HybridStatAnim8

The pixel tablet is still supported and will be until after June 2028.

The need for proprietary code for firmware and hardware is the same on desktop. Mobile is not unique in this regard. GrapheneOS is 100% open source.

Not passing attestation for certain services has no bearing on software being open source or supporting reproducible builds.

That is how most software works. If you do not wish for GrapheneOS to hold the signing keys to your OS, you may build the OS yourself.

GrapheneOS is 100% open source and supports reproducible builds. It is in no way a black box.

If you do not want anyone to hold your signing keys, you will need to stop using nearly all modern hardware and software.

That is not the case. It is significantly easier to the point it is entirely optional. GrapheneOSs privacy and security features do not make avoiding google more difficult.

On stock OSs, google signs major portions of the OS and is highly privileged, which is impossible to sidestep.

Optional is obviously easier than impossible.

Nearly everything works on GrapheneOS.

Sandboxed google play can only send the location to google if google services or playstore were granted the location permission. Accessing location for apps, including google, cannot be sidestepped as MicroG once allowed.

GrapheneOS lets you change aspects of location, including PSDS, SUPL, and network location. GrapheneOS also reroutes googlefusedlocation requests to the OS. If you would rather be able to turn it off entirely, GrapheneOS is is capable of this, not MicroG.

Because it is not ironic? You dont see how expanding trust and leaking location data are privacy issues?

No, it would not. That would require expanding trust to a 3rd party, and granting privileged access to software that downloads and runs google code. That software has also had issues such as leaking location to apps that dont have location access.

That would be an extreme reduction in privacy, not an improvement.

That is the meaning. The point of sandboxed google play is to reduce google services to the same unprivileged access all other apps get on android. Normally, google play is incredibly privileged.

Signature spoofing violates the android security model. It means giving privileged access to microG, which means giving privileged access to google. For a privacy project, granting 3rd parties privileged access is unacceptable.

GrapheneOS has 500000+ users, and that is with only pixels. Maby more are waiting for the compatible Motorola hardware.

GrapheneOS is not going to compromise on privacy or security, and so far, pixel devices are the only devices meeting the hardware security requirements. People have not had an issue taking that seriously.

GrapheneOS is and always has been a privacy first project.

MicroG is a sloppy and ineffective reimplementation of google services that does not meet GrapheneOSs privacy, security, and usability requirements. MicroG does not make you degoogled and is not a compromise between being degoogled and making apps work. GrapheneOS, with or without google services, has far better app compatibility.

If you need a functional smartphone that runs the apps you need while reducing exposure to google, GrapheneOS is the best option for that by far.

Running google code sandboxed is far more secure than running google code with privileged access. MicroG downloads and runs google code in a privileged context and has had many privacy and security issues like leaking location to apps that dont have the location permission.

GrapheneOS is significantly more private, secure, and usable than LineageOS.

It doesnt change ever, regardless of who likes what, and this does not match the definition of brigading. Brigading is an offensive action that involves rallying people to abuse services and/or people. Mass reporting comments and replies by the GrapheneOS account is brigading. The vouch button is not an offensive action. The replies that were vouched for were already written and posted by one account.

No, it isnt. It would be highly immoral and unethical to call a project private and secure when using hardware that fails to provide either of those things.

Google pixels are the only devices that support the hardware security requirements. To use anything would sacrifice security, not the other way around.

You have chosen to ignore the goldmine of genuine issues with google pixels, of which GrapheneOS acknowledges, to instead attach a bunch of buzzwords to something you dont like.

No, it isnt. Brigading is leveraging community support to harm others. Asking people to help resolve wrongful reports is not brigading, nor harmful. The vouch button exists for a reason.

The security features are not niche, you are claiming that arbitrarily. The needed hardware security features are generic and industry standard, OEMs are just lazy and choose to ignore such improvements.

GrapheneOS is not obsessed with google. Other OEMs have simply failed to reach the needed hardware securuty requirements, which will soon change. GrapheneOS also is not interested with maximizing adoption above all else. They will not sacrifice privsec for the sake of broad device support.

None of this is true, you seem to be making it up for the sake of attacking them. Google is often criticized and has been for years. That was never a bannable offense from the community chats. Nobody from GrapheneOS has ever doxxed anyone, for any reason. GrapheneOS has retained support from people in various security fields and that has only improved.

Alternatives to google pixels have been explored since the inception of the project. The only difference now is that an alternative is about to exist where one hasnt before. GrapheneOS was interested in paying an ODM directly before Motorola reached out. GrapheneOS has never been pixel-only for any other reason than limited options.

GrapheneOS has never suppressed criticism or brigaded on social media. What is often described as "criticism" is a thinly veiled excuse to attack the project. Real criticism has always been appreciated.

Motorola devices are the priority but they will support devices meeting the requirements. If pixels fall to do this, no support, but if they succeed, no reason to stop using them. Only time will tell.

They are not interested in shoveling corporate slop. They dont know why, and so, that is what they said. That is a commendable trait and google has many things to answer for. Being silent only serves to benefit google by concealing this behaviour further.

They had to, as many users were purchasing pixel 11 devices before support was announced. Announcing an unclear future is fine and transparency is appreciated. Simply ignoring the problem is not a solution.

Neither of these options would have been chosen. GrapheneOS could have continued supporting existing pixels and investigated options paying ODMs directly for devices that met the requirements. They were considering this option before Motorola reached out.

Because google may have disabled it due to issues/errata. Google willing to enable it is a good sign it is fine, and at worst, affects stock OS as well. Google isnt answering GrapheneOS when they ask why it was disabled, so GrapheneOS cannot know if the implementation is acceptable or not.

Yes. That would remove the need to flash, which is a roadblock for many. Greenboot support and Auditor would ensure your install of GrapheneOS is genuine.

That was not the announcement. This was never stated anywhere. Motorola is making a subset of future devices meet the GrapheneOS hardware security requirements, greenboot and preinstalled options are not confirmed, and may not happen at all for the first few devices.

GrapheneOS is not interested in silencing themselves for the sake of greed and optics. Their image is built on explicitly not doing that.

You are making a false dichotomy, and suggesting they give into sanitized, corporate slop approaches rather than stick to their mission. GrapheneOS has gained the resources and relationships they have because they tell it like it is, not because they bend to the will of others out of fear.