> They are "permitted" to access to Google Play Services because their work hardening Android currently benefits Google.

Very little in GrapheneOS has gone back upstream post-Copperhead.

> Once Google feels like there is sufficient stability and compatibility with hardened memory allocator and tagged memory (and when they can get Qualcomm to support it across their range), they will make harder, until impossible, for Graphene.

What are you talking about? Google doesn't use hardened_malloc, and they literally invented MTE.

Yes but they have signed up with Motorola so that is changing

https://www.androidauthority.com/grapheneos-motorola-partner...

> Doesn't GrapheneOS supports only Google Pixel smartphones now?

For good reasons. Most other devices arent secure enough to guarantee privacy. Especially not if loaded with a custom operating system (most devices don't allow to verify the boot chain with a custom OS)

> And if we're talking about common people (especially not in US), it's not even everyone who can afford that.

You can get a new Pixel 9a here in europe for around 350€ and it will be supported at least until April 2032

> Moreover, in my opinion, by buying Google phones you're feeding Google, and I, personally, would like to avoid that.

Google phones are surprisingly open and work well. Google takes a pro-user stance here that is extremely rare in the ecosystem, so why not support this product?

FWIW, I submitted an EU DMA complaint (Art 27 report) against Alphabet for unfair gatekeeping against third-party distributions like GrapheneOS via Play Integrity. More info: https://github.com/AlexAltea/blog/blob/master/posts/2026-06-...

Convincing developers, especially bank and gov apps, is near impossible and won't scale well. Going after Alphabet for not meeting DMA obligations seems the easier path. Might not go anywhere but worth a shot.

Graphene OS user here. Almost all of the apps I tried work fine. All the banking apps I use work. Have you tried reaching out to the app developer or the service and explaining what Graphene OS is and asking them to support it? I was able to persuade one app to do it.

[1] https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...

Correction: i did get bank access. I just couldnt log into the bank without a google or apple controlled device.

lol, this problem stopped me from installing GrapheneOS early. But now.. I removed banking apps by myself because my state require room them to collect phone fingerprint and access to location EACH time they opened. So... looks like now nothing stops me

That's one of its primary arguments: besides the hardening against exploits, they're considered such a safe OS because you cannot access your data either and give the wrong app root access. Everything lives in a sandbox. Whether not being able to grant full access to e.g. adb shell, Termux, or Restic is what you want is a personal choice, but it adds a layer of security against any malware that tries to get you to grant them root access

This is also the argument they use to try to convince app vendors to add their keys to the allowlist, because the app makers can trust that their DRM will be active (if Netflix sets a "no screen recording" flag, you the user cannot circumvent it by e.g. reading /dev/fb0). It should have broader compatibility than other FOSS Android builds (when running the officially signed version of course, you can't compile it yourself and expect such apps to run there)

It is not an OS with bubblewrap, you can still mess up your privacy / security if you want to, that includes phishing and social engineering.

> do you happen to know whether that includes anything wrt. phishing or social engineering?

Yes. For example if you install an apk from an unknown source (like a random website via browser or messenger) it will warn you what you are about to do and what effects that has.

You don't need to block stupid behavior. Just make sure users are well aware of their actions as long as they actually read warnings.

my brother in Christ, people who root their phones don't fall for "Hello sir, I'm sir John from Microsoft, you have virus sir, please do the needful install antivirus and send gift card sir."

Give it a year, we may have GrapheneOS/Motorola then ...

* (March 2026) Motorola announces a partnership with GrapheneOS Foundation - https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at...

Those reasons are explained clearly and openly. Ironically, your /o/OS is way less open than GOS on Google hardware.

Pixels are consistently "third party Android builds friendly", plus GrapheneOS has a list of required security features (beyond their control): https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

e.g. first one in the list:

> Support for using alternate operating systems including full hardware security functionality

GrapheneOS wants users to lock the bootloader (≈enable Secure Boot) after install by providing user signing keys (avb_custom_key) -- that already seems to leave only Pixel, Nothing and Fairphone.

https://github.com/chenxiaolong/avbroot/issues/299

It's because only Pixel devices have proper hardware security to build anything secure on top.

I bought a second hand pixel when I had to buy a new phone. Still better for the planet than buying a new fairphone anyway.

Sigh, /e/OS.

Your phone is running proprietary Google DroidGuard blobs in a privileged process every time an app initiates a Play Integrity request.

If you install some Google apps like Google Maps, they are run with more privileges than other apps (their microG fork gives apps elevated privileges when they match certain Google signing key fingerprints).

Also, your device is running a firmware bundle provided by Fairphone's Chinese ODM, including TCL image processing blobs. Your phone will soon run an ancient kernel and firmware tree with many known critical CVEs.

But this all doesn't matter anyway, because security hardening is only for spies and pedophiles according to the CEO of Murena (the company that makes /e/OS).

> we'll ditch phones altogether in 10 years when smart glasses will replace them instead.

Billions are spend right now to make sure the glasses also run Android or iOS. So far, Google, Samsung, Magic Leap, RealWear and Vuzix are working with/on Android XR, and obliviously Apple is working on AR/VR iOS.

Meta and a couple of smaller startups are doing something in-house, but I don't give them much chances to get an ecosystem going.

Honestly don't think that would be so terrible, with how bad and locked down the mobile ecosystem has gotten.

Rolling the dice on a new technology could wind up being much more favorable.

The resason is that only Google bothers to put enough hardware security features to build software on top that allows to make a really secure device that blocks tampering.

Out of the frying pan into the fire...

Korean manufacturers are even worse when it comes to privacy violations.

I use a Samsung too. The bloat, dark patterns and enshitification with every update are even worse.

Buy second hand

Would this not require some control over the hardware? Which would be difficult for the FOSS community?