Everytime I see Fairphone mentioned whenever there's news about GrapheneOS I'm confused as to why people keep on conflating both when they obviously have very different goals.
reply? Not conflating, just we want a phone with both goals ...
reply+1
replyEvery time Fairphone release new device I check width size. Still waiting for small device.
replyI wonder if Meta pays phone manufacturers under the table to keep their size large
replyThe overwhelming majority of consumers just prefer larger screens (myself included). People seem to forget that Apple releasing the Mini was them listening to the minority and the sales numbers if it were poor versus the rest of the lineup.
replyAnd why would Meta even do that?
- facilitate the infinite scroll
reply- remind you that the phone is in your pocket, to initiate the infinite scroll
Sorry but this is maximum level conspiratorial thinking. Meta probably has some created some incentive for OEMs to make larger screens by way of people liking content consumption but the idea that they’d be paying for that is ridiculous lol.
replyI forgive you I guess
replyI find reading ebooks and long texts like wikipedia a lot more enjoyable on my 6.8" AMOLED panel than on the smaller screens i've had before. You can also doomscroll on smaller screens.
replyOr maybe the majority of people buying a new damn phone every other week just prefer it'd be a tablet
replyJust today I giggled and reminisced over the old XDA Developers Nexus 7 posts about LTE and wifi calling hacks…the many few of us worked hard to only rely on a tablet! Ironically, there is now not a second of my day in which id find a folding phone useful or logistically feasible. Alas…13 years too late.
replyI think it's obvious that the target audience has a huge overlap...
replyHN readers aren't a huge demographic.
replyA huge overlap in two groups would obviously be at most 100% of the smaller group.
replyIs there a huge demographic for grapheneOS and/or fairphone? Let alone one that doesn't overlap with the archetypes that post here?
replyTo be honest the specs of the Fairphone are middling and the device is rather expensive for what you get. The Pixels are a much better value, especially with a series. If you want something truly high end, wait for the Motorola with official GOS support.
replyWithout support of alternative OS Fairphone is basically a landfill. Why would anyone buy this apart from novelty factor.
replySupporting an alternative OS wouldn’t change the fate of Fairphone, imo. Most people don’t care to move away from the stock version of Android that comes with their phone or iOS.
replyI mean, aside from /e/OS as a first-party option, there are also official Lineage builds[1]. And they're at least a target for PostmarketOS[2], even if that wiki doesn't actually describe something daily-driveable yet.
reply[1] https://forum.fairphone.com/t/official-lineageos-23-for-the-...
[2] https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_(Gen._6)_(fairp...
You should search for the many times where GrapheneOS has stated they won't work with Fairphone
replyIt's because Fairphone doesn't fulfil GOS's hardware requirements. If Fairphone addresses that, there's no reason for GOS to not support a Fairphone device.
replyI don't understand the issue. If Fairphone wants GOS can't they just compile it themselves with whatever unsupported hardware based security features disabled? Ditto for any given end user. It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions.
replyYes, they can, but they have promoted /e/OS, and they have no ability to develop Android.
replySimple. Fairphone doesn't want GOS.
replyForking GOS and porting it to a new device is a huge and unreasonable ask for an individual user. Even less so when you include the fact that you'll need to keep it up to date.
Why? Because of drivers? Don’t they already have Linux drivers for the fairphone?
replyI wonder if fable or astra could wire everything up.
As a company that often lies, they won’t spend a single penny on this.
replyI understand that bringing AOSP to an unsupported device is a huge endeavor. But fairphone already has the driver situation sorted out. What's the complexity here? (Genuine question, I'd like to correct any misconceptions about the android ecosystem that I have.)
replyYep. Gos isn't the only mfg in town if you have or want a fairphone.
replyhttps://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_(Gen._6)_(fairp...
I would imagine the cross section of people who seek out GOS but would settle for Postmarket OS is nearly non existent.
replyThen you have poor imagination. People seek Graphene OS for many many reasons.
reply"mfg"? They don't manufacture anything.
replyA distribution of software? Saas are people too!!!
replyGiven the state of Fairphone hardware, software and business, it is not surprising.
replyFor those of us out of the loop, could someone summarize the situation?
reply > Fairphone has said they don't plan to add a secure element. It can be seen from their current devices that they don't fully keep up with privacy/security backports and lag a year behind on shipping yearly OS releases. They skip over the monthly and quarterly releases entirely. They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS option in partnership with Murena. They clearly demonstrate that security and even privacy are not the priorities.
They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS
replyit sounds like they are saying that /e/OS is less secure than fairphone's own OS. with all criticism against /e/OS taken into account, i highly doubt that fairphone would have been able to make their own version of android more secure than /e/OS when they are not even interested in working on that.
One of the reasons I haven't switched to Graphene is this kind of drama. I wish there was more middle ground. I don't think the post is in any way constructive and will lead to fairphone to consider adding a secure element.
replyI don't see their post as 'drama' or nonconstructive at all. It's simply a list of well-founded criticisms of Fairphone's extremely lax position on security that is incompatible with Graphene's. If being critiqued for it doesn't lead to them considering adding a secure element, that's a problem on Fairphone's side imo.
replyImo i think actually naming the problems is a lot more productive than walking around them
replyI would throw serious money at them both if this collaboration happened.
replyEvery fairphone I've seen to far the camera was kinda ass. Did it improve? Pixel phones usually have old Samsung sensors which are pretty damn decent.
replyThe sensor of the Fairphone camera is good enough, the software processing is what's lacking. Imo, owner of an FP4.
reply