Please include a headphone jack, sd card, removable battery in ur oem phone

de0u

SirWolf I think the picture isn't so one-sided, and most brands who want to maximize profit, don't just create one model, they create more to cater for continent-specific tendencies.

At present most phone chips don't support strong hardware security. GrapheneOS won't run on phones that don't. To whatever extent Motorola might wish to offer mid-range or low-budget phones, for the near term it seems unlikely that they will make expensive mid-range or low-budget phones by building flagship processors into them.

SirWolf I hope that eventually Motorola will realize this for Graphene users.

Perhaps eventually some low-end phone chips will include strong hardware security? So far, though, companies looking to save money on phones leave features out of the chips, and also save money by not fixing security-related firmware bugs.

Strong security costs actual money. In theory it would be possible to build a "security-first" phone with an expensive SoC and good firmware support, and make it affordable by using an awful screen, poor cameras, and a tiny battery. It's unclear enough people would buy it to make it worth making.

The most plausible way to offer good security without wrecking a phone's price or features would be to start with an expensive phone and make it a little bit more expensive. That appears to be Motorola's strategy.

If someday 20% of phone buyers firmly want to buy phones with strong security and awful screens, cameras, and battery life, some company may well sell them.

router99

The hostility to these requests is disturbing.
Tell me exactly how good it is to not be able to remove your phone's battery.

userofgos

router99 The hostility to these requests is disturbing.

There is no "hostility" towards these requests. How exactly is informing those making these requests, that the GrapheneOS project is not in a position to demand these features, considered hostility?

subwoofer

It can be made cheaper and lighter with a non removal battery.
And when you drop it it doesn't split into three pieces

de0u

router99 The hostility to these requests is disturbing.
Tell me exactly how good it is to not be able to remove your phone's battery.

Until December of 2022 I had a phone with a removable battery. I liked that. I would even pay extra for that as a feature. Personally, I am absolutely not hostile to removable batteries.

Meanwhile, I am very confident that the likelihood that Motorola will ship a GrapheneOS partnership device in the next year with a removable battery is 0%. They might ship some device with a removable battery, but a GrapheneOS partnership device will need to be a flagship device to get a CPU with strong hardware security, and I am fairly confident that Motorola will not ship a flagship device with a removable battery in the next year.

Maybe the subsequent generation? Maybe! But I honestly don't expect any company to sell a device with strong hardware security (meaning an expensive SoC), plus long-term firmware support, and a removable battery, inside of five years. I may not like that, but I'm pretty sure that lobbying the GrapheneOS developers will not bring about that scenario.

lilluidicris

router99

More weight, more cost, lower durability, lower battery capacity, complete loss of battery heat management, reduced availability of water resistance/water resistance if offered, doesn't last very long.

Yes, I have owned more than one water resistant phone with removable batteries. No, not a single one of them stayed water resistant for longer than a year to year and a half.

And the feature is pointless. at 551 cycles my 9 pro XL is at 92% battery capacity in 2 years. In another 2 years this thing is going to be totally unusably slow

Johnnyloans

lilluidicris No they are not valid requirements. Its like saying there is still a valid requirement for dvi support. childish emotions are not requirements.

Dvi-I doesn't really have anywhere to plug in. That isn't a fair comparison to a headphone jack or replaceable battery. These clearly have its benefits, I could ask a 6 year old to name a few.

Everything in the world has its downsides and harms. E.g. saving the life of a cute cat on the road is less food for another animal. Etc etc

lilluidicris the people that want it deserve to be shamed.

I would say getting so worked up over someone saying "headphone jacks are pretty cool, Motorola or Google should add these guys!"
would fall under:

lilluidicris childish emotions

Go touch grass dude. Your attitude is not welcome here. Stop projecting your life onto random people you've never met. You've been gone ~2 years to come back with an urge to attack people?

router99 The hostility

I agree

Disclaimer since it is required:
I never said any phone feature is clearly a winner.

Shaolin

de0u people with low budget with security focus in mind would probably accept lower quality screen camera etc...

There is a tons of example but let's use the journalist one. He has a normal day to day phone and use graphenOS for specific data and communication he probably don't care about 4k 350Millions X zoom.

And how many people kept dumb phone to keep privacy instead of smart phone over ease of use.

So I'm sure having one cheap model that focus on privacy for low budget user could be a way to keep a sharing in low budget phones market. It doesn't mean it will be the best seller but at least your offering the option and it bring more revenue for your yearly model than just not offering it.

If it was me . i would try offering it. If its bring the money that justify keeping it then fine. If not then just adjust.

userofgos

Shaolin And how many people kept dumb phone to keep privacy instead of smart phone over ease of use.

It's unfortunate people fall for the illusion of dumb phones. Dumb phones are anything but private: https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/search?f=tweets&q=Dumb+phone

Carrier-based calls and texts are highly insecure and non-private. Those should be avoided. A smartphone can be used solely for private calls/texts not possible on a dumb phone.

A dumb phone fully dependent on being connected to cellular with no support for private calls/texts is the opposite of a privacy improvement.

Carrier-based calls and texts are not private or secure. Unlike a smartphone, a dumb phone can't be used for secure communications. Being connected to cellular means you have identified with a subscription to it and it knows where you are.

de0u

Shaolin people with low budget with security focus in mind would probably accept lower quality screen camera etc...

That seems plausible! If enough people want a phone with some feature set, there is a good chance somebody will ship such a phone. Companies are launching special-purpose phones all the time: ruggedized phones, e-ink phones, and so on.

Perhaps there is an unmet market need for a "security nerd" phone with a flagship processor (which, at present, is the only way to get strong hardware security), plus (as suggested by the original poster random1112) a headphone jack, a microSD slot, and a removable battery. I honestly don't know. But it seems vastly unlikely that Motorola will offer such a device for GrapheneOS to run on in the next year, and honestly I would be very surprised if they offered such a device in the next three years.

Shaolin If it was me . i would try offering it. If its bring the money that justify keeping it then fine. If not then just adjust.

A quick search suggests that there at least four e-ink phones on the market now:

Bigme HiBreak
Hisense A9
Mudita Kompakt
Light Phone II

So people are trying novel phone designs, and you can too! I don't know the economics of smartphone startups, but I can imagine USD$20,000,000 of seed funding might be enough to kick off a "security nerd phone" company. So far Motorola's marketing people apparently don't think such an effort would be profitable, but they might be wrong.

I don't speak for the GrapheneOS project, but I expect that if a company making a "security nerd phone" with the necessary characteristics (strong hardware security, relockable bootloader, and at least five years of timely firmware patches) then the project would seriously consider issuing GrapheneOS on such a device.

Meanwhile, it's possible that if a Motorola device running GrapheneOS receives large amounts of positive press coverage, and the devices fly off the shelves (despite probably not being cheap), and the partnership seems like a huge success, Motorola might look to broaden that success to other price points. The soonest I can imagine a scenario like that playing out would be two years.

Carrousel7956

de0u despite probably not being cheap

This is the thing I don't see people talking about. They're gonna be more expensive than pixels, at least MSRP.

https://www.motorola.com/gb/en/p/phones/motorola-signature/signature/pmipmje43mf?pn=PBAB0050GB

de0u

Carrousel7956 This is the thing I don't see people talking about. They're gonna be more expensive than pixels, at least MSRP.

I expect that the GrapheneOS project believes that it's proper for Motorola to choose when to disclose which product parameters, such as features, prices, and availability dates, so I don't think there will be any way to know until it happens.

Personally I suspect the first round of Motorola devices supporting GrapheneOS will be expensive. And, with respect to the original poster's requested features, I am pretty confident that the probability of a headphone jack, microSD slot, or removable battery is 0%.

I'm also very skeptical that Motorola (or anybody else) will, within the next two years, offer a GrapheneOS-appropriate device with those features. That's not because I am "hostile" toward those features. The key problem is that at present solid security is expensive, and so far devices with easily-replaceable hardware sell very few units without paying the "security tax". I suspect that large-volume manufacturers believe that a device with strong hardware security, prompt and long-term firmware support, a headphone jack, a microSD slot, and a removable battery would lose money. Maybe they're wrong; maybe somebody will invest $20M or so and prove that they're wrong... but personally I'm not holding my breath.

y8zr7e

Graphene OS sort of competes with Apple as they advertise privacy and security too. Apple offers thin, sleek devices and this is likely what we will get as this product will probably target the luxury device market. I personally prefer these features but do not believe we will get them in the first officially supported device.

« Previous Page