• GeneralSolved

  • Is it clever that Graphene runs exclusively on Google phones??

I have checked Graphene in the past month a couple of times, but have decided for another security option.

Nontheless I might change my mind in the future.. but there is an elephant in the room nobody talks about.

Is it clever to develop an anti google system ONLY on google phones??
Of course I have seen all the information why only Pixel is supported.. but lets presume google would discontinue the Pixel Phones or make some significant hardware changes..
would it mean that the whole Graphene project would be dead instantly?

Is it a clever policy to depend on exactly that company that stands for mass surveilance and data abuse?
I could not find any answer to this on the graphene homepage.

Thanks for your opinion on that question.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #2

    Knox Of course I have seen all the information why only Pixel is supported

    If you've seen it, then you're answering your own question.

    • Knox replied to this.

        [deleted]

        Well..I have seen the explanation why this way was choosen.. But that still does not answer the question if this way is a wise way to choose..
        The fact I ask this question indicates some doubts... obviously..

          This is the information I found, there is no other phone on the whole market that supports verified boot??

          Many other devices are supported by GrapheneOS at a source level, and it can be built for them without modifications to the existing GrapheneOS source tree. Device support repositories for the Android Open Source Project can simply be dropped into the source tree, with at most minor modifications within them to support GrapheneOS. In most cases, substantial work beyond that will be needed to bring the support up to the same standards. For most devices, the hardware and firmware will prevent providing a reasonably secure device, regardless of the work put into device support.

          Knox you are starting with a false premise that grapheneos is anti Google, it is not!

            Knox Lets presume google would discontinue the Pixel Phones or make some significant hardware changes.. would it mean that the whole Graphene project would be dead instantly?

            If Google stopped issuing new Pixels, or stopped issuing Pixels usable by GrapheneOS, at that moment there would be a huge supply of devices which would still have years of support remaining. Since it would take only months for the developers to identify the next-best platform and port to it, "dead instantly" seems unlikely.

            • nrt likes this.

              Knox any device has the same potential issue of being discontinued. Sure having more then one option is good but it has its down sides too.

                Just found this statement here, that answers my question:

                Many people confuse the issue of Google having the most widely adopted services with tons of data given to them by websites, apps and individuals/companies/organizations with them being uniquely bad beyond their scale. They're known for making secure products / services and having a lot of services which are supported by serving ads personalized based on the user data that's provided / collected. That doesn't make Pixels somehow worse than other phones, and in fact they have far better security than any other Android phones, and they don't somehow have worse privacy than another phone including the standard privileged Google Play services. GrapheneOS would not be more private on a non-Pixel phone, but it would be significantly less secure and in fact less private on devices without comparable Wi-Fi anonymity.

                You know the reasons why GraphenOS is only written for Pixels, and you still think they should write it for other phones, and you question their judgement.

                I’m not sure what to tell you.

                • [deleted]

                • Post #10
                • Edited

                I find it funny to see these "what if" questions everywhere. So reminiscent of the silly "TOP [insert integer] [insert noun]" format...

                What if CME hits Earth tomorrow? Or think about how useful an ICE car would be without very narrowly specified type of fuel to put in its tank. ("Well, if the oil companies stop producing/refining petrol, ALL of these ICEs become instantly dead!")

                The project doesn't have unlimited resources, but a very specific set of goals and it is clear they considered nothing but the best. It escapes me why one would want to have a second tier device(s) included, likely compromising the sec model in 2 different ways: by diluting resources and increasing attack surface. For what?

                It's like complaining that your house only can be accessed with one type of a key. ("How ironic is it, that if I lose my key, I will be s*** out of luck trying to get inside, because the lock manufacturers only decided to offer one type of a key! We must expand options to find a second rate substitute to open my door. Perhaps a plastic version from Huawei available at the local convenience and neighbors' woud help me get inside! One key type per lock is a giant elephant problem no one is willing to discuss!").

                There are so many paralells. How about medical field? Say for an operation. You have to pick one doctor/team. Who in their right mind would want anything but the best-bar-none? GOS on a Pixel is that.

                I fail to see any logic in OP.

                In regards to going to other ROMs... I've wasted some time with two others before GOS. I didn't realize it then, but now it is very clear to me GOS eats them both for breakfast in several fundumentally important ways. Perhaps you'll realize that at aome point as well.

                Either way this isn't meant to be disparaging...
                Just void of sensibility to my way of seeing things.
                Good luck on your journey.

                SpeakYourMind This kind of political commentary, especially that includes vast degree of speculation, and which borders on conspiracy theory, is not welcome on this Forum. Please do not do that here.

                • N1b likes this.

                  The question in OP seems to have been answered by OP themselves. There's not much else to be said, so I'll be locking the thread because it just seems to be getting into people's personal opinions at this point and getting off track.

                  That said, just to clarify something:

                  It's not really GrapheneOS not supporting other devices, but rather other devices not meeting GrapheneOS' standards. GrapheneOS, as a privacy and security focused OS, is going to target the devices that meet its security requirements. Today, that is Google Pixels. Tomorrow, it could be Google Pixels and something else which meets the project's requirements, or hell, it might just be other devices, and not Pixels anymore.

                  All of that depends on other OEMs doing things right, not cutting corners, or in cases where they do things right, not locking out third-party OSes, or destroying much of the security they provide the moment you try to flash something else (one such example of this is Samsung).