zlacker

>>pabs3+(OP)
I use grapheneOS, it's the reason I bought a pixel but not for nefarious reasons but rather I don't like how much control Google has (it's ironic I had to buy a google phone) on android phones even from other manufacturers and the targeted marketing and information that I would be giving out. I also don't like that Android implimented the feature where you couldn't access the Android>Data folder for 'security reasons' and have to plug it into a computer to access any of those sub folders, it's my phone let me do what I want with it. Graphene lets me access any of those folders without issue

>>MurkyL+9e
the fact that they refuse to consider other phones ie fairphone or nothing phones that have the bootloader relockable is the reason that i do not use graphene.

it seems like a great os but i am not giving google money to get away from google.

>>nicman+Xi
Oh, I forgot to add and can't edit my comment, so: they are talking with another OEM about the potential alternative hardware for the future GOS.

I hope it's something good. But in reality it's probably Samsung which is the only other vendor bothered enough to add a basic secure element. Maybe they will upgrade it?

>>subscr+2Q
I hope it's something good. But in reality it's probably Samsung which is the only other vendor bothered enough to add a basic secure element. Maybe they will upgrade it?

I think it is unlikely that Samsung is interested in the relatively small market that GrapheneOS still is. I mean, if they cared, they would allow you to unlock the bootloader without blowing the Knox eFuse.

As far as I understand the next-generation Qualcomm CPU will have the required security CPU security features. There separate secure elements on the market, everyone outside Google/Apple/Samsung is either penny pinching or doesn't care about security. But it's perfectly possible to develop a phone with a secure element if you want to. So there is probably a smaller phone manufacturer that is willing to make a design with a secure element.