zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. ghgr+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-09-02 08:00:22
Serious question: can you point out some serious complaints? They seem to have an exhaustive justification for their reasons to only support Pixels, see https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
replies(2): >>ruszki+Se >>strcat+5Bx
2. ruszki+Se[view] [source] 2025-09-02 10:32:10
>>ghgr+(OP)
This list always bugged me. If Pixel - for example - starts to introduce security patches slower, they will change this list... or even ignore it. If something more secure comes into the picture, they will change this list, and they will ditch supporting Pixel. If they don't, then it will be quite obvious, that they formed this list only to meet only Pixel's feature list. Also Google can obviously satisfy this list more easily, than any other company, so basically they created a moot for them.
replies(1): >>strcat+xAx
◧◩
3. strcat+xAx[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-09-13 04:51:49
>>ruszki+Se
We haven't removed any requirements from our list. Many things Pixels provide are omitted from the list in order to enable another device to meet our requirements. There are other devices meeting the security feature requirements, but they don't allow us to support them. We're actively working with a major Android OEM towards a subset of their devices meeting these requirements and providing official GrapheneOS support. Providing the requirements on our list is not easier for Google and any OEM should be able to make a Snapdragon device meeting these requirements in 2026. It's already possible to meet all the listed requirements via multiple non-Snapdragon SoC platforms, but we'd prefer the upcoming Snapdragon generation with MTE support. The list has been deliberately kept limited to what is provided elsewhere than Pixels so that other devices can meet the requirements, which is in the process of happening.
4. strcat+5Bx[view] [source] 2025-09-13 04:58:55
>>ghgr+(OP)
We would happily support other devices meeting these requirements and have limited what we include in the requirements to enable that. We're actively working with a major OEM towards a subset of their devices meeting these standards and providing official GrapheneOS support.

It's not our fault that the only other devices providing the security features we need don't allow GrapheneOS to be installed or to use those features. Massively lowering our standards and using low security hardware missing the basics we depend on and have built major protections around wouldn't make sense. It's not what GrapheneOS exists to provide. People can use LineageOS if they don't have the same priorities we do.

[go to top]