I think that kill switch could be a nice differentiator. It might be useful for some people or it might not. I’d love to get one.
2 Likes
It sounds like Google will want to continue supporting Pixels if permitted going forward. Good news for the P11 series, which will be released later this year.
2 Likes
First of all. I said wait until. This means that this may likely happen in the future as I see it. Not now.
Second, I didn’t even say China so not sure why you thought that.
2 Likes
Before very recently this wasn’t the case. They had a few devices with a 4/5 year support commitment and were generally worse or in line with than larger OEMs from East Asia on this front Phone update policies from every major company - Android Authority.
I am very surprised they have committed to 7 years of updates, but I suspect that is more to do with Qualcomm finally deciding to support their flagship platforms for up to 8 depending Want 8 years of updates on your flagship phone? Qualcomm is making it possible (Update: Confirmed).
3 Likes
The GrapheneOS developers were working with those from Motorola to improve the OS support for their devices.
2 Likes
Why? Considering the United States’ privileged access to big tech, history of utilizing backdoors, and suspicious incidents which indicate potential of widespread backdoors across popular computers (such as iPhones), I’d say they’re roughly equal evils in that regard.
I’m also unaware of any phone which doesn’t manufacture any critical components in China where it may be possible for China to sneak in some obscured hardware backdoor. 
7 Likes
Liberty Phone:
See also:
Related:
1 Like
Ah I was aware of the Liberty Phone but unfortunately it’s a terrible option if you care about security. At a baseline of $2000 USD before tax, we get:
- Extremely poor security
- Unreliable product & refund fulfillment
- A Chinese modem (by default)
- A phone manufactured within yet another surveillance state known for implementing backdoors
2 Likes
All very valid points, even if simplified, and mobile Linux is still heavily in development, although my experience with the Librem 5 USA was just fine for multiple years.
1 Like
I see Linux phone’s as in early alpha state it’s pretty must only enthusiasts that uses them and is clearly not ready for mass adoption.
I don’t get why people expect Linux phone’s much be ultra secure and private at this early state they’re barely usable for day to day basis. Give them time to developing it before dismissing it altogether they don’t have a trillion dollar company backing and is late to the phone OS game. I have no idea if they ever become usable but I’m glad they are trying to make a alternative.
If Google keep going down round of less user freedom, forced ID verification, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if Linux would become our only option for a private phone in the future.
1 Like
Mobile Linux already exists, and it’s called AOSP. There is no serious effort to develop another Linux-based mobile OS, much less one that can even approach iOS or Android in terms of security and usability. It makes absolutely zero sense to attempt to build a new mobile OS on the Linux kernel today.
2 Likes
The problem here is no one can truly take over AOSP with a fork because AOSP has over 2 million lines of code.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Google finds a way to kill custom ROM’s altogether in the future. I mean just look at how Google fucked over third party app store and app developer and 3 mouth security updates delay? We was just lucky that GrapheneOS was in talks with a OEM, so they could get early access to security updates.
3 Likes
I generally agree.
I do not agree with this statement though, simply because competition creates more options for consumers/end-users.
Yes, I migrated to a Google Pixel 8 Pro on GrapheneOS fully aware of this development, and assuming that this leak is genuine, correctly predicted Motorola as the OEM partner.
3 Likes
What if the reason is to still do it.. just cause. To try and see if a new mobile OS independent of big tech can be viably made and used on existing hardware.
To claim seemingly authoritatively that it makes no sense whatsoever is bit much. No one here is an authority on what should or should be one way or the other.
2 Likes
Mobile Linux already exists, but adoption will take some time, similar to Linux in general. I suspect the GrapheneOS-infused Motorola device(s) will also have adoption issues if targeted within the premium market segment.
1 Like
I’m not opposed to more competition, but Google has already spent two decades doing the work of making a reasonably secure and usable mobile OS with the Linux kernel. If you are going to start from scratch, you might as well adopt a modern microkernel. Otherwise, what is the benefit of re-inventing the wheel rather than forking AOSP?
See above.
3 Likes
I think GOS will remain niche for the foreseeable future. The general public, at least in the US, will likely continue to buy iPhones. Maybe Motorola and GOS could make inroads in the enterprise segment.
1 Like
If I understand it correctly, is that AOSP remaining open is at Google’s whims. They can at any time do anything to it and even close source it or just make it source available or change the license on which it operates that risks AOSP dependent projects like GOS and any others.
Hence the benefit is to be independent of whims of a big tech giant.
1 Like
Yes, they can stop open-sourcing their updates, but they can’t just close-source the existing codebase. There is no reason to believe Google would do that, though, and they have essentially nothing to gain from such a move.
3 Likes
I agree, but I can still provide an answer to your question:
In other words, digital sovereignty.
Yes, Canada is also similar and generally favours iOS over Android.
Correct, but the tradeoff is significantly slower development in comparison due to lack of resources.
1 Like