But GrapheneOS doesn't exist. It works only on a few devices created by Google, so their claim of being degoogled is a bit funny.

▲

Arch-TK 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Google's hardware is just hardware. It is not locked down like the hardware of many other manufacturers. Moreover, it's the only such hardware which also allows you, the user, to lock it down for your own security. GrapheneOS is not just focused around avoiding Google, it's more accurately focused around security and user choice.

The goal is to give you the option to avoid needing to rely on Google's spying or services while not having to compromise on security.

None of these other solutions regularly get included in Celebrite's documentation as being an explicit benchmark of their software's ability to break into phones. And that's almost certainly due to the fact that unless you leverage hardware security features like what GrapheneOS (and stock Android on a Pixel, and iOS on an iPhone) utilises, you have no chance of going against any actual adversaries.

And I'm not just talking about state actors here, even drive-by opportunistic attacks are likelier on a random other phone running some other Android build.

So yeah, you are running Google hardware, that doesn't make you "googled". It's just a sad reflection on the reality of the hardware landscape. If you want the same security as what GrapheneOS offers, you will currently need to use a Pixel.

I'd be curious to see what comes out of their Motorola partnership though.

▲

dminik 8 hours ago | parent [-]

A large part of "degoogling" to me means "stop giving google money" and "cut off Google entirely from my life".

If I have to give Google a lot of money every 4-6 years to remain "de-googled" then I never was.

▲

dns_snek 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why are we degoogling, for what purpose? I couldn't care less about giving them what likely amounts to ~10€ of margin per year on the hardware sale. What I care about is not giving them data which is worth a lot more than that, and to take back control over my device.

When you go with an alternative you lose superior privacy and security offered by GrapheneOS and you just end up leaking more data back to Google and other ad-tech companies than you would otherwise, negating any benefits several times over.

See: Advanced features, degoogling, privacy, security, and updates sections of https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

▲

Itoldmyselfso 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can buy used Pixel, effectively not giving money to Google, or buy a Motorola when their GOS phone is released

▲

amelius 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think Google makes a lot of profit on Pixel phones.

The real profit comes from their advertising business.

Maybe the phones are even subsidized by the ad business.

▲

hexfish 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Thats a very binary way of looking at this.

	▲	miramba 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think it’s very valid. I want to be hardware-independent, not only OS independent. I need graphene to work on a fairphone, jolla phone or whatever other alternatives there are. E/os can do that (to an extent), Graphene can’t for probably very good reason, but still: It‘s not an alternative then.
	▲	jaggs 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		But true.

▲

_ache_ 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I must agree, you are right, GOS is only on Pixel phones.

But we have to keep in mind that /e/ has a lot of problems, the only one solved is sending data to Google. The security aspect of the OS is problematic and some key elements of a privacy seem questioning (AI integration, commercial collaborations, ...).

Fix: IA => AI typo and various English errors.

▲

soufron 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Like what problems? I am using /e/ daily for myself and my family, and it's working like a charm.

	▲	microtonal 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Uploading speech-to-text to OpenAI? Regular communication with Google? Using Google for assisted GPS? Giving a bunch of Google apps privileged access (if you need them for e.g. Android Auto)? https://www.kuketz-blog.de/e-datenschutzfreundlich-bedeutet-... https://gitlab.e.foundation/e/os/GmsCore/-/blob/a9e102567518... https://forum.fairphone.com/t/e-os-betrays-users-privacy-ope... https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm Well and besides that only shipping ASBs and no other security updates outside major Android releases (and both usually late). Using heavily outdated kernel trees (e.g. FP4 is using a Linux kernel patch level that hasn't been updated since 2020!), outdated vendor firmware blobs, etc. It might work, but it is not very secure, nor very private.
	▲	_ache_ 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The OS is working well, but have privacy and security concerns. Is it better than a stock OS? I don't know, maybe, maybe not, it depends on the stock OS.

▲

chrisjj 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What IA?

▲

microtonal 8 hours ago | parent [-]

/e/OS speech to text uploads your speech to OpenAI. (I think IA was a typo.)

▲

_ache_ 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, it's a typo (I'm french speaking, AI is IA in french and sometime I type it in french instead of english).

▲

chrisjj 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ugh. Thanks. Hard pass here.

▲

seanhunter 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Reading the links posted in a sibling thread it only does it if you have text to speech enabled and they use an anonymizing proxy so openai can't associate sessions with any particular user ie it's not perfectly anonymous and private but I don't see how you could have totally anonymous and private until you have a fully offline on-device TTS model, which the fairphone guy said they tried and didn't feel it was up to scratch.

I don't use e/os but it doesnt' seem like a terrible compromise to me personally.

	▲	chrisjj 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is not even imperfectly private. Every word gets heard by a partner of a kakistocratic foriegn regime. > don't see how you could have totally anonymous and private until you have a fully offline on-device TTS model Yes, and? PCs that have have had that for decades - despite orders of magnitude less platform capability.

▲

ementally 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Literally announced today partnership with Motorola to bring it to their devices.

▲

izacus 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

/e/OS is Android, meaning it's still critically dependent on goodwill of Google to continue releasing their work as part of AOSP.

So if you're trying to be a silly purist, then /e/OS doesn't fit either. If you're not, getting a Pixel will significantly enhance your safety since they're better supported for security patches and better designed in hardware when it comes to security.

▲

pessimizer 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> So if you're trying to be a silly purist

Could you not do this? There's no need to be hostile to people who purer than you are.

It's fine if you want to make a pragmatic decision to do what works now, but you depend on people who to some degree don't want to compromise. But I always suspect this type of hostility comes from guilt being directed outward; what you actually should want to do instead is support people who are refusing to compromise and building alternatives (even if those alternatives are just ways to get things done without phones.) You will need them one day.

The idea about being dependent on Google to continue to allow you to be hostile to Google on their hardware is intrinsically not sustainable.

You're basically the same as an somebody using whatever the phone company installs mocking somebody who would dare install GrapheneOS, or even an iPhone person ridiculing somebody for using Android at all. What's the use of that?

▲

eloisant 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> /e/OS is Android

So is GrapheneOS

▲

einpoklum 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Let's explore this a little further.

I think it is legitimate to be a purist about smartphones, but I don't think the GP is. So, let's talk about the non-purist situation: Users like us want to de-google. But we are not willing to make all of the sacrifices that purists do. The question is then, what can we use (and - what projects can we support financially).

Now, we can use GrapheneOS if we have Google Pixel's. But - most people don't have those phones, for any number of reasons. One of them is price, by the way: You can get a decent smartphone for under 100 USD and even a half-decent one for 70 USD. And most people in the world are not in an economic situation where you can tell them "shell out 300 USD and buy a Google Pixel".

Moreover - suggesting we strengthen our ties to Google in order to de-Google is fundamentally problematic. Even if we're not going all the way, we are striving to distance ourselves from them.

So, an imperfect software solution for a wider selection of phones does sound quite useful. Change my mind! :-)

▲

microtonal 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Where are those decent under 100 USD unlockable smartphones?

suggesting we strengthen our ties to Google in order to de-Google is fundamentally problematic

You may have seen that they are working with Motorola to release GrapheneOS-capable phones.

	▲	einpoklum an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Smartphones from manufacturers/brands such as Bluefox, Oukitel, UniDigi, Doogee and even Xiaomi, Motorola and HTC. Examples: https://us.smartprix.com/mobiles/price-below_100/smartphone-...

▲

dns_snek 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

GOS is degoogled in all the ways that I care about - it's about the data they can gather. Among all the smartphone options that I consider usable day to day (leaving only Android and iOS at the moment), GOS is the most private and secure.

▲

flexagoon 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> their claim of being degoogled is a bit funny.

I don't think they use this term anywhere.

It also now works on Motorola devices, it's on my HN feed literally right above this post.

	▲	szmarczak 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I have no idea where you got this information - the HN post is about partnership. It does not work on Motorola devices, at least not yet [1]. [1] https://grapheneos.org/releases
	▲	krige 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It doesn't "now work"; it may work on a future Motorola device that doesn't exist yet.
	▲	wolvoleo 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It doesn't yet work on Motorola devices. It is going to become available on selected Motorola devices at some point in the future.
	▲	miroljub 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> It also now works on Motorola devices, it's on my HN feed literally right above this post. Did you read the article you mentioned? There's not yet a single non-Google device that can run GrapheneOS.

▲

fragmede 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The post about Graphene partnering with Motorola is right about this one, currently, (Lenovo bought Motorola from Google in 2014.), so that point will no longer be valid as soon as they ship something.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47214645