Well "starting MSRP of $1,599." I'll stick to my 2nd hand Pixel 8 that I bought, for GrapheneOS long term support, for 1/10th of that price.
No doubt it's a way WAY better device, really, but I don't see where I would actually need that. I happily toss the one I have around and don't even care if it gets stolen or lost one day, different preference.
Indeed, I was planning to buy this but the price is way too high. My biggest fear here is that the price causes the device sales to be poor, and people blame grapheneos for it
I don’t think anybody will blame GrapheneOS, it’s not even installed by default. Motorola will absolutely see that GrapheneOS support is not a value add and will decide against spending whatever nominal value it cost them to have first class support for it though.
They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.
As some who also just so happens to have a Pixel 8 (well 8a) 2nd hand phone with Graphene I think an underappreciated point here is access to older hardware with current software. Whether intended or not, a second life for hardware is another way GrapheneOS insulates from control of first party vendors.
Pixel 8 and later have 7 years of support from launch and so does the Motorola Signature 27. It isn't GrapheneOS extending the life of the devices but rather GrapheneOS only using devices with long term security updates. We do greatly improve the security updates during the lifetime of the device but it stops being safe to use devices without firmware updates after end-of-life. Official GrapheneOS releases are for devices which aren't end-of-life. We provide extended support releases for devices past end-of-life as harm reduction, but we don't do it indefinitely. We've found providing extended support releases can be quite counterproductive since people won't listen to us and will continue using or even buying the devices despite growing insecurity. It's going to be a lot worse now with AI models able to help anyone develop exploits.
I don't know if I can trust a motorola phone with grapheneOS. Motorola is owned by a Chinese company that has recently been caught for injecting affiliate codes in users purchases. Yes, I know it won't be Motorola's OS but they do modify a large part of the BSP (bootloader, modem, etc.) with their "mot_sec" additions which you'll find if you reverse engineer any motorola firmware. It's unclear if qualcomm will give grapheneOS permission to rebuild or see the source code everything else. Modern phones run multiple operating systems like in the DSP, modem, trustzone, etc.
It concerns me as well as the user-land OS isn't really where control of the RF happens. The OS running in their baseband chip is where the backdoors would best be placed from their perspective. But I'm happy that there are some additional options to run Graphene on the market.
The userspace OS needs to be where control of any radio (bluetooth, wi-fi, cellular, nfc, uwb etc.) components happens, otherwise it would be difficult to be compliant in terms of regulatory requirements like a working Flight Mode.
Baseband firmware/processors are still making strides in terms of defending against attacks so I don't think we are at the point where backdoors are needed. More likely that undocumented AT commands, plausibly deniable bugdoors and existing memory corruption vulnerabilities are already convenient reality. However, part of that reality is also that once the cellular modem is exploited OTA it is still a massive task to traverse IOMMU restrictions and get device owner data/secrets from the userspace OS. It doesn't even grant visibility into application traffic which has been aggressively TLS encrypted since the mid 2010s.
In modern phones, doesn't the main chip control the baseband chip rather than the other way? What is the threat model?
Obviously since phone calls and text messages are unencrypted the baseband chip could send them elsewhere. But your internet communication should already be encrypted before it hits the baseband chip. So is the threat model Motorola has intentionally introduced a backdoor to leak data from the main chip to the baseband chip?
I'm pretty uncomfortable with how many smartphones I'd like to buy end up being Chinese owned companies. I wish Fairphone had a better camera, if it did, I'd just buy one of those and call it day.
It depends on the level of involvement you're comfortable with. As far as I'm aware, Fairphone are partnered with a Chinese ODM T2 Mobile for the hardware portion of their smartphone products. You can expect they are sourcing the hardware and spares, SoC/subsystem BSP components, peripherals and associated firmware from T2Mobile.
Independence from the Chinese manufacturing hegemony probably means opting for a flagship Samsung, 11-series Pixel or pre-2025 Sony flagship.
I on the other hand am looking to purchase electronic devices because they are owned by the Chinese. I work under the impression that everyone and everything is spying on us in this surveillance-capitalist world, so if that's true then why not let others spy on me for a change. Just to give our guys a break. At least the other guys don't condition my loan or my kids' university admission.
I can sort of understand that. If you are an American, arguably the Chinese government is not all that dangerous to you, and worrying about university admissions is about as ugly as your life gets. I expect the Uyghurs have a different perspective on how dangerous the CCP is.
I always feel amused at these takes from north american citizens.
From a latin american POV, it is same-ish as USA manufacturers, they're also tracking everything we do to sell us more unneeded stuff.
The difference is that chinese government is just trying to sell stuff, while USA government is trying to convert all the southern continent into a colony to impose governments and suck up minerals in the meantime. If you ask me if I trust more China or USA, at least China's intentions are clear and direct.
Of course, you people will always have the argument of "national interest" which for us (at least tech-literate people) that's no argument, but still you will find some bootlickers in the mobs.
The problem with whataboutism is the same as it always has been, which is that the critique skips the step of checking whether the person who is concerned about Chinese privacy compromises hinges that position on the innocence of Western companies.
That part is assumed, and the whole argument unravels once its established that the assumption doesn't hold. And then either the tankies show up, or everyone forgets about it until the next thread where the process plays out again.
You’re not wrong about the US but let’s not pretend China is just “trying to sell stuff”. They’ve got their own genocide going on with the Uyghurs and are famous for espionage
Ok so just don’t do banking and critical communication on a cellular device with mysterious CPUs. What’s your threat model? I like to use a flip phone and just don’t do anything important on it.
What non Chinese manufacture are you looking at? I liked Xperia I for being made in Japan but it’s still Chinese components underneath and as you say there’s no control of all the code.
There’s always Bunnie’s Precursor phone if anyone is interested in commercially developing something reasonably secure and auditable.
I probably trust banking the most on a locked-down phone. It is in fact the interests of the state and its monetary system that these systems that implement it are secure.
At the same time, the state has its flaws and I'm questioning whether a top down system can ever really work, not out of some kind of "fuck the man" point of view, but more of an engineering and systems design perspective. If the system is perfectly factored, there are no cross-cutting concerns. But in such a system there is no need to communicate or coordinate laterally, only up and down. This sounds very lonely.
And if this system has a flaw, not a specific flaw, but rather a flaw in the assumption that tree structures with abstraction are a good way to organize systems, it might be impossible to change from let's say a tree with a single root to multiple interacting trees, with multiple roots of authority. Or maybe this is possible if people can learn to exist in multiple seemingly incompatible realities simultaneously?
Why have a compromised phone at all? You're still exposing yourself to telemetry. And if you've ever said anything positive about a Hong Kong democracy activist, you still have to wonder what's going to happen to you if you travel to any country with a mature extradition relationship to China.
I also think it's easy to underestimate your footprint when it comes to ecosystems that involve money in any capacity. No Amazon, Steam, no card information on a Netflix app, no signing in to Google to read a NYT article.
I think either you care about these things categorically or you don't, and I don't think anybody is going to be in the middle space you seem to be envisioning, which is concerned enough about the risks to avoid all banking but still a casual enough attitude about a compromised phone that you're fine with it for uses you consider non-secure.
The price seems way too high to me. I hope Motorola will release budget smartphones in the future, similar to the A models in the Pixel series. It would be cool to have a smartphone running GrapheneOS that you could also recommend to regular folks and older people.
Such a shame they ended up enlarging that series just like every other phone out there. I had the first generation of Moto G all the way up to 6 or 7, when they made it too large for my hands.
I'd probably kill someone (bad) for the 3rd generation Moto G but with modern specs.
I am curious what if any progress has been made with free and open source software and computational photography. I don't have any expertise on this matter. I just remember about five or six years ago the meta was that free and open source apps such as open camera pretty much suck balls when it comes to any advanced photography that allowed the user to click and forget when the likes of the proprietary Google Camera app was where the "magic" happened.
I think progress in that area has kind of plateaued no? We got to a point in which the AI post processing was too noticeable and creating weird artifacts (like the ones in those hyper-zoom pictures) and companies took it down a notch.
You can probably find open source alternatives that can compete with closed source ones
I know it's a matter of taste but omg is this phone not good looking... and that's particularly odd, because pretty much all their other phones are quite OK.
GrapheneOS promotion is getting weirder and weirder. In the early summer the journalist Richard Medhurst had his running phone snatched by the authorities who allegedly could not get the data due to the GrapheneOS reboot feature.
Medhurst went on Twitter to heavily promote GrapheneOS and was going to write a book about phone security for journalists.
Since August 24 he has disappeared completely. So maybe give us an update here on what really happened or call it DisappearOS in one interpretation or HoneypotOS in the other interpretation. Something is very wrong here.
On the other hand, there are state actors whom will profile you for using a Pixel phone as they assume you're running GrapheneOS, so the promise of privacy seems to be working for a lot of people if it's scaring them that much.
And with your logic, you would also need to say that QubesOS / Whonix / Tails are all Disappear/Honeypot operating systems since he's known to run those as well. It's much more likely that the disappearance is due to the fact that his adversaries are very powerful state actors and it takes just one slip up in your OpSec for them to pwn you.
Graphene being pwned is not mutually exclusive with authorities targeting individuals for using a phone marketed toward people who don’t want to be pwned
I'm just going by occam's razor. It's good to be skeptical/paranoid and to know your threat model. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a powerful entity out there with a zero day for GrapheneOS / Pixel hardware and used it to target Medhurst. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater even if that actually did happen. We're in the middle of the storm with the advent of highly competent AI-assisted cybersecurity atm.
Odd to see Gemini promoted alongside GrapheneOS. One is effectively handing your life to the Google surveillance platform, the other encourages the opposite. What a strange partnership.
The post is about the overall launch of the device, not only official GrapheneOS support for it. They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.
The post is about the overall launch of the device, not only official GrapheneOS support for it. They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.
The post is about the overall launch of the device, not only official GrapheneOS support for it. They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.
I have a Pixel 10 that I'm looking to install GrapheneOS on, but even at $1599 I'm still intrigued by this. It seems they are trying to build a real long term device with few downsides, which is a big contrast to a lot of Motorola's recent phones.
I wonder how much GrapheneOS support will help other Android "distros" like LineageOS. In theory since GrapheneOS is open source it should be quite easy to port the low-level stuff including security updates for the full supported lifecycle (at least as much as the security patches affect both Graphene and other ROMs).
Any AI features and components would be included in their own Android distribution (pretend it's called Moto OS). GrapheneOS (a different AOSP distribution) would need to be flashed independently completely at the device owner's choice and doesn't have anything Motorola-related bundled.
Oh, weird. I didn't realize they were marketing it as GrapheneOS _capable_. I thought the intention/one of the selling points was that it'd ship with GrapheneOS _pre-installed_.
Well, this looks like the only option for buying a realistic security-focused phone that's free from Google or Apple... It's expensive and ugly and Google-free GrapheneOS has caveats, but honestly I think I'm in.
I've used Apple devices my whole life and am just getting so so tired of the constant squeeze! Recently I decided enough is enough and started replacing devices. So far Framework+Linux instead of Macbook and HTPC+Linux instead of Apple TV. I've agonized a lot about what to do with the phone (the one company I hate more than Apple is Google!) While GrapheneOS project looks nice, it only works on Google phones, is still Android based, the open source Android ecosystem does seem like it's getting progressively squeezed by Google, and certain things (Android Auto, tap to pay, certain apps) won't work without Google components. None of this makes me happy, but with a non-Google phone option it might just make sense.
I'm very happy for graphene and motorola, and hoping this comes to less premium lines!
One of the most exciting things is that GrapheneOS folks insist the bootloader not be locked. I continue to think actual Linux on the phone is kind of just waiting for us, that it'd be imminently possible. If we had some modern-ish devices with unlocked bootloaders. Especially if they are Qualcomm chipsets, which have been seeing a lot more linux upstreaming/mainlining support than any other ARM platform. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49361686
Bunch of fancy cameras (same as every other flagship smartphone) and following the unwritten "thou flagship shall be expensive" rule that has little to do with silly things like hardware cost.
Somewhat surprisingly, Lenovo/Motorola here has some of the more affordable mainstream phones (200€-ish for the G56), beating other Chinese brands that played around tiny margins and got hit even harder by memory prices now.
Well "starting MSRP of $1,599." I'll stick to my 2nd hand Pixel 8 that I bought, for GrapheneOS long term support, for 1/10th of that price.
No doubt it's a way WAY better device, really, but I don't see where I would actually need that. I happily toss the one I have around and don't even care if it gets stolen or lost one day, different preference.
Indeed, I was planning to buy this but the price is way too high. My biggest fear here is that the price causes the device sales to be poor, and people blame grapheneos for it
I don’t think anybody will blame GrapheneOS, it’s not even installed by default. Motorola will absolutely see that GrapheneOS support is not a value add and will decide against spending whatever nominal value it cost them to have first class support for it though.
They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.
As some who also just so happens to have a Pixel 8 (well 8a) 2nd hand phone with Graphene I think an underappreciated point here is access to older hardware with current software. Whether intended or not, a second life for hardware is another way GrapheneOS insulates from control of first party vendors.
Pixel 8 and later have 7 years of support from launch and so does the Motorola Signature 27. It isn't GrapheneOS extending the life of the devices but rather GrapheneOS only using devices with long term security updates. We do greatly improve the security updates during the lifetime of the device but it stops being safe to use devices without firmware updates after end-of-life. Official GrapheneOS releases are for devices which aren't end-of-life. We provide extended support releases for devices past end-of-life as harm reduction, but we don't do it indefinitely. We've found providing extended support releases can be quite counterproductive since people won't listen to us and will continue using or even buying the devices despite growing insecurity. It's going to be a lot worse now with AI models able to help anyone develop exploits.
GrapheneOS ends support for devices when the OEM ends support. Google Pixels now have 7 years of support from launch, as does the Moto Signature.
I don't know if I can trust a motorola phone with grapheneOS. Motorola is owned by a Chinese company that has recently been caught for injecting affiliate codes in users purchases. Yes, I know it won't be Motorola's OS but they do modify a large part of the BSP (bootloader, modem, etc.) with their "mot_sec" additions which you'll find if you reverse engineer any motorola firmware. It's unclear if qualcomm will give grapheneOS permission to rebuild or see the source code everything else. Modern phones run multiple operating systems like in the DSP, modem, trustzone, etc.
It concerns me as well as the user-land OS isn't really where control of the RF happens. The OS running in their baseband chip is where the backdoors would best be placed from their perspective. But I'm happy that there are some additional options to run Graphene on the market.
The userspace OS needs to be where control of any radio (bluetooth, wi-fi, cellular, nfc, uwb etc.) components happens, otherwise it would be difficult to be compliant in terms of regulatory requirements like a working Flight Mode.
Baseband firmware/processors are still making strides in terms of defending against attacks so I don't think we are at the point where backdoors are needed. More likely that undocumented AT commands, plausibly deniable bugdoors and existing memory corruption vulnerabilities are already convenient reality. However, part of that reality is also that once the cellular modem is exploited OTA it is still a massive task to traverse IOMMU restrictions and get device owner data/secrets from the userspace OS. It doesn't even grant visibility into application traffic which has been aggressively TLS encrypted since the mid 2010s.
In modern phones, doesn't the main chip control the baseband chip rather than the other way? What is the threat model?
Obviously since phone calls and text messages are unencrypted the baseband chip could send them elsewhere. But your internet communication should already be encrypted before it hits the baseband chip. So is the threat model Motorola has intentionally introduced a backdoor to leak data from the main chip to the baseband chip?
Graphene doesn't expect to have control of the RF. It makes all the RF stuff happen on the other side of a firewall.
My thoughts exactly.
I'm pretty uncomfortable with how many smartphones I'd like to buy end up being Chinese owned companies. I wish Fairphone had a better camera, if it did, I'd just buy one of those and call it day.
It depends on the level of involvement you're comfortable with. As far as I'm aware, Fairphone are partnered with a Chinese ODM T2 Mobile for the hardware portion of their smartphone products. You can expect they are sourcing the hardware and spares, SoC/subsystem BSP components, peripherals and associated firmware from T2Mobile.
Independence from the Chinese manufacturing hegemony probably means opting for a flagship Samsung, 11-series Pixel or pre-2025 Sony flagship.
I wish fairphone was waterproof, what's the advantage of a repairable phone if a rainy hike will destroy it!
We can solve this if we make a non-Chinese smartphone company. But how?
Trump Mobile
Is this sarcasm? It's a rebranded Chinese phone.
Supply chain attacks? Is grapheneOS itself audited by an external auditor?
I on the other hand am looking to purchase electronic devices because they are owned by the Chinese. I work under the impression that everyone and everything is spying on us in this surveillance-capitalist world, so if that's true then why not let others spy on me for a change. Just to give our guys a break. At least the other guys don't condition my loan or my kids' university admission.
I can sort of understand that. If you are an American, arguably the Chinese government is not all that dangerous to you, and worrying about university admissions is about as ugly as your life gets. I expect the Uyghurs have a different perspective on how dangerous the CCP is.
I always feel amused at these takes from north american citizens.
From a latin american POV, it is same-ish as USA manufacturers, they're also tracking everything we do to sell us more unneeded stuff.
The difference is that chinese government is just trying to sell stuff, while USA government is trying to convert all the southern continent into a colony to impose governments and suck up minerals in the meantime. If you ask me if I trust more China or USA, at least China's intentions are clear and direct.
Of course, you people will always have the argument of "national interest" which for us (at least tech-literate people) that's no argument, but still you will find some bootlickers in the mobs.
The problem with whataboutism is the same as it always has been, which is that the critique skips the step of checking whether the person who is concerned about Chinese privacy compromises hinges that position on the innocence of Western companies.
That part is assumed, and the whole argument unravels once its established that the assumption doesn't hold. And then either the tankies show up, or everyone forgets about it until the next thread where the process plays out again.
You’re not wrong about the US but let’s not pretend China is just “trying to sell stuff”. They’ve got their own genocide going on with the Uyghurs and are famous for espionage
Ok so just don’t do banking and critical communication on a cellular device with mysterious CPUs. What’s your threat model? I like to use a flip phone and just don’t do anything important on it.
What non Chinese manufacture are you looking at? I liked Xperia I for being made in Japan but it’s still Chinese components underneath and as you say there’s no control of all the code.
There’s always Bunnie’s Precursor phone if anyone is interested in commercially developing something reasonably secure and auditable.
I probably trust banking the most on a locked-down phone. It is in fact the interests of the state and its monetary system that these systems that implement it are secure.
At the same time, the state has its flaws and I'm questioning whether a top down system can ever really work, not out of some kind of "fuck the man" point of view, but more of an engineering and systems design perspective. If the system is perfectly factored, there are no cross-cutting concerns. But in such a system there is no need to communicate or coordinate laterally, only up and down. This sounds very lonely.
And if this system has a flaw, not a specific flaw, but rather a flaw in the assumption that tree structures with abstraction are a good way to organize systems, it might be impossible to change from let's say a tree with a single root to multiple interacting trees, with multiple roots of authority. Or maybe this is possible if people can learn to exist in multiple seemingly incompatible realities simultaneously?
Why have a compromised phone at all? You're still exposing yourself to telemetry. And if you've ever said anything positive about a Hong Kong democracy activist, you still have to wonder what's going to happen to you if you travel to any country with a mature extradition relationship to China.
I also think it's easy to underestimate your footprint when it comes to ecosystems that involve money in any capacity. No Amazon, Steam, no card information on a Netflix app, no signing in to Google to read a NYT article.
I think either you care about these things categorically or you don't, and I don't think anybody is going to be in the middle space you seem to be envisioning, which is concerned enough about the risks to avoid all banking but still a casual enough attitude about a compromised phone that you're fine with it for uses you consider non-secure.
Wake me when Framework ships a phone.
The price seems way too high to me. I hope Motorola will release budget smartphones in the future, similar to the A models in the Pixel series. It would be cool to have a smartphone running GrapheneOS that you could also recommend to regular folks and older people.
With current RAM prices, releasing budget phones just isn't possible without taking a big loss. Especially if there's no ads to recoup the loss ;)
G-Series is what you're looking for.
Such a shame they ended up enlarging that series just like every other phone out there. I had the first generation of Moto G all the way up to 6 or 7, when they made it too large for my hands.
I'd probably kill someone (bad) for the 3rd generation Moto G but with modern specs.
I am curious what if any progress has been made with free and open source software and computational photography. I don't have any expertise on this matter. I just remember about five or six years ago the meta was that free and open source apps such as open camera pretty much suck balls when it comes to any advanced photography that allowed the user to click and forget when the likes of the proprietary Google Camera app was where the "magic" happened.
I think progress in that area has kind of plateaued no? We got to a point in which the AI post processing was too noticeable and creating weird artifacts (like the ones in those hyper-zoom pictures) and companies took it down a notch. You can probably find open source alternatives that can compete with closed source ones
I know it's a matter of taste but omg is this phone not good looking... and that's particularly odd, because pretty much all their other phones are quite OK.
I think that is a no-problem. Phone has such a steep price, that it's very hard to justify.
It showed up on some Polish listings (media expert) for ~7500zł and a thousand more for 16GB version. We are talking of a range of 1800€ for a phone.
GrapheneOS promotion is getting weirder and weirder. In the early summer the journalist Richard Medhurst had his running phone snatched by the authorities who allegedly could not get the data due to the GrapheneOS reboot feature.
Medhurst went on Twitter to heavily promote GrapheneOS and was going to write a book about phone security for journalists.
Since August 24 he has disappeared completely. So maybe give us an update here on what really happened or call it DisappearOS in one interpretation or HoneypotOS in the other interpretation. Something is very wrong here.
On the other hand, there are state actors whom will profile you for using a Pixel phone as they assume you're running GrapheneOS, so the promise of privacy seems to be working for a lot of people if it's scaring them that much.
And with your logic, you would also need to say that QubesOS / Whonix / Tails are all Disappear/Honeypot operating systems since he's known to run those as well. It's much more likely that the disappearance is due to the fact that his adversaries are very powerful state actors and it takes just one slip up in your OpSec for them to pwn you.
Is it scaring them or are they acting scared?
Graphene being pwned is not mutually exclusive with authorities targeting individuals for using a phone marketed toward people who don’t want to be pwned
I'm just going by occam's razor. It's good to be skeptical/paranoid and to know your threat model. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a powerful entity out there with a zero day for GrapheneOS / Pixel hardware and used it to target Medhurst. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater even if that actually did happen. We're in the middle of the storm with the advent of highly competent AI-assisted cybersecurity atm.
Odd to see Gemini promoted alongside GrapheneOS. One is effectively handing your life to the Google surveillance platform, the other encourages the opposite. What a strange partnership.
The post is about the overall launch of the device, not only official GrapheneOS support for it. They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.
Please stop spamming this response everywhere. Yes I understand they are just promoting their phone. It doesn't negate what I said in any way.
It's not. Some people have a threat model that includes being okay with AI.
Being ok with AI is not the same as being ok with Google - one of the most privacy invading companies on the planet - though...
The post is about the overall launch of the device, not only official GrapheneOS support for it. They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.
What's the overlap for that people with Graphene OS users?
You are going through the trouble of installing a privacy first OS and the first thing you do is handle your data to AI companies? That's pretty odd
The post is about the overall launch of the device, not only official GrapheneOS support for it. They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.
Can Motorola confirm the bootloader unlock process and related warranty agreement for the Signature 27?
I have a Pixel 10 that I'm looking to install GrapheneOS on, but even at $1599 I'm still intrigued by this. It seems they are trying to build a real long term device with few downsides, which is a big contrast to a lot of Motorola's recent phones.
Moto Edge series would have been an instant hit with Graphene OS.
Great to see more widespread support for graphine. I wish my current phone was old enough to justify an upgrade, maybe I'll pick one up next year.
I wonder how much GrapheneOS support will help other Android "distros" like LineageOS. In theory since GrapheneOS is open source it should be quite easy to port the low-level stuff including security updates for the full supported lifecycle (at least as much as the security patches affect both Graphene and other ROMs).
Did they just say agentic AI? Does that mean they will load crap on top of Graphene?
Any AI features and components would be included in their own Android distribution (pretend it's called Moto OS). GrapheneOS (a different AOSP distribution) would need to be flashed independently completely at the device owner's choice and doesn't have anything Motorola-related bundled.
Oh, weird. I didn't realize they were marketing it as GrapheneOS _capable_. I thought the intention/one of the selling points was that it'd ship with GrapheneOS _pre-installed_.
They do not have a say in what GrapheneOS runs. The signing keys for GrapheneOS are controlled by GrapheneOS.
I like this phone but I want the Motorola Razr with GrapheneOS
> The first Motorola device to support GrapheneOS, an privacy and security-focused mobile operating system.
… "an privacy" …
A confidence-inspiring typo, unless there is a novel way of pronouncing "privacy" that I'm unaware of.
I appreciate it as a sign that this was written by hand ;)
Well, this looks like the only option for buying a realistic security-focused phone that's free from Google or Apple... It's expensive and ugly and Google-free GrapheneOS has caveats, but honestly I think I'm in.
I've used Apple devices my whole life and am just getting so so tired of the constant squeeze! Recently I decided enough is enough and started replacing devices. So far Framework+Linux instead of Macbook and HTPC+Linux instead of Apple TV. I've agonized a lot about what to do with the phone (the one company I hate more than Apple is Google!) While GrapheneOS project looks nice, it only works on Google phones, is still Android based, the open source Android ecosystem does seem like it's getting progressively squeezed by Google, and certain things (Android Auto, tap to pay, certain apps) won't work without Google components. None of this makes me happy, but with a non-Google phone option it might just make sense.
$1,599 MSRP
With that unaffordable that price I'll stick with Pixels or switch to iPhones completely.
I'm very happy for graphene and motorola, and hoping this comes to less premium lines!
One of the most exciting things is that GrapheneOS folks insist the bootloader not be locked. I continue to think actual Linux on the phone is kind of just waiting for us, that it'd be imminently possible. If we had some modern-ish devices with unlocked bootloaders. Especially if they are Qualcomm chipsets, which have been seeing a lot more linux upstreaming/mainlining support than any other ARM platform. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49361686
GrapheneOS requires the bootloader be locked for a complete install. But it does require the bootloader be unlockable and support yellowboot.
GrapheneOS, Android, and android based OSs, are all linux distros.
Allegedly the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 (Oryon acquisition) Gen 6 SoC costs them $300 per device..
Bunch of fancy cameras (same as every other flagship smartphone) and following the unwritten "thou flagship shall be expensive" rule that has little to do with silly things like hardware cost.
Somewhat surprisingly, Lenovo/Motorola here has some of the more affordable mainstream phones (200€-ish for the G56), beating other Chinese brands that played around tiny margins and got hit even harder by memory prices now.
phone looks like a fucking alien but glad its not just pixels now.