zlacker

That does not have comparable security.

>>charci+(OP)
It has a better security. It's open hardware, verifiable, with no proprietary chips whatsoever unlike any Google-targeted phone. Even the physical construction can be verified manually:

> 200 ppi black and white LCD (336 x 536 resolution), 100% inspectable with standard optical microscope

Can you do it with your so much advertised phones? Oh, you "trust" large manufacturers. Good luck with that.

>>fsflov+o51
>It has a better security

Where is the secure element? Where is the pointer authentication? Where is the secure boot?

>no proprietary chips

The device uses a Xilinx XC7S50 which is proprietary.

>Oh, you "trust" large manufacturers.

Yes, I do trust large manufacturers. The probability that someone makse you a custom phone to compromise you is practically 0%. The chance they do it via a visible hardware change as opposed to a software change is 0%. If you are that paranoid why not worry about trusting Xilinix in producing a custom bitstream when it sees you trying to synthesize this chip. Fortunately reality is more boring and these companies aren't out to get you.