eSIM vs New Dual SIM Devices GrapheneOS Support

Cyber-Typhoon

I started looking for some options of Custom ROM for a new device since I'm more conscious about privacy now.

GrapheneOS is highly regarded for its privacy features, but it only supports Pixel devices. I have a few problems with this, and I'm looking for some input or thoughts.

Buying a device from a company I don't want to support:

The main thing about privacy on Android is the de-Google thing. I don't want to give my money to Google to get rid of them.

Why should I trust a hardware like Pixel with their own chipset (Tensor)?

We've learned that Intel has been spying on us with its ME hardware. Could the same thing be happening with Google? I read on Graphene's website that they chose Google Pixel because of the long-term hardware support, but would that alone justify the previous two points? Why not try, for example, Motorola? I don't work for Motorola or support them, but as far as I know, they use Qualcomm chipsets and are not an advertising company that sells our data. I bought a Motorola Edge 30 Fusion this week and returned it because custom ROMs don't support it.

eSIM vs Dual SIM

This is my last point to address. eSIM seems to be very questionable in terms of privacy, I understand. So, how do we solve this? People travel and/or need to use two lines on their phones. We could use dual SIM, but again, GrapheneOS only supports Pixel phones, which don't have dual SIM. Any suggestions on what to do in this case?

Thanks

[deleted]

Cyber-Typhoon The main thing about privacy on Android is the de-Google thing.

No, Meta and other companies also collect your data.

I don't want to give my money to Google to get rid of them.

GrapheneOS is about security and privacy. It is not about moving away from everything Google.

Cyber-Typhoon Could the same thing be happening with Google?

It can happen, but unlikely. Pixel's drivers are also 100% open-source.

Cyber-Typhoon eSIM seems to be very questionable in terms of privacy,

Yes, on Android and AOSP-based OSes you need to give your IMEI to Google to add an eSIM. GrapheneOS is planning on making a portable open source alternative though in the Long term.

spring-onion

Hello! Google devices are chosen because of their excellent, proper long term support for their soft- and hardware. That includes timely updates to new patch levels, firmware, etc. The devices contain key hardware that is crucial to providing a secure experience. Google is the only OEM to feature all of this and proper support for 3rd party operating systems without crippling them one way or another, or being downright hostile (looking at you, Samsung).

I won't go into the debate of purchasing hardware from Google out of all companies, that's been discussed numerous times before here on the forum and in the matrix chat. Fact is GrapheneOS settles only for the best, and other OEMs don't provide that because they cut corners. And if you are looking for the best, this is your only option.

Cyber-Typhoon

spring-onion

Hi -

Thank you for your input. Respectfullly, I guess it didn't really answered any of my questions.

Let's say that we ignore the first two observations (if you want to chime in again maybe provide a problem of using Motorola). What should I do if I want to use two lines in a phone and use GrapheneOS?

Skyway

Cyber-Typhoon there is the option to use VoIP with a physical sim

Cyber-Typhoon

Skyway I guess what you are saying could work domestically but internationally I would have to remove the current physical SIM and change to another one temporarily, not very convenient but do-able. This is kind of the hassle with the single SIM phone that I'm raising. I bet someone already asked this before, sorry if I'm repeating someone's question. I'm trying to understand what are the givens on transitioning to Graphene, which only supports Google devices.

itsjpb

Cyber-Typhoon

plenty of people have asked these questions and you would be best off to search the forum for more thorough answers. irregardless here are brief answers from my non-expert perspective.

1: the developers chose pixels because they provide a combination of features providing a level of security that is not available in any other hardware. in addition, google making the phone and android comes with benefits. a few of pixel's perks:

its design as the benchmark AOSP development device means hardware and software are more transparent than most other major manufacturers and allows getting closer to a "vanilla" build. this is what i know the least about
it is among the most friendly devices for custom roms(again cause google) as you noted, many manufacturers like motorola don't let you install custom roms on current devices
it gets the fastest security updates and patches, allowing the graphene team to push them to us far faster than any other device. this especially applies to most devices supported by other custom roms, which are generally near or at the end of their support cycles.
titan m2 security chip. i don't think there's anything close on the market. maybe the granny smith company but lol.
this is far from a comprehensive list. literally top of my head. it may also include errors that someone more knowledgeable can correct.

graphene is not here to ease your conscience, it's here for your privacy and security. in the end it may be a handshake with the devil, but it's one to buy back your soul. if you can't stomach that it's your prerogative, but the tradeoff is that you will not find the same level of security and privacy in another mobile device. we all end up buying from companies less ethical than google anyway, in my opinion it is not worth wringing your hands over.

2: this is true for quite literally all closed source hardware and speculation is a waste of time. why would you think motorola, for example, is above it? i believe all their phones ship with bloatware, some of which almost certainly sells your data. why would they be more above spying hardware than google if it benefits them? the speculation game gets us nowhere, we have to act on the information we have.

3: to provide the level of security it does, graphene os requires some sacrifices. one of which is no dual physical sim cards.

there is no perfect solution. if you want what graphene provides, you have to accept a few things you may not love. but going with another option requires accepting just as many (likely more) such anti-features. in the end its about what you value most, which only you can decide. i wish you the best in that decision-making.

Cyber-Typhoon

itsjpb

"plenty of people have asked these questions and you would be best off to search the forum for more thorough answers."

Ok, I'm getting the "do your research" answer. Expected, but I have to point that it really sounds defensive and lacking a bit of criticism even if you have to reapeat a resoanble explanation previously provided. Let me add to it in the sequence.

"The developers chose pixels because they provide a combination of features providing a level of security that is not available in any other hardware."

Don't you ask yourself at any given moment which security combination aspects are those that are not present on the likes of Motorola and more important why it can't be reproduced in another device? Also, what makes you exempt criticism to the hardware? Do you have access to Tensor coding and trust it? I'd at least gives it a little the benefit of the doubt coming from a company which the biggest revenue comes from ads. I thought the idea of a discussion in a forum was to debate and enhance things not follow it like a blind cult. I know for sure that improvements comes from addressing weak links not avoiding them.

"its design as the benchmark AOSP development device means hardware and software are more transparent than most other major manufacturers and allows getting closer to a "vanilla" build."

Are you sure about this?

"it is among the most friendly devices for custom roms(again cause google) as you noted, many manufacturers like motorola don't let you install custom roms on current models"

Motorola devices bought from their website unlocked, like Google, allows you to install custom roms.

"it gets the fastest security updates and patches."
That is true.

"it may also include errors that someone more knowledgeable can correct."

Looking forward to that.

"graphene is not here to ease your conscience"

I'm sorry, this sound too condescending to me. It is like saying: we can't be better than what we are now

Really?

"why would you think motorola, for example, is above it?"

At least they are not the ones right now pushing the apps most used that spy on us such as Gmail, Maps, Play Store, Home, etc...
I'm not saying that we should change, I'm saying that we should have options. Do you see the difference? I don't care for Motorola, it can be any other.

"to provide the level of security it does, graphene os requires some sacrifices. one of which is no dual physical sim cards."

Once more, I think the reasoning here is, things are working why should we change. When it should be, well, this could be better.

There is this work from someone in Git about some way to manage eSIM, not ideal but looks creative and could be a starting point maybe.

I think this is my take. I feel that there is room for improvement and will always have because things are always changing. Unless someone can point me some place to read that enlight me a little bit more and sorry if I sounded rude or stubborn. I just would like more content to learn.
I just want to remember that certain things can be asked a million times and still get the wrong answer.

Panda-na

Cyber-Typhoon Also, what makes you exempt criticism to the hardware? Do you have access to Tensor coding and trust it? I'd at least gives it a little the benefit of the doubt coming from a company which the biggest revenue comes from ads. I thought the idea of a discussion in a forum was to debate and enhance things not follow it like a blind cult.

Sorry, but this is not how Google operates, because it does not need to. All their revenue from ads comes from open data in their apps and platforms and anyone using it. And everything happens in the open, they don't need to build sofisticated chips to target the data of individuals. Most people gives their data to Google willingly.

Also, regarding the point that you don't want to buy a pixel, becuase you don't want to give money to Google. Then just buy a used or refurbished Pixel, problem solved. If the person that you bought it from goes out and buys a new Pixel phone, then that it not on you.

Cyber-Typhoon

Apologizes, reading it again I see many grammar and syntax mistakes. I think my general idea was passed concisely.

I may sounded trusting more other chipset than Tensor. That is not the idea. I also present sceptism towards Qualcomm Snapdragon. Again, would be good to have options, specially reading some articles that are praising strongly this new generations of phones from Motorola. Like this one https://www.androidpolice.com/motorola-moto-edge-2023-review/

I guess if we don't purchase devices from other manufactures competition will struggle and the last thing that we want is monopoly from a big corporation.

If we have to make GrapheneOS better to use it in other devices, let's make it.

itsjpb

Cyber-Typhoon

i appreciate this second reply. i was struggling with a coherent reply to the first but this helps me better focus. i think i better understand your concern now.

first, sorry. it was not my intent to be rude, condescending or combative but see some of it came out that way. my neurodivergence sometimes makes my words seem more abrasive than i realize. i'll work to do better here.

i also dislike google very much and did not want to buy a pixel. spent a couple years fiddling with custom roms to avoid it. honestly don't love the device (camera blows imo)

however the primary focus of graphene is security. ignore the attached company for a second - the pixel has security features that are unique and industry leading, most notable is probably the dedicated security chip though there are others. graphene utilizes these to build the more secure os. the developers are open to new devices that allow implementing the same level of security, but as of now none are on the market. take the phone you posted for example. lovely device, great specs. but nowhere does the article mention security because motorola isn't trying for security. good won't cut it.

i like what you said about wanting the project to improve. i agree and appreciate that's what's behind the questions. unfortunately as far as hardware is concerned that is pretty much dependent on manufacturers. right now a graphene build on any other available device would require significant decline in security, defeating the main purpose of the software. until another company decides to take on security we are stuck with pixels.

itsjpb

Panda-na

this is a good point re: tensor. why put so much work into a backdoor when the average user loves giving data to them for free.

Cyber-Typhoon

itsjpb

We are good, thank you for your inputs.

"pixel has security features that are unique and industry leading" -- I think this is probably true and undisputable.
They have the Thinkphone which they market as a phone for security but not sure that they will keep up with security updates at the same pace reliably as Google:
https://www.motorola.com/us/smartphones-thinkphone/p?gclid=CjwKCAjw5_GmBhBIEiwA5QSMxIH-OReZcPfgUei2_Nbqn0QJxYhDdFSx37BWCik9_wGnqswbN2WdrBoC6ikQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&skuId=869

"the developers are open to new devices that allow implementing the same level of security" -- this is what I'm not so sure. I think even if we have a phone that is close to the same level of security that Google is delivering we would still face the hard reality of limited development resources and community interest (this second one is towards the conformism that we all adopted to accept Google as the only device available).

Once more thank you for sharing your thoughts

Cyber-Typhoon

[deleted] No, Meta and other companies also collect your data.

I didn't say that there aren't other companies that collect your data. I said that the main problem with Android is the de-Google. It is a bit different. Do you have Facebook?

[deleted] GrapheneOS is about security and privacy. It is not about moving away from everything Google.

What kind of message a project that is about security and privcacy sends when they choose the worst possible company product?

[deleted] It can happen, but unlikely. Pixel's drivers are also 100% open-source.

No, the Pixel 7 drivers are not 100% open source. Google only releases the kernel and some of the other core drivers for the Pixel 7. The rest of the drivers are closed source.

[deleted] Yes, on Android and AOSP-based OSes you need to give your IMEI to Google to add an eSIM. GrapheneOS is planning on making a portable open source alternative though in the Long term.

In the meantime we have to stick with the project decision to stay with Google's devices insted another one that could be Dual-SIM and people come here to support that decision whitout questioning it.

[deleted]

Cyber-Typhoon I said that the main problem with Android is the de-Google.

The OEMs are more of a problem than Google as they can backdoor the hardware directly

Cyber-Typhoon Do you have Facebook?

Well, No.

Cyber-Typhoon What kind of message a project that is about security and privcacy sends when they choose the worst possible company product?

How is it worse? Google Pixels are currently the most secure devices available for GrapheneOS (iPhones don't support securely booting third-party operating systems I think)

GrapheneOS has to offer something instead of relying on speculations that Google's hardware is somehow backdoored or something.

Cyber-Typhoon In the meantime we have to stick with the project decision to stay with Google's devices insted another one that could be Dual-SIM and people come here to support that decision whitout questioning it.

The thing is that, just because you need to give your IMEI to Google voluntarily doesn't mean that Other devices are somehow more secure.

Cyber-Typhoon No, the Pixel 7 drivers are not 100% open source. Google only releases the kernel and some of the other core drivers for the Pixel 7. The rest of the drivers are closed source.

Thanks for informing me.