zlacker

>>madars+(OP)
My only problem with Graphene is the ridiculous low number of supported devices, i know I know, security reasons and so on. But I would accept an lower security hardened version but at least have Graphene instead of Google's junk

>>SchwKa+Tn
GrapheneOS community manager here. Google's devices are currently the only ones that meet our requirements (https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices).

However, we're currently working with another OEM and are hoping to have a device of theirs meet our requirements that can be launched in 2026 or 2027. Nothing set in stone, but we're optimistic thus far.

>>mbanan+Kr
If it's a repairable phone like the Fairphone, that would be fantastic. Otherwise, I'm already very satisfied with what you offer. Thanks for you work.

>>zvmaz+cs
Fairphone do not meet our requirements and haven't really been trending towards meeting them generation-by-generation. It doesn't seem to be something that interests them.

The unfortunate thing is that they make security promises which aren't upheld in practice (such as shipping security updates on time), so it doesn't inspire confidence as an OEM you could trust to properly support a device for multiple years.

We're hoping that there will be people who will enjoy a device from the OEM we're in talks with - we know that there are many people who for various reasons don't want a device from Google, so this will at least offer an option for people who want to use GrapheneOS on a non-Google device.

>>mbanan+ws
I got curious and found this: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/7208-8y-security-updates-on...

At the risk of doing their work for them, that seems like a near ideal partnership opportunity for graphene, so it’s extra sad to see.