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
Do you have a source for this?

>>umbra0+oU
Samsung devices have basically everything except hardware memory tagging, afair (which is allegedly being added now?), and it looks like it's possible to both OEM unlock and relock the bootloader?

Also looks like they improved security even further, hopefully exceeding Pixels: https://semiconductor.samsung.com/news-events/news/best-in-c...

In general I'm quite sure dev any hardware that meets these requirements would be considered: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

Re: OEM:

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114722432094158776

> We have talks with a large Android OEM ongoing and they're doing initial work towards supporting GrapheneOS. We hope there will be another device we can support in 2026 or 2027 based on this. Qualcomm releasing MTE support this year is key and appears to be happening.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114729018035689722

> The initial devices built for us by an OEM are going to be their regular devices improved to meet our security and support time requirements. We aren't going to have much influence over the initial hardware. If GrapheneOS on these devices is highly successful, then we can make the business case that it makes sense to have custom hardware and firmware beyond meeting our minimum requirements. Our minimum requirements cannot require more than what we have on current devices. A.K.A: the minimum requirements are current requirements (currenly only met by Pixels)

Also older one: https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/1490518600339308544?cx...

I, for one, am excited. I like my Pixels because they can run GOS (and my Pixel 9 Pro XL has a great camera), but I'd love to have a choice.

>>subscr+kD2
You can't OEM unlock Snapdragons/North American models.

I just have a hard time believing that Samsung is working to improve GrapheneOS compatability with their devices when they don't even allow you to unlock the bootloader in certain regions, and they're chasing a very Apple-like ecosystem approach where many device features require you to go all in on Samsung products (ex. their earbuds and watches are both hamstrung if you don't use them with a Samsung phone).