Hacker News Reader

> 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.

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?

[1] https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-lifetime

What ROM do you use and what level of support does it provide?

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. If the mere possibility of a bug is enough to abandon support, they really shouldn't support anything because this possibility always exists.

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.

Except that popular chipsets (ie: get community support due to device saturation) do see vulnerabilities published past the point of support. I trust Qualcomm's ability to develop their modem driver (which is an entire Linux install) very little, and I trust it's ability to stand the test of time to be even less.

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?

If the mere possibility of a bug is a show stopper, you really shouldn't use anything because this possibility always exists --- with all hardware and software.

I think there's a difference in saying "software tends to be buggy, security can't be perfect" vs "I'm using a baseband modem running out-of-date Linux, that has DMA to my entire phone, that the manufacturer has stopped supporting, and there's active CVEs".

> 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.

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 .

Fair to middling. It's a competent, well rounded phone --- not the best, not the worst in any respect. You can find reviews online.

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.

"Middling" appropriately describes Motorola cameras. I've bought Motos exclusively since the original Droid and have finally moved off of the brand because of the camera.

It wasn't an important feature until I started getting potato quality photos of my children doing first-time-ever events.

Yeah, I finally got a Pixel because the camera was hard to beat. I since jumped to an iPhone 13, but honestly the Pixel still camera results were better. iPhone's video is the best of any phone I've used, though.

Genuine question: why give yourself the headache of coupling having a great camera to choosong a phone then, if it's important to you? Why not have a compact camera as well as whatever phone, and carry that when quality matters?

You’re right, we should also carry around a separate GPS device, MP3 player, one of those portable TV players, and everything else like it’s 2005.

If "average quality" in everyone of those things was not acceptable to you and you actually needed the best of the best, and best quality could not be had in most phones....then yeah that might make sense. I doubt anyone actually cares to have absolutely top tier performance in every one of those categories though, and what most phones have is "good enough". Which is why/how phones ate all those functions. They do most of them "good enough" and "good enough" is all that most consumers care about.

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.

> Genuine question: why give yourself the headache of coupling having a great camera to choosong a phone then

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.

While it's certainly not the mainstream set of priorities/preferences, it is possible for someone to have a set of priorities in a phone that precludes the high end cameras, while still wanting a very good camera. And depending on the weighting of those preferences, they might be willing to put up with the inconveniences you outline. It's obvious that you peronally don't share those preferences, which is completely fine. But it doesn't make sense to criticize someone else who does.

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.

Those are also the stated preference of the original poster

> 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 .

Although you jest, phone cameras are always not as good as a regular camera due to the physics of lenses, apertures etc being so much bigger in a camera vs a phone.

According to the original poster

> … 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

If you care deeply enough about any of those things that they're a major concern when choosing a phone, yes, I do make the same argument.

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.

The poster specifically said

> …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.

No cameraphile uses on-camera software to.. do anything. That you can do better on a computer than a phone then goes without saying.

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.

I’ve scoured the internet and I can’t find any study that shows people can reliably tell the the difference between 256Kb AAC and lossless.

You can produce anything you want out of lossless file. Other way around? Not so much

That’s true. But that still doesn’t mean that these “audiophiles” aren’t full of themselves

Hear hear

For the purpose of this discussion it doesn't matter - the germane point is that some people will want a 'better' system regardless of whether your studies agree it is significantly/detectably so.

Because carrying extra stuff is a pain in the butt and would be much more of a headache for me.

You’re not getting the updated proprietary blobs for the chips.

You’re just getting an updated OS.

Which is better than nothing.

It's better than almost anything else. I don't understand you people worried about driver bugs in a smartphone.

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.

You’re just getting an updated OS.

Which is where most security issues are found and/or mitigated.

Unless a hacker has physical possession of the device, access to these blobs generally runs through the OS.

> I just switch to the backup until the replacement arrives. Try that with your $1000 iPhone.

Do you really keep them fully sync'ed? How do you sync photos?

I don't keep them fully synced. I do back up the "important stuff" on my primary phone to off device storage on a fairly regular basis. So my backup phone can be brought up to sync if need be.

A secret weapon in this regard is an Android open source file manager called Material Files which can create compressed files and speaks SMB. I usually create backups onto a SD memory card and then periodically copy these to local off device storage using wifi.

> The only realistic way to get long term software support on Android is from Open Source.

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.

Apple is the only phone manufacturer providing long term software support...

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.

I've the same phone, and stock it is pretty bloat-free. Main complaint is the charging; no wireless and the USB-C is not secure and will pop out in most orientations.