GrapheneOS in 2027 available on high-end Motorola phones

346

eexceptione about 3 hours ago 200 commentsRead Article on grapheneos.social

ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

68% Positive

Analyzed from 3728 words in the discussion.

Discussion (200 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

felooboolooomba•about 2 hours ago

> .. obtaining source code via Google Drive ...

Let this sink in. Google, this small tech company (correct me if I'm wrong), is peddling source code via tarballs on google drive.

Something the head of the Android ecosystem, Sameer Samat could be proud of on his CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sameersamat

exceptione•about 1 hour ago

There is a little bit of clumsiness in the way Google communicates with the public. What they really mean to say is: we need to be broken up.

smallmancontrov•25 minutes ago

I am in awe at the amount of capital Google's market dominance affords them and the consistency with which they squander that capital.

https://killedbygoogle.com/

This is not the way.

J-Kuhn•about 2 hours ago

Yeah, its the "well, legally, we have to provide the source code, but we make it as painful and slow for you as we can without it becoming a blatant violation of the GPL."

RobotToaster•about 2 hours ago

Not quite, they could make you request it by post and send it on a stack of floppies.

steve_taylor•about 2 hours ago

Sounds like a cheap way to get my hands on some floppies.

teekert•about 1 hour ago

At this point, without Git commit history (assuming it is a bare code dump), is it still even possible to guarantee it is what Google says it is?

gruez•2 minutes ago

You can compare against old dumps.

FartyMcFarter•18 minutes ago

> Google, this small tech company (correct me if I'm wrong), is peddling source code via tarballs on google drive.

What is the context for this? It's not clear to me from the linked social media post.

The Android kernel source code is in git: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/

Plus there's a lot of other Android source hosted on Google's git servers: https://android.googlesource.com/

mngnt•about 2 hours ago

> ...after making a request through Google Forms This is even more ridiculous to me.

rjzzleep•17 minutes ago

3 years, checks out. Probably buddy buddy with someone. Reminds me of that 3rd Google Pay they made that they had to sack because it was so dumb.

Cider9986•about 2 hours ago

Specific devices:

>At the time of writing, within ~12 months, in 2027, the 2027 Signature, Razr fold, and Razr flip will meet the hardware security requirements and should have official GrapheneOS support. Motorola is currently porting GrapheneOS to their devices.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49038982

LarryDarrell•about 1 hour ago

I knew it would be their higher end devices but I really wish they would have put it on their lower end as well.

I have a Moto G running LineageOS and it's my favorite phone ever. The ability to have my 800GB of music synced to a sdcard is something I'm loath to give up.

BoldColdHold•33 minutes ago

Lower end devices simply don't have the hardware required.

cosmic_cheese•27 minutes ago

I would bet that what Motorola can change without trouble on the lower end is more restricted, too. Generally low end models use more parts that are old, off the shelf, and/or shared with several other models to keep costs low, and so major changes can quickly balloon costs.

maelito•26 minutes ago

What I hope is that a compact and high-end device will have Graphene support.

Arrowmaster•about 1 hour ago

The 2026 Signature doesn't appear to be for sale in the US. Does this mean we have to wait for the lower end devices if we don't want a fold/flip?

Noaidi•19 minutes ago

Wow, I do not think any of these phones are available in the U.S.

tfrancisl•about 2 hours ago

I've never really understood why we chase Android-alikes on mobile platforms instead of trying to build on mainstream Linux. I know some folks in the nix community (nix-on-droid and other projects) have tried to bring us closer to this, but projects like Graphene seem to have a lot of traction.

inigyou•about 2 hours ago

All the existing apps are on Android and iOS. Graphene lets you run them. You can't have a bank account on a Linux phone* because they won't let you, but you can on Android including on Graphene.

* before replying snarkily that Android is Linux, please take a long walk off a short pier, thanks

yjftsjthsd-h•about 2 hours ago

> All the existing apps are on Android and iOS. Graphene lets you run them.

We have waydroid for that.

> You can't have a bank account on a Linux phone* because they won't let you, but you can on Android including on Graphene.

Unless of course it uses those stupid integrity apis to block anything that isn't stock.

pteraspidomorph•about 1 hour ago

Graphene passes basic integrity, so most of them work. There is a list here:

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

imkac•about 1 hour ago

Porting traditional Linux desktop distributions to Android devices is meaningless, all you get is more instability, more unsafe and more trouble. Waydroid is a bad implementation on security and compatibility, just running Android in VM is better.

wseqyrku•16 minutes ago

I can't care less about "apps". Web is already powerful enough to do all sort of stuff on device.

That said, I think wasi containers support for a mobile OS would be a game changer.

tfrancisl•about 2 hours ago

What's stopping me from using a browser to log in to my bank? Assuming my bank is one of the ones that requires you to lock down sideloading (they aren't, but i know many are).

cesarb•4 minutes ago

> What's stopping me from using a browser to log in to my bank?

The "security module" they require you to install on your computer. In the past, when browsers had plugins, this was a browser plugin; nowadays, it's an always-on service (running as root) which exposes a local HTTP server which the bank site connects to to validate your computer. For an example from a major bank in this country (the same "security module" is used by several banks in this country), https://seg.bb.com.br/home.html is the diagnostic page for that "security module" (the FAQ page there has links to the installers).

owaislone•about 2 hours ago

Nothing is stopping you. You're free to use a desktop web app that either doesn't work or is terribly slow or has limited features on a mobile web browser. I'd love it if all apps were PWAs but that is not the case.

terribleperson•about 2 hours ago

I had to replace a credit card yesterday. Part of the default flow involves the call center sending a notification to your app. When I told them my android version was too old, it took them twenty minutes to find out they could instead send a text message. That text message sends you to a photo-and-id verification service, but that's another issue.

Soon, there won't even be an alternative flow. There are a lot of places where there already isn't.

gf000•8 minutes ago

Well, it's kinda hard to scan a QR code displayed on your screen when the camera is attached to its back (semi-joking)

Yeroc•about 2 hours ago

The websites don't have feature parity with the apps these days. Things like being able to deposit a cheque aren't available among other things.

Alpha3031•about 2 hours ago

Some banks are app only and/or build MFA functionality into their apps.

inigyou•about 2 hours ago

The 2FA code you need to get from the phone app to log in on a desktop. It isn't 2005 any more.

saidinesh5•about 2 hours ago

The bank website typically needs the app to enable two factor authentication in a lot of places.

For eg. There's no browser based alternative to make UPI payments that i know of.

TFNA•about 1 hour ago

In many countries, all major local banks require their phone app as the second factor to log in to the browser version of their online banking. Sometimes functionality is removed from the browser version and made available only in the phone app.

justsomehnguy•about 1 hour ago

The bank itself. They want to see where are you, what you do and snoop on anything they can about you. Having a spywa^W sorry, bank app is the best way to do that.

Source: my bank which recently 'upgraded' a browser version to a glorified SPA which even renders as a vertical oriented app on a landscape 4K monitor.

t1234s•about 1 hour ago

Even Graphine is limited in what apps work properly compared to a normal google phone. You have to give up a lot in order to have privacy these days.

A pure linux non-android phone would be great however you wouldn't have access to properly working apps and would not be able to participate in modern society.

m4xp•about 1 hour ago

Not true, if you install play services you can run 99.9% of apps, i can even run all the italian apps from yhe goverment. You are still using google but its running as user service and you can even revoke most of the permissions including location.

unethical_ban•32 minutes ago

Running their sandboxed Play, I can run everything. The only thing I notice in the US is some banking apps (stupidly, idiotically, moronically) force 2FA on every login instead of trusting biometric entirely like they do on stock OS.

sehw•about 1 hour ago

I use my web browser to access my bank and tell banks that require apps to go fuck themselves.

megous•about 1 hour ago

Banks care very little about actual security. Some force you either to SMS codes, or to their app on a hopelessly broken platform based on shoving many untrusted spying apps onto one device and hoping some SW will be able to keep them apart.

Almost none support strong dedicated HW authenticators or second factors. Not even as an option to those who care.

Anyway it's always possible to just reverse their web api and use it directly. 2FA that consists of copying some code from SMS is no barrier, especially not on the Linux phone that you fully control.

jambalaya8•about 2 hours ago

yeah, people suggesting Android is Linux are as annoying as people saying Digital Unix/Tru64 was OSF/1, or MacOS/OSX is now Darwin or OSF/1 or Gnu Hurd itself.

xnickb•about 2 hours ago

Some (European) banks/healthcare apps block GOS and require stock android. Just saying

protimewaster•about 1 hour ago

I wonder if practices will change any of there's ever a device that ships with GOS. Right now, many companies are happy to shrug off GOS, because they don't support "modified devices".

If any of the Motorola devices have GOS as a pre-installed option, now the companies don't have the excuse that the device is modified.

I'm guessing the companies will continue to be difficult, but it'll be amusing to watch, at least.

drnick1•30 minutes ago

What is the point of apps for these things in particular? I understand that some banks require an app for 2FA, but I don't see why anyone would want some invasive healthcare app on their phone.

gunalx•about 2 hours ago

Yep. Had to change banks because of my old one suddenly dropping grapheme support by adding stupid attestation mechanics.

They surely must have gotten feedback from me and others because the next update it worked again. But I and probably others where already a lost customer.

throwaway_94383•about 1 hour ago

most banking apps don't run on graphene

DANmode•42 minutes ago

Stop parroting this. It’s not true.

Diminishingly few apps do not work, and it’s down to them.

drnick1•13 minutes ago

Like others have said, it comes down to apps mostly. But there is also the fact that Google and others have spent more than a decade optimizing the OS for appliances. Android was built from the ground up for mobile devices and handles things like background apps, notifications, and charging as expected on a phone. All of this could be ported or rebuilt, but the work has already been done for Android and billions of devices prove that it works.

QwenGlazer9000•about 2 hours ago

Everyone else mentioned the app support which is true, but for graphene specifically, they do not like desktop Linux at all because they don't like its security. They would much rather build on AOSP than desktop linux.

Gigachad•about 2 hours ago

Because you need app support. Not even Microsoft could pull that off.

jorvi•about 2 hours ago

You mean Microsoft proactively kept shooting devs in the kneecaps?

Leaving phones behind on old incompatible OS versions 2 times in 3 years and switching app frameworks 3 times in 4 years does not a good app developer experience make.

Piled on top of that, Google became actively hostile to 3rd party developers building support for YouTube (and Gmail and Gmaps, but those had workarounds / alternatives).

Yokolos•about 2 hours ago

What a colossal disaster. I was a huge Windows Phone fan, so their yearly missteps were quite painful to watch. I was especially annoyed when my first gen WP wasn't going to get an upgrade to WP8. My HTC 7 Pro is still my favourite phone I've ever owned, but after that I finally gave up and switched to Android.

nextaccountic•about 2 hours ago

What about running the whole Android infrastructure, but on top of a non-Android Linux distro? And this, on top of a Android kernel (otherwise you won't have the drivers yo uneed)

The advantage being, we can manage packages using a regular Linux distro

saidinesh5•about 2 hours ago

A lot of "non Android Linux distributions" like sailfish os actually use a lot of Android infrastructure to keep working.

Drivers doesn't just mean the kernel. It's the user space binary blobs and services that need to talk to the kernel to enable the hardware.

Other than that there's waydroid, alien dalvik etc.. that run another Android instance in a container.

The thing is a lot of Android applications use safety net/other methods to make sure they only run on. "Approved"/stock hardware.

tfrancisl•about 2 hours ago

This is exactly where my head goes. There's nothing special about this hardware other than its small form factor. Sure, some desktop apps would likely want a different skin, but thats hardly limiting.

realusername•about 2 hours ago

You can't because a lot of apps check that the phone is controlled by Google with Play Integrity.

Google thought about this, don't worry. They learned their lesson after CyanogenMod tried to compete by offering an alternative. Non-Google Android are now dead except in China.

puzzlingcaptcha•about 2 hours ago

App support, stable ABI, uniform UI/UX, hardware vendor cooperation...

tfrancisl•about 2 hours ago

I dont think app support is all that important. Most apps are garbage as they are ime, so rebuilding from scratch, or using existing software that runs fine on linux, would keep me happy.

tcfhgj•about 2 hours ago

Microsoft could, but abandoned just as they gained traction in Europe

sunaookami•about 1 hour ago

I miss my Windows Phone...

deaton•31 minutes ago

Microsoft can barely pull off their flagship desktop operating system, so that doesn't say much.

inigyou•about 2 hours ago

Doesn't windows run android apps natively now?

dzikimarian•about 2 hours ago

It doesn't. There was a plan, but Microsoft abandoned it.

compass_copium•about 2 hours ago

GOS is broadly compatible with most phone use cases out of the box--chat, mail, browsing. A Google Play profile lets me use almost all apps (including my bank apps, but I understand that's not true for everyone).

In principle I agree about a Linux phone, but the gaps are much greater. I am also sympathetic to the GOS team's arguments that sandboxing on Android is better, and important on a device that allows control of essentially my whole life (2FA apps etc.)

gf000•10 minutes ago

Because it's a mobile platform and "GNU+Linux" is laughably terrible in this space.

It's almost like Android has put millions of expert dev hours into making it the most used OS in the world. Like GNU+linux on laptops only works the way it does because of android-upstreamed battery saver kernel features.

But a mobile is also people's most used devices with all of their data, bank accounts etc there - it has to be safe. And GNU+linux has not even a single thought about security, while android just has it worked out (every app runs as its own user, so it's even built on standard UNIX security).

A mobile OS also has to race to suspend and for that it needs cooperation from "apps" -- desktop apps just run, they don't care about anything besides SIGKILL. That's not a workable model on a mobile and android solves it.

And I say all that as someone who runs linux everywhere I can and I absolutely love it. It's imo the best kernel out there -- but the userspace is not where it should be and if anything, the correct question would be what can we take from Android and add to GNU+Linux. (And nix is fantastic, but it's a packaging solution, I don't really see how it comes into question here. I can run nix on my android phone just fine by the way)

dzonga•about 2 hours ago

once Huawei was forbidden from using Android - that's when people ie western markets & the world at large should've shifted. look at HarmonyOS.

in China - there's no google apps available on their 'android' versions.

their platforms are already performant and fluid - so people should build on that.

RobotToaster•about 2 hours ago

It's a shame that the newest version of harmonyOS isn't open source.

otekengineering•about 1 hour ago

i recently put debian (mobian) on a pixel 3a and it's pretty solid, though i haven't tried it out as daily driver yet.

claude code makes stuff like that super accessible to do in your spare time. another example is installing debian on a synology 918+, there's no way i would've had the grit to do that without ai. it's open season for any gadget that's got a debug uart port.

matheusmoreira•about 1 hour ago

Because without Android I can't run WhatsApp and my bank's app on my phone, which promptly reduces it to a paperweight. I wish it wasn't so, but reality refuses to cooperate, so let's just be happy that we've got GrapheneOS which is so good it has its own column in Cellebrite's support matrix.

throwIeoeor•about 2 hours ago

Because Android is miles ahead in terms of security, permission management, app separation, power management, privacy...

Linux crowd can not even agree on compositor, and if systemd or sudo is a good idea.

bigfishrunning•35 minutes ago

Why should Linux users have to agree? run what you want, it's your computer.

thesuitonym•44 minutes ago

> Linux crowd can not even agree on compositor, and if systemd or sudo is a good idea.

This is actually a feature.

owaislone•about 2 hours ago

Apps. We'd love a completely different OS and it is viable on desktop because web almost does everything but on mobile you're basically locked out of very essential functionality like banking, transit, messaging etc. The compatibility layers aren't good enough (yet) to offer a seamless experience.

gunalx•about 2 hours ago

Also almost any native desktop app forced to mobile has broken ux.

DANmode•42 minutes ago

Your point is valid for every flavor of Android except GrapheneOS.

GrapheneOS’ security model makes that of desktop Linux look like a joke.

This is an objective analysis based on x86 security, GrapheneOS hardening (including isolation and hardened mem allocator), Pixel hardware security.

Cider9986•about 2 hours ago

AOSP has way better security and therefore privacy than desktop linux.

arxari•about 1 hour ago

This is something that no Linux phone enthusiast seems to understand.

Also if we use atomic distros with flatpaks and whatnot that mimic Android security the end user basically ends up having to essentially use Termux (but busybox or something similar) on their Linux phone as well

drnick1•22 minutes ago

Stop repeating this nonsense, AOSP isn't any more "private" than Linux. AOSP is only more "secure" because, on some devices like Pixels, it exploits hardware features typically not found on general purpose computers. By default, Android also limits user control and takes root away. That may be a sensible design for an appliance, but it isn't something we should want on desktops.

deaton•37 minutes ago

Because the Android Runtime (ART) is very necessary to run APKs, and APKs are the only non-iOS standard for packaging mobile apps that is supported enough to be viable. Without it, you might get some open source apps to run on a linux phone, but you won't have banking apps, clash of clans, or a million other things people really would like to have on their phones.

kotaKat•about 2 hours ago

All we had to do was build PWAs instead of native apps and instead all we did was build PWAs into bad browser wrappers.

cosmic_cheese•11 minutes ago

I don’t see PWAs becoming dominant so long as web development stubbornly retains its highly atomized “bring your own everything” philosophy. At the very minimum, there needs to exists a community-accepted web UI framework with a similar level of “batteries included”-ness in terms of scope and depth as that of SwiftUI/Compose, or preferably that of UIKit.

The existence of such a framework would make the various tradeoffs with going web-only sting less and make that the advantageous route, not just the cost-cutting route that it’s seen as now (and why those bad browser wrappers continue to proliferate).

geremiiah•about 2 hours ago

I don't either. Don't we have free market capitalism? Why don't I have a Linux phone? And why do I need to worry that my government and banking apps won't work if I get a Linux phone?

rcxdude•about 2 hours ago

Because in a free market you can't compel someone to support your niche platform, nor even compel someone to create the niche platform you want. The market for a Linux phone is tiny because there's almost no reason for the average phone user to prefer it over android.

fsflover•about 1 hour ago

> you can't compel someone to support your niche platform

You mean, a browser?

post-it•about 2 hours ago

Because you don't have capital.

attila-lendvai•about 2 hours ago

no, we don't, far from it.

(which doesn't mean there's not a lot farther from here).

realusername•about 2 hours ago

> Don't we have free market capitalism?

Not in the mobile world no, it's not a free market by any means

StrLght•about 2 hours ago

AOSP is Linux.

If by "mainstream" Linux you mean something like postmarketOS, I'd suggest you look up reviews or give it a try yourself. A few months ago, people were reporting a hard time placing a call, taking a photo, etc.

unfocso•about 3 hours ago

A year ago or so, the ThinkPhone 23 (Snapdragon 8, 2023, a weird "flagship") was available for 229€ new on various retail stores. The phone also supports Mobian/PostmarketOS and the bootloader is unlockable with no adverse effects.

Out of nowhere, it received (along with other older phones) updates up to Android 16.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "sudden" update was just a side effect of Motorola preparing for Graphene to be released on these older phones.

ledoge•about 2 hours ago

No current Motorola phones meet their hardware requirements. 2027 flagship models will be the first to be supported.

https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2058730195041812839

https://x.com/GrapheneOS/status/2064124713501163912

unfocso•6 minutes ago

Oh, that's unfortunate. I thought they meant support would be released in 2027, not that phones from 2027 would be supported only. :(

StingyJelly•about 2 hours ago

Not sure about other phones, but ThinkPhone 23 was supposed to get Android 16 anyway

https://www.androidauthority.com/lenovo-thinkphone-hands-on-...

kotaKat•36 minutes ago

I have a 'long life' Android device (Zebra EM45) that has only recently gotten its Android 15 updates; its committed through Android 16 so I assume it's also waiting on Qualcomm to get its act together and in gear for whatever final patches are required for the QCS5430. IIRC, QCOMM is promising "10 years" on the CPU.

virajk_31•about 3 hours ago

I bought the Moto signature a month ago , I already assumed it prolly won't support graphene, since some of the previous replies on X indicate that the graphene team requires full hardware compliance with their requirements, and the Signature apparently is not compliant yet.

Anyway I ended up buying a really good smartphone.. just not a graphene supported haha :(

Also this is really great collab from moto & graphene as more vendors will officially recognize Graphene as legit OS (legel/OEM is different concept). I heard month ago Volkswagen banned graphene, hopefully we we will see moving things in opposite direction...

drnick1•4 minutes ago

> I heard month ago Volkswagen banned graphene, hopefully we we will see moving things in opposite direction...

Why would anyone want a car app? Is being tracked by the car's telematics unit (cellular modem) not enough?

hypfer•about 3 hours ago

They didn't "ban" them, but they did enable some attestation feature that effectively "bans" anything that isn't Google Android.

Which still makes you wonder why Volkswagen is so keen on alienating what little is left of their customer base with completely stupid security theater.

inigyou•about 2 hours ago

Because the EU is run by lawyers and lawsuits. They probably decided there was a risk of being sued for insufficient security if they didn't enable every security feature, and they considered it as zero impact to customers because nobody uses graphene.

hypfer•about 2 hours ago

Yes, but that is still very confusing to me, because you're not paying other people money so that they just follow incentives without thinking, vision or backbone.

The whole idea of buying something is giving people money for their (assumed correct) judgement, which then leads to desired artifacts downstream.

tsss•about 2 hours ago

The people at VW don't think about the customer. They are essentially bureaucrats who only live to expand their personal fiefdom in the bureaucracy. I bet that many in the IT-security team would insist that their team doesn't have customers.

throwfaraway135•35 minutes ago

I get that you don't like Twitter/Facebook/Reddit or whatever, but a clear solution to this problem is to hurt googles public image as much as you can and for that you need a platform with as large of a reach as possible.

edit: they have X but didn't post it there https://x.com/GrapheneOS

therealmarv•22 minutes ago

I just wonder how they handle full Google's certification for hardware integrity + Google Play Store with GrapheneOS. They contradict on this part on the normal GrapheneOS mod and I don't see a way how they will not on Motorola phones.

Banking apps (e.g. Revolut) block GrapheneOS actively and many other apps too.

But it will be interesting times once they are out!

rh94•about 2 hours ago

Anyone has any idea if this changes current situation with nfc payments? Currently many banking apps do not work, and google pay is just unavailable, to my understanding it was related to secure chip on phone - as graphene wasnt "stocked" android os approved by google, i dearly hope this chnages with motorola

shaky-carrousel•about 2 hours ago

I have a GrapheneOS phone and I pay with Curve.

matheusmoreira•about 1 hour ago

Looking forward to this! Google is not competent enough to sell Pixels worldwide, it's a pain in the ass to buy one!

exceptione•about 3 hours ago

  "The initial devices with GrapheneOS support should be available in 2027. The initial devices will be flagships so they'll be higher end hardware than Pixels at a higher price. Lower end devices will take more time to meet our requirements since the updates and security features aren't as good. It's mostly due to how Qualcomm handles it. The latest Snapdragon flagships have the best security features. We'll also need Motorola to start paying them for longer updates below flagships."

tortasaur•about 3 hours ago

I don't doubt they will cost more than the Pixel line, but I'm somewhat skeptical that the hardware will be higher quality. Perhaps my idea of what Motorola is capable of is outdated.

ai-astrologer•about 3 hours ago

Google’s Tensor chipset is weak by modern standards, and Motorola is taking the strongest off the shelf processors from the best mobile chip designer (Qualcomm).

scrlk•about 3 hours ago

Plus the Samsung Exynos modems that they were using from Pixel 6-10 (11 switched to Mediatek) had worse power efficiency and performance vs Qualcomm.

IAmBroom•about 3 hours ago

So...what's your comment? Opposing Motorola's comment, in that they already buy the best? Supporting, in that their standards haven't dropped?

ernst_klim•26 minutes ago

Pixel itself is very mediocre hardware, it's not hard to surpass. The battery is my main problem with it, my current pixel can't barely survive half a day of usage.

kvuj•about 3 hours ago

Realistically, most smartphones are made by the same ODMs. Since they don't make their own screens, shells, CPUs or modems, the only thing being set apart is the software.

Aachen•about 2 hours ago

Except that it's all Android?

I'm not selecting which phone I buy on whether the stock OS comes with lockscreen shortcuts. At best, a software requirement someone might use as a deciding factor is OS support and bootloader unlock. The real differences are in hardware: size, battery life, chipset speed, RAM or other local model enablers, picture quality (this part also depends on good software to be fair), included accessories, satellite connectivity hardware, headphone jack, gimmicks like UWB or FM radio support, whether it's a flip/fold phone, storage space / sdcard support... all hardware differences

closingreunion•about 2 hours ago

I wonder if this could enable a samsung dex-style desktop mode

DemiGuru•13 minutes ago

Am I the only one that is uncomfortable with the idea of GrapheneOS running on a Lenovo owned company (with all its past security shenanigans)?

Retr0id•about 3 hours ago

> the updates and security features aren't as good [on lower end Motorola devices]

Having looked at some low-end Motorolas recently, this is accurate (albeit an understatement!)

jauntywundrkind•about 1 hour ago

Anyone want to place bets in whether this will be an unlockable bootloader, or some GrapheneOS only install path?

Sure would be nice to have phones that can be rooted, or OS replaced. I've been hopeful this would perhaps enable that, but I fret my excitement may be premature.

LoganDark•about 3 hours ago

If they only "should" be available in 2027, that sounds like late 2027.

Cider9986•about 2 hours ago

Iirc they said they will be able to release Android updates like Android 17, for example, at the time it's released. This year it was a few weeks until it came to stable.

This somewhat indicates to me it will be available when the Motorolas release which should be on their regular release patterns. That's been May for the 2025 and 2026 Razrs.

Noaidi•22 minutes ago

This is good news but not so much good news for us poors. I was waiting four this announcement in hopes of getting away from google totally but with the 2026 Moto Signature going for $1000 I am sure the 2027 will be more so I will probably get Pixel 10 instead.

Maybe this will lighten the price on the Pixel 10's though...

catlikesshrimp•11 minutes ago

All other phones will have a higher price tag due to memory hogging by datacenters. How much will that google pixel 10 be when the motorolla phone arrives?