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.
If it makes anyone feel any better, Moto in particular never stays at MSRP long. I'd expect it to be well under $1000 within a month or two, which is a sweeter spot.
That said, I've never seen a regular Moto phone nearly this expensive, so who knows.
RAMpocalypse is real and high end phones are definitely going to feel it the most. I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola had to pay an insane amount of money to get any ram allocation at all.
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
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.
There's not a lot of flagship phones that released recently which is why I included them alongside phones that do not fold but were released a bit earlier.
I think the most fair comparison will probably be the Galaxy S27 when it releases in early 2027.
Folding commands an immense premium. Not really fair to compare folding phones, given the premium associated with those. 512GB storage phones sure… although the fact they don’t even offer a 256GB option seems odd to me. Clearly gaining margin back by only selling 512 and marking it up based on that.
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.
The partnership between Motorola and GrapheneOS is a long term one. The effort that is put into providing the needed hardware security requirements also benefits Motorola directly, as they can use that hardware themselves. What you are predicting will happen is not corroborated by evidence.
> biggest fear here is that the price causes the device sales to be poor, and people blame grapheneos for it
I'm unconvinced there is a market for a premium GrapheneOS phone. It seems to do well in a niche where phones built for another OS get repurposed to it on the cheap.
I'm part of the market for a premium phone that at least nods in the direction of allowing you freedom over your own device. I'm probably going to buy something from this batch of Motorola phones rather than a samsung which has got more and more user hostile over the years. And yes I might be part of a small niche, but I'm so pleased someone is finally making a premium phone that appeals to me.
There is a market for a phone running GrapheneOS (that arent pixels) in general, and a wider range of devices can be supported in the future, once the needed hardware security features are implemented in them.
Same. A lot of voices saying "I would totally buy..." and then an excuse comes up when it's time to actually buy. (no shade, I've been guilty of this myself)
my sole excuse is price. I'd happily cough up anything below $1100 for this particular phone. anything above that is simply exorbitant. RAM went 5x over 2026, so I'm practically forced to not consider any hardware purchase at all, not even used, for now
Its not being marketed as a GrapheneOS phone. It is a Motorola phone that will come with MotorolaOS. It additionally meets the hardware security requirements for GrapheneOS, and can be flashed with it. There is a possibility preinstalled options will be available but nothing has been confirmed.
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.
Users of GOS probably does not need bunch od RAM and CPU cores anyway. I guess there are not many of those who use OS for privacy and in same time use privacy invasive apps with fancy AI stuffs, bloatware and spyware built in that consumes most of HW resources.
The people who specifically want Graphene have a different use case, generally speaking.
This is a phone for hackers and drug dealers and enemies of the state and perhaps some types of bankers, and the tinfoil hat Gribble contingent. Everyone in that list will pay whatever it costs without much of a second thought.
Not this narrative again. There are many people who don't fit in those groups who use GrapheneOS. For instance, because they like vanilla Android (which barely exists anymore outside GrapheneOS and perhaps Lineage), their phone not to be preloaded with all kinds of adware (including forced AI assistants), like a phone that is not controlled by big tech, etc.
Some of those people will also buy a premium phone because they want to have a great camera system.
> or instance, because they like vanilla Android (which barely exists anymore outside GrapheneOS and perhaps Lineage)
Absolutely. Vanilla Android is actually very nice, and compatible with many types of devices (phones, tablets, TV boxes, now some laptops). In fact, I recently compiled and patched an x86_64 version of LineageOS for an HTPC and it blows ordinary Linux distros out of the water in that role. Fully usable with remote only, etc. The problem with Android is that commercial versions people are used to are riddled with Google spyware and OEM crapware.
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.
EDIT: after reviewing other comments in this thread, I can see how my post here wasn't received well by some. It looks like some people are questioning the trust put into Graphene. I definitely am not. When I said "strange partnership" here, that's not what I meant at all. I think Graphene is operating in a very hostile ecosystem and the more doors Graphene can open for their platform to reach people, the better. The "strange" part of the equation was more aimed at Motorola (and Google) for allowing privacy intrusions to happen and even encouraging it in some ways (Gemini), yet actively supporting a project that would counter it. Maybe I should have used the word "funny" instead of "strange".
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.
Dude I don't know what to tell you. Go look at my post history, I'm not the gaslighting type. I explained my reasoning. Maybe I just have to concede here that I can't articulate my thoughts the way I'm intending to.
GrapheneOS partering with any manufacturer would be just as weird. They cannot have a non-weird partnership at this point because they're a niche product. So whoever is the manufacturer that agrees to work with them, they have to sell that grapheos-friendly phone to ordinary, Googled people as well to actually make money. No manufacturer is a charity here.
The word strange as defined by the dictionary is "different from what is usual, ordinary, or expected".
You have a large publicly traded corporation advocating using a platform known for large privacy intrusions. This same corporation has partnered with a team that is providing a mechanism for fighting against those privacy intrusions. That is unexpected. I never said it was good or bad, just that it is strange.
EDIT: Here is another data point. Motorola themselves have been sued for breach of privacy:
EDIT2: I can't reply to the posts any more, so I'll just finish this discussion off by saying I am merely making an observation. I see people here are getting offended and maybe misunderstanding my intentions. This is not an attack on GrapheneOS, I actually like Graphene and what they are doing. I just find it interesting that the very companies breaching our privacy are the ones that are partnering with Graphene. I did not say this was a bad partnership. The opposite, I actually think it's a very good thing. If I gave the impression this was somehow a jab at Graphene, it's not, I apologize if it came off that way.
Motorola was split into Motorola Solutions and Motorola Mobility in 2011. Everyone who owned the Motorola stock ended up owning both initially. Motorola Solutions kept the original stock ticker and Motorola Mobility kept ownership of the Motorola trademarks. Motorola Solutions uses the Motorola trademark under a perpetual license only permitting them to use it for the areas they already sold products. Motorola Solutions had more need for the original legal entity due to government contracts and Motorola Mobility had more need for the trademark due to selling retail products.
Motorola Mobility was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold to Lenovo in 2014. Motorola Mobility is still based in the US but is well integrated as Lenovo's mobile division. The devices are made by Lenovo with their in-house assembly/manufacturing and external supply chain rather than the typical setup of a western company paying another company to build devices for them.
Motorola Mobility sells smartphones and tablets mainly via retail. Motorola Solutions sells cameras, radios and drones mainly via government contracts. They're entirely separate companies with no business partnership. Motorola Mobility can use the Motorola brand for anything but Motorola Solutions would need to pay for a license to use it for new product lines.
This is the problem. Did you expect grapheneos to somehow convince a major manufacturer to release a flagship phone JUST for grapheneos?
WHAT do you find strange in that relationship? Motorola offered to support some of their phones to be installed with Grapheneos and maybe a dedicated, pre-installed phone sometime down the line. This particular phone is the former.
You're seriously being irrational here. Maybe make your point exactly first because it's hard to tell what is it.
No offense, but your writing is indistinguishable from writing I know first hand from genuinely harmful and dangerously unstable people.
If you do that in your own space - fine. No one has to come into your space. If someone does, it is their choice. They've signed up for that.
However, coming into other spaces like this is a big no.
I can see the argument that someone "negatively" talked about your stuff, but not only is the negative here in big quotes, but also the "your stuff" is in quotes, and, regardless of that, the weapon of choice is frightening overkill and it is overkill basically every single time.
Can you please please please tone it down a bit. You're making people very uncomfortable, which is not in spirit of this (or any) platform nor within their rules.
Having a stock operating system certified by google is usual/ordinary/expected. That is how pixel support worked for many years. This approach is borderline necessary as paying an ODM directly is very expensive and loses out on several benefits.
Motorola stands to make a lot of money from this. They need to improve hardware but they benefit from that hardware. They likely provide early access but they already have that access themselves. From Motorolas perspective, they take on very little risk, if any, to tap into a market that has since been ignored, for existing GrapheneOS users, prospective GrapheneOS users, and for alternative OS users that benefit from yellowboot support. This is the most ordinary approach that could have been taken.
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 few questions if you have a second: Is this post about the overall launch of the device, or only official GrapheneOS support for it? Do they have their own OS with Google Mobile Services? Have they made sure the device will meet all of your requirements and are they helping you develop and maintain support for it? Will GrapheneOS be the main OS for it?
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 OS absolutely controls functionality of the baseband, it would be a legal nightmare if it just didn't actually respect proper radio settings. But from a design perspective, it doesn't actually matter that much at all I feel. Any practical and secure design for a cellular phone has to assume the network is totally compromised and hostile, and so it can never be in the trusted base. From this perspective, adding the radio chip and its software to that category is not actually a huge leap. Even today vendors who own all the IP on a bus will still insert IOMMUs, etc inbetween components. It isn't dissimilar to game consoles; they assume that anything outside their die is compromised and hostile, and if you start from that premise, you can still make it very secure even when your threat model includes hostile components on the PCB.
Radio firmware is probably somewhat broken in practice (what isn't these days) but ultimately the openness stuff is a red herring IMO as far as security is concerned, you either assume it's compromised or not.
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?
"control" is mostly a gentlemans agreement. It sends commands. The OS running in the baseband can decide how to handle the commands. Assuming a malicious vendor, motivated by its host nation, that would be where they could place the most effective backdoors.
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.
Fairphones are designed and made for Fairphone by T2Mobile which is a Chinese ODM. Fairphones have very poor updates and security. Those devices are incredibly far from meeting the requirements for GrapheneOS and cannot be supported. Fairphones aren't European phones but rather Chinese designed and made devices sold by a European brand. T2Mobile not only designs the hardware but also builds and signs the firmware. Fairphone does very limited engineering and mainly combines AOSP, Google Mobile Services and the firmware/drivers from T2Mobile to make the stock OS. They're not in a position to meet our requirements. T2Mobile doesn't provide good security in practice and would need to greatly improve. Trying to get an ODM to improve security is only realistic with a security-focused organization as their direct customer and Fairphone definitely isn't.
And there couldn't be reasons to buy a phone that includes hardware made in China which thus runs firmware components made in China. So long as you don't have to work in a cobalt mine yourself, who cares about non-security benefits right?
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.
T2Mobile designs and makes Fairphones along with providing the firmware and drivers. T2Mobile even signs the firmware. Fairphone doesn't have a similar role as Apple or Google has with Foxconn. They also have much less involvement than Google had with Nexus devices prior to Pixels.
Fairphones also don't get proper updates which ruins the prospect of using those over the long term. Fairphone 5 and earlier already have end-of-life Linux kernel branches with no plans to port forward as Pixels do. Fairphone 6 will be in the same situation soon. OS updates are delayed for a year or more at launch and it gets much worse. Incomplete backports of patches to older releases start out delayed 1 to 2 months, which gets worse.
Purism’s Liberty Phone is exactly this, but the security is poor compared to Graphene OS and it’s really expensive for the hardware you get. Regardless, I think it’s your only option if you want something that’s made here.
Slapping some localized spyware and nationalist marketing onto a generic device built overseas while charging more for it seems like a pretty accurate display of American values to me.
The OS alone, however, still provides a considerable privacy upgrade over a Googled system and the associated apps including Gemini, GMail, Drive and others. By default, those apps and other Google system components are incredibly invasive and remove or limit the freedom to install other programs.
I wonder how many people forking over $$$ for a degoogled phone simply go on to use it to log in to their gmail via imap with K9 mail they installed from f-droid.
> log in to their gmail via imap with K9 mail they installed from f-droid.
This is still much better than handing over control of the entire OS and native apps to Google. The problem with email is that even if you operate your own server, realistically most emails will be sent to Google, Microsoft or Apple.
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.
Amazon and Steam work fine over a browser, as does signing in to Google. Why are you using Netflix on a phone?
The major problem is banking, although some banks still work with Waydroid, and a few banks have full featured websites that work. But you do have to be more selective.
Netflix has over 1 billion app installs on phones, so go ask 1 in 8 people.
Is a browser on compromised hardware supposed to be more secure than an app? Amazon, steam etc still risk exposing accounts authorized to make payments using your money. It's easy to think "I just won't use banks" and underestimate the risks of doing anything on compromised hardware, and the answer isn't to play the "what could possibly go wrong" game, it's to not use compromised hardware.
Also of note: they are a competitor to Flock. While it's not crazy for a company of that scale to bet on both sides of the "privacy vs surveillance state" match, it can be assumed that they'll need to commit to one over the other, somewhere down the line.
No, Motorola Solutions is an entirely different company from Motorola Mobility. Those aren't part of the same company and aren't business partners. Motorola was split into both companies all the way back in 2011. Motorola Mobility was acquired by Google in 2012 and sold to Lenovo in 2014. Motorola Mobility owns the Motorola trademark and Motorola Solutions has a limited perpetual license for it for use with existing classes of products.
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.
>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.
Are you sure the Chinese government is choosing not to pursue these $evil_intentions[] you ascribe to the US, or are they simply yet unable to?
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
> 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.
Fascinating. The propaganda I've been fed is that China is the one hoovering up all the minerals so that they have control over the global supply chain for eg cobalt.
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 hope the hardware support GrapheneOS needs filters down to Motorola's mid-range phones over the next couple of years. I really like the Moto G line, historically anyway.
> Motorola continues to build on its commitment to security with ThinkShield®, which helps protect users from the factory to the phone
Anyone know what ThinkShield is? "from the factory to the phone" sounds, well, weird, but maybe they mean it's some sort of tamper proofing from where they flash the firmware until you get the phone? Is that new for GrapheneOS versions?
> Motorola’s commitment to bringing cutting-edge security to everyday users across the globe. \n\n That commitment runs deeper than software: GrapheneOS sets demanding requirements for the hardware it runs on and how it’s kept updated
Besides providing timely security updates, which one would hope they do regardless of Graphene pushing them, isn't it Graphene doing all the actual software work? Since motorola refer to commitments "deeper than software", it sounds like motorola made some software commitments as well
Motorola signature 27 will be available in markets worldwide in the coming months, with a starting MSRP of $1,599. For local price information and availability, please contact your local PR team.
... and while we expected a Canadian release soon, Motorola is now saying that the device will be exclusive to the U.S. with no availability in Canada at this time.
So are they saying the same thing (US only at start, slow rollout to other countries later) or is it US only?
I wonder how good the camera will be on GrapheneOS compared to Motorolas stock OS.
I love grapheneOS but let’s not pretend that Gcam isn’t superior to the stock grapheneOS camera in terms of photo and video quality in the current pixel phones.
Would love to hear a response from the grapheneOS account on this subject. Would be awesome if we’d receive all the usual Motorola tweaks in the stock grapheneOS camera app.
Or at least an easy way to install it the Motorola camera app. I'm running Google's camera on my gOS Pixel but with updates and internet permission turned off.
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.
It's not going to be the only supported Motorola device. It's the first device they're making with proper MTE support and has much better secure element integration too. Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 was the only Qualcomm smartphone SoC with MTE support. Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 6 and Snapdragon 8 Elite Extreme Gen 6 also provide it. It wasn't available in the Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 but hopefully it will be for the next generation.
Pixels fill the need for budget devices well via the 'a' series, especially when purchased as used devices. 7 years of decent updates from launch for budget devices is very unique and makes used devices much more useful.
It has a high quality dedicated secure element. Qualcomm SPU is present but it's configured to use the dedicated secure element. We would be fine with supporting a budget device with only the SPU but we're quite happy we don't have to accept that compromise for the initial flagship.
This device will probably go on sale for much less than $1599. That being said, at 6.8", it's huge. My Pixel with a 6.3" screen is already too large for my taste and I wish more sub 6" phone were available. Think iPhone X size for something modern but comfortably compact.
Moto G Power is my favorite phone. Cheap enough I don't bother with a case. Durable enough that I haven't regretted not buying a case. The extra battery life allows me to keep using the phone long after the battery starts to degrade.
I've run a g power for 4 years straight, only replacing it because the phone had become unusably slow. My current 2024 model is still going strong and I have no plans to replace it.
But man I wish it were smaller. I'd be fine with it being thicker if only I could have a smaller screen.
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 just want a key-pad, dumb style phone with GrapheneOS. Part of the switch to GrapheneOS on Pixel 8 made me realise part of Google's evil (among the other tech companies) is how much they've crafted the most addictive device imaginable.
I've cut out social media and a browser. The only thing left that I want now is a smaller, less distracting form factor
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 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 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.
> The device is Motorola’s first with a performant implementation of ARM Memory Tagging Extension, a new hardware caching mechanism for helping ensure system integrity and privacy
Heck yeah, I'll buy one. Seems like a great phone to hack on. Shame it's so cost prohibitive for most people right now though.
Finally, a phone sold in the west that has a good camera. All of the previous cameras (type 1" sensor, LOFIC, etc) was weirdly only sold in China, despite using Sony sensors. Pixel, iPhone, and Samsung Galaxys all trail behind. Wish they put the 1" sensor instead of 1/2.8" though.
Those can be supported in the future but can't meet the requirements yet. Qualcomm needs to bring MTE to a non-flagship SoC. A flagship Snapdragon SoC costs more than a lot of phones.
The fact that the hardware vendor blobs are outside the control of GrapheneOS makes me wary of getting a Motorola phone, due to:
A) China's intelligence laws greatly suggest those blobs are going to have backdoors, particularly for the modem
B) Even if they weren't using backdoors, there's nothing stopping the US from unilaterally banning all Chinese made devices (something I definitely don't put past them since the TPLink incident)
It's already not guaranteed that the US govt won't outright ban the use of GrapheneOS, so adding the extra risk of Chinese manufactured phones getting the kibosh stateside makes me not want to risk $1600 on a phone.
Typically when the US “bans” a device, it’s only banned for import/first sale or for government employees. Huawei phones still work on many US carriers, for instance, despite the “ban”.
A) This is already the case for basically every phone for sale, and thus isn't really applicable to this article. Also, I thought the modem was by Qualcomm?
B) Sure, they could ban all Chinese made devices but that would basically mean banning all devices. Pixels are made in China just like Motorola, so again, not much of a difference here (I'll allow that there may be a difference of just how much of the phones are made in China.)
C) How is the government going to ban the use of an open source OS? And why would they? Apple has spit in the government's eye a few times and yet they don't ban iOS.
Yeah and Samsung foundry makes Qualcomm chips. So does TSMC, but I'm pretty sure China doesn't control that despite what they may say. At no point while searching online did I see mention of these chips being made in China.
There isn't, but I didn't state that there was. What I will say is that a Pixel phone is much less likely to have a Chinese backdoor due to less exposure to to Chinese facilities throughout the supply chain (The modem chip for instance is Samsung, not Qualcomm. Primarily South Korean/US made rather than Chinese, though not entirely).
I got this year's signature and am pretty much pleased with it. I'd like to have GrapheneOS for it, too. But I guess, hardware (or marketing) is incompatible.
Signature 2026 can't be supported since it used the Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 which had defects in the MTE implementation and couldn't support it. The defects were resolved for the Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 but Motorola didn't end up having any device with it. Signature 27 is a much higher device than the Signature 2026 and moved up to a higher tier above the Elite SoC. There will be cheaper Motorola devices supporting GrapheneOS in the future but this is the first providing everything it needs.
It's likely the device being tested doesn't have adequate cooling. It performs very well in the Signature 27 and is an upgrade over the previous generation SoC. It's an enormous upgrade over the performance of a Pixel 11 Pro XL. It has significantly beyond 2x higher GPU performance, 60% higher single threaded performance and 80% higher multithreaded performance.
it's great that this is helping mainstream GrapheneOS but other than that, there's not a lot here unfortunately, especially for that exorbitant price. much cheaper to just buy the latest flagship Pixel.
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).
I hesitate to pay that amount of money for a Laptop. Why would I pay that amount of money for a phone which lives a much more dangerous life and only needs to render a messenger UI + take photos?
I suppose the target audience here is "tech enthusiast whales"?
I kinda doubt they truly need the protections GrapheneOS provides, though.
Or rather, whatever data those protect is probably thrown out of the window anyway for other and likely not very smart reasons.
I know it's supposed to compete with iPhone pro max ultra but man, it's literally a brick dimension and weight wise, does anybody really able, not even enjoy, using a phone like that with one hand?
This is actually correct English (though admittedly a bit awkward looking). The noun "an" is determining here is "operating system", which of course starts with a vowel. Privacy acts as an part of a compound adjective along with security and focused.
I stand corrected, and was actually returning to edit my original post when I saw this. I was always under the impression that the form a or an takes is dependent on that which it determines. Apologies.
Also, it's not even the noun phrase according to the sources I'm looking at (namely Merriam-Webster) which state that it is always dependent on the word directly following the article, not even the entire phrase.
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.
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.
This just reads as a smear on GOS. "Something bad happened to a journalist explicitly seeking out hardened privacy software, therefore the software is the problem". There is nothing out of the ordinary about this situation, unless you also read every arrest of a Tor user as evidence that Tor is a honeypot.
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.
The linked post is the product announcement for the Motorola Signature 27. It's promoting a smartphone, not GrapheneOS. Our partnership with Motorola Mobility was publicly announced in March 2026 and this is the first device meeting our security requirements and providing official support for it. It shouldn't be a surprise that there's an announcement about the first device with support for it following the announcement of a partnership. There's nothing strange about it.
Richard Medhurst isn't in any way part of the GrapheneOS project and hasn't ever worked with us. GrapheneOS has over 500k users and he's only one person who asked questions about it on Matrix and made several positive posts about it. Claiming GrapheneOS must be a honeypot because a person who said they use it stopped posting on X is utter nonsense. What's strange is a freshly created account making such ridiculous unsubstantiated claims to try to push people away from using or supporting it.
You started out by claiming a person who said they use it not posting on X for several months somehow indicates it's a honeypot. He wasn't targeted for using GrapheneOS and his legal issues aren't because of it. He asked a question about GrapheneOS on August 31st so he didn't disappear since August 24 as you claimed. Someone not posting on X for several months is not that person disappearing. He also isn't in any way involved in GrapheneOS and never has been. Someone using it and saying positive things about it doesn't mean they're involved in the project.
You're now also claiming law enforcement selling phony phones with their own OS and messaging service with backdoors reflects negatively on our choice of hardware. That doesn't make any sense either. There's no logic to these claims and applying critical thinking is enough for anyone to see through it. That had nothing to do any issues with Pixel hardware. Pixels provide proper support for installing another OS and were also the only Android Open Source Project reference devices prior to Android 16 when they were removed from it. Pixels were by far the easiest devices to support before Android 16 change direction and they increasingly became harder to support than a lot of other devices.
Reporter goes missing but uses GrapheneOS which equals honeypot?
That is the biggest conclusion jumping and lack of critical thought I have ever seen/read.
I'm starting to doubt that you're even a real person. This all comes across like an attack on an OS that is already battle tested and has remained steadfast through the years. There's zero evidence to support that are a honey pot. There's commits for the last 12 years, the project is open source it's all auditable, not one single shred of evidence to back up anything you're saying lol
Don't mind Mikay and GOS docs saying different things about the actual implementation of the secure wipe. One says the data is wiped, the other that it's just locked, and code agrees with one of them (I checked but don't remember off the top of my head).
No, that's completely untrue. We've provided clear, consistent and accurate information about how data is wiped. Factory reset, device admin wipe and duress PIN/password all use the same mechanisms to prevent recovering any data.
Disk encryption headers, hardware keystore keys and secure element data are each securely erased. Each of those mechanisms prevents deriving the key encryption keys which prevents ever recovering the data. Secure element data isn't stored on the SSD and prevents recovering data via an earlier image of the SSD. We implemented doing all 3 of those before reboot to recovery for device admin wipe and we used the same code for duress PIN/password wipe. We filed an Android security bug for device admin wipe and convinced them to add the hardware keystore wipe before reboot to recovery, but we still add the other 2 forms of wiping there ourselves.
The android system uses encryption to encrypt user data. When a factory reset is performed, the secure element, the TEE, as well as the encryption headers are wiped. As destroying one of them prevents deriving the encryption key, and that secure element can reliably zero its slots, the data is effectively rendered wiped as it cannot be read without the encryption key which can no longer be derived.
No, it's a completely baseless false claim. We haven't provided inconsistent information about this. You should also stop making personal attacks on our founder.
>The device is Motorola’s first with a performant implementation of ARM Memory Tagging Extension, a new hardware caching mechanism for helping ensure system integrity and privacy.
... I don't think I've ever heard MTE described as a caching system.
Also holy shit, $1600? That's gonna be a hard no, sorry. No phone is worth that much, and I really don't want one even bigger than the too-big one I have now. Though I'll happily wait for a different model.
The wording should be improved but there's a basis for what was said. Hardware support for MTE is largely implemented in the CPU cache. Qualcomm lacked MTE support due to not yet having it implemented in CPU cache. The engineering team likely gave too many details to marketing since it didn't need to mention cache.
Yeah, marketing misinterpretation sounds pretty likely, maybe even followed by a review with "...eehhh I mean it has a cache?" non-rejection. I've made that mistake too.
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
This ballpark has been the case since 8 gen 1 days and there were always OnePlus and Xiaomi undercutting everyone with their sub-1000 flagships. I got my OP15 for like 800 eur.
Speaking of OnePlus, why do chinese brands not include cellular in their tablets? Very few chinese tablets (at least the global versions) have biometric fingerprint sensors or 5G.
The OnePlus tablet 4 would be amazing if not for the corners they cut..
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.
There will be more devices from Motorola providing official GrapheneOS support including budget devices. It has to start from the top down since Qualcomm currently only provides the security features we need for flagship Snapdragon. We also still need proper long term updates for budget devices.
Is there any possibility of Motorola pulling the rug from under GrapheneOS 7 year support? Like cutting down driver updates or anything else?
I'm currently using a Pixel 9 Pro with GrapheneOS and not in the market for the Signature 27 because of size and low RAM. But I'm definitely considering upcoming Motorola devices with GrapheneOS support.
$1600? They must be out of their minds. There's no way on God's green earth that I will ever spend $1000 or more on a phone. Even $500 is pushing it considering how little phones are good for.
Love it and totally support it. The only alternative is Google's Pixels, which are getting increasingly ugly from a vendor trustworthiness perspective for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:
• Google stopped publishing Pixel device trees and driver binaries with the Android 16 AOSP release (June 2025); the Pixel 10 was the first device shipped under that regime.
• In August 2026, Google moved to gate Pixel kernel source behind a manual Google Form / Google Drive handout with squashed commit history.
• Google shipped the Pixel 11 with firmware that force-disables MTE (arm64.nomte); QPR2 Beta 4 restored firmware-side MTE but the OS still has it disabled, and whether Google ever deliberately cut it rests on leaked documents.
• Google has been shipping QPRs to AOSP late.
• Google has began enforcement of strict identity verification for Play Store publishing, and add additional friction to the process for users to install APKs from outside of the Play Store.
On the value side, tensor chips have never been particularly performant, Pixel hardware has always been middling at best, and accordingly, Pixels were never a great value to begin with, they were midrange phones priced like they were flagship phones.
If anything, I think the only real downside here is that this offers "just enough" of an escape hatch from the most detestable properties of Google's increasingly user-hostile Android ecosystem to stymie what might otherwise be enough frustration from privacy-minded power users to start adding momentum to the non-Android linux smartphone ecosystem/movement.
But ... why? I have been running all my smartphones at close to minimum brightness and heard lots of people complaining that even at the lowest setting it's still too bright at night.
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.
That said, I've never seen a regular Moto phone nearly this expensive, so who knows.
Pixel 11 Pro Fold is MSRP $1900+
Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 MSRP is $1900+ ($2100 for 512GB storage)
Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 512GB MSRP $1600 (and this was before a lot of hardware price increases, I imagine the Galaxy S27 will be more expensive)
iPhone 18 Pro Max 512GB $1500 on Apple Store
As memory and storage chips get more expensive, phones will continue to get more expensive. Even Qualcomm SoCs have seen significant price hikes. [1]
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/qualcomm-t...
is motorola's phone folding?
There's not a lot of flagship phones that released recently which is why I included them alongside phones that do not fold but were released a bit earlier.
I think the most fair comparison will probably be the Galaxy S27 when it releases in early 2027.
I'm unconvinced there is a market for a premium GrapheneOS phone. It seems to do well in a niche where phones built for another OS get repurposed to it on the cheap.
I’m glad to hear this. And I hope it succeeds. The top comments all complaining about price may just be reinforcing my biases.
To be clear, I’m not criticizing anyone balking at a $1,600 phone. I’m expressing skepticism at marketing a GrapheneOS phone at that price point.
If your max price point were $600 or something, sure, but once you’re above $1k what’s the difference? You already value it greatly.
In battery life and thermal performance alone, where Google seems to have conveniently ignored valid criticisms since the Pixel 6 series.
This is a phone for hackers and drug dealers and enemies of the state and perhaps some types of bankers, and the tinfoil hat Gribble contingent. Everyone in that list will pay whatever it costs without much of a second thought.
Some of those people will also buy a premium phone because they want to have a great camera system.
Absolutely. Vanilla Android is actually very nice, and compatible with many types of devices (phones, tablets, TV boxes, now some laptops). In fact, I recently compiled and patched an x86_64 version of LineageOS for an HTPC and it blows ordinary Linux distros out of the water in that role. Fully usable with remote only, etc. The problem with Android is that commercial versions people are used to are riddled with Google spyware and OEM crapware.
EDIT: after reviewing other comments in this thread, I can see how my post here wasn't received well by some. It looks like some people are questioning the trust put into Graphene. I definitely am not. When I said "strange partnership" here, that's not what I meant at all. I think Graphene is operating in a very hostile ecosystem and the more doors Graphene can open for their platform to reach people, the better. The "strange" part of the equation was more aimed at Motorola (and Google) for allowing privacy intrusions to happen and even encouraging it in some ways (Gemini), yet actively supporting a project that would counter it. Maybe I should have used the word "funny" instead of "strange".
The word strange as defined by the dictionary is "different from what is usual, ordinary, or expected".
You have a large publicly traded corporation advocating using a platform known for large privacy intrusions. This same corporation has partnered with a team that is providing a mechanism for fighting against those privacy intrusions. That is unexpected. I never said it was good or bad, just that it is strange.
EDIT: Here is another data point. Motorola themselves have been sued for breach of privacy:
https://classactionu.org/our-news/motorola-solutions-faces-p...
https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-lawsuit-claims...
EDIT2: I can't reply to the posts any more, so I'll just finish this discussion off by saying I am merely making an observation. I see people here are getting offended and maybe misunderstanding my intentions. This is not an attack on GrapheneOS, I actually like Graphene and what they are doing. I just find it interesting that the very companies breaching our privacy are the ones that are partnering with Graphene. I did not say this was a bad partnership. The opposite, I actually think it's a very good thing. If I gave the impression this was somehow a jab at Graphene, it's not, I apologize if it came off that way.
Motorola Solutions, the radio and public safety company, was split from the phone company shortly before Google purchased the phones in 2012.
There's no way the largest provider of police radios in the US and EU would be owned by a Chinese company.
Motorola Mobility was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold to Lenovo in 2014. Motorola Mobility is still based in the US but is well integrated as Lenovo's mobile division. The devices are made by Lenovo with their in-house assembly/manufacturing and external supply chain rather than the typical setup of a western company paying another company to build devices for them.
Motorola Mobility sells smartphones and tablets mainly via retail. Motorola Solutions sells cameras, radios and drones mainly via government contracts. They're entirely separate companies with no business partnership. Motorola Mobility can use the Motorola brand for anything but Motorola Solutions would need to pay for a license to use it for new product lines.
This is the problem. Did you expect grapheneos to somehow convince a major manufacturer to release a flagship phone JUST for grapheneos?
WHAT do you find strange in that relationship? Motorola offered to support some of their phones to be installed with Grapheneos and maybe a dedicated, pre-installed phone sometime down the line. This particular phone is the former.
You're seriously being irrational here. Maybe make your point exactly first because it's hard to tell what is it.
If you do that in your own space - fine. No one has to come into your space. If someone does, it is their choice. They've signed up for that.
However, coming into other spaces like this is a big no.
I can see the argument that someone "negatively" talked about your stuff, but not only is the negative here in big quotes, but also the "your stuff" is in quotes, and, regardless of that, the weapon of choice is frightening overkill and it is overkill basically every single time.
Can you please please please tone it down a bit. You're making people very uncomfortable, which is not in spirit of this (or any) platform nor within their rules.
... nor ethical, for that matter.
Motorola stands to make a lot of money from this. They need to improve hardware but they benefit from that hardware. They likely provide early access but they already have that access themselves. From Motorolas perspective, they take on very little risk, if any, to tap into a market that has since been ignored, for existing GrapheneOS users, prospective GrapheneOS users, and for alternative OS users that benefit from yellowboot support. This is the most ordinary approach that could have been taken.
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
Radio firmware is probably somewhat broken in practice (what isn't these days) but ultimately the openness stuff is a red herring IMO as far as security is concerned, you either assume it's compromised or not.
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.
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.
Independence from the Chinese manufacturing hegemony probably means opting for a flagship Samsung, 11-series Pixel or pre-2025 Sony flagship.
This is still much better than handing over control of the entire OS and native apps to Google. The problem with email is that even if you operate your own server, realistically most emails will be sent to Google, Microsoft or Apple.
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.
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?
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 major problem is banking, although some banks still work with Waydroid, and a few banks have full featured websites that work. But you do have to be more selective.
Is a browser on compromised hardware supposed to be more secure than an app? Amazon, steam etc still risk exposing accounts authorized to make payments using your money. It's easy to think "I just won't use banks" and underestimate the risks of doing anything on compromised hardware, and the answer isn't to play the "what could possibly go wrong" game, it's to not use compromised hardware.
At this point I might as well code a messaging app called the honest spy.
Honest spy emails transcripts of all your conversations straight to the law enforcement in your jurisdiction.
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.
Are you sure the Chinese government is choosing not to pursue these $evil_intentions[] you ascribe to the US, or are they simply yet unable to?
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.
Fascinating. The propaganda I've been fed is that China is the one hoovering up all the minerals so that they have control over the global supply chain for eg cobalt.
Anyone know what ThinkShield is? "from the factory to the phone" sounds, well, weird, but maybe they mean it's some sort of tamper proofing from where they flash the firmware until you get the phone? Is that new for GrapheneOS versions?
> Motorola’s commitment to bringing cutting-edge security to everyday users across the globe. \n\n That commitment runs deeper than software: GrapheneOS sets demanding requirements for the hardware it runs on and how it’s kept updated
Besides providing timely security updates, which one would hope they do regardless of Graphene pushing them, isn't it Graphene doing all the actual software work? Since motorola refer to commitments "deeper than software", it sounds like motorola made some software commitments as well
I love grapheneOS but let’s not pretend that Gcam isn’t superior to the stock grapheneOS camera in terms of photo and video quality in the current pixel phones.
Would love to hear a response from the grapheneOS account on this subject. Would be awesome if we’d receive all the usual Motorola tweaks in the stock grapheneOS camera app.
Pixels fill the need for budget devices well via the 'a' series, especially when purchased as used devices. 7 years of decent updates from launch for budget devices is very unique and makes used devices much more useful.
Is this confirmed as the latest iteration of the Qualcomm SPU or a different dedicated secure element?
I've run a g power for 4 years straight, only replacing it because the phone had become unusably slow. My current 2024 model is still going strong and I have no plans to replace it.
But man I wish it were smaller. I'd be fine with it being thicker if only I could have a smaller screen.
I'd probably kill someone (bad) for the 3rd generation Moto G but with modern specs.
I've cut out social media and a browser. The only thing left that I want now is a smaller, less distracting form factor
That being said, have you tried putting all apps in 2nd profile and forcing somehow the keyboard to always show?
PS: don't forget to enable T9!
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.
Not like consumers have any choice really.
You either get a Pixel or a Motorolla at this point or get a dumb phone but loose a lot in everyday comfort.
Everything else is a locked system with age ids, company-approved software and espionage coming.
Heck yeah, I'll buy one. Seems like a great phone to hack on. Shame it's so cost prohibitive for most people right now though.
A) China's intelligence laws greatly suggest those blobs are going to have backdoors, particularly for the modem
B) Even if they weren't using backdoors, there's nothing stopping the US from unilaterally banning all Chinese made devices (something I definitely don't put past them since the TPLink incident)
It's already not guaranteed that the US govt won't outright ban the use of GrapheneOS, so adding the extra risk of Chinese manufactured phones getting the kibosh stateside makes me not want to risk $1600 on a phone.
A) This is already the case for basically every phone for sale, and thus isn't really applicable to this article. Also, I thought the modem was by Qualcomm?
B) Sure, they could ban all Chinese made devices but that would basically mean banning all devices. Pixels are made in China just like Motorola, so again, not much of a difference here (I'll allow that there may be a difference of just how much of the phones are made in China.)
C) How is the government going to ban the use of an open source OS? And why would they? Apple has spit in the government's eye a few times and yet they don't ban iOS.
A and B) Sure, but you said it yourself: that how much is a significant factor. And Pixels use Samsung modems, not Qualcomm
C) How does the government ban anything? Through legislation and enforcement. That can take a number of different forms
Yeah and Samsung foundry makes Qualcomm chips. So does TSMC, but I'm pretty sure China doesn't control that despite what they may say. At no point while searching online did I see mention of these chips being made in China.
The curved display edges seem like a weird choice also, nobody seems to prefer those. Hoping to see better options with GOS support next year.
I suppose the target audience here is "tech enthusiast whales"? I kinda doubt they truly need the protections GrapheneOS provides, though.
Or rather, whatever data those protect is probably thrown out of the window anyway for other and likely not very smart reasons.
¹AD
… "an privacy" …
A confidence-inspiring typo, unless there is a novel way of pronouncing "privacy" that I'm unaware of.
If you say "an privacy" it'll sound like English isn't your first language.
Also, it's not even the noun phrase according to the sources I'm looking at (namely Merriam-Webster) which state that it is always dependent on the word directly following the article, not even the entire phrase.
Proofread your stuff, folks. Right there in big print for all to see.
(I hate this. This Pixel 6 works fine. But the end is in sight nonetheless.)
I'm glad GrapheneOS exists, so my next device will be this or another Pixel. At least the next one should last two years longer.
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.
Apple gets accused of being too flashy, but at least it shows you what you're expected to pay $1,500 for.
There should at least be links to download images for publication.
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.
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
Richard Medhurst isn't in any way part of the GrapheneOS project and hasn't ever worked with us. GrapheneOS has over 500k users and he's only one person who asked questions about it on Matrix and made several positive posts about it. Claiming GrapheneOS must be a honeypot because a person who said they use it stopped posting on X is utter nonsense. What's strange is a freshly created account making such ridiculous unsubstantiated claims to try to push people away from using or supporting it.
It could also be the hardware. Google Pixel has been used before in a sting operation.
Dismissing these concerns when people rely on your product for their safety is just vile.
You're now also claiming law enforcement selling phony phones with their own OS and messaging service with backdoors reflects negatively on our choice of hardware. That doesn't make any sense either. There's no logic to these claims and applying critical thinking is enough for anyone to see through it. That had nothing to do any issues with Pixel hardware. Pixels provide proper support for installing another OS and were also the only Android Open Source Project reference devices prior to Android 16 when they were removed from it. Pixels were by far the easiest devices to support before Android 16 change direction and they increasingly became harder to support than a lot of other devices.
You are a typical developer with hubris about their own product. I would not trust a "hello world" from you.
That is the biggest conclusion jumping and lack of critical thought I have ever seen/read.
I'm starting to doubt that you're even a real person. This all comes across like an attack on an OS that is already battle tested and has remained steadfast through the years. There's zero evidence to support that are a honey pot. There's commits for the last 12 years, the project is open source it's all auditable, not one single shred of evidence to back up anything you're saying lol
Disk encryption headers, hardware keystore keys and secure element data are each securely erased. Each of those mechanisms prevents deriving the key encryption keys which prevents ever recovering the data. Secure element data isn't stored on the SSD and prevents recovering data via an earlier image of the SSD. We implemented doing all 3 of those before reboot to recovery for device admin wipe and we used the same code for duress PIN/password wipe. We filed an Android security bug for device admin wipe and convinced them to add the hardware keystore wipe before reboot to recovery, but we still add the other 2 forms of wiping there ourselves.
... I don't think I've ever heard MTE described as a caching system.
Also holy shit, $1600? That's gonna be a hard no, sorry. No phone is worth that much, and I really don't want one even bigger than the too-big one I have now. Though I'll happily wait for a different model.
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, Android, and android based OSs, are all linux distros.
These prices are insane though. Just absurd.
The OnePlus tablet 4 would be amazing if not for the corners they cut..
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.
I'm currently using a Pixel 9 Pro with GrapheneOS and not in the market for the Signature 27 because of size and low RAM. But I'm definitely considering upcoming Motorola devices with GrapheneOS support.
• Google stopped publishing Pixel device trees and driver binaries with the Android 16 AOSP release (June 2025); the Pixel 10 was the first device shipped under that regime.
• In August 2026, Google moved to gate Pixel kernel source behind a manual Google Form / Google Drive handout with squashed commit history.
• Google shipped the Pixel 11 with firmware that force-disables MTE (arm64.nomte); QPR2 Beta 4 restored firmware-side MTE but the OS still has it disabled, and whether Google ever deliberately cut it rests on leaked documents.
• Google has been shipping QPRs to AOSP late.
• Google has began enforcement of strict identity verification for Play Store publishing, and add additional friction to the process for users to install APKs from outside of the Play Store.
On the value side, tensor chips have never been particularly performant, Pixel hardware has always been middling at best, and accordingly, Pixels were never a great value to begin with, they were midrange phones priced like they were flagship phones.
If anything, I think the only real downside here is that this offers "just enough" of an escape hatch from the most detestable properties of Google's increasingly user-hostile Android ecosystem to stymie what might otherwise be enough frustration from privacy-minded power users to start adding momentum to the non-Android linux smartphone ecosystem/movement.
But ... why? I have been running all my smartphones at close to minimum brightness and heard lots of people complaining that even at the lowest setting it's still too bright at night.