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
About the OEM, are you working on having devices ship with GrapheneOS, or devices be GOS compatible (i.e. same as the Pixels)? If you're thinking of devices shipping with it, would this fix the issue of Play Integrity/SafetyNet failing? That's the main reason I am running the android on my phone, as my banks don't work with Play Integrity failing and I have to use the app for 3DS. The ability to run GOS without this issue would be huge.

>>Eavolu+q35
>About the OEM, are you working on having devices ship with GrapheneOS, or devices be GOS compatible (i.e. same as the Pixels)?

As far as I'm aware as an outsider, the aim is a device that is compatible with GrapheneOS like the Pixels, yes.

>If you're thinking of devices shipping with it, would this fix the issue of Play Integrity/SafetyNet failing?

I think to pass this you need to be 'blessed by Google' which means being certified Android by their standards. GrapheneOS have mentioned that their CTS/CDD Android certification process holds back some of the privacy/security features (think things like new Sensors and Internet permissions etc.) implemented so they cannot can't target it.