this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

5981 readers
113 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

GrapheneOS statement on Mastodon: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114661914197695338

Calyx made an official statement on this development here: https://calyxos.org/news/2025/06/11/android-16-plans/

Concerning stuff. Hopefully a workaround or solution is found at some point, but if not, I'm already thinking of how to manage without them.

I can't see myself going back to a standard Android phone, so I suppose worse case scenario, I'd have to settle with LineageOS, or potentially abandon Android altogether and see if I can manage with discrete separate devices to fulfill the same needs, such as:

  • a pocketable mini-Linux PC like a MNT Pocket Reform, which has the ability to use cellular networks. Should be able to text, browse web, and maybe GPS? Alternatively, perhaps the Mecha Comet?
  • Small pocket-able dumb camera
  • MP3 player
  • Dumb-phone kept in a faraday bag when not in use?

EDIT:

Update on the situation from GrapheneOS in this thread (using Redlib, a proxy of Reddit)

The biggest problem for GrapheneOS is not the change to AOSP but rather our lead developer since 2022 being forcibly conscripted to fight in a war in April. That's why we've been asking for help since April.

In April, we were contacted by someone about upcoming changes to AOSP impacting us including the removal of device support in Android 16. We talked about it internally but didn't know if the information was credible. We prepared as much as we could for the Android 16 port but didn't know exactly what would happen with device support. If we had clearer information on it and knew it was accurate, we could have prepared much more in advanced.

Porting to Android 16 is required to continue shipping full Android privacy/security patches regardless of device. Only the latest stable release gets full privacy/security patches, which was the May release of Android 15 QPR2 and is not Android 16. Older releases only get backports.

Pixels also only have their driver and firmware patches for Android 16, although we're working on a release within the next 24 hours with backports of the most important firmware patches. We would normally have an experimental Android 16 release out already, if they hadn't made changes to AOSP.

There are further changes coming to AOSP. It is not only what is talked about there.

In another comment:

We're going to be continuing GrapheneOS but in the long term we'll need to shift to our own devices with an OEM partner.

It's not only Pixels which are going to be impacted. Pixels are still the only devices meeting our hardware requirements (https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices). It's clear we need our own hardware in partnership with an OEM that's serious about security and capable of delivering on it. We've had several attempts at OEM partnerships but they were unable to provide what we needed. It will cost millions of dollars to get a device meeting our basic requirements. We can do that, but we hoped for an OEM wanting to work with us instead of us needing to pay for everything through raising funds. We didn't end up finding a good OEM to work with that way so we'll do it the hard way.

top 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago

Google can suck my fat fucking graphenis

[–] rolling@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it was optimistic to think that GrapheneOS would survive long term while the only phones they worked with was made by, you know, Google. I understand their security requirements and respect that they did not make exceptions to be able to work with other devices, but I hope they now change their approach to this considering the alternative.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago

Hopefully they can redivert their energy and skills towards supporting Linux phones to be fully free and independent of Google shenanigans.

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For fucks sake. Got me a pixel not even a year ago especially for Graphene -_-

[–] Lonewolfmcquade@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yup. My pixel arrived 2 weeks ago. Just loaded Graphene last week. Haven't even put the sim card in it yet. FFS

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I just switched phones and I specifically gave up on my wish for GrapheneOS seeing it all but married to the Pixel line. I get that Pixels were popular but this was just a terrible decision on their part given the goal of GrapheneOS overall...

Honestly, this is like rallying against Toyota by only buying Corollas

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Its not about popularity. to be frank, the performance of Pixels is mediocre at best. It is neither particularly fast, nor does it have a particularly long battery life, nor is it overly stylish.

The strength lies in the dedicated security hardware and the fact that you can re-lock the bootloader, which is extremely rare. plus 7 to 10 years support with updates.

In terms of privacy and security the combination of Pixel Hardware and GrapheneOS Software could be considered the holy grail. There is just no other hardware right now that comes even close.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's technical reasons Graphene went with Pixel - it's the only phone with the security hardware required for their security direction.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I understand... but again, strategically that meant they are as free from Google as Google allows them to be (case in point)

I am not 100% knowledgeable as to the history and mission of GrapheneOS, I checked them out trying to de-google. But when I found out that I must buy a flagship Google phone to use GrapheneOS, it immediately defeated the purpose I was trying to achieve

[–] zod000@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Ironically, GrapheneOS and Calyx are some of the few in position to actually soft fork from AOSP because they don't implicitly rely on having access to Google Play Services and the Play Store. Many of their users don't want anything to do that with that stuff, which is what Google holds over the heads of all the OEMs.

[–] leds@feddit.dk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about jolla (with sailfish OS and support for android apps). Anyone any experience with this?

[–] tasankovasara@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sailfish OS is really nice, but only available for select Sony Xperia phones officially. Also native apps are few in number, but when I used it there was enough for basic needs - really good navigation app, ok Matrix and Telegram, official email app was excellent, the browser was workable. I think I got an Android parking app working too. But this was a while ago.

[–] JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

Well, they haven't figured out how to properly use BT with android apps (there are some weird workarounds), but it isn't viable without unstandardized Bluetooth device support (watches, lockers, etc.).

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Replacing a smartphone with hardware that fills your smartphone needs is more expensive than I'd like.

  • MNT Pocket Reform: €1,050.00, or $1,215.86
  • 2013 Sony HX50, used: $220

Over $1400 and a lot of space for devices that, together, perform roughly the same functions as a new $800 smartphone.

How do phones manage to fit such decent cameras into their tiny chassis while still keeping the price down and also being a phone? I've seen explanations about how incredibly cutting-edge tech makes it into phone cameras, but it's hard to fathom how the surveillance inside of them subsidizes the camera costs.

(Regardless, I would love recommendations for a good all-around digital camera that can actually compete with a phone's camera app: low light conditions, macro, a little zoom, gps tagging, preferably fit in your pocket. Even if it's old)

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Woah, I missed that the MNT mini laptop costs that much, that's wildly out of my budget. I think the Mecha thing is much cheaper (and a better form factor), though I'm not sure if it can use cellular networks.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's an admirable benchmark at least. I was eying "pocket laptops" but I didn't see any with a screen under 8" that also supported a SIM added or PCIE slot to add my own, let alone hardware that wouldn't require tinkering to run Linux. Most were $400ish devices with questionable build quality and Windows 11 preinstalled.

Windows 11 or not, most people with GPD Win devices tend to swear by them, and I think they're linux compatible. https://github.com/aarron-lee/gpd-win-tricks

[–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm ignorant on the matter: why is it happening? Isn't Android open source?

[–] who@feddit.org 3 points 1 year ago

The Calyx statement explains it.

Google released the Android Open Source Project code for this new version of their OS, but not device-specific code for the new Pixel models. GrapheneOS targets only Pixel devices, so they cannot continue development without access to that code, at least not as they have been so far.

[–] Blaster_M@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Google regretting Android being open source and closing off access to the Pixel hardware source.

[–] sturlabragason@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Link says it: “On June 10th, Google released Android 16 to AOSP - but without Pixel device-specific source code.”

And

“Why Android 16 is different

Android 16 was released to AOSP yesterday but with a one big difference than typical releases:

Google did not publish any device-specific source code for supported, modern Pixel devices. In previous years, Google released full device trees alongside new Android versions. This allowed developers to build and boot AOSP on Pixel hardware relatively easily. With Android 16, only the platform/framework code has been released. The device trees are missing, at least for now. This means AOSP 16 cannot currently be built or run on any recent Pixel device easily just using official source.”

[–] tired_n_bored@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is such a stupid decision...

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

Why? It's pretty clear that Google is mostly done with users having choices, particularly indovidual users, and all the more so on Google-branded hardware.

Manifest V3, Play Integrity, the attempt of introducing Web Integrity. How many more examples do you need to see?

This seems like a perfectly logical decision in that direction.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The biggest problem for GrapheneOS is not the change to AOSP but rather our lead developer since 2022 being forcibly conscripted to fight in a war in April.

Is the lead developer ukrainian?

edit Answering my own question, yes: https://dev.ua/en/news/mobilizatsiia-v-grapheneos-1745408138

[–] falynns@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Global conglomerates are not your friend.

[–] JamesBoeing737MAX@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

Maybe Graphene should just consider loosening the device requirements. This will make an inferior product, but they could support Motos, which are still somewhat acceptable security-wise (but they still have yellow state) and we might get a more affordable GOS phone.

[–] carrylex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Summary for people who don't like to read for 10 minutes:

Only Google Pixels are currently affected

from Calyx's post:

  • Google did not publish any device-specific source code for supported, modern Pixel devices.
  • In previous years, Google released full device trees alongside new Android versions. This allowed developers to build and boot AOSP on Pixel hardware relatively easily.
  • With Android 16, only the platform/framework code has been released. The device trees are missing, at least for now.

So let's don't panic and just wait a few days until more information is available...

[–] The1TruePower@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 months ago

I'm late to this post but I have several questions, as I am in the process of de-googling and being more in control of my life. I'm new to all of this.

  1. Android 16 isn't supported, but as long as GrapheneOS updates on Android 15 then shouldn't GOS remain just as secure with continual patches with Android 15?

  2. I've been familiarizing myself with Linux and have thought about using LineageOS instead of GOS. It seems GOS is touted as most secure but what's the risk with Lineage in comparison? I'm not a government worker or anything. I just don't tracking/spying from apps. Will LineageOS safely accomplish this?

  3. If Graphene is looking to no longer be an option, what are some alternative operating systems for my purposes? What are good devices to tinker with for those alternative OS's?

[–] 01011@monero.town 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why did you focus on the bad news and not the good OP? They mention that they'll have to ramp up development on a GrapheneOS device. About time.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you mean when they say:

Having our own devices meeting our hardware requirements (https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices) would reduce the time pressure to migrate to new releases and could be used to obtain early access ourselves. Based on talks with OEMs, paying for what we need will cost millions of dollars.

~~I don't think they're saying that they will~~, they're pointing out how expensive it would be to do so ~~(I.E, unlikely as they do not have the funds to do it).~~

Further down they clarify when someone asks what they mean by a GrapheneOS device:

Working with an OEM partner to make devices built to run GrapheneOS. We have a list of hardware requirements at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices which are provided by the currently supported devices (Pixels). It would be very hard to make new devices meeting our requirements. We would need the community to raise a substantial amount of money in advance by preordering devices. We would need to incorporate substantial costs for development and long term support into the device cost.

Edit:

I was wrong! Graphene has clarified that they will, in fact, pursue creating their own hardware. Check main OP for details.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which is great news!

But they'll need a new, professional leadership team to make this happen.

There are many stories of the terrible experience with the Graphene team - I took those stories with a grain of salt until I had the same experience with them with my very first contact with the team - as in within 2 minutes. It was like dealing with Nick Burns on SNL, only worse.

That's a major issue that will require a strong leadership team to keep doing what they do best: building an OS, and not interacting with us plebeians.

[–] railcar@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah they really need better PR. They have a strong persecution complex and lash out at everyone. It's worse than normal Linux distro flame wars

[–] Sixtyforce@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, let's say GrapheneOS is dead. That was a nice 10 years, so I've not kept up to this scene.

What's the next best thing left standing? LineageOS?

[–] skarn@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think you're missing the point. If this is confirmed as a policy change, it's not GrapheneOS that's dead... It's the Pixel as a mod-friendly device. And of course GrapheneOS runs only on that.

So the first thing you need to ask yourself is what's the next best device. I have a Fairphone, I like it, they are extremely supportive of the community (so far as to help porting PostmarketOS on 10 years old phones). Then you decide which Android ROM is the best. CalyxOS for instance sounds pretty good.

Using a Fairphone does include a few compromises in terms of security compared to a Pixel. How important that is to you is something you'll have to decide.

For me it's pretty fine. If, like almost everyone around here, you are a human rights activist in Iran. Then maybe you should just keep running GrapheneOS on you Pixel with Android 15 for a few more years.

Hopefully within a couple years we sort this mess out, and a new reference device emerges with a hardware security features that are not too much of a step down from the Pixels.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And apparently one of, if not the lead dev for GrapheneOS was conscripted, so they're working w/ less experienced devs to prep Android 16 w/ GrapheneOS changes.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Fuck Russia.

[–] MITM0@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Which is why we need to be pushing for Linux OS for mobile & methods to get them installed.

E.g: There's no PostMarketOS g UbuntuTouch for pixel 4, 4XL & 4a

We also need apps

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Problem with phones is all the components have embedded firmwares, acting like small undocumented computers. This is a whole layer of cluster-fuckery for documenting drivers. You can check how for example the MS Surface has rather good Linux support....Except for the wencam, which has an intel module directly controlling the sensor, which is completely undocumented. Result -> ANy of these newer laptops have non-existent camera support. Imagine the same but not just the camera, but the GSM modem, the wifi, the storage adapter, NFC module, the battery...

[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So if not a Pixel, what's the best phone to get (if you don't have $500 for a FairPhone)?

[–] vermeil@feddit.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Graphene supports Fairphone?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I'm asking about the best choice for a privacy-respecting phone in general, not necessarily one running GrapheneOS.

[–] 01011@monero.town 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was seriously thinking about going the postmarketos route anyway. Even with GrapheneOS I still cannot stand Android (I don't like iOS either, for all the fanbois).

[–] FireIced@lemmy.super.ynh.fr 1 points 1 year ago

Android is corrupted by Google, iOS is corrupted by Apple

We’re truly doomed

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Should've built upon straight Linux rather than Android.

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This would mean that all the necessary drivers for the entire hardware would have to be recreated by reverse engineering. that would take years until you have an even halfway working device.

In the end, you have to poke around randomly in the hardware until at some point a light goes on somewhere. and so on. takes freaking forever. some devices don't have working support after a decade and more of work.

[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

...for the entire hardware...

Referring to Pixel hardware? I also don't think they should be building on top of Pixels.

...would take years until you have an even halfway working device.

PostmarketOS seems to support many devices. So its doable. I would prioritize something like the Pinephone though.

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

PostmarketOS seems to support many devices

3 devices. They support 3 devices under the "main" branch. And those are not even real devices but emulated on PC.

Every single smartphone they support falls under the "community" branch. that means it was made available by volunteers in their free time. some will never see further updates after getting them to work once.

And the list looks like this:

Release Year Name Missing / Broken or not tested Features
2021 Fairphone 4 Battery Status / charging, Wifi, Audio, Camera, GPS, NFC
2021 PinePhone Pro Partial Battery Status, Camera, SMS, Calls, USB-OTG
2020 PINE64 PinePhone Camera
2020 Purism Librem 5 Camera

and so on. there is none newer then 2021 and then it goes very fast down to 2012. see yourself: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices#Phones

It does run on many phones, but e.g. support for Camera is very very rare because that is one thing you most of the time only get a binary blob for as driver and not the source code. and it is a god damn nightmare to get those things working.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

So in a way it's a good thing.

There's no longer a pixel vs. the rest. Nobody gets the shiny toys. All the phones will have to get systems the same way, by scraping the mud.

As an aside it will finally get those Graphene guys to shut up.