My Experience with Google Support – Beware of the Pitfalls!

Pocketstar

iFixIt has good DIY tutorials and sell genuine Google components along with all the materials you might need to repair it yourself.
I recently replaced the battery in my Pixel 7 this way.
Just take your time when doing so, do not rush things, or things might break.
Not sure how this goes along with warranty though...
https://www.ifixit.com/

Onlyfun

Marken they are total scam or worse. if not graphene os i would never deal with google store.

recently tried to claim warranty, sent them a p8 with bloated and leaked battery that pushed out the screen completely so it hangs on the cable. guess what?

in 2 weeks they sent it back to me as is with no comments in the package nor via the gmail that was used.

somebody has to come up with alternative gos compatible hardware or at least should there be a way to port gos to another smartphone. every time i pickup my p8 i wish it was a different device.

de0u

Onlyfun somebody has to come up with alternative gos compatible hardware or at least should there be a way to port gos to another smartphone.

Is there any SoC maker willing to sell and license sufficiently secure chips to third-party phone builders? I think Google, Apple, and Samsung have the chips but are not selling into that market.

GrapheneOS is an AOSP fork that is focused on security and privacy. Without the security a "port" would be missing the foundation even if the result would "run OK".

Please note that I do not speak for the GrapheneOS project.

Onlyfun

de0u I dont have much clue on SoC production retail and regulation, but have a look at AphyOS https://www.apostrophy.ch they have a dedicated device i believe, I dont know who is the oem, but seems to be possible. I cant find mentioning of go on their site, only aosp, but there are claims that it's based of gos https://www.androidpolice.com/apostrophy-os-guide/.

I realize it's not free as gos, but gos doesnt provide so many services, thus it could imply a different ratesheet.

leafnose

Marken

If you buy a Pixel on Google Store, create a dedicated Google account and keep it.

Indeed, once your personal information has been shared with Google through account creation and then purchase of a device, you might as well keep the account, just in case. In my opinion, thinking that deleting a Google account equals Google’s amnesia is a leap of faith.

fph

leafnose Indeed, once your personal information has been shared with Google through account creation and then purchase of a device, you might as well keep the account, just in case. In my opinion, thinking that deleting a Google account equals Google’s amnesia is a leap of faith.

In this case they might actually be required by law to keep your personal data for a certain amount of time, exactly for reasons like device warranty. These legal requirements trump even GDPR deletion requests.

Aeon

I bought my Pixel in one of the big Electronic stores in my country so I dont have to deal with google. I get 2 years of warranty through the store and the store has to deal with google not me.

missing-root

Marken insane that they can reflash it with usb-c disabled and bootloader locked??

That also wipes all your data, how could they do something like that without asking

But yes, unless you have warranty, always replace yourself or at a local makerspace/hackerspace/fablab, or go to a local repair person that you can actually see.

The parts are not expensive, especially replacing the screen is easy as you can just rip off the old one.

raccoondad

Marken

"Google had reinstalled the stock OS, even though USB-C was disabled."
99% chance they gave you a new phone, unless the IMEI is the same.

Get your phone repaired at a local store, that is partnered w/ google.

They might of also wiped it because they needed to do repair checks that aren't apart of GOS.

" if Google has to cover the cost of repairs, be prepared to fight against their questionable policies."

Never had this issue personally, hell, they upgraded me from a 5a to a 6a I use currently

lndshrk

raccoondad I had the exact same experience where Google (long outside of the warranty) replaced a failed 5a with a new 6a.

I didn't even ask, they offered.

raccoondad

KleinesSinchen (I like your Mother PFP)

"I would also think that Google has some kind of low level flashing tool working even without OEM unlock. (Just an assumption)"

I can undo USB-C blocking and unlock the bootloader when OEM unlocking is disabled easily....

Recovery -> wipe data -> initialize device -> Enable OEM unlocking -> adb reboot bootloader && fastboot flashing unlock

Done

locked

If it wasn't that it's the only phone that can load GrapheneOS , and for the Titan M2, I certainly would not by a Pixel phone.

Marken

Sure, it was my phone with his scratchs.

And repair phone without reseller = bye waranty.

de0u

Onlyfun There are indeed SoC makers who are willing to license their chips. But my question was about makers of sufficiently secure chips (to meet the GrapheneOS project's device requirements).

About the Apostrophy phone I will refer you to previous material: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/2917-paid-os-aphyos-by-apostrophy-on-top-of-grapheneos/9

Onlyfun

de0u i appreciate clarification. I was under wrong impression their device matches the gos requirements as if they carried over the security features which is not the case as I see.

de0u makers of sufficiently secure chips (to meet the GrapheneOS project's device requirements).

Are these makers not capable or such task? or is there any other reason you're aware of?

de0u

Onlyfun Are these makers not capable [of] such task?

I am not an expert on this. But good security is hard. And paying hardware/software teams to stay together for multiple years so that it's possible to issue firmware fixes over multiple years is expensive.

If doing something right is hard and expensive, and meanwhile there are customers who are price-sensitive but don't really care if the thing is done completely right, then there will be some number of vendors who sell to the people who are focused on price rather than (for example) security.

Onlyfun

de0u there are customers who are price-sensitive but don't really care if the thing is done completely right, then there will be some number of vendors who sell to the people who are focused on price rather than (for example) security.

its not just a number of vendors, its all vendors except for google who's business is based on ideas opposite to privacy of user's data.
i cant think of anything that encouraged google to go the hard and expensive way with the pixel devices, while still not charging top dollar. its like shooting their foot.

de0u

Onlyfun its not just a number of vendors, its all vendors except for google who's business is based on ideas opposite to privacy of user's data.

I think Apple hardware security is pretty good. And I have a sense that Samsung's is reasonable. But to get an Apple chip you must buy into their software ecosystem. And I have read that Samsung disables some security features when a custom OS is installed (source).