You’re just getting an updated OS.
Facebook isn't going to deploy malware to my phone using Whatsapp, MS isn't going to do that using Outlook, Google isn't going to do that through Google Maps. Everything I used is either by a reputable developer, or open-source from F-Droid.
The only way I'm getting malware is if they manage to: 1) exploit a bug in my up-to-date web browser, 2) bug #1 is used to exploit a bug in the hardware driver. Oh, and of course, since I only visit reputable sites, I'm never exposed to malware. I'd have better odds of winning the lottery.
Unless you have physical possession of the device, access to these blobs generally runs through the OS.
https://www.techradar.com/reviews/motorola-one-5g-ace-review
It's perfectly adequate for my needs and I haven't found any issues with the e/OS ROM support. But if only the best will do for you, this obviously isn't it.
It wasn't an important feature until I started getting potato quality photos of my children doing first-time-ever events.
Caring about performance in at least one of those categories is not that uncommon and carrying a dedicated device for that isn't crazy. I have used stand alone GPS receivers before even when I had my phone, and deciding that you need a better camera seems not crazy at all.
But I can have a modern high end phone with a good camera. I can’t buy a camera that lets me take a picture, edit the picture on the device, and then the picture automatically gets backed up to iCloud, Google Photos, Microsoft’s One Drive and Amazon Photos and gets synced to all of my other devices.
I don’t have to settle for a low end phone that won’t see any updates after two years where the operating system is created by an adTech company.
There are sets of preferences where it is not possible to satisfy all of them and something must be sacrificed. Some people will choose to sacrifice convenience.
> How's the camera? For me, the camera is more important than anything else on a phone, and thus far I've been stuck with Pixels because, despite the shorter support period (and absolutely mind-bogglingly bad customer service), that software does amazing things with old camera hardware .
> … that software does amazing things with old camera hardware .
This is what a good phone with a good camera can do better than a great camera with mediocre software
A major audiophile won't be happy with a phone. Someone big into 'caching' isn't using Google or Apple maps. A home theatre -phile won't want to watch something good on a phone.
> …that software does amazing things with old camera hardware .
A “better camera” supported by worse software is not what the poster seems to want.
Are you going to carry around your camera with you everywhere?
And as far as audiophiles, it’s been repeatedly shown in blind studies that they can’t tell the difference as often as their snobbery would suggest.
But I made good commissions in college selling overpriced Monster cables to them.
I'm not going to carry it everywhere no, nor did I say that. (Actually I didn't even say it applied to me.) I carry my Panasonic TZ100 when on holiday or otherwise desirous of better-than-phone photos. It fits in my pocket. Not the same one as my phone granted, but nonetheless in a pocket while in a case and straddling a spare battery.
There are audiophiles and audiophiles. A good chunk of them will laugh at Monster cables et al. as much as any of us.
You can appreciate a better DAC than found in most/all phones without descending into gold-plated USB-C charging cables that maintain optimal audio nonsense.
And even that assuming playback of some locally stored file. I'm not sure any of the mainstream streaming Services offer a format/bitrate that it's not possible objectively to do better than.
Or by laws and regulations.
I hope the EU will do something practical in this area, since it seems to be the only entity capable of pushing some useful changes.
Example: the digital markets act, which will force companies like apple to allow for side loading of apps. No us entity even attempted at anything similar as far as i know.
Every single phone shipping with Qualcomm SoCs are at the mercy of Qualcomm. When they want you to buy a new chip, they'll kill support for your current chip, meaning that the manufacturer will have to spend effort making newer Android work with older kernel versions if even possible.
My Sony Xperia Z3 had software support killed by Qualcomm. They refused to provide the binary blobs required to make next Android version work despite the CPU being perfectly capable, as evidenced by the beta builds that only needed a small update from Qualcomm.
What ROM do you use and what level of support does it provide? I was interested in third-party ROMs until I read this part of the GrapheneOS FAQ[1]:
> GrapheneOS can only fully provide security updates to a device provided that the OEM is releasing them. When an OEM is no longer providing security updates, GrapheneOS aims to provide harm reduction releases for devices which only have a minimum of 3 years support. [...] Harm reduction releases do not have complete security patches because it's not possible to provide full security updates for the device without OEM support and they are intended to buy users some limited time to migrate to a supported device.
So, what exactly do people mean when they claim that third-party ROMs provide "long-term" support? Do they just allow older phones to run newer versions of Android, albeit without full security updates?
See here: https://e.foundation/
Do they just allow older phones to run newer versions of Android, albeit without full security updates?
The "full security updates" GrapheneOS references has to do with proprietary device drivers. This is an unrealistic over-reaction in my opinion.
Why abandon perfectly functional hardware based on some unknown possibility that exists with both old and new hardware? Newer, supported devices could easily have these same sort of issues. They really don't know and the OEM does not offer any guarantee or certification otherwise.
Most security issues occur in the OS or can be mitigated in the OS. Without physical possession of the device, access to drivers passes through the OS.
I'm not sure I'm saying it's a total loss, but I feel a bit lost on what to do as well. Do I think Google will support their Tensor chips longer? Not really.
I feel like I still lean towards buying a portable hotspot, a small Android tablet, and calling it good. I already get calls over VOIP and SMS/MMS over jmp.chat so I don't really need a "cellular phone". But also, ugh, those portable hotspots are probably even more of a vendor-ware security nightmare. At least I could upgrade them independently and somewhat treat it as isolated, if I only connect over Wifi? Maybe?
> Without physical possession of the device, access to drivers passes through the OS.
With all due respect, that is not a wise take on modern device security. At all, all, all.
Do you really keep them fully sync'ed? How do you sync photos?
A secret weapon in this regard is an Android open source file manager called Material Files which can create compressed files and speaks SMB. This makes it easy and quick to back things up locally over my home wifi network.
Yes.
Hardware vendors love Open Source. It essentially cedes all control of the market to them.
They spend minimal time/money/effort on software development and updates because surprise, surprise --- it doesn't produce profits, it consumes them. Hardware is where they make all their money.
The only realistic way to get long term software support on Android is from Open Source. This means installing a replacement, 3rd party Open Source ROM. This is the first thing I do when I buy a new phone --- and I won't buy a phone that doesn't have good 3rd party support.
I have a Moto G4 Play from 2016 that gets regular software updates running e/OS. The last one was May 14th.