upvote
[flagged]
reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
> Xiaomi or someone else goes all in on “privacy focused android” in absence of pixel+graphene combo

Xiaomi? Privacy?

reply
> 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.

reply
> Celebgate

That was a phishing campaign, not a breach.

reply
My point isn't about engineering.
reply
deleted
reply
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"
reply
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
reply
Yes. GPLv2 specifically contains a clause that you must provide "scripts to control compilation and installation"

Source you can't compile or install onto the device wouldn't be very useful.

reply
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.

reply
It's also because so many Linux developers are on the payroll of big tech. Look at all the submissions. 95% are just big tech. And look at the key people in the Linux Foundation. All a bunch of business suits with compromised motives. Serving their company above the community. There's only a few unencumbered people in there now.

Linux is no longer the community-driven choice. It's big business with billions hanging on the line. The grassroots origins are long over.

reply
TiVo never prevented installing your own build in the device. They only prevented running their proprietary app on top of it when you had done so.
reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
I would highly recommend LineageOS. Supports non-Pixel phones, some of them many years old (although now that I double check, the Galaxy S3 and OnePlus One aren't on the devices list anymore, I guess they do stop supporting old stuff eventually...). The OnePlus 5 is still supported and was released in 2017. For anything older than that, I guess I'd recommend looking into postmarketOS.
reply
> at least at the time, they only supported pixel phones

At the time? They still are the only devices officially supported.

Having your freedom be tied to a handful of devices from Google, is a massive supply chain risk.

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

reply
I thought the PinePhone community had succeeded in making custom firmware for the modem in the PinePhone, though I'm not sure of the legality of actually using it. Plus both PinePhone and Librem 5 had a killswitch to disconnect the modem at least.
reply
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
reply
Let them eat steak!
reply