GrapheneOS project: pixel 11 no longer supports hardware memory tagging (MTE)
bsky.app
bsky.app
The 10 dropped the physical SIM slot and Google started with their device tree shenanigans that year, with little to no improvements in exchange.
I've got 16GB of RAM and 512GB in an ecosystem that shows every sign of regressing in capacities due to component price inflation.
Very interested to see what Motorola does next year, however.
Sticking with a 9 Pro or 10 Pro is the smart move right now. I’m actually considering spending $400 to get a broken 9 Pro XL fixed…
Not sure about the 10, but at least the 10 Pro still has one.
There's still dual SIM support either way and you can store dozens of inactive eSIMs. The main downside of eSIMs is widespread lack of transfer support by carriers.
They’re going to go away worldwide eventually, they’re just more easily removed in the US where the carriers are more bleeding edge on features and there are only 3 providers to think about in a very large homogenous market.
The difference between waiting for a SIM card to arrive in the mail or traveling to a store, fiddling with a paperclip, tray, and impossibly tiny nano-SIM versus switching providers in 10 minutes via an app is night and day.
Most SIM/dual SIM solutions also involve removing both SIM cards at once even to swap out one of two, and they tend to require device restarts.
In the past I’ve also had network problems as a result of bad/damaged SIM cards.
This could have also been an issue where I needed to activate on some other phone before transferring to a Nexus 5X in order for me to get it to work.
Verizon is known to be the most restrictive carrier in the US as far as allowed devices.
I had a testing phone and my regular phone, I kept swapping the same Verizon SIM between them. It worked for maybe 3 swaps, then Verizon blocked my account and sent me an email: suspicious activity detected, the SIM is blocked and cannot be restored, the contract has been terminated, you will receive the refund in mail.
Good riddance, US Mobile is so much cheaper and pleasant to use. I am scared to swap SIMs with them now though.
The most common versions (in the "west) are AFIK:
- US version vs. international version
(just the most common divide of Phones you will see "in the west", e.g. if a brand sell to China, that also is normally it's own sub-versions.)
the most common differences include:
- different modems
- US phones being carrier locked (which is not normal outside of the US and a few other countries)
- US phones not having sim card slots, the international version of the same (Android) Phones, often still has a physical sim card slot
The replacement I got is a Motorola razr ultra folding phone.. similar perf point with 16G RAM and 512G storage. This phone is legit.
I haven't used any newer devices with it yet.
What I meant to ask was “If you use GOS, does it matter if Google ends support” and after your comment I read deeper to find the answer “yes, because GOS relies on Google to maintain the firmware”. Thanks for the push
The 24GB MacBook Air is the sweet spot of that model lineup in my opinion. Even if you’re a true “web browsing only” user, you can definitely find a sale or refurbished model with 24GB and that’s a much more wise purchase for long term ownership than being stuck with 16GB.
Especially considering most laptops have soldered memory, I’d have a hard time recommending a new laptop purchase with 16GB if your intention is to keep it many years.
Even though RAM is expensive, there are deals and sales out there.
Sort of but not really? Without the wider bus (and various drawbacks) of GDDR any iGPU is very severely memory bandwidth constrained compared to a dGPU from an equivalently recent generation. It's just that a 3 or 4 generation old dGPU is sufficient for an ever increasing number of titles.
TBF it entirely depends on what is meant by "really good".
> I’d have a hard time recommending a new laptop purchase with 16GB if your intention is to keep it many years.
One of my devices still has only 8GB and I use it daily. It's really not an issue for most things.
Integrated graphics are constrained but often sufficient to play AAA games.
Panther Lake laptops are roughly equivalent to an RTX 4050, which is only a single generation old. Obviously not the strongest GPU to compare against but you’re also pulling a lot less wattage doing it.
I’m sure your 8GB device is working great, but someone buying a brand new device really should avoid that since the implication is that they’re going to keep that device for somewhere between 3-7 years.
tl;dr iGPU vs dGPU memory bandwidth is a >10 year difference.
So now to double check my guestimate of 3 to 4 generations from earlier. Entry level RTX 30 448 GB/s in 2020, eventually downgraded to 168 GB/s in 2024. Entry level RTX 20 448 GB/s in 2018 eventually downgraded to 336 GB/s in 2019. You have to go all the way back to the GeForce 10 series to dip below 100 GB/s and even then that's due to some highly unusual configurations introduced many years after the initial launch. At launch in 2016 the lowest end GTX 1050 pulled 112 GB/s which is nearly 2x Panther Lake IIUC.
The Macs? No, they go up to 614 GB/s, nearly an order of magnitude more.
I wouldn’t say gaming is constrained by GPU memory bandwidth or SSD performance. As long as you have an SSD of any kind, you’re generally fine. Only a few specialized titles like Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart were specifically designed to show off the technical capabilities of fast SSD storage. Most everything else runs just fine without bleeding edge SSD performance, you’re even generally fine running off of a microSD card or SATA III SSD.
Gaming mostly wants to have sufficient GPU RAM capacity and overall 3D rendering performance (for a lack of a precise technical definition of what that means on my part).
Gaming doesn’t tend to move data in and out of VRAM at a particularly fast speed.
Gaming is also generally designed around being able to be released on the latest generation of home consoles, which is now essentially a 6 year old mid-range desktop GPU with 16GB of total system memory.
But of course in practice it depends on the details of what you're doing. This is why I acknowledged up front that it depends on what is meant by "really good". I think iGPUs are sufficient for a huge number of titles in the exact same way that an entry level dGPU from 2018 also is. But I don't think most people would consider that "really good" as you'll generally be stuck in the ballpark of 1080@60 and don't even think about photorealistic VR.
I think it's interesting to note that a while back GPU horsepower reached a point similar to that of CPU horsepower and system RAM capacity that's "good enough" for most common tasks. You don't need (and presumable never will) 32 cores or 64 GB of RAM to check your email or watch youtube. Similarly 1080@60 is sufficient to enjoy most game concepts.
The main point with it is that it’s not a matter of “oh I can’t play the games I want to play reasonably” and that is very much not how integrated graphics used to be.
For example, the ThinkPad X9 15p with Panther Lake integrated graphics will do 80FPS in Cyberpunk 2077 while the RTX5060 in a Legion 7a will do 109FPS on the same settings (1920x1200, quality up scaling, no frame gen).
So what that means is you can get a super quiet thin and light laptop that gets double digit hours of productivity battery life and has roughly the same tier of gaming experience as a thicker, heavier, power-hungry gaming PC that is pumping 115 watts into the GPU.
To answer your question, LPDDR5x should be more close to 100GB/s so I think you are underestimating the memory bandwidth of Panther Lake laptops. Not sure though.
That all said, overall a RTX5060 or higher laptop would be preferable, I just find it hard to find one that checks a lot of the “thin and light 13-14” premium long battery life productivity laptop that can game on the side” boxes.
We're confident it's going to be much better hardware than Pixels and that our users will be happy with it. Our initial goal was only providing competitive security with Pixels but it's now clear we can do better in most areas. Google will likely have a significantly better secure element for a while but that can change too.
What's the point of the Pixel 11 and later now that they aren't supported by AOSP and are no longer going to be best in class for security? The updates and security features are why GrapheneOS uses them. We have ~500k users on the Pixel 6 through Pixel 10a and many of those users had multiple previous Pixel and Nexus devices for GrapheneOS. Our userbase is rapidly growing at an increasing rate and was already significant for Pixels.
Extendable storage is usually provided via the SIM tray. Physical SIMs are being phased out which is not good news for the feature you want. Realistically, you'll still need to use USB-C for headphones or an external drive.
You can look at the Motorola Signature (2026) for an idea of the initial device which will be a successor to it. Their high end devices don't have 3.5mm audio or microSD. They have devices with those but they're nowhere near our requirements.
Physical SIMs being phased out seems to be primarily a US thing right now, but if that happens I'm just gonna stop using phones entirely.
If you want to glue a usb hub, DAC and card reader to your phone, go ahead, but I'd consider that a little bit inconvenient.
Seriously, the latency on wireless and usb-c headphones is so unpredictable that for lecture recording at hacker conferences they've now been banned for both live video/audio production and for video editing, with 3.5mm as the only option going forward.
Bluetooth absolutely has a noticeable delay depending on the codec/profile.
Currently we're using Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro and some MDR-7506.
They'd also need to be fully passive, as any active processing introduces unpredictable delays of up to 16ms, which is unacceptable when the goal is to check sync on audio and video signals.
It sounds to me like you only see everything as consumer devices for media consumption, ignoring the needs of people using computing devices to create things professionally.
The option to have supported Graphene as well as an SD card slot and headphone port would be wonderful.
I was thinking about this and am curious if the Graphene team are specifically treating 'more secure than stock Android' as a non-negotiable for the purpose of having a strong pipe to swing at Google should Google ever play the 'third party distributions need to be shut down... because security' card.
I didn't realized when I started writing this, but apparently even so-called "degoogled"* operating systems use some Google services. For example, LineageOS still talks to Google in order to check DNS connectivity and for Widevine DRM, among other things listed in the table.
GrapheneOS seems to be the only Android-based operating system that really doesn't communicate with Google at all by default, but if your main goal is to avoid Google Play Services, then there are other options.
*"degoogled" seems to be a term people use to describe operating systems even if the operating system page does not describe the OS that way.
[1] https://fsfe.org/activities/android/liberate.en.html#OS [2] https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
I hope they are now. There is a void to fill.
I'm assuming that's a country specific/dependent thing?
(My pixel 10 does have a physical sim slot).
I guess that's a thumbs down then?
I'm optimistic about the Motorola partnership and when my 9 Pro is EOL I'll definitely look at how that's played out.
It's a completely different story for GrapheneOS where it means losing one of the main kernel and userspace security protections. This is one of the only ways we can significantly harden the Linux kernel with existing security features. The Linux kernel has always been a huge security liability for Android and AI models are making that much more obvious to everyone.
Google will likely end up heavily using MTE in the future. Pixel 11 devices won't be able to benefit from it. They're at the start of 7 years of updates but they won't be getting the benefit of future updates enabling MTE. Pixel 8 and later will benefit from Google likely expanding use of MTE for AAPM and eventually beginning to use it by default. It's unlikely Google will stop working on expanding MTE due to the Pixel 11 hardware decision. Multiple other OEMs are interested in MTE for devices made for businesses and governments even if Google decided it wasn't worth the cost for Pixels.
It would be inconsistent to require Motorola to provide MTE support and then to support the Pixel 11 without it.
There are no phones directly supported by AOSP. Motorola is helping us support their devices and port our features to them. We have to do an immense amount of work on it ourselves for Pixels and already did a lot of it for the Pixel 11 devices. Other devices are missing more than MTE.
Regarding direct AOSP support, there are many devices that work fine with just the generic system image, which I'd count as direct AOSP support.
I believe nothing prevents other individuals and organisations from building what you're suggesting with GrapheneOS code and ideas.
- They claim Apple did a great job integrating MIE in iOS - iOS doesn't encourage to opt into MTE ... Apple's docs warn developers of performance and stability issues
So it seems like even for iOS, this special security feature is only available for Apple own iOS app (at most?).
Then also:
> Even Signal doesn't opt-in. Our approach enables forcing using MTE in the standard allocators regardless.
So does that mean that Signal and any other apps are enrolled in MTE on Graphene?
Android has more app ecosystem adoption than iOS due to having a better open source app ecosystem where GrapheneOS users have asked apps to enable it by default. Many GrapheneOS users are also force enabling MTE for user installed apps via our recommended toggle for it. Those users are reporting invalid memory access to developers via our dedicated notification system for invalid memory accesses it catches. For Android app developers, not opting into MTE doesn't mean their app won't be used with MTE due to GrapheneOS.
GrapheneOS uses MTE for the kernel and nearly every userspace process including all the base OS apps. We've had to fix many upstream Linux kernel and Pixel kernel driver bugs found by MTE. However, we aren't trying to fix the Pixel userspace drivers code ourselves so we have a few userspace processes excluded from MTE caused by userspace driver library/service bugs.
We recommend users enable our toggle for enabling MTE by default for every user installed app not explicitly marked as incompatible in our compatibility database. GrapheneOS has user-facing notifications for invalid memory accesses caught by MTE providing a traceback to share with the app developers. Users can use the per-app toggle to work around it if it makes an app unusable. We take the same approach for other aggressive exploit protections provided by GrapheneOS. Exploit protections with only rare compatibility issues are enabled by default for apps with a per-app toggle to opt-out and no toggle for the global default.
So basically they say don't buy it, wait for the Motorola phones.
You keep repeating this everywhere but this is just plainly wrong. They went from an old big.Little (with middle cores) arrangement that everyone abandoned for flagship chips generations ago, with core arches that were 2-3 generations behind competition, to a modern, up to date arrangement. There's literally nothing newer that they could've gotten from Arm, and other CPUs are releasing with C1 generation.
And I don't get your angle on the GPU. GOS is not gaming oriented, Pixels are not gaming oriented, and never were. They have a decent NPU to handle AI, a decent ISP to handle cameras, what more do you need the GPU for? Why would they put in a PC grade monster like Qualcomm?
Same for the modem, it's well known that Qualcomm are way ahead of the game, but they also charge like crazy for their SOCs and are a horrific partner to work with. They treat clients like shit, I get why Google ditched them when they were able to.
And you keep recommending P10 when it's genuinely a non improvement over P9, with worse battery life and running hotter, and the same modem. What the f is your angle? Is Micay back to GOS?
Lots of apps and websites only run smoothly on newer GPUs, too. You can play the “they’re dumb and I just won’t use them” game, but not everybody has your priorities, and it’s a relevant factor either way.
The modem comment, likewise, is simply correct, and evaluating performance is good even when shortcomings are understandable.
They supported Pixel 10 because they supported every new Pixel that wasn’t a security downgrade and shortly preceding a better alternative. The logic isn’t “performance bad therefore no upgrade”, it’s “no upgrade for a bunch of other reasons, and it’s not like we’re missing out on a 3x performance improvement”.
GPU is barely used in non-3D applications. My OP15 runs normal apps and websites just as well as my Pixel 10 Pro did. Speedometer 3.1 returns 10% higher scores in favour of the OP, even though it has the latest and greatest qcom chip.
UI experience is all about scheduler tuning, drawing pipeline optimizations and (to a much lesser degree) single core performance. Anything above Cortex X1 can have perfect 120 fps anywhere, without a major energy penalty, if the software is well optimized. I know because we did experiments like that when I was still doing custom Android kernels.
Not a single time did we need to do anything to the GPU, most of the time it's in 2D clocks and never wakes up.
> They supported Pixel 10 because they supported every new Pixel that wasn’t a security downgrade and shortly preceding a better alternative. The logic isn’t “performance bad therefore no upgrade”, it’s “no upgrade for a bunch of other reasons, and it’s not like we’re missing out on a 3x performance improvement”.
Not my question. I get why P10 was supported, I don't get why it's recommended by the person running the account, when it's objectively just a more expensive P9 with worse battery life and running warmer.
Pixel 9 to Pixel 10 had a bigger incremental CPU upgrade than the Pixel 10 to Pixel 11. GPU was initially a downgrade due to poor drivers but that was resolved already.
Pixel 10 has various small but significant security advantages over the Pixel 9. Pixel 11 would similarly have small security advantages if they hadn't ruined the overall security by removing MTE.
We definitely do want better CPU, GPU and radio performance for flagship devices and haven't been happy with those on Pixels. It doesn't outweigh security updates and security features but it matters to us. We're going to be a lot happier with a next gen flagship Snapdragon SoC for many reasons.
GrapheneOS works well for running games and people can toggle off hardened_malloc and MTE for a game to eliminate nearly all of the performance difference. It doesn't usually make any noticeable difference. GrapheneOS is intended to be fully usable by everyone including people who care about GPU performance whether it's for games or other apps. Claiming GrapheneOS isn't gaming focused is your opinion. We care a lot about compatibility with games and have put effort into it. Pixels using a GPU with poor gaming compatibility and performance wasn't our choice and doesn't mean we don't care about it.
> and the same modem
Pixel 10a has a drastically better cellular radio than the Pixel 9a. The 'a' series Pixels are consistently the most popular devices supported by GrapheneOS. Pixel 10a is still the latest one so there isn't going to be any gap in people being able to buy a new device for GrapheneOS if we don't add the Pixel 11 and instead skip right to Motorola flagships and then more Motorola devices. We hope the Pixel 12 adds back MTE support but aren't optimistic.
> back to GOS?
You're directing abusive comments towards our team based on highly inaccurate harassment content.
They bought the best phone hardware and software companies (Motorola and Android) and gutted them both.
By Apple, you mean Microsoft.
The early Android device makers had to pay a per device patent licensing fee to Microsoft.
Google sued Microsoft for massive amounts of money using video standards essential patents they purchased from Motorola, but it didn't work out well for them in court.
https://www.ft.com/content/46d36fce-15c6-11e3-950a-00144feab...
Google sought to ban the sale of Microsoft products that used the H.264 video standard on a global basis if Microsoft didn't hand over a literal fortune.
> Microsoft and Motorola are embroiled in a legal spat around the world over the software giant’s alleged use of Motorola industry-standard H.264 patents in its many products. Motorola has argued that Microsoft has used the technology illegally and should have its products banned until it licenses them.
Motorola says that Microsoft should pay $4 billion for the use of its technology, applying a 2.25 percent royalty based on product price.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/microsoft-wins-big-o...
The nexus 5 also by LG was bulls eye though. Except for the ceramic letters constantly falling off.
Nexus 4-6 were manufactured by LG IIRC.
Anyone who values Graphene's work will purchase one of their Motorola devices, whatever the cost, otherwise it seems your choices are going to be giving up more data and control to Google, because they are clearly, obviously and systematically trying to remove GOS from Pixels (lack of source code, removing hardware features, making it purposely difficult to support pixels).
I predict by 2030 GrapheneOS will not support any new pixels entirely. The existing pixels will eventually die off and that will be that.
[1]: https://blog.google/security/new-android-network-security-pr...
Well the current Motorola Signature (2026) is 3 times the price of a Pixel. Not everyone can afford "whatever the cost".
I hope Motorola will just get more and more phones to support GrapheneOS.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Google-Pixel-11-Unlocked-Smartphone...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Motorola-Signature-XT2603-2-SIM-Fre...
That's the 16GB variant of the Signature. There's also a cheaper 12GB variant, which is particularly competitively priced in India:
https://www.motorola.in/smartphones-motorola-signature/p?sku...
My hope is that Motorola will have cheaper phones that work with GrapheneOS.
Those are still going to be supported. In some countries such as Brazil, those are more expensive than a Signature due to not being officially sold there and high import taxes.
I understand the sentiment, certainly, but the price difference depends a lot on which model we're comparing to. The Signature will be the flagship from Motorola, and I'll be very, very surprised if it's 3x the price of the Pixel flagship.
Presumably someone who was planning to buy something like the Pixel 10a would be more interested in the non-flagship Motorola devices with GOS support, which are expected to launch later.
They've indicated that support will eventually be added for midrange Motorola devices, which I believe are historically price-competitive with the a-series Pixels.
They are quite a bit more expensive than the a-series, but I'm sure that the a series will hold up for a few more years, until GrapheneOS support percolates to mid-range Motorola phones. It's even possible, given that Pixel 10a uses the Pixel 9 CPU, that Pixel 11a will use the Pixel 10 CPU, so there might even be a new budget model next year with MTE support.
But it's easy to say 'whatever the cost' if you're wealthy :) For many people especially outside the US it's not that simple.
Play Store is only the safest way to obtain apps solely distributed through the Play Store. It's safer to get other apps more directly from the developers considering how much malware there is on the Play Store. There are tons of apps impersonating other software on the Play Store. There are lots of useful open source apps for people focused on privacy and security not available through the Play Store too.
The number of people hurt by side-loading must be dramatically smaller than the number of people hurt by malware, scams, nonsense, and adware distributed in the Play Store. Like… what, 3 orders of magnitude?
Also: security has plenty of nuance, sure. I’m not a politician, but I propose we don’t allow them to legislate things they don’t understand.
The nearly useless LED added to the back of the Pixel 11 likely costs significantly more than the extra die space for MTE support in the CPU cache. Google's LED feature is widely panned in reviews and will likely result in selling fewer devices than if they hadn't added it. They're also going to be widely panned for removing a very high impact security feature instead of making extensive use of it and improving it. It's a poor way to run a business. Pixel 11 has been poorly received in reviews and that was before people knew they downgraded security in a major way.
Google is marketing the Pixel 11 based on incrementing the version number for the security chip (with unclear improvements) and using post-quantum secure cryptography (ML-DSA) for verified boot. If they had followed through on open sourcing the firmware and hardware for the Titan M then we would already know in what way they improved it instead of finding out over time through people's reverse engineering efforts.
How is a bunch of LEDs more expensive than literal die space from TSMC? The chip is probably the most expensive part of the phone, a bunch of LEDs at a few cents per unit are infinitely cheaper than extra die space for a feature 99.99% of users won't use.
My concern is that Motorola is a Chinese company. Sure, Pixel and Apple phones are made in China too, but they're overseen by American companies. How can we know these Motorola phones will not one day be placed on the "do not trust" list like e.g. Huawei phones?
The President of the United States, or members of the Federal Government that have the various levers of power.
> and why do you listen to the people who place them there
If they won't allow the devices to be imported then it's not really an option. Which also means they wouldn't be allowed to connect to the cell network.
Or they could be barred from all Federal or State facilities, having to be left in a faraday bag upon entry.
Federal grants and loans to states and companies could be denied if company policy allows the use of those devices for corporate communications and purchasing decisions, etc.
Glad the people behind graphene are creating this discourse I probably would have ordered a new pixel because I was used to the reasons I give above.
The moterola alternatives are noted thanks guys
GrapheneOS has 500k users and growing, and most GrapheneOS users would be more than happy to leave the Pixels because of Google's bullshit.
I don't know about ShiftPhone, but e.g. Volla just sells rebranded Daria and Gigaset phones, typically marked up by a few hundred Euros to sell some EU-made/privacy/degoogling dream. In reality they are just cheap phones that the ODM does not really care about with Linux kernel and firmware trees that haven't seen any (security) updates in years.
I think they probably have the sales volume where they could negotiate a compatible device with their ODM, but their priorities clearly lie elsewhere.
Fairphone gets to make high level decisions among the choices T2Mobile is willing to offer. For example, their move to T2Mobile with the Fairphone 4 coincided with the removal of the 3.5mm audio jack.
It does suck for those who already got one expecting GrapheneOS support
We don't want to have an overall downgrade in security from the Pixel 8, Pixel 9 and Pixel 10. One approach would be using HWASan within the OS instead of MTE but the overhead is extreme and it only works for code instrumented with it.
Pixel series aren't the fastest- they're far behind. They're also not the cheapest, they're amongst the most expensive.
The reason people still buy it is that they get a certain level of software quality and UX features, as well as security commitments that make Pixel and all of Android safer as it allows for fixing vulnerabilities quickly for everyone. MTE was one of these.
When Google stops doing this, what's the point of buying a Pixel? I'm also not confident that Motorola will pick up the slack in practice.
Personally, I’d suggest avoiding Chinese smartphones as much as possible. Setting aside the cybersecurity risks for a moment, just look at how they cheat and manipulate benchmark scores—they will do whatever it takes just to look good on paper.
Also, consider how phones in China can't use GMS (Google Mobile Services), so they build in countless "workaround" backdoors. Do you really think buying the global version makes it safe? As a software developer, let me tell you: we rarely maintain two completely different codebases for what is essentially the same OS. Those backdoors are still there—they're just disabled. That alone should set off alarm bells.
If anyone is interested in diving deeper into the software issues behind Chinese phones, I can talk about that next time.
Pixel’s raw performance is honestly terrible. But if you don't game, its day-to-day fluidity easily blows other brands—including Samsung—out of the water. It’s a phone you can actually use with peace of mind: practically no backdoors, near-stock Android, timely security updates, and an advanced OS. It really is the best option for daily use.
That said, Google, I’m begging you: can you please take your hardware seriously? The current performance and overall state of Pixel phones are just embarrassing.
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/
We aren't sure when the first Motorola folding devices we can support will be released, but that will happen.
Pixels offer affordable options which is why unless you can cater to that market, a Motorola-only GrapheneOS future will only gain traction if you're able to get a cheaper low/mid-range option out there, akin to the Pixel A-series.
Is there any guarantee that in 4 years this device will be getting monthly patches, source and builds regularly?
Let Motorola do the hardware and GrapheneOS the software.
As a result, Motorola's software support is just as important as Motorola's hardware
Motorola will directly Qualcomm firmware and drivers we need which are mainly from Qualcomm. The updates will be up to us.
Google's licensing terms are also clearly a blatant violation of antitrust law. The licensing terms have already been invalidated in multiple countries including South Korea. Samsung is no longer bound by the same terms, which isn't fair to other OEMs.
I hope they get worked out in short order. I'd love to buy one preconfigured if for no other reason then I'd like to show my support.
It also shows more of a commitment by Motorola. Harder to suddenly forget about providing you with what you need if they're selling gOS preinstalled.
Google just can't help being a fucking disappointment at every single opportunity!
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.