily drivers on some phones.
We can have it. It won't become as popular, but we can have it.
Apps make or break operating systems and app stores. Just ask Microsoft (Windows Phone) or Huawei (HarmonyOs). IIRC amazon was paying devs to publish to their app store or something like that.
Thankfully, some apps have both web and native mobile versions but for a modern digital life, the critical apps are sadly not on both versions.
This is not as simple as you're saying. Making a new phone not relying on proprietary drivers tied to Android is impossible without a huge effort: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21656355
Obviously you'd only choose hardware that works the way you want it to.
Hardware relying on free drivers is almost non-existent in the mobile world. There is nothing to choose from, obviously.
> Any one of us here could learn the skills to design a smartphone.
Unless you're Fabrice Bellard who literally created a 4G softmodem - no. It takes a whole lot of people (or, again, one genius Fabrice Bellard clone) to design a smartphone. You'll need AT THE VERY LEAST:
1) a SoC that has reasonably open device drivers and specifications - without that, all attempts are moot
2) a hardware engineer to deal with the PCB
3) a low-level system engineer to deal with the initial bringup (aka, porting u-boot and maintaining it)
4) an RF engineer to deal with the black magic that is designing ultra high performance PCBs that deal with the RF stuff (2G-5G phone networks, BT, WiFi, NFC, GPS) and high-frequency buses (storage, RAM, baseband, USB, PCIe, CSI/DSI)
5) a GPU driver engineer of the class of Alyssa Rosenzweig to get the GPU drivers to behave (she literally provided better-compliant drivers than Apple)
6) a battery engineer to ensure you don't end up with something like the ill-fated last Galaxy Note (that had to be fully recalled due to battery issues)
7) a ton of software engineers to get the basic things running that people expect from a smartphone (e.g. phone calls, 911, SMS, MMS, a browser and enough userland libraries so that third-party developers can begin to port games)
8) hosting engineers that deal with reliably delivering OS updates, application updates and A-GPS data
9) a skilled purchase and finance department to acquire all components as well as skilled QA people to make sure you don't get screwed in your supply chain by someone cutting corners or trying to engage in outright fraud
10) plastics and metal design engineers for the housing and other related engineering, and you'll probably also need engineers specializing in mass production and assembly as injection molding is a skillset on its own
11) engineers specializing in low power domains to get something that doesn't eat through the entire battery in a matter of hours
12) UX, UI designers to get something people can actually use (partially, that's also compliance stuff - think of accessibility laws)
13) testers to test your device against an insane load of other things - headsets, headphones, consumer and enterprise wifi, car head units, mice/keyboards, game controllers, USB hubs, monitors, projectors, adapters, dongles, IPv6 in its various abominations, phone network-side vendors, how devices behave in trains, cars, airplanes, cruise ships, in temperature and humidity extremes, under water, in back pockets (bending!), in dirt, dust, rain, being drenched in all kinds of beverages, muck, snow, fog, right next to extremely powerful broadcast radio transmitters, high magnetic/electric fields, teeth both human (toddlers) and animal (cats and dogs)...
14) logistics experts to deal with shipping, returns, refunds, recalls
15) customer support
16) psychoacoustics and acoustics engineers to make sure your device doesn't sound like shit (both what you hear, and that includes safeguarding the speakers from burning out, and what others hear from you, aka the beamforming stuff that the Asahi people reverse engineered)
17) video/colorspace engineers to make sure the whole darn thing isn't off color
18) camera/optics engineers, even if you acquire camera units these need to be integrated properly
19) lawyers and domain experts to deal with the compliance crap: RoHS, CE, FCC, India's regulatory authority, licensing, binary blobs, video codecs, audio codecs, carrier compliance testing, HDMI, HDCP, the RF compliance crap that's needed for US compliance [1], tariffs, sanctions laws... the list is endless
20) advertising (although admittedly, word-of-mouth could be sufficient), and PR in general (including websites, print media, AtL/BtL marketing)
21) deals with app developers, lest you end up like Windows Mobile
22) security testers/experts to make sure your devices don't get 0wned by cellebrite, mossad, nsa, cia, ...
23) human resources experts ("people engineers") to herd all the cats
24) packaging engineers to make sure the product arrives at the customer's hands both looking appealing and undamaged (tbh, that's at least four distinct skillsets as well)
You're looking at a minimum of 2-4 million $ for the engineers alone, another 4-5 million $ for the compliance crap, many millions for the app deals and way more in upfront cash for components and logistics chains.
That's why every attempt at a reasonably open source phone design has either failed or is many years behind the mass market. And the list of organisations attempting to do so include household names of the likes of Mozilla. And that is also why/how ODMs exist... they all have figured out some "minimum viable design" that gets tweaked a bit for the customer brand, and that's it. Everyone else went bust. Including, as mentioned, Microsoft. Including former powerhouses such as HTC. It's simply too complex to keep up.
On HN, we could probably drum together people of all these skillsets, no doubt (it took me half an hour to think of all these people and I'm pretty certain I've missed important aspects still!), and even ones with enough money to burn. But even then: the competition are the richest companies on the planet: Apple, Google, Samsung. Good luck...
(And yes: a minimum viable phone - probably a lot of people here including myself could whip that up using a COTS 5G modem, a Raspberry Pi and a power bank. But that's a MVP, not something you can sell to anyone less nerdy than Richard Stallman, and it's based off of the work of a lot of the people I just spent 58 minutes to think of and write down)
[1] https://github.com/lenovo/lenovo-wwan-unlock
You can escape the duopoly by using a GNI/Linux phone, Librem 5 or Pinephone, but don't expect any support from Google or Apple for them. I'm using the former as a daily driver.
I would not trust any of these. They are a security disaster, lacking even basic features for securing your device against tampering and hacking.
There is a reason GrapheneOS is number one and a reason why they only run on Pixels (for now).
> security disaster, lacking even basic features for securing your device against tampering and hacking
Indeed the GrapheneOS community is known for attacking the GNU/Linux mobile with false claims, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45562484.
Security is a meaningless word without defining a threat model. Try to defend your GrapheneOS against Google, especially these two problems: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028.
See also good replies by other people here comparing GOS with Pinephone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32496220
Depends on your threat model, but yes.
GOS fits into pretty much any threat model where you remotely care about privacy or security
This is true.
Many more care about neither,
or intermittently care about neither,
than most take into account.
No, it doesn't. It obeys Google's long-term development strategy for the OS. Google and privacy are absolutely incompatible. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29502439
> but still I'd like to choose my hardware and software separately interoperating via standards
This is why I can’t do GrapheneOS. Pixel devices do not suit my needs (& aren’t available). 2 of the big appeals for my going Android was 1) device options 2) ability to customize (appearance, apps from other sources, root access). Google has basically done everything to prevent #2 & GrapheneOS prevents #1. …This is why I also have a Linux phone to just leave these restrictions.
What kind of Linux phone setup do you have, and what kind of experience has it been? I want to make the leap sometime, but not quite there yet.
You might also be interested in Jolla Phone https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368
If you're stateside and want a shipping Linux phone today, [FuriLabs](http://furilabs.com) is another option.
Graphene is in a class of its own compared to both of these though and there's frankly no reason to bother unless you're trying to improve those ecosystems.
> Stateside - being in, going to, coming from, or characteristic of the 48 conterminous states of the U.S.
In case others, like me, weren't aware.
I admit to being shocked that such a common phrase isn’t widely understood, but this site has plenty of international traffic so I can only say thanks for the context comment. :)
Thanks! I had no idea that this existed. Unfortunately, the specs aren't great, especially when compared to Jolla's offering. Oh well.
I'm quite enthusiastic about Graphene's OEM partnership,though.
I share your enthusiasm re: Graphene OEM partnerships. I think it's fantastic what they've managed to pull off so far.
Re: the FuriLabs phone, yeah, it's rough - but it's definitely usable for early adopters who want to contribute and help build.
Totally agree. Pixel devices are probably still the best Android offering, but I originally got into the ecosystem because it was less confined and that appears to be changing. While I'm likely not representative of most consumers, I would love it if I could choose both the right device and right software for my particular needs .
We will see how that goes. I love GrapheneOS, I've used it for years, but the details matter. An OEM partnership might promise a lot at the start, but a lot can change between now and delivery.
This is really cool, but, longer term, what happens if Google makes android closed source? I feel this is a very real risk.
Not sure if the big manufacturers would want to depend on a proprietary Google OS. Samsung does make a lot of changes to the OS, for instance.
> Not sure if the big manufacturers would want to depend on a proprietary Google OS.
They already do; Google's flavour of Android adds plenty of proprietary components on top of AOSP.
They depend on the Play Service and Play Store, that's for sure. But I'm pretty sure they know it's a risk already.
Don't get me wrong: they are locked-in, that's a fact. And to be fair they benefit from all the work of Google on the OS. But that's not a reason to desire to go further and lose even more control.
What exactly are they going to do? Support GNU/Linux?
What's the alternative? I doubt even someone as big as Samsung will be willing or able to develop their own alternative OS (atleast one that can actually grab marketshare enough that critical apps get ported), and I can't imagine them wanting to hitch their wagon to the Linux alternatives.
> I doubt even someone as big as Samsung will be willing or able to develop their own alternative OS
Huawei pulled it out with HarmonyOS (I don't know how good/bad is it, and if it'll have staying power, but other companies are putting in the effort)
PS: btw, Samsung already had its own, non-Android OS with Bada (of course, developing a new OS is only the first step, getting it to be successful wouldn't be easy)
Huawei has a whole-ass Chinese government behind it with quite a lot of incentives to move away from Google. Samsung does not. Heck, China's making its own GPUs and x86 CPUs. They're not great, but when the incentives over there are that strong, the market forces are clearly in a whole different universe compared to the rest of the world.
Bada lasted, what, 3 years? So it did better than Firefox OS (unless you want to count KaiOS as the same thing), but not by much? Not a great look I'd say. And things haven't gotten any easier during the past 15 years, with Apple and Google's positions being more entrenched than ever.
> Huawei has a whole-ass Chinese government behind it
I don't like how Chinese companies systematically get reduced to "it's because the government can help them". The US TooBigTech get a ton of help from the US government, starting with political pressures when other countries want to regulate them.
Huawei have really good technology and very competent engineers. It's not the Chinese government that does the engineering.
DJI is years ahead of everybody else technologically, and that's again not the Chinese government doing the engineering. Let's stop believing that the US are superior in every single way and that someone else doing better means that they must be cheating.
Why would they be forced to develop their own OS? They could just license this theoretical future proprietary Android OS.
The comment I responded to was:
> Not sure if the big manufacturers would want to depend on a proprietary Google OS.
If a manufacturer doesn't want to depend on a proprietary Google OS, licencing that Google OS is not an alternative.
They could still be given the sources, for a hefty license fee.
"Not sure if the big manufacturers"
thats the thing, they would supply android os to these major manufacturer, but for the rest??? need vetted applications
They won't because they literally control the mobile market by having Android open source.
Now that their market is established, I don't think open-source is a requirement anymore. They would of course share with hardware vendors strategically.
What would they gain from making it closed source? There isn't any distribution of AOSP that competes with Android.
If they would close-source it, the community for sure will pick up the pieces.
True. All the big OEMs are in too deep with Android now, there's no going back. They could easily make it code share under NDA instead of open source.
Huawei proved that they can move away from Android... unfortunately they did not go for a hard fork of AOSP but for a proprietary, new OS.
"they can move away from Android"
nah, it still android
Since 2024, it isn't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarmonyOS_NEXT
[flagged]
Looks like HarmonyOS no longer uses the Linux kernel, and removed all Android code.
Pretty different from Android then.
More and more functionality is locked behind closed-source play services. AOSP is basically useless at this point, it can't do much of anything without Google Play Services.
I wonder if a real OEM supports graphene if that would solve device attestation for things like banking apps.
Non-Google attestation is still a bad thing.
I'd much rather GrapheneOS continue to get popular enough that banking apps are forced to support phones without attestation.
I'm writing this on a grapheneos pixel 5. I have the app for very-large-USbank and a few others. With 'exploit protection compatibility toggle' enabled they works fine. In what regard this applies to device attestation I couldn't say.
Never underestimate stupid, especially for that sector.
Safety net is a joke and google only has it to milk as much as they can from OEM manufactures and gives false sense of security
This is excellent news. Google doesn't sell Pixels in my country for some reason. Hopefully the new phones will be easier to obtain.
Have you considered using mail forwarding, or sites like Swappa.com with forwarding built in?
Hoping this helps you get your hands on a cheap Pixel!
That's not only adding to cost but also doesn't solve the issue of why you would buy a new phone - warranty.
They just said Pixels.
Nothing about brand new ones.
Just that the new ones might be easier to buy international.
Phone without warranty is better than phone you hate, or phone with OS you disagree fundamentally with - in my opinion.
Damn, I just got a Pixel 10 pro XL for installing GrapheneOS. I hate how below average Pixel's hardware is and I wouldn't have minded waiting a couple of more years for this.
Pixel hardware is below average? Since when? That sounds like a flagship phone to me.
Has the OEM in question been revealed yet? Likely not one of the major OEMs because they all lock their bootloaders. I'm crossing my fingers it's Fairphone but that's because I love my FP5. The GrapheneOS devs have been pretty harsh towards Fairphone because of their slow updates.
They seem to refuse that they're working with fairphone, so it seems unlikely.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/1o3vmn5/comment...
My guess is that its either HMD or Nothing. Will probably still take a while until we learn about this
The most likely contenders are OnePlus, Motorola, and HMD.
> "It is a big enough OEM that there is good chance you may have owned a device from them in the past."
I think this takes Nothing out of contention.
I don't remember where but heard it was Nothing
What about HTC, LG? Heck, Blackberry rising from the ashes?
I'd love for it to be Framework.
Those are no longer big these days so no. Also, they're not going to restart a whole product category just for grapheneos.
As OnePlus is kinda dead and taken over by oppo, I'm guessing Sony. They have some similar collaboration in the past like with Jolla. My Sony XA2 was one of the few models that could run sailfish.
> Also, they're not going to restart a whole product category just for grapheneos.
I don't think that there is any need to restart a new category. Just make your new phones good enough for GrapheneOS.
GrapheneOS has close to half a million users, I think it's worth doing some adjustments.
> I don't think that there is any need to restart a new category. Just make your new phones...
For HTC, yes... But neither LG nor Blackberry are still making phones
Oh, I get it now!
BlackBerry has been out of the phone business for years now.
They basically sold the brand to TCL iirc
If you've run a open source project almost of any size, it's quite a task having to support it on various devices scenarios.
The GrapheneOS devs are doing the right thing for the longevity of the project. Focus on a small number of phones/hardware. It guarantees its long term success.
Excellent work I think, also the Pixel hardware design offers slightly better security with the baseband.
I guess my 8a is gonna have to do for a bit longer. This one is very exciting.
I literally just bought a pixel this week. Just my luck.
Pixel with GrapheneOS is still great. And it may take 1-2 years before GrapheneOS gets on this new device.
Now if you just bought a Pixel, it will be supported for 8 years, so by this time hopefully GrapheneOS will be available on many different devices :-).
probably good timing
this will take a while and RAM prices will be out of control for a while as well
Why was it that in the early PC days, IBM was unable to keep a lid on 'IBM compatible', allowing for the PC interoperability explosion, yet today, almost every phone has closed drivers, closed and locked bootloaders, and almost complete corporate control over our devices? Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
Nobody gave you the actual answer. IBM was under an antitrust decree and had to openly license their technology for a nominal fee. (Supposedly about $5/PC.) So yes, they were in a hurry and used generic parts, but they still had tons of patents on it. When they got out from under this, they came up with Microchannel.
I guess antitrust is the keyword here. Something that is considerably weakened in today's USA.
This and also cryptography technology was not nearly as sophisticated and easily accessible as it is today, and where it existed it was pretty slow on the hardware of the time.
How much of it is cryptography? The only notable cryptographic locks are just the TPM-backed Widevine and the infamous Play Integrity, both rarely required due to how many older devices that would lock out.
There's no crypto, as far as I know, in all the binary blobs in the kernel, yet we still can't re-implement enough of them to even have a true Linux phone without reusing the manufacturer's kernel.
You're getting a lot of indirect responses. If you've ever tried to mod your android phone the answer is simple. Its google play services and hardware attestation for things like banking websites.
Its really easy to make a custom rom but hard to do serious "real life" stuff; companies don't want to make it easy. To most regular users, if they cant download apps from the google play store, and they can't use venmo\cashapp, then the OS is dead in the water from day 1
Yeah but lots of phones you can't get ROMs for from a reputable source, and I sure as heck don't have the know how or time to build one, even if possible, which a lot of times is not due to locking down bootloaders, drivers, etc.
But that has the same cause.
When you buy a Windows PC, the first thing a lot of tech people will do is format it and put on a clean install of Windows without all of the OEM crapware, or in these days install Linux if grandma is just using email and Facebook anyway.
If you try to do that on your Android device, your bank app is broken, most importantly not because of anything the alternate OS is doing wrong, which causes the vast majority of people to not want to do it even if it means suffering the OEM crapware, with no way for the alternative OS to fix it. And that in turn allows the OEMs to get away with locked bootloaders etc., because then they're not losing sales to a competitor that lets you remove the crapware when nobody can do it either way.
For me the bank app was working, but the electric scooter app didn't and that was it for me :( Damn e-scooters, can't live without them.
But I still haven't contacted the support to ask them to verify phones in another way.
Be sure to leave them a one-star review, and maybe name them here so others can do the same.
Anyone who does that sort of crap deserves at least that tiny bit of punishment for it.
You cant rate it without google play app playstore lol
Years ago I used to love playing around with roms on my phone on XDA and it worked OK. I don't know what folks use these days. But as recently as a few years ago I merely rooted my phone and I couldn't use a lot of apps, not just banking, but even some games.
It's crazy how locked down the ecosystem is.
This just shows that the barrier of entry of a new phone OS is more than $0. You can pay app developers to port their apps off of play services, you can pay developers to add support for your attestation keys. Considering how many billions of dollars Android makes for Google, there is a room for a return on investment for an alternate OS to enable investments into a new OS.
an additional anecdote from my time then: they came to where i was working at the time and proposed funding a windows mobile version of our app (quite a large sum) but our supervisor finally said no, because the upkeep of now 3 apps would be too much for too few customers
you cant just throw money at devs and expect much unless you have the user base (potential market) to back it up
I think that is pretty different than what is happening here because:
1. It doesn't require an entirely new app. You can ship the same apk on all platforms.
2. Most apps already don't have a hard dependency on play services.
Amazon and BlackBerry both tried the whole “you can upload your same APK to our AppStore approach”.
And well, when’s the last time you used the Amazon android AppStore?
That's akin to creating a new browser and pay site owners to support your client. You can do it for a few dozen sites but that can't be your primary strategy.
We actually saw this play out twice with Microsoft's return to mobile (Windows phone) and web browsers, money is a pretty small part of it.
How much do you want to pay? Who will be paying? Big companies will probably laugh such an effort out of the room, nay, they will not even let you into the room to talk with them.
$10 million dollars per app. The creator of the new OS will pay. If you offer enough cash they will stop laughing.
Have you ever tried to pay a bank to do something for you ?
Trying to get some scale, you're hypothesizing about giving 10 millions to HSBC to make business with your startup, when they're throwing away 500+ millions every year just to cover their money laundering.
https://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-n...
And we're discussing doing this for basically every major banks.
But what what I'm asking for is only a small amount of engineering time to add 1 line to their gradle and change 1 line in their app's code. This isn't a deal spanning many engineering years doing on going work and having to measure how effective things are. It's a small change plus the overhead of making a deal and getting through the beurocracy.
The issue is to have them do anything at all.
I see it akin to the proverbial "not getting out of bed for less than XXXXX". You're getting out of bed every day, for free. But having someone make you do it for a specific reason will be an exponentially harder proposition.
> 1 line in their app
Aren't you asking them to maintain compatibility outside of Play Services and be on available on your platform ? That's a whole project, including their (or their contracting shop's) validating the whole new stack from a security and technical perspective, and a legal and business check on what that actually means to them.
Perhaps we can look at it from a darker perspective: if a random guy came to the bank to ask them support for their parralel phone ecosystem, the bank would at least want to know what they're getting into and what's in it for them. Especially if they're offered 10 millions for allegedly one line of code.
>not getting out of bed for less than XXXXX
I just made up the figure. Perhaps 10 billion dollars is more enticing. Perhaps you have to purchase the company outright and then dictate they add support. My point is that it's not impossible to get the apps people need to work on an alternate Android OS. It is a matter of funding conpatibility. You can find a niche audience of people to start out with to make a competitive OS for them. And then overtime expand that audience more and more.
>Aren't you asking them to maintain compatibility
Typically the complaints about banks is that they use the Play Integrity library which doesn't trust other operating systems. So the ask is to support the Android API for integrity and to trust the key of the OS provider. This would be done via a new library to make integration easier and more foolproof.
> It is a matter of funding conpatibility.
Key clients requesting support for the alternative OS will be a way faster route IMHO. The same way nobody bribed banks to support android, they saw the market share and potential and decided by themselves it was a worth doing. Which is why it came so late.
I understand you're offering a way to get around the chicken and egg problem, I'm saying dealing with the supply part is crazy hard. Somewhat paying users to buy into your ecosystem despite the lack of support could be a better use of money (I'm thinking about Meta subsidizing Occulus until it got some traction, and I assume it's still in the red after so many years)
> the Android API
People loosely explain the lack of technical challenge, but from the institution's POV you're asking them to expand their trust from Google, a US company which will be solely responsible if anything critical happens...to potentially each single phone maker, whoever happens to be selling the device to your clients ?
If Google didn't exist that's what they'd do. But Play Services is a thing. The more I think about the less I see an incentive for any established player to do that move until customers are actively clamoring for it. There's just no upside otherwise.
You do understand that buying the rest of society so they can make apps for your open platform is not really feasible, right?
Where do you think the creators will get this money from? Look at existing ones, they are cash strapped as they are, paying a million to get an app over beyond their budget, let alone 10 million
Investors. Trying to become a new competitor in an established industry often takes a large amount of capital. If you tried to create a business to compete in another industry, you'd also need to find investors or other forms of financing if you are cash strapped.
Investors are not dumb. The current duopoly is entrenched and merely asking for money to create an alternative os won't give you investment. Microsoft and Nokia among others failed big time even though they had plenty of money and competing operating systems. Investors give you money if they think you will be successful and return a multiple of that investment within a reasonable timeframe.
You need to solve the 3 player problem before you even ask for money: getting device manufacturers in even though you have no operating system, no devs and no users, getting devs even though you have no operating system, no devs, no users and no devices, getting users even though you have no device, no operating, no devs and no apps.
You need an MVP that shows promise towards all the above if you seek money.
This is like taxi on demand app business or the takeaway delivery business but with more players and with a higher minimum funds requirement. Plus the fact that unlike taxi apps or takeaway apps, choosing an operating system is a zero sum game so you are competing in the most direct way against well known and well established brands like iOs and Android who are funded by the richest companies on earth. Unlike Uber vs Lyft, where a user can install both and use both, your battlefield only has one victor. And given that other companies with more funding that you will ever see in your lifetime still failed, you have a virtually impossible task of explaining (before they even consider giving you a single cent) how you are going to be able to capture market share with your own solution to the 3 player problem.
Nokia and Microsoft only understood this right at the end: to avoid losing in the mobile os market, you need an ecosystem. Miss any of the elements and it all crumbles. Read Elop's memorable Burning Ship note on the final days of Nokia.
> Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
There are technical reasons, but as ever the real underlying causes are incentives. Companies realized that the OS is a profit center, something they can use to influence user behavior to their benefit. Before the goal was to be a hardware company and offer the best hardware possible for cost. Now the goal is to own as large a slice of your life as possible. It's more of a social shift than a technological one. So why would a company, in this new environment, invest resources in making their hardware compatible with competing software environments? They'd be undercutting themselves.
That's not to say that attempts to build interoperability don't exist, just that they happen due to what are essentially activist efforts, the human factor, acting in spite of and against market forces. That doesn't tend to win out, except (rarely) in the political realm.
i.e. if you want interoperable mobile hardware you need a law, the market's not going to save you one this one.
Most ARM devices don't have UEFI or a standardized hardware abstraction layer as x86/x64 does, a prerequisite for having a choice of OSes.
I don't believe that's the true problem. Booting operating system is not a problem. There's no standardized hardware abstraction layer in PC either, every OS brings their own set of drivers.
My guess is that modern hardware is too complicated for one hacker to write reliable drivers. That wasn't the case back in the 90-s, when Linux matured. So we are at mercy of hardware manufacturers and they happened to not be interested in open upstreamed drivers.
> My guess is that modern hardware is too complicated for one hacker to write reliable drivers.
Modern hardware has turned our operating systems into isolated "user OS" nodes in the schematics, completely sandboxed away from the real action. Our operating systems don't really operate systems anymore.
https://youtu.be/36myc8wQhLo
Excellent and scary video that I share myself all the time.
In the ARM world, there isn't even a standard way to boot, and there are no standard hardware interfaces - except maybe the interrupt controller, since it's part of the CPU and only ARM designs the CPUs.
On any PC, you can still use BIOS/UEFI services to get a basic framebuffer and keyboard input. You cannot do that on embedded ARM devices - you need to get several layers into the graphics stack to have a framebuffer. I tried it on the PinePhone, using existing source code as a reference, and the furthest I got was sending commands from the video port to the LCD controller and then not having an oscilloscope to see if the LCD controller replied back.
I worked with ARM boards, I know a bit about it. Booting into Linux is never hard, it's all about using uboot, sometimes with tiny patches on top. I think it's actually even easier with android phones, as you don't have access to the low level bootloader, you just use fastboot stuff.
Having basic framebuffer in BIOS/UEFI is neat for toy OSes, but not very relevant for something practical. You gotta need proper driver for GPU. And if you're just starting, UART console is actually more preferable way to interact with board, IMO.
Booting into a mainline Linux kernel on your average junk-level SBC with all the hardware working (without simply sticking to an Android-like downstream/proprietary BSP) is quite hard, and that's what you need in order to make a phone usable as a daily driver. That's really the root issue; mobile phones are built as embedded devices, with no consideration for running a generic OS kernel. This isn't even an Android issue, OpenMoko was the same deal. If anything, Android was the first mobile platform to even loosely approach any kind of PC-like openness.
> So why would a company, in this new environment, invest resources in making their hardware compatible with competing software environments?
Because that's what customers want to buy. People are paying premium iPhone prices for hardware with mediocre specs and then the hardware sells out when someone like Purism or Fairphone actually makes an open one. How many sales would you get if you did the same thing on a phone that was actually price/performance competitive with the closed ones?
Meanwhile all of that "profit center" talk is MBA hopium. Nobody is actually using the Xiaomi App Store, least of all the people who would put a different OS on their phone.
The real problem here is Google. Hardware attestation needs to be an antitrust violation the same as Microsoft intentionally breaking software when you tried to run it on a competing version of DOS and for exactly the same reason.
> Hardware attestation needs to be an antitrust violation
Yes!! Absolutely agree. This needs to be made illegal.
Some of the funnest work, if you could get it, was swapping ssds out of laptops coming through customs for high value targets.
Which is another reason we need to strip this hardware attestation stuff out of the hardware. It either needs to use exclusively keys the user loaded into the device themselves or the keys aren't on the device whatsoever and then the "high value targets" verify the contents of the drive from a known-clean machine once they get it back from the adversarial foreign officials before putting it back into service. Or better yet, keep a separate laptop on each side of the border and then sync the data over the internet instead of losing physical control over the device at an adversarial border.
Plenty of adversarial countries have a competent security service. A foreign government can compromise the corporation's root signing key for the devices through technical attacks and through bribery, espionage, physical intrusion, etc. And they're not going to tell you that they have before using it against your high value targets, so how do you protect them? By not relying on systems with a single point of compromise.
Can you expand a bit? They didn’t notice the ssd swapped? Which country? Customs as in sending deliveries or passing a border with a laptop?
I generally agree, but as a caveat sometimes it's cheaper, more robust and more efficient to build an integrated system without having to worry about interoperability. BYD's electric vehicle chasis for example, seems to greatly cut manufacturing costs, even if it makes swap-in repairs harder down the road.
But, I'd guess this accounts for a relatively small fraction of corporate decision on lock-in strategies for rent extraction - advanced users should be able to treat their cell phones OS like laptops, with the same basic concepts, eg just lock down the firmware for the radio output, to keep the carriers happy, and open everything else, maybe with a warranty void if you swap out your OS. Laws are needed for that, certainly.
The only thing proprietary in the early PC architecture was the BIOS. Everything else was pre-existing architecture from third parties, there was nothing to keep a lid on.
Since a PC was a big box of parts anyone could manufacture one. A modern phone is much more complicated.
As to why there aren’t a plethora: the market doesn’t demand it that much. The people doing it aren’t wildly successful. Perhaps that’s changing (I hope so) but I know very few people outside this community who have ever thought “I wish I could have a third party version of Android”.
Even the batteries are not interchangeable on phones. You'd think all phones should have the same exact battery, that this kind of standardization is beneficial for phone manufacturers as it helps them bargain with their parts suppliers but no for whatever reason we can't have that.
Edit: I am not saying just user replaceable. I mean standardized so the same cells in a 2024 phone also works on 2025...
Why, of all parts on a phone, would you expect the battery to be the one that's already good enough that it should never need to be upgraded?
"Battery capacity" is like the one thing phone manufacturers still try to improve.
The interfaces and the external dimensions can remain the same even as the internals change though, right? And you can have more or fewer cells. The cells don't have to be cylinders, either. They can be flat.
They are usually shaped to fit in exactly the space available to maximize capacity. Standard cell sizes wastes space.
Besides it's pretty easy to get custom battery pouches made.
Who will make these custom battery pouches for old phones though? Think my old Poco x3 pro, not the iPhone 17. I am sure there are tons of people willing to make batteries for the iPhone 17 but I feel like the interest wanes as the phone gets older?
For older phones, the batteries we buy are likely also old stock left over if we can find some in stock anyway, right?
> Why was it that in the early PC days, IBM was unable to keep a lid on 'IBM compatible', allowing for the PC interoperability explosion
IBM didn't think to lock it down, the BIOS was the main blocker and was relatively quickly reverse-engineered (properly, not by copying over the BIOS source IBM had included in the reference manual). They tried to fix some with the MCA bus of the PS/2 but that flopped.
> almost every phone has closed drivers
Lots of hardware manufacturers refuse to provide anything else and balk at the idea of open drivers. And reverse engineering drivers is either not worth the hassle for the manufacturer or a risk of being sued.
> Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
Incentive. Specifically its complete lack of existence.
IBM was in a hurry.
From triumph of the nerds part 2 ( worth a watch.. they also explain how IBM ended up getting and operating system from Microsoft)
https://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html
https://youtu.be/_cMtZFwqPHc
“In business, as in comedy, timing is everything, and time looked like it might be running out for an IBM PC. I'm visiting an IBMer who took up the challenge. In August 1979, as IBM's top management met to discuss their PC crisis, Bill Lowe ran a small lab in Boca Raton Florida.
Bill Lowe:
Hello Bob nice to see you. BOB: Nice to see you again. I tried to match the IBM dress code how did I do? BILL: That's terrific, that's terrific.
He knew the company was in a quandary. Wait another year and the PC industry would be too big even for IBM to take on. Chairman Frank Carey turned to the department heads and said HELP!!!
Bill Lowe Head, IBM IBM PC Development Team 1980:
He kind of said well, what should we do, and I said well, we think we know what we would like to do if we were going to proceed with our own product and he said no, he said at IBM it would take four years and three hundred people to do anything, I mean it's just a fact of life. And I said no sir, we can provide with product in a year. And he abruptly ended the meeting, he said you're on Lowe, come back in two weeks and tell me what you need.
An IBM product in a year! Ridiculous! Down in the basement Bill still has the plan. To save time, instead of building a computer from scratch, they would buy components off the shelf and assemble them -- what in IBM speak was called 'open architecture.' IBM never did this. Two weeks later Bill proposed his heresy to the Chairman.
Bill Lowe:
And frankly this is it. The key decisions were to go with an open architecture, non IBM technology, non IBM software, non IBM sales and non IBM service. And we probably spent a full half of the presentation carrying the corporate management committee into this concept. Because this was a new concept for IBM at that point. BOB: Was it a hard sell? BILL: Mr. Carey bought it. And as result of him buying it, we got through it.
Cory Doctorow answers this in his book “The Internet Con”. IBM fought with DoJ for years. Today, it’s a felony to mess with anything locked down (anti circumvention)
I don't think it's a felony to root/jailbreak one's own phone.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
It's not your phone, it's theirs. They're just letting you use it, and only if you're a good boy who follows all their policies and terms and conditions. Subvert this in any way and it's a felony.
The problem is doing it as a company. IBM wasn't defeated by hobbyists building their own PCs. They were defeated by other companies reverse engineering their BIOS and selling their own IBM compatible systems. This isn't possible anymore. It just means you get buried in lawsuits until you go bankrupt.
It is. 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems
Well actually, it isn’t for individuals and certain groups, technically.
Rooting/jailbreaking have had exemptions for many years now, on a three year basis which has seemingly been continually renewed, by the Librarian of Congress.
Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies (2024)
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/28/2024-24...
https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca-rulemaking
You’re breaking the TOS which is a felony according to the CFAA
The systems and software were vastly less complex and powerful in the 8088 days.
Very little of it was open, including the headliner apps of WordPerfect and 123.
Google had the benefit of three decades to study IBM's loss of control to prevent it with Android. Aside from China, they have been largely successful.
Other companies saw that IBM effectively lost control over their platform (and thus lost a large revenue stream), and are determined to not make the same mistake.
That's a long running effort, going all the way from lobbying (DMCA and their ilk), to all kinds of hardware root-of-trust, encrypted and signed firmware, OS kernels and drivers etc etc. And yes, today we have the transistor budgets to spend on things like this, which wasn't an option back when the PC architecture was devised.
The hardware was evolving way faster 40 years ago and in much consequent ways than these days. Plus number of users grew exponentially. So a company spending too much efforts on software could loose its edge on the hardware side. And locking hardware would be counterproductive since as it would limit new users.
These days things are way slower and the are no exponential growth in users. Plus fast cellular networks made the speed of local hardware much less relevant. So the software became way more important and so its control.
> Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
Here you go: https://puri.sm/products/librem-5 and https://pine64.com/product-category/pinephone/
Because the original IBM PC was designed to be cheap and built in a hurry. IBM had a mandate for the original PC to use off the shelf components as much as possible. They also neglected to secure an exclusive license from Microsoft for DOS. 95% of building an IBM PC clone was buying the same parts and getting a DOS license from Microsoft (which they were very happy to sell you). Everyone saw what happened to IBM and just didn't do it that way again.
You can actually look at history and see what happens when IBM tries to wrest control of the PC platform back with the PS/2, which was a flop with consumers because it wasn't backwards compatible enough with IBM's own previous PCs or the wider PC market that developed. A bunch of PC clone manufacturers got together and came up with the EISA bus standard so they wouldn't have to pay IBM license fees for MCA, and made it backwards-compatible with ISA cards people already had. It was successful enough that IBM ended up adopting EISA for some of their PCs.
The other notable thing about the situation is that three companies ended up simultaneously responsible for a large part of the PC platform, originally -- IBM, Microsoft and Intel. They all worked in various ways to encourage competition to each other -- the reason we see OS competition on the PC platform is that IBM and Intel both found it in their interests to allow other OSes on the platform to reduce Microsoft's leverage over them. IBM in fact created one of the competing PC OSes out the gate, OS/2, which was originally an IBM/Microsoft joint project until they started feuding. Now, OS/2 is dead, but IBM's interest in being able to support their own OS instead of Microsoft's is a big reason the PC platform was built in an OS agnostic way. People criticize UEFI for locking down the PC platform more than the previous BIOS implementations, but UEFI is still _way_ more open than basically any other platform, most of which don't have a standard for bootloaders at all. It's really the absense of a standard for bootloaders that keeps most Android phones locked down. Two Android phones from the same OEM might have different bootloaders, much less two phones from different manufacturers. We've yet to see an alternate OS with the resources to support implementing their own bootloaders for a majority of Android phones.
The company making a device that is licensed by the FCC has to do everything that they can to mitigate the risk of an unlicensed broadcast on their devices.
https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/rfdevice
> INTENTIONAL RADIATORS (Part 15, Subparts C through F and H)
> An intentional radiator (defined in Section 15.3 (o)) is a device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction that may be operated without an individual license.
> Examples include: wireless garage door openers, wireless microphones, RF universal remote control devices, cordless telephones, wireless alarm systems, Wi-Fi transmitters, and Bluetooth radio devices.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A...
Other countries have similar regulations.
PCs don't have that restriction.
You might be able to get to the point where you have a broadcast license and can get approved to transmit in the cellphone radio spectrum and get FCC approval for doing so with your device... but if you were to distribute it and someone else was easily able to modify it who wasn't licensed and made it into a jammer you would also be liable.
The scale that the cellphone companies work at such liability is not something that they are comfortable with. So the devices they sell are locked down as hard as they can to make it clear that if someone was to modify a device they were selling it wasn't something that they intended or made easy.
I see people saying things like this all the time and then when I ask them for the specific text requiring them not to e.g. publish source code, nobody has been able to show me.
And a huge reason it seems like BS is this:
> PCs don't have that restriction.
There are obviously PCs with Wi-Fi and even cellular modems, so this can't be an excuse for a phone to not be at least as open as a PC.
> The company making a device that is licensed by the FCC has to do everything that they can to mitigate the risk of an unlicensed broadcast on their devices.
Where do you see this in the rules? The only thing I see that even comes close is the following sentence:
"Manufacturers and importers should use good engineering judgment before they market and sell these products, to minimize possible interference"
Maybe it's because I don't routinely deal with the FCC but to me, that language doesn't imply anything close to your ironclad rule you posted.
I'll also point out there are plenty of other devices that get sold that seemingly break your rule. SDRs, walkie talkies with the power to transmit for miles, basically every computer motherboard made since the year 2010, the Flipper, etc. At most, they simply have some fine print in the manual saying "you should probably have an FCC license to use this".
SDR for listening does not require a license. For transmission, depending on the power and frequency may require a broadcast license.
https://www.reddit.com/r/RTLSDR/comments/dx5sln/do_developer...
Depending on the power of the walkie talkie, it may require a license.
https://www.rcscommunications.com/which-two-way-radios-requi...
> MURS (Multi-Use Radio Service) – Two-way radios programmed to operate within the MURS (Multi-Use Radio Service) are not required to be licensed. They transmit at 2 watts or less and only operate on pre-set frequencies between 151 -154 MHz in the VHF band. MURS radios have a general lack of privacy, a limited coverage area, and frequent channel interference.
> ...
> GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service) – The General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) is another of the most popular and numerous licenses the FCC granted. GMRS licenses allow for radios to transmit up to 50 watts. GMRS licenses also allow for hand-held, mobile, and repeater devices. The GMRS spectrum has 22 channels that it shares with FRS and an additional 8 repeater channels that are exclusive to GMRS.
> Virtually Every Other Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Device – Virtually all two-way radios beyond the models mentioned above are subject to FCC licensing. In fact, any device that transmits at 4 watts or higher requires coordination (and, thereby, licensing) by the FCC.
---
The Flipper is licensed to operate with a particular set of power and frequency ranges. https://flipperzero.one/compliance
For the SDR it is licensed to operate between 304.5 - 321.95; 433.075 - 434.775; and 915.0 - 927.95 MHZ range in the US.
Note that none of those are the cellphone frequency bands.
---
https://prplfoundation.org/yes-the-fcc-might-ban-your-operat...
which quotes 2.1033 Application for grant of certification. Paragraph 4(i):
> For devices including modular transmitters which are software defined radios and use software to control the radio or other parameters subject to the Commission’s rules, the description must include details of the equipment’s capabilities for software modification and upgradeability, including all frequency bands, power levels, modulation types, or other modes of operation for which the device is designed to operate, whether or not the device will be initially marketed with all modes enabled. The description must state which parties will be authorized to make software changes (e.g., the grantee, wireless service providers, other authorized parties) and the software controls that are provided to prevent unauthorized parties from enabling different modes of operation. Manufacturers must describe the methods used in the device to secure the software in their application for equipment authorization and must include a high level operational description or flow diagram of the software that controls the radio frequency operating parameters. The applicant must provide an attestation that only permissible modes of operation may be selected by a user.
and 2.1042 Certified modular transmitters. Paragraph (8)(e)
> Manufacturers of any radio including certified modular transmitters which includes a software defined radio must take steps to ensure that only software that has been approved with a particular radio can be loaded into that radio. The software must not allow the installers or end-user to operate the transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved. Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these requirements.
Well, I sit corrected. Thanks for digging all that up.
The business world learned from their mistake.
The GrapheneOS obsession with picking a fight with everyone else is the most unfortunate part of the project.
It doesn't seem to be the entire project, just one dev (afaik) that's quite outspoken and does make accusations that they don't always seem to back with evidence. Also insofar as the actual "product" remains completely untouched by any spats it shouldn't be a dealbreaker for anyone wanting to use GOS, but of course it isn't ideal to have any drama attached.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
And the unreasonable man has decades of security research under his belt and somehow you know what's best?
I think they're agreeing with you
That's actually one of the best parts.
Not for the ones on the receiving end.
Understaffed gift product wants 1 week cycles.
OEMs want 2-4 month cycles.
This is a perfect representation of the state of the software industry.
I don't think that's a fair comparison.
OEMs have quite a lot of extra steps before releasing any build to the public.
They have to pass xTS, the set of test suites required before getting certified by Google, possibly carrier certification, regulatory requirements and more depending on where the build will be released.
There are "quicker" release channels for security fixes, but I don't think it's common for OEMs to only ship those without any other change to the system.
I don't think Graphene does anything of sort, they take what's already certified in the Pixel builds and uses it. Not like they could do much aside testing on the public part of xTS.
> I don't think that's a fair comparison.
Fair?
> OEMs have quite a lot of extra steps before releasing any build to the public.
AIUI updates are less stringent and burdensome than initial certification. Regardless much of the process is automated. Graphene has CI too. 3PL's taking 4 weeks to run automated tests is also absurd. There are some "manual steps" to run CTS-V but they shouldn't be weeks level burdensome either. This is the point, this is an industry problem.
The reason that the OEMs even have to deal with this 3PL test mess is for GMS certification, so again this is a policy decision that enforces a poor process. The bad properties of the process are not inherent to the problem space of validating builds against requirements. An industry problem.
> There are "quicker" release channels for security fixes, but I don't think it's common for OEMs to only ship those without any other change to the system.
Seems like a decision that is not user-centric.
> I don't think Graphene does anything of sort, they take what's already certified in the Pixel builds and uses it. Not like they could do much aside testing on the public part of xTS.
Private test suites for software are a toxic idea, it's in the same box as "SSO tax", and other such "pay for security" models. Given the software industry can't be trusted not to do this, I'm almost keen to see legislation to explicitly ban this practice.
> AIUI updates are less stringent and burdensome than initial certification
That's true having dealt with some of it, nonetheless I haven't found that much of a difference due to having to use 3PL.
There's more manual steps on top of CTSV for camera and GMS, but that's all there is to it.
The only real difference I've seen is on Google's side to actually say "ok" before it getting approved.
Carriers and regulations are better on that side, but assume you have a security fix in the modem, for some carriers you're supposed (emphasis here) to redo it...
> Seems like a decision that is not user-centric.
I can see how having two release channels one solely for security and a bigger one might be a burden on some. But you hardly want to only fix security issues when you have a real bugfix you want to also release, so it makes sense to me the channels have to be merged.
> Private test suites for software are a toxic idea
To be fair on android side they're quite fine. One is specifically for GMS compliance, one for camera verification, and one for security patches verification.
The latter is janky and not as updated as you'd think, so unless you really forget to apply patches it'll pass.
With that said, the amount of people running those test suites not for certification can probably be counted on a single hand, I think that's the least of the problems.
Yep. And GrapheneOS's changes to the kernels of devices they ship are laughably small, 20-30 commits at most. I don't think they even do any basic CVE checks on any of the source code.
Fuzzing, actual security analysis - all those things are done by Google.
Their contributions upstream go way back, I think someone could misread this comment that they've not contributed, and that would be an unfortunate misunderstanding.
isn't that by design? for GKIs i mean
GrapheneOS goes even further by allowing you to opt in to pre-embargo security releases, bypassing the vulnerable window between vendor disclosure and OEM patches. Awesome!
Great, so this means that the only way to get an Android release that's up-to-date on security patches is a binary-only distro - either Google Pixel, or the GrapheneOS preview channel.
Just wonderful. Google should know better than this, shame on the other OEMs that forced this mess.
I absolutely loved my Moto X with the walnut back. I switched to an iPhone when it stopped getting security patches.
It was built back when Google owned Motorola, before they sold off everything but the patent suite. And was intended to be their flagship phone - which the Pixel later became. Looking at the GrapheneOS FAQ, it doesn't look like I have a prayer of installing it on such an old device as it doesn't have the needed security hardware. Is there a lightweight Android install available?
I've rooted and installed a few custom ROM's on phones back on the day, nothing recent though.
Here is a good place to get started with your Moto X. https://xdaforums.com/c/moto-x.2449/
For Google Pixel 6-9 phones only.
https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support
So this is interesting, they release the patched binaries several months before anyone else does and several months before the source code of the patches is released?
This implies that anyone can download GrapheneOS firmware images and use binary diffing techniques to find what are still 0-day vulnerabilities on every Android other than GrapheneOS.
Useful! Thank you GrapheneOS developers.
> may i ask how you obtain the source? Are you registered as an OEM at Google?
Same question, how does Graphene get patches?
They have partnership an OEM who provides them with sources.
Currently they're only permitted to release binaries of the patches due to the embargo, this is why these patches are in the parallel stream/optional (so people unhappy with being unable to see the sources won't have them shoved down their throats).
I don't have URLs at hand at the moment but all these questions have been asked many times and explained extensively on their discussion forum.
I, for one, feel safe. I was patched since late October (IIRC) for the vulnerabilities that Android-related outlets were warning about in early December.
It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android is. And how Google and the big companies pretend old devices (these running Android 11, 12, 13, not updated for several years) are safe and secure. While all it takes is the user stumbling upon one malicious we page or getting a WhatsApp message they won't even see.
> It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android
Well that's untrue. I'd even venture to say that with how many OEMs there are it's insane how safe Android is. Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6, they can't control OEMs who might have ~10 people working on their devices.
> Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6
Pixel 8 https://endoflife.date/pixel
If I don't misunderstand you, you're suggesting the Pixel 8 line is shown red/discontinued? If that's it, you're probably on a mobile browser which might cut off right after the Discontinued column. The table goes on next to that where you'll see that all Pixels since 6 are currently still supported.
Pixel 8 line:
> Ends in 4 years and 10 months (01 Oct 2030)
You misunderstood. He’s saying that Google provides 7 years of device updates only for the Pixel 8 and later. That’s true: Pixel 6 and Pixel 7 only get 5 years of updates.
Pixel 7:
> Ends in 1 year and 10 months (01 Oct 2027)
Pixel 6:
> Ends in 10 months (01 Oct 2026)
Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up.
Pixel 8 updates end in 2030. Or did you think the 7 years of updates didn't apply to it?
Yes. They've parterned with an OEM. In fact, they are making an official GOS phone with that OEM.
Here's the discussion forum post going over it: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-p...
afaict it's more like "making sure <OEM>'s next flagship supports graphene"
As a LineageOS user, I'd be interested in the disparity between GrapheneOS and LineageOS.
If you have a Pixel -> Graphene, if not -> Lineage.
I personally don't care about "security" all that much, my main reason for using Graphene is freedom to use my hardware in any way I wish. This means unrestricted ability to run any program on the phone from any source. Sideloading restrictions don't apply to Graphene, and it is also impossible for state actors to impose things such as client-side scanning of text messages. It's also immune to unwanted AI anti-features.
I use my own "cloud" infrastructure with my phone and I am not interested in using Google's. My Graphene device is configured to route all traffic through Wireguard tunnel and my DNS server. I also use exclusively use my own email server and "cloud" storage for all non-work related purposes. Graphene makes this easy by not leaking any information to Google.
Don't understand your statement about avoiding client-side scanning of text messages. I've always assumed it would be done by the apps themselves, e.g. WhatsApp, Telegram, etc..
That sounds amazing. I aspire to get a setup like yours. I am on a Pixel with the stock OS and I can't stand the way Google is pushing AI into everything on my phone.
I haven't switched it to Graphene OS yet because I read that there are issues with NFC and a few other things. I assume this new phone won't have those problems so I think that will be my catalyst to do a big overhaul.
They have different goals:
GrapheneOS wants to make a FOSS Android with the security model that makes it hard for any bad party to break into the phone.
LineageOS wants to make a FOSS Android that respects user's privacy first and foremost - it implements security as best as it can but the level of security protections differs on different supported devices.
Good news is that if you have a boot passphrase, it's security is somewhat close to GrapheneOS - differing in that third parties with local access to the device can still brute-force their access whereas with GrapheneOS they can't - unless they have access to hardware level attacks.
that is simply wrong.
GrapheneOS is both in terms of security and privacy the best but currently only supports pixel phones.
LineageOS is trying to support as many devices as possible still with lot of google connections and missing security updates.
>Good news is that if you have a boot passphrase, it's security is somewhat close to GrapheneOS
its not anywhere close https://grapheneos.org/features
I am overwhelmed by the specificity of your demonstrated knowledge on this topic.
How can LOS's security be somewhat close to GOS if it's worse than OEM? LOS lacks verified boot, hardware security features, it's often behind is security patches.. With "advanced protection" enabled stock OEMs are even more secure, but GOS is even more secure still. When it comes to EOL devices, LOS may be more secure than OEM depending on your threat model.
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
That comparison shows "Deblobbed? Yes" for GrapheneOS. That implies they've replaced (most of) the blobs for wifi, bluetooth, 5g chips etc.
Is that actually true? It's such a big deal, and I see little to no work being done on this front.
Anyone have any idea what GrapheneOS actually deblobbed?
They can because they essentially support Google chipsets, which are not blobby like MediaTek or Qualcomm because Google for all its faults is still relatively open (except their recent change in release schedules is why the Pixel 10 series still only has experimental GrapheneOS support).
Here’s an example of the radio firmware and vendor blobs required for a pixel 9 pro XL build: https://github.com/TheMuppets/proprietary_vendor_google_komo...
Nobody, including Graphene, is getting away with building their own modem firmware. The reduced blobs are on userspace and some HAL components.
Yes, even Apple with its practically infinite resources took 14 years from when it acquired Infineon's mobile chipset unit to launching its C1 modem. So much of the telcos' allegedly open protocols are actually implementation-dependent that it takes a lot of testing on actual mobile networks to validate interop.
Do you claim that there's a place where I can find datasheets for peripheral devices for Google Pixel? Like GPU, etc.
No, but they used to publish the source code for the drivers as part of AOSP. Now they no longer publish the device trees. Check out GrapheneOS' other Mastodon posts for the gory details.
It's nowhere near that. Pretty sure even modules are signed by Google.
Nice! Thanks for the link. I noticed they didn't mention MOCOR OS (for the new Nokia 3210), but then I remembered that that's not an Android version. I'll see if they can add it somewhere else.
Unrelated, but this led me to find gnuclad, which may be somewhat externally maintained and is used to create the cladogragms.
This is a great resource! Thanks
If you care about security above all else and you have a Pixel, GrapheneOS should really be your only consideration.
LineageOS has a place for those who care less about security and more about features, "freedom", compatibility, community etc...
I was a LOS user and maintained my own forks for devices, but switching to GrapheneOS was a good decision and I don't really miss anything.
It might be important to mention, that Lineage OS is available on a number of the devices abandoned by their original vendors, so sometimes it may be a much better solution to get a Lineage OS onto their former "flagship" which stopped getting updates 18 months after the release.
So if the bootloader can be relocked and not passing Play Integrity scam is not a problem, Lineage may be a better option. Better than nothing, that is.
Just yesterday I took an old Motorola smartphone from 8 years ago (Android 9) and put LineageOS on it.
Poof, it's transformed from unusually-glitchy e-waste to a tool someone can actually benefit from.
> So if the bootloader can be relocked
Their website says they recommend against that and will not support it, because of a high chance the device will get bricked. :(
Graphene OS provides advanced security capabilities and a thorough defense-in-depth approach including a hardened supply chain. GOS aims to provide mechanisms to protect against 0day attacks. For example Celebrite can not open up GOS. GOS relys on hardware support provided by Pixels. Graphene OS works on getting their developments upstream.
For a list of security features see here [0].
[0] https://grapheneos.org/features
GrapheneOS is a locked-down, security-hardened system that's good if you need absolutely maximal security (e.g. journalists, activists, folks targeted by state actors). LineageOS is a more of an open system for tinkerers who want to play outside Google's walled garden.
You can have root to control your own device on Lineage, but not Graphene.
It's not really locked down. You can toggle or enable some of the more activist-orientated features. The only limitation I'm aware of is that some apps requiring the strongest Play Integrity setting (ChatGPT, some banks, very few airline apps) just won't work on GrapheneOS.
I believe you can root GrapheneOS. It just breaks the security model, so it's not recommended to do so.
Ah, you're right: https://github.com/schnatterer/rooted-graphene
I stand corrected. Still, as you say, less point in it since it breaks their security model.
I notice my battery life is much better switching to graphine from the stock google rom.
Yes, but keep in mind individual apps like Signal need to run in the background at all times if you want to receive timely notifications on Graphene, because they cannot rely on the Google backend for that. If you have enough such apps, you may well find that battery life is shorter than on the stock OS.
This is true if you opt not to install Google Play Services.
Good point, I chose not to on my main "Owner" profile to be fully Google-free. I have the sandboxed Play Services on a separate profile I hardly ever use for testing purposes.
Although I don't use it I will be supporting the project. I'm quite proud of what they've achieved so far.
You can tell it's truly secure and private because the Cellebrite leak says they can't break it (one of very few!) and some governments assume you're a drug dealer if you use it. My next phone will run GrapheneOS.
Have a link to the source? And have they said they can’t break it, or haven’t yet? I’d imagine from a business perspective it would hardly be worth it
There more sources if you google, but someone leaked a Cellebrite meeting.
https://www.androidauthority.com/cellebrite-leak-google-pixe...
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/leaker-reveals-which...
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14344-cellebrite-premium-ju...
It could also just mean they haven't bothered try
Their marketing slides include GOS, and they have since 2021 I think was just said "can't access that".
I would imagine it's a very high priority if you have powerful targets. They're not gonna be running an off-the-shelf android phone.
Does the Celebrite leak say out can break recent iOS?
Don't worry, Apple can do it themselves as they have full remote access
The problem with custom android ROM is that the kernel is built with proprietary drivers, and porting them to other custom android is really hard
Graphene has really caught my eye in the last several months, but unfortunately I couldn't find a good deal for Pixel phones (>128GB storage), used or new. That's the biggest bottleneck for adoption it seems. I just finally switched from an S10E to a S25Ultra (black friday deal brought down to $820), but not being able to use Graphene in the future hurts a bit for sure.
>Graphene has really caught my eye in the last several months, but unfortunately I couldn't find a good deal for Pixel phones (>128GB storage), used or new. [...] I just finally switched from an S10E to a S25Ultra (black friday deal brought down to $820),
There are plenty of deals for pixels under $820: https://slickdeals.net/search?q=pixel&searcharea=deals&searc...
Goodness, friend, where were you looking?
A used 256GB Pixel 8 in good condition is $320. https://swappa.com/listings/google-pixel-8?carrier=unlocked&...
One caveat--you have to be certain that you get a Pixel with an unlocked bootloader. There are a lot of Pixels (mostly sold by Verizon) that are unlocked for use with any carrier, but whose bootloaders remain locked. If you have one of these ex-Verizon phones, there is no way as of now to unlock the bootloader.
Just wait for the new OEM to drop their phones with GrapheneOS support. Pixel hardware is garbage tier.
Obviously this situation can't go on.
If neither of the two major players can make an open, secure, _simple_, easy-to-understand, bloat-free OS, then we somehow need another player.
Presently (and I confess, my bias to seek non-state solutions may show here), it seems that a non-trivial part of the duopoly stems from regulatory capture insofar as the duopoly isn't merely software, but extends all the way to TSMC and Qualcomm, whose operations seem to be completely subject to state dictates, both economic/regulatory and of the darker surveillance/statecraft variety (and of those, presumably some are classified).
I'm reminded of the server market 20ish years ago, where, although there were more than two players, the array of simple, flexible linux distros that are dominant today were somewhere between poorly documented and unavailable. I remember my university still running windows servers in ~2008 or so.
What do we need to do to achieve the same evolution that the last 2-3 decades of server OS's have seen? Is there presently a mobile linux OS that's worth jumping on? Is there simple hardware to go with it?
One comment mentioned Jolla. Another currently available option is [FuriLabs](http://furilabs.com). It runs atop Hallium/etc but you are effectively still able to daily drive a mobile Linux shell and contribute to the ecosystem if you want to see it grow.
Now with that said: so much work has gone in to Android (and by extension, Graphene) to improve on power usage/security/etc that I'm not sure I'd bother to actually run a mobile Linux device. The juice just doesn't feel worth the squeeze.
Furilabs was just in the news here because they discontinued their device models from a few years ago, and released a new device for a big price bump with _significantly worse_ hardware.
I know I would love to give them a try, but a 720 screen is an absolute non starter for me. It would be hard for anyone to sell me on just a FullHD (1080) screen in the era of QHD (2K) being industry standard. Additionally, I believe their FAQ even admits that their already low power devices only get a few hours of battery life.
Yeah... I don't care.
Small company that deals with what hardware they can get their hands on. They're shipping a device when others are not. It's a pretty straightforward equation right now; people who want to advance the ecosystem should consider it if they want a device they can drive and build for.
Otherwise there's no real reason to not just run Graphene.
> If neither of the two major players can make an open, secure, _simple_, easy-to-understand, bloat-free OS, then we somehow need another player.
I really hoped that Huawei would go for a fork of AOSP (they could even pull the changes from Google :-) ), but they chose to go with their proprietary HarmonyOS.
Take a look at Jolla and Sailfish OS.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46162368
https://sailfishos.org
FWIW, Jolla just announced a new phone: https://commerce.jolla.com/products/jolla-phone-preorder
It was discussed here when it was announced. I believe it was determined the hardware is an ultra-low-budget Aliexpress design that normally retails for ~$100 that they had custom built with a mic cutoff switch added to it (probably the cause of a large portion of the hardware price increase). I dont remember the specifics, but even thr most optimistic were pretty sure it won't get hardware vendor support for even a full year based on the specific processor it contains.
https://liberux.net/ looks promising as well.
WARNING: This is a Kickstarter device still, and needed funding to even create a proof of concept device last time it was discussed (extensively). It's a Flagship phone device and price, but with only the oldest of pans on how it's actually going to deliver some on of the promises.
GNU/Linux phones exist and can be used as daily drivers, if you put enough effort in it. Sent from my Librem 5.
who is the android oem they are partnering with
Is this supposed to be a joke? The best security of GrapheneOS is useless to people who don't own Don't-be-evil-hardware.
which pixel model is best for grephene? I strongly prefer long battery life.
will other phones be supported? why only pixel?
The OS is not very relevant to the Pixel. Compare the Pixels you like that are new (GrapheneOS drops support as models become older flagships, I think for security reasons) and get that one. IIRC, currently only Pixel is allowed, because the bootloader can be opened without rooting the device.
https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support
https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices
damn, an upgrade path from my pixel 5.
i like graphite its nice and blcack and conductive
AI can't work if the OS isn't secure... lol... I'm doomed.
Samsung Androids are not safe? Big surprise there! /s
Given what they choose to ship with their phones in some regions, id say that Samsung absolutely doesn't care about the security of their customers of they can get away with it.
[flagged]
Hacker News Guidelines [1]:
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Lest alone to use a distro with opaque financing sources that fully endorses government developed/sponsored platforms such as Signal and Tor.
So you're against Signal, Tor, and Graphene, and suggest to instead use.. Lineage?
Don't get me wrong, I love Lineage, it was my first custom ROM, but this seems a little tinfoil
What is your suggestion then, genius?
> Please consider saner options such as LineageOS or Replicant which support dozens and dozens of different device types.
... maybe, but it also drops support pretty fast, and not supported on most phones :-(
It supports devices just as long as the OEM does, which for modern Pixels is now 7 years, which is more than what Apple advertises for the iPhone. Considering people upgrade phones every 2 or 3 years, this is over double the amount of time of support than one would use the phone for. I disagree the support is for a short period of time.
Pixel's design makes a good candidate for GrapheneOS or a secure OS in general.
The baseband hardware is not integrated the same way like other phones are.