Not only obtaining but if you ever need warranty you're done. Just last week I went to a Samsung center and had my fold 6 fixed in 30 minutes, and these centers are everywhere around the world. Same thing with Apple, yet a 4.5 trillion dollar company can't ship and maintain a phone globally. It's so unserious.
replyThey definitely can, they just don't want to.
replyAnd that's the unserious part, they really don't want anything to do with consumers despite making consumer products (gmail, Android, etc.) so you're always at the mercy of their automatic systems.
replyGoogle has historically always sucked at being a product company. Despite this, they're quite successful at it.
replyAs the old joke goes: Microsoft is a software company, Apple is a hardware company, Google is an ads company.
replyIsn't that just the truth based on revenue streams?
replyYeah. Could be difficult even if one is willing to forgo the warranty. My city has local repair services, they easily repaired my old Samsung phone. Servicing Pixels could be difficult even for them.
replyOut of curiosity, what was wrong with your Fold 6?
replyThe inner screen built-in protector was peeling in the middle. It was out of warranty, but Samsung charged me 15$ which is very reasonable. The inner screen looks brand-new now, and I guess that's the benefit of these soft foldable screens - you can refresh the entire thing very easily.
replyIt still boggles my mind that the most popular privacy OS requires Google manufactured hardware, that fact alone makes me not trust it at all.
replyThey list their exact criteria for supporting a device. So far, only Pixels fit all of them (and I guess the Motorolas will soon)
reply> So far, only Pixels fit all of them
replymight as well list all features of pixel phones
GrapheneOS does not depend on all of the features of pixel phones. The baseline requirements GrapheneOS has are generic, they are not built upon or tied to what pixel phones provide. Pixels actually exceed the baseline rather than barely meeting them.
replyOther OEMs can make devices that meet the requirements, and Motorola is doing just that. We should get Motorola devices with official GrapheneOS support next year.
GrapheneOS is not going to compromise on hardware security for the sake of spiting one specific company. GrapheneOS supports all viable platforms, and right now that is the pixel lineup. Additional device support requires OEMs step up their game, and so far, only Motorola is up to the task, and we should get Motorola devices with official GrapheneOS support next year.
replyThere is nothing crazy about doing something properly.
Phone hardware is a hellscape it doesn’t surprise me at all that they need to keep the number of supported devices small in order to deliver a decent product.
replyDespite Google's other failings, it was the OG supporter of data portability, and that spirit extends to its phones. No other phone manufacturer with wide distribution comes close. It's unfortunate that the people who design the hardware do such a poor job with the resources at their disposal.
replyIs it still the case that Android backups leave much to be desired when compared to iphone? Pretty much the only reason I use Apple is that I can switch to a replacement phone and it’s exactly the same state as the last backup.
replydeleted
replyIt's ridiculous is what it is. It makes me deeply distrustful of the organisation behind Graphene that they would make such a crazy choice.
replyIt is not ridiculous at all. GrapheneOS is not going to compromise the privacy and security of their users for the sake of spite for one specific company. It would be immature and irresponsible to make important choices based on spite rather than objectivity.
replyMotorola has stepped up to meet the baseline requirements for GrapheneOS support, and we should get Motorola devices with official GrapheneOS support next year.
The intersection of phones that have unlockable bootloaders, public-ish driver blobs and decent hardware is tiny.
replyWhat other phone would you pick?
Everything Lineage supports.
replyHow do you reconcile that position with what Graphene OS lists as requirements for support, as linked by another commenter? https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
replyI’m not an expert, but all the listed points there sound reasonable. If indeed only the Pixels support them, well, it’s too bad there’s not other, similarly secure hardware out there.
Please go read this and try again: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
replyIf you want Graphene level security you need to have the hardware for it.
deleted
reply