Is there a reason why Google can’t just re-publish the device trees, driver binaries etc. on a separate Google controlled site from the AOSP repository?
The current speculated reason is that Google want to retain control of the Pixel line of Android phones in the event that they are divested of AOSP. So they have made Cuttlefish the ‘official’ reference device now instead. Are they worried that continuing to provide that support for the Pixel phones would harm Cuttlefish in terms of adoption?
An OEM capable of providing all of our requirements in 2026 is talking to us and beginning early work on GrapheneOS support. We can’t say more about it than that. They’re very capable of making a high quality and widely available device. They seem to get that there’s substantial interest in a truly highly private and secure smartphone. A lot of companies are driven off by all the products in the space supposedly providing it regardless of substance.
Don’t get too excited either, I want want nobody to be disappointed later haha
Oh man, a Fairphone with Graphene would be a dream!
If you scroll to the post directly above, you can see Graphene’s opinion on this subject
Their devices don’t meet our security requirements. Fairphone 6 is not going to meet them. Other OEMs are talking to us and have more interest in providing high privacy and security devices.
/e/OS does not keep up with crucial privacy/security patches or keep important privacy/security features intact. It’s extraordinarily insecure and non-private, contrary to the marketing. Fairphone is partnered with them and shares responsibility for all of this.
I recognize Fairphone isn’t the right OEM now but a dedicated GrapheneOS phone from them or an edition that the GrapheneOS group could sell would be awesome. I just really want a repairable phone and it seems like the kind of thing the privacy community would get behind too.
Framework has said they’re not planning a phone so it seems like our best option is Fairphone. 
It’d be interesting to know the financials of GrapheneOS. I’m shocked they think they can survive this and dictate terms with an OEM. Sure the userbase may be rabid but are they really sitting on that big of a pile of cash that they can keep it running? I donated maybe $200 and maybe the rest of you did too, but I don’t see how they can keep going with $600 and a team that’s getting conscripted to the army or whatever is going on over there. There must be some whale out there pumping them with XMR.
Vitalik Buterin and Jack Dorsey gave them great amounts of noney and some people make big donations anonimously.
Thry said on Mastodon they have “a couple millions” dollars.
They said a good part of it comes from the valuation of cryptos they received.
Oh damn, I misunderstood the post. Maybe someday…
I bet its Samsung.
But I have a feeling we will be getting the ass binned Exynos that failed to meet their flagship Galaxy phone standards. I don’t mind. I just want a decent phone with excellent security and privacy.
I’m OK with not having the best camera in phone as well. This can be fixed by having a dedicated point and shoot camera.
there’s no such thing as “ass binned Exynos”, false.
The rest good point
I wouldn’t bet on Samsung but I would be pleasantly surprised if so.
https://xdaforums.com/t/your-exynos-chip-binning.3596434/
You can get a very bad chip as kind of a real life RNG.
This also happens in computer CPU chips. Good bins can do higher clock frequencies and are more efficient. There even was a market once for good CPUs that overclock well until both Intel and AMD pushed the limit of the chips and bins them according to performance where good bins go to their highest end and the lowest end buns go to their base models.
Silicon Lottery != Binned CPUs (see example below of binned cpus) and yes the majority will not care, only overclockers care about this kind of thing.
Granted yes Exynos still doesn’t catch up to something like Qualcomm but this is not something as bad as you think it is, it’s just samsung being unable to catch up. and SoC do not have this kind of problem generally.
No it does not happen to any Computer CPU, and binned ones would be in a different name (see 5600X3D(/5500X3D), 7600X3D for example, those are binned 5800X3D(/5700X3D) and 7800X3D respectively but they’re not misleading the consumer here as it is properly named). Also see i9 14900KS, Basically best silicon 14900K but guranteed
I was merely speculating, with regards to binning/silicon lottery.
I am thinking so because if it going to be a Samsung phone, no way will they let their prime/good chips go to us - they would rather have them be sold as top of the line Galaxies.
I have a feeling that will not be getting a first class experience like we are having with Pixel devices should Samsung allow us to open their ecosystem for a specific security phone.
Honestly I’d wish for something like Blackberry because I kind of want a QWERTY phone. But RIM/Blackberry Limited is not the kind of company I want for any phone given their track record.
very fair
it could very well be like: At best we get last year exynos like 2400 or 2200 at worst we’ll just get the exynos 1000 series
Does Samsung manufacturering phones for other bands?
It could also be a Nokia HMD smartphone to strengthen their brand with easy to fix smartphones, but not top notch.
what I said, wouldn’t be betting on any brand/OEM
I would be very surprised if it’s Samsung but if it’s HMD instead, and they have like a HMD Fusion GOS edition or something. Then literally take my money I don’t care about saving anymore. (Considering HMD’s repairability of their phones)
I would be happy if that’s the case but I doubt. They were using Unisoc chips in many of their models (but SD 7s2 in Skyline), provide only 2 years of update, it’s hard to find spare parts for Fusion and Skyline, no custom ROMs since 2018, so it would be a big change.
still not betting on anything as it, ironically, can be anyone anything so I would just wait, I’m just saying if they so happen to be in some cases. In other words speculative.
I said Samsung because GOS team evaluated it and said that is was the next best thing if only the secure element was kept functioning even after the bootloader was unlocked.
@null AFAIK, no. But the parent company itself is not above that because Samsung also sells LCD/LED panels to other companies.