This is the biggest disappointment, imagine running a full blown "Ubuntu Touch" that gives you the freedom of Linux with full root access. This is the biggest failure of legislation in the 21st century so far that has enabled a strict Android/iOS duopoly.
I sincerely hope one day we can free these hardware devices from the shakles of their software and run anything that's possible.
Until such a time iOS devices are strictly off limits until at least a grapheneOS can run iOS at a minimum.
The iOS app iSH [0] allows you to do this, it’s a full blown Alpine environment running through x86 emulation in the app. I’ve been using it for a while, as far as I can tell almost all of the Alpine packages run without any issues.
One detail that remains to be seen is whether you'll cater to the EU market, and how the impact of the memory crisis will impact the possible consumer-base. It's a weak market and sales are likely to be only the 'hardcore' users who demand/require security. I sincerely hope there are no numbers you need to hit to keep the partnership going. Sales are not likely to be at first significant, people are extremely price sensitive and I'm not sure GrapheneOS support will draw people in enough to justify the obviously now inflated costs to cover component price increases (and tariffs).
Pixels offer affordable options which is why unless you can cater to that market, a Motorola-only GrapheneOS future will only gain traction if you're able to get a cheaper low/mid-range option out there, akin to the Pixel A-series.
Much of that is out of their hands unfortunately. Motorola don't use the latest Snapdragon SoCs in most of their more affordable models, and Qualcomm are the only ones so far (outside Samsung/Google) who seem willing to support what is needed (MTE, Android SE imp etc.)
It's funny how much Google lies about Android being 'secure' [1] and how much GrapheneOS, for free, improves the security of everyone with their work. Google should be, immediately, merging all patches/changes GrapheneOS makes and releasing a new build of Android to AOSP. Instead, users are subject to weak efforts to protect their security and privacy while Google parade about how good and amazing they are. They mention [1] 'This unencrypted data can be used to build user profiles or, in the hands of malicious actors'...And can't see the irony. They ARE the malicious actor and they absolutely build profiles about everyone. Whatever happened to the 'privacy sandbox' initiative again?
Anyone who values Graphene's work will purchase one of their Motorola devices, whatever the cost, otherwise it seems your choices are going to be giving up more data and control to Google, because they are clearly, obviously and systematically trying to remove GOS from Pixels (lack of source code, removing hardware features, making it purposely difficult to support pixels).
I predict by 2030 GrapheneOS will not support any new pixels entirely. The existing pixels will eventually die off and that will be that.
> The thing is, you can buy a Pixel 8a or 9 for a fraction of the price.
Those are still going to be supported. In some countries such as Brazil, those are more expensive than a Signature due to not being officially sold there and high import taxes.
That's not 3 times the price. It's also a flagship device and that's the model with 16GB storage and 512GB memory. Pixel 11 Pro with RAM/storage upgraded is a better comparison and the Motorola Signature (2026) has vastly better CPU and GPU performance with a cheaper price. Regardless, it's clearly not 3x the price of the regular Pixels and is priced similarly to the Pixel 10 Pro series which was cheaper than the Pixel 11 Pro series.
It really depends on where you are. Here (NL) the Signature 2026 is 750 Euro from reputable sellers. But yeah, the Signature is not available everywhere, similar to how the Pixel is not available everywhere.
> Well the current Motorola Signature (2026) is 3 times the price of a Pixel.
I understand the sentiment, certainly, but the price difference depends a lot on which model we're comparing to. The Signature will be the flagship from Motorola, and I'll be very, very surprised if it's 3x the price of the Pixel flagship.
Presumably someone who was planning to buy something like the Pixel 10a would be more interested in the non-flagship Motorola devices with GOS support, which are expected to launch later.
Sure. But we're talking about a phone with GrapheneOS. If I need to choose a phone with GrapheneOS, there are cheap to expensive Pixels, and it is not clear at all if there will ever be cheap Motorolas. The Signature is very expensive, just like the most expensive Pixel.
> not clear at all if there will ever be cheap Motorolas
They've indicated that support will eventually be added for midrange Motorola devices, which I believe are historically price-competitive with the a-series Pixels.
I guess it depends where you are. Here the Signature 2026 is 750 Euro, which is about the same price as a Pixel 10 Pro.
They are quite a bit more expensive than the a-series, but I'm sure that the a series will hold up for a few more years, until GrapheneOS support percolates to mid-range Motorola phones. It's even possible, given that Pixel 10a uses the Pixel 9 CPU, that Pixel 11a will use the Pixel 10 CPU, so there might even be a new budget model next year with MTE support.
It's obvious they see open access to users data as a threat to their business model. No, they haven't suddenly decided to care about your privacy, they want to deny other actors access so you need to get data directly via them. They will obviously still collect it themselves via their numerous methods (play services, chrome, ad networks etc).
Well, it depends on the application and context. I don't think a homeless person at the library is going to be booking a $1000-a-night room in downtown Los Angeles.
However, services that homeless people will be using should factor in their target audience (such as the homeless not having a phone at all, or maybe not one that's up to date even).
However, like it or not, having a modern up to date device is becoming essential for even rudimentary basic access to society. Whether that's right or wrong it's where we are.
I suppose it's now become a default assumption every customer is going to own a smart phone that complies with this requirement?
It seems on iOS you'll even need to download an application, which is quite a bit of friction.
In the current economic times, adding minutes onto the user journey is not going to result in increased sales, I suspect the data will prove the opposite.
Using a mobile device is bad enough as it is: TOTP, email, SMS codes, 3DS etc, while you can say this is part of the "flow", it's too much. I can see many abandoned journeys from this.
There are four open source period tracking apps on F-droid. I didn't do a full investigation of the source code, but unless your data is being uploaded outside the app (e.g. for backups), I feel safe assuming it will stay local only.
It sounds like the real solution to this is to be able to control permissions at an OS level for network per app, as you would be able to do if you had root access. I have no idea why regular Android distros don't allow you to do this, it seems like a really sensible thing to expose in app settings given the permissions model of Android.
If you're paying for a subscription, the company might sell your data. If you're using a commercial service for free, they are certainly selling your data.
Having said that, you're right to be suspicious of commercial services, even that you pay for. Someone can found a startup with a strong commitment to customer privacy and the best of intentions, but a few acquisitions or near bankruptcies later, those commitments will go out the window.
Relevant to this case, since they have a free version and premium one, they would probably just sell data from both sets of customers. It would be leaving money on the table otherwise, right?
The small chance that they might go out of their way to not sell premium users data doesn't seem worth much.
Less a f-u-view, more a f-u-world, the above is pragmatic advice about the actual IRL challenges of keeping data secure.
Further, a view that ignores many real world digital data risks faced by those considered to be useful targets; eg: compromised supply chains delivering "pre hacked" hardware with discreet wifi chips or hidden out of band comms, etc.
It's not like the Google Play store hasn't been known to host malicious apps, yet you are not required to wait 24 hours before you install apps from their store.
I suspect they are hoping users just give up and go to the play store instead. Google touts about "Play Protect" which scans all apps on the device, even those from unknown sources so these measures can barely be justified.
Imagine if Microsoft said you need to wait 24 hours before installing a program not from their store, which is against the entire premise of windows.
Computing, I once believed was based on an open idea that people made software and you could install it freely, yes there are bad actors, but that's why we had antivirus and other protection methods, now we're inch by inch losing those freedoms. iOS wants you to enter your date of birth now.
The future feels very uncertain, but we need to protect the little freedoms we have left, once they're gone, they're gone for good.
> Unfortunately that's a rather vanishingly small list now.
> I would not be surprised if, in a few years, these options are gone from all android devices.
I'm afraid, I agree.
> People mention GrapheneOS but that relies entirely on Google.
I really admire the developers of various AOSP distros for their tenacity, technical brilliance and empathy. But honestly, I don't see AOSP as a solution. It's a deliberately moving target that wastes their time in chasing down the shifting goal posts and hurdles. The only viable solution is to go for a fully open mobile OS, probably based on Linux or a BSD. There are two big difficulties here.
The first is as you mentioned, most devices are severely locked down and their internal details hidden behind NDAs. Getting even the basic set of drivers working is a challenge. The solution is to ask friendly vendors (like Fairphone) for support and then aggressively purse compatibility with them. I'm very much willing to restrict my purchase choices to vendors who agree to such collaborations. If this works, others will follow eventually - like what we've seen with Linux on desktops and laptops.
The second problem is the app ecosystem. It's a chicken and egg problem. You need customers for software vendors to support the platform. But you need a large software ecosystem to attract customers. At least some customers will have to forgo convenience in the beginning and put up with the limitations, in pursuit of a better future. Again, I'm willing. But I don't know if the entire community is big enough to make a difference.
Nevertheless, these are worthy goals to pursue. Once the basic framework is established, the rest of the ecosystem will progress rapidly, since the developers can focus on functionality rather than fighting the never-ending parade of capricious 'safety features'. I'm just tired of putting up with all the wanton consumer abuse by these infinitely greedy corporations.
I sincerely hope one day we can free these hardware devices from the shakles of their software and run anything that's possible.
Until such a time iOS devices are strictly off limits until at least a grapheneOS can run iOS at a minimum.
reply