We took control, we're keeping control

"took control"?

Brother, you didn't take anything here, you still depend on Google good will allowing the pixel devices to be just open enough so that Graphene can be installed on them, but that can always change in the future devices on a whim or even now via e-fuses on the Tensor SoC.

Google is the one in control here giving you the temporary illusion of control. Kinda like the people plugged into the Matrix. But they can afford to play the long game over years or decades till they monopolize the market and kill any small competitors from becoming threats, and then rug-pull you.

For you to be in control you need a (almost)fully FOSS phone, from HW, to modem, to EFI-boot stack, not just the OS and the temporary permission from the manufacturer of a closed source HW stack to replace their OS.

▲

jitix 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What you are describing is not Google’s alturism but keeping competition in check. If Google didn’t “allow” GrapheneOS it opens up a new market segment for other smartphone manufacturers. Apple really cashed in on privacy for a few years so it’s not unfathomable that Xiaomi or someone else goes all in on “privacy focused android” in absence of pixel+graphene combo.

Edit: Apparently Motorola is doing just that.

	▲	wolvoleo 18 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't think any Chinese company can pull the privacy card. They're bound by their government to spy on their customers just like American ones are. Otherwise Huawei would have already jumped into that gap. They have their own Google-independent OS now so they could have marketed it to privacy enthusiasts where the lack of Google services would have been a positive not a negative.
	▲	ethbr1 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> Xiaomi or someone else goes all in on “privacy focused android” in absence of pixel+graphene combo Xiaomi? Privacy?
	▲	ignoramous 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Apple really cashed in on privacy for a few years Apple didn't "cash in", their marketing dept made sure privacy/security engineering got just enough budget to pull off miracles & then spend even more to successfully make the public forget about the very nasty Celebgate.

▲

ajdude an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Years ago I looked into GrapheneOS, and I ultimately didn't go with it because, at least at the time, they only supported pixel phones (specifically pixel phones that Google actively had security updates for). I realized that if I got that OS, I would be at the mercy of Google supporting the device in order to continue using GrapheneOS.

In the end I just opted out of the android ecosystem altogether and went with a flip phone that I used as a hotspot for an iPod touch (we only used over VPN with locked down DNS and nothing google related).

My privacy lasted about two weeks, because unfortunately Spotify was able to fingerprint that device to Facebook.

▲

singpolyma3 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

TBF if Google locked down the devices like that it would be a GPL violation. Not their first or whatever but still, there's a reason for them not to do that beside "being nice"

▲

yjftsjthsd-h 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Would it? IANAL, but AIUI the only GPL component is Linux on GPLv2 which requires providing code but not giving the ability to install it

▲

fluidcruft 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really. Tivo did that eons ago. Whether you view this as a "flaw" or "feature" of GPLv2 it's ultimately why GPLv3 now exists.

The Linux kernel developers see what Tivo did as a "feature" rather than a "flaw" and refuse GPLv3.

	▲	wolvoleo 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's also because so many Linux developers are on the payroll of big tech. Look at all the submissions. And look at the key people in the Linux Foundation. All a bunch of business suits with compromised motives. Linux is no longer the community-driven choice. It's big business with billions hanging on the line. The grassroots origins are long over.

▲

StrLght 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And how many options are there exactly? How many of them are capable of at least making and receiving a phone call without any issues 99% of the time?

While I agree with your general sentiment, I feel necessary to acknowledge that it's just not there (yet?). GrapheneOS is a great option if you want to have a fully working and secure device.

▲

matheusmoreira 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're not wrong, but we gotta do what we can and take every advantage we can get.

▲

jordand 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your point is valid and yeah, it's a never-ending fight just to keep the control we have. Things like the Play Protect API and loads of Android apps being coupled to Play Services is it's own big challenge we're stuck with just to stay within the Android ecosystem

▲

cluckindan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is no FOSS modem. The baseband is a separate computer operating on a lower level than the OS.

Your provider can run arbitrary code there.

▲

genxy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Let them eat steak!