They have made major usability improvements like eSIM support and network-based location. They have also been forced to work on things due to unrelenting popular demand like Android Auto support, sandboxed-google-play and the compatibility layer and Google Messages & RCS support.. to the cost of working on other security/privacy enhancements. At the end of the day, this is more a question of resources available.
I think the task of usability, features and overall experience is better delegated to another group of developers who might then contribute those improvements to GrapheneOS as well in an ideal world.
I agree completely. I don't expect one small team to carry the weight of building an ideal OS. I'm just disappointed that while there's loads of work being done spinning up interesting desktop OSes with new paradigms for UX and system management, the same can't be said of the mobile space. Everything there is basically some slight variation on iOS.
There's a reason ROMs like LineageOS develop their own alternatives. Most ROMs seem to use those open source alternatives rather than the apps Google abandoned with AOSP.
i agree with the sentiment, but not for the features part. just getting the core functionality working across devices (securely of course) is already a lot of tedious work. just look at the dearth of supported devices that do not run a specific soc or from a famous brand.
for vast majority of features, one can personalize themselves by getting apps. most don't need rooting or any technical know-how. it will be unproductive to spend time ricing the os for users when they got their own personal preferences regardless. which is why it is fine to focus on getting the core things right first.
I prefer the iOS model, though it’s not without its own issues. For iOS, if no media is playing, the volume buttons control the ringer/notification volume. If there’s music or a video actively playing, the controls adjust the playback volume. Honestly, my biggest gripe is not being able to easily set ringer volume while something is playing - I just did a quick test with Spotify open, and going to the settings app and adjusting the ringer stopped playback for the ringer sample to play.
Almost nobody cares about privacy, and this is going to be super expensive. I might be fine with paying extra, but the economy might not work out, like it didn't for Blackphone. Fairphone is barely alive as well. Seeing as phones are just source of ad money Google can drop the prices on their phones as well.
Some European countries and banks already require crap like Play Integrity for essential apps. So far it's possible to hold out, but for how much longer?
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Authentication_Program
There's legitimately zero reason to allow 2FA only on your own propreitary app. You can't even make a financial argument - allowing other TOTP methods is cheaper because now you don't need an app!
Small comfort for whoever needs to use that bank. This is the disconnect geeks and Free Software needs to bridge to make any headway.
Do you know how we usually stop them from being shitty? Forcefully, with legislation.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
> Article 7 Requirements of the elements categorised as possession
> 1. Payment service providers shall adopt measures to mitigate the risk that the elements of strong customer authentication categorised as possession are used by unauthorised parties.
> 2. The use by the payer of those elements shall be subject to measures designed to prevent replication of the elements.
However if you can get so far as to get the secret from the TOTP app, you can as well back up the entire phone and restore elsewhere, can't you?
"Unextractable keys" works with hardware that you don't "truly own".
You can still get a plastic card, however it requires paying extra and some additional forms, the reasoning being it is not environment friendly.
I could cut myself off from the modern financial world and just use online banking like it's 2010 but that's a pretty big ask.
I want to be able to run software on my device, not fulfill some nuts low-rent fantasy that they're a rebel against the government.
That depends - In India, for example, I am free to use either (1) a private company's app (like PayTM, Google Pay, PaisePe etc.) (2) a Government app or (3) my Bank's app to make digital payment using the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) (or all 3). And, if I don't want to use any mobile app, I can still make offline payment through my mobile phone over USSD - https://razorpay.com/blog/how-to-make-offline-upi-payments/ ...
(You are right though that it is prone to abuse in the absence of strong privacy and data protection laws - digital payment does allow new form of surveillance capitalism to the corporates and new avenues of authoritarian control to the government).
Maybe the better approach would be focusing on getting postmarketOS to work, and use an emulation or recompilation layer that is running Android in a box (pun intended). Anbox and others were still too painful to use for daily usage, but maybe you can get rid of everything except the things that Play Integrity checks against? Maybe we can make waydroid work?
in fact statements from graphene suggest they hope to eventually move away from linux on the host
https://github.com/PrivSec-dev/banking-apps-compat-report
https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...
Play Integrity API doesn't impact GrapheneOS as much as other alternatives not focused on privacy and security in a similar way. A subset of the apps using the Play Integrity API are explicitly permitting GrapheneOS via hardware attestation including multiple banks like Swissquote. We're working on convincing more banks to permit it. Our hope is for regulators to invalidate the current approach and require defining clear security standards which need to be fairly enforced. The status quo of some banks banning using a much more secure OS that's even much more heavily using hardware-based security features while permitting a Google Mobile Services OS with no patches for 6 years is a massive antitrust issue. It impacts every alternative hardware platform and OS since Android app compatibility is important for competing. The obstacles to getting approved should also not be unreasonably high. It's better if apps don't do this but we can accept they are going to do it if it's a fair system permitting competition, unlike the Play Integrity API.
I had my previous cheapo Chinese phone for 7 years. Only bought new one this year because the battery was gone and the display had some scratches. The photos are a little nicer I guess?
You're firing a starting pistol for a race to the bottom where app developers just end up sending all that information to their own first-party servers instead to be shared with whoever they wanted to anyway.
GrapheneOS absolutely tries to deal with the root of the issue, by giving the user control over sensors and network permissions that return fake/simulated data to keep the app running while denying access to data in the first place. Or contact scopes and storage scopes which restrict access to contact information or storage locations in the first place. As you can imagine, more are planned like location scopes, app communication scopes etc.
/e/ can't prevent tracking by apps and doesn't do it. It has built-in DNS filtering, which doesn't stop the most privacy invasive behavior by apps but rather only single purpose domains for the least invasive tracking making no attempt to evade filtering as explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45598100. Any app or SDK wanting to evade DNS filtering only has to use a dual purpose domain, perform their own DNS requests via DoH or fall back to an IP address so many apps and SDKs do those things. However, the most privacy invasive behavior almost always happens through the servers used for app functionality with server side data sharing with third parties. It's not considered good practice to put API keys into the client and do things client side in the first place. There are some exceptions such as crash reporting, analytics and telemetry where that's common which are far from the most privacy invasive behaviors. If they want to evade DNS filtering for those, that's easy.
Location Scopes is a planned replacement for the standard Android Mock Location feature which is rebranded in /e/ as their own feature. /e/ does not have features similar to Contact Scopes or Storage Scopes. It doesn't provide the current generation standard Android privacy protections or patches since it's always very far behind on updates. Most privacy patches aren't backported to older releases, but they lag far behind on backports and don't fully apply them despite claiming to provide a much newer patch level than they do.
There are various apps that either connect directly to an IP address or do DNS resolution themselves to sidestep this kind of blocking. Rethink lets you stop apps making these kind of connections bypassing DNS and whatever DNS filtering you have set up to control their connections
/e/ has built-in DNS filtering, which blocks a small minority of third party tracking and not the most privacy invasive behavior by apps. It blocks single purpose domains not needed for functionality which were added to their list. It doesn't block any of this when it's on multi-purpose domains with the third party sharing either done server side or required for functionality. Apps can also trivially bypass DNS filtering by doing their own DNS resolution or having IP fallbacks, which many do. However, most simply do the most invasive sharing with third parties server side. App and SDK developers are well aware many people are filtering DNS and work around it.
DNS filtering has downsides including making a VPN not provide the same level of anonymity from websites unless the VPN provides it as a standard feature, since the specific list of blocked domains can be detected.
/e/ doesn't provide current generation Android privacy protections and doesn't keep up with the privacy patches, which would requiring following along with the stable releases of the OS. It doesn't provide privacy features like the GrapheneOS Contact Scopes, Storage Scopes, Sensors toggle and many others. /e/ doesn't improve the app sandbox or permission model like GrapheneOS but rather destroys them. Lagging behind so far on basic privacy and security patches means lack of basic privacy and security. See https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand....
Is this you? https://privatephoneshop.com/why-we-no-longer-sell-phones-wi...
The company you've linked was scamming people who wanted GrapheneOS phones by selling them end-of-life devices no longer supported by it and devices near end-of-life while pretending they were perfectly fine and would last years. They were misleading people about what they were getting and violating our trademark. Despite profiting from selling devices with GrapheneOS, they were also actively misleading people about it with many inaccurate claims. Their response to us politely bringing it up was blocking our project account and attacking us. When we warned our community, they responded by joining in with spreading fabricated stories about our team aimed at directing harassment towards us. The videos linked in the article are harassment content filled with fabrications and misrepresentations. The initial video is from someone responsible for encouraging repeated swatting attacks towards our team and the 2nd is from someone who openly uses Kiwi Farms which they directly personally involved to target us.
/e/ leadership spent years trying to mislead people about GrapheneOS including highly inaccurate claims about privacy and usability. We began debunking this and posting accurate technical criticisms of /e/. Despite spending years attacking us with little to no response from us, /e/ has responded to us informing people about it by joining the harassment you've tried to promote. Their CEO / founder has directly participated in it. It's a very typical pattern from /e/ and their community for the response to accurate technical information to be fabricated stories aimed at targeting us with harassment.
/e/ always uses multiple Google services and builds in privileged support for Google apps and services so the branding as a degoogled OS doesn't really make sense. GrapheneOS doesn't brand itself that way but doesn't make connections to Google servers by default and doesn't provide privileged access to Google apps and services.