We don't plan to make official GrapheneOS releases for any more devices without MTE. If we decided to provide support for the Pixel 11 series, it likely won't be branded as GrapheneOS to make it clear it isn't on the same level.

It would be inconsistent to require Motorola to provide MTE support and then to support the Pixel 11 without it.

There are no phones directly supported by AOSP. Motorola is helping us support their devices and port our features to them. We have to do an immense amount of work on it ourselves for Pixels and already did a lot of it for the Pixel 11 devices. Other devices are missing more than MTE.

▲

kuschku a day ago | parent [-]

Regarding the differentiated branding, I've been hoping for a GrapheneLite for many years now.

Regarding direct AOSP support, there are many devices that work fine with just the generic system image, which I'd count as direct AOSP support.

	▲	ysnp 15 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		As far as I understand, broad device support is a non-goal for the GrapheneOS project. They are striving for decent security/privacy rather than wanting to attach their name and resources to mediocre standards. I believe nothing prevents other individuals and organisations from building what you're suggesting with GrapheneOS code and ideas.
	▲	drabbiticus 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I would argue that "works fine" != "direct support" when discussing vendors and platforms. Support is a commitment signal, not just a technical capability.