Not an expert, but I recently heard that apparently not everything is perfect in fairphone land: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...
Just as physical security, digital security most of the time not as radical, and tradeoffs are usually accepted, especially when they are "invisible": hardware and software security features are usually not mentioned in the specs and the regular and even power user just don't know most of them and what do they do.
When GrapheneOS says "private" and "secure", they mean top-of-the-line security features, updates as soon as possible, all available mitigations against zero-days and insecure code which will limit the impact before the patch, etc. Security as in a killdozer.
When other say "private" and "secure", most of the time it means: "we've followed all the recommendations applicable to our development budget, device price point, and support life time". Graphene does not like that definition of these words.
For smartphone, chip manufacturer goal is not to protect the user at all costs, but to provide reasonable security features for the price.
BUT the goal of chip manufacturer to protect the device at all costs is for… game consoles! That's why Xbox, PlayStation, Switch all run on a custom silicon and not an ordinary chips!
Yeah, iPhoens are made that way as well. It's just caring about the privacy of your users.
> When GrapheneOS says "private" and "secure", they mean top-of-the-line security features, updates as soon as possible, all available mitigations against zero-days and insecure code which will limit the impact before the patch, etc. Security as in a killdozer.
I think it's deceptive because people think they will get better privacy/security with a /e/ fairphone when it's actually much worse than an iPhone.
Does /e/OS illegally collect users' data for ads and sends a lot of telemetry to their servers like Apple? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
I for one prefer to be protected from big tech. Sure GrapheneOS does both, but Apple does not.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/adsupport/asidenti...
https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/11/19/apple-secret-digit...
Source? And what else?
There are just a bunch of companies which afford to do the same. Maybe Xiaomi will be the next one.
That's just blatantly not true though - even iPhones collect way more telemetry and Ad data than /e/ OSes.
Not really. Xbox and PlayStation both run on pretty standard AMD Zen 2 chips. Somewhat customized, but standard enough that people by binned playstation 5 motherboards to use as computers with normal OS'es (lookup BC-250). The last gen with more customized chips was the PS3/Xbox360 era, when both went with a variant of PowerPC, same as Gamecube/Wii/WiiU.
Switch runs on basically the same Nvidia Tegra CPU/GPU as multiple android tablets.
That doesn't mean that all the features are enabled right from the factory, or that the compatibility with already existing features is lost.
Modern chip's security features are pretty complicated and include hardware patches, hardware debug authentication, multiple provisioning states (and multi-key hierarchy for that), RMA states to clear all the private information, etc.
>Switch runs on basically the same Nvidia Tegra CPU/GPU as multiple android tablets.
Yes, and the one which got cracked with a bootrom vulnerability ;)
That's a pretty working motivation for a chip company to improve their chip security when the company as beefy as Nintendo tells them that their chip is vulnerable they're losing money because the customers can play for free ;). I'm pretty sure patchable bootroms started to be common only after Switch hack.
There are whole sections of peripheral chips missing and they behave quite a bit differently with how they bootstrap and where things are mapped in memory.
Even Steam Deck has a custom APU made specifically for it. Call it "customized" if you don't like "custom".
If that is true then a lot (or most) of android phones run on "custom silicon" and the term is meaningless.
I don't think that expecting security updates it being an extremist, or is it?
A couple of the tenets of computing security are:
- Defense in depth - Principle of least privilege
It is a foundational reality that software (especially in unsafe languages) will invariably have vulnerabilities. Defense in depth and least privilege have compounding effects by forcing attackers to chain multiple exploits to achieve a compromised device, rather than a single vulnerability.
GrapheneOS shows how much can be accomplished on top of relatively secure platforms to begin with (AOSP, Pixel Stock OS, etc.) without sacrificing nearly any usability to the end user (barring manufactured hurdles like Play Integrity). It makes it more damning that many "privacy" OSes and devices cannot even meet the baseline level of privacy and security that AOSP provides, but degrade it.
Firmware and driver neglect and the lack of secure element utilization is not "reasonble security for the price".
With the hardware I'm not impressed, and on their own forum I've seen plenty of people reporting issues with overheating on the Gen 6. Hopefully kinks have been ironed out on their 6+.
The current CEO also has a persona that would stir up any community (read a few of his AI-gened posts on their blog, if interested of context).
Still holding on to my FP4, but they are not of consideration on my future phone purchase, unless there is some kind of reality check over there and improvements materialize beyond words.
Everyone and their dog can repair an iPhone because it’s the most popular phone on the planet. Are those repairs accessible to the consumer at home with amateur skills? No, not really. However, newer iPhone models are significantly easier to repair and come along with lower repair costs direct from the manufacturer compared to previous models.
You want years of software updates? Yeah, an iPhone has you covered there, too.
And of course, fairphone’s hardware and OS are nothing to write home about. For the freedom and security nerds they’re better off with GrapheneOS on Pixel or whatever upcoming Motorola phones will support it.
Who is the Fairphone for exactly? Who is buying it and why?
I think the fairbuds are their best product, but I also imagine AirPods Pro 3 are on a whole different level of sound quality, noise cancelation, voice quality/voice isolation, and firmware/software polish.
And let’s be honest about repairability with tiny earbuds: being able to replace the battery is has such a tiny impact on their footprint. If I have to throw out my AirPods Pro 3 every 5 years due to battery degradation, that’s such an insignificant quantity of material being wasted, so it’s probably worth it to get a better product. I could offset my environmental impact by eating a little less beef or riding my bike instead of driving a few times. You drive 30 miles and that’s an entire gallon of refined petroleum product, how much material and energy is used to make one pair of AirPods? I can’t imagine it’s a lot.
I don’t say any of this to be a big corporate or Apple shill. I am rooting for the little guys. But the little guys need to be realistic. You look at products like the Framework 13 Pro and you can actually say, okay, here’s a product with really legitimate benefits over its incumbent competition. There is a reason to buy this product for a certain buyer. I just don’t see that with Fairphone. I can’t think of a customer profile where that person is getting a better ownership experience with Fairphone products.
> And of course, fairphone’s hardware and OS are nothing to write home about. For the freedom and security nerds they’re better off with GrapheneOS on Pixel or whatever upcoming Motorola phones will support it.
For the "freedom nerds", FP is one of the only (if not the only?) vendor to have official support for microG-based operating systems, seamless OTA updates and everything included. The Murena e/OS offering in particular is simple enough that the non-nerds that (perhaps less outspokenly) care about freedom can just pick it up with little change in habits.
To be fair on either side of that debate, getting a phone that comes with /e/OS installed from the factory is going to be easier than flashing GrapheneOS on a Pixel or LineageOS with microG on another device.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I have never had an Android system that did not have OTA updates. Everything included... I usually like to install the apps I want?
As for microG, I think it's debatable. Is it better to have microG contacting the Google servers or sandboxed Play Services going through a Graphene-powered proxy? And say you have microG going through a Murena proxy (do they do that?), is that significantly better than sandboxed Play Services? At the end of the day, your system is made mostly of code written by Google (AOSP).
> The Murena e/OS offering in particular is simple enough that the non-nerds
Yes, I think it's what makes Murena successful. It's surprisingly simple to install GrapheneOS on a Pixel (you follow a wizard on a Chromium browser and click "next" a bunch of times), but many people are scare just by the idea.
The last bit of my sentence could easily be misread as an enumeration of three things ("microG", "OTA updates", "everything included"), but it was actually an elaboration: FP is the only vendor to support microG, and (in contrast to "unofficial" microG setups) it doesn't require sacrifices in convenience because standard features like OTA updates work just like with your average Android. Perhaps that's clearer?
(Notably "Everything included" does not mean it ships a thousand apps or something. To the contrary, FP stock OS is mostly vanilla Android)
Point being: I could install LineageOS on my last phone, but it was a poorly documented process, updates were a hassle (having to flash through custom recovery for lack of OTA), and I had virtually no confidence in data integrity when running major updates.
> Is it better to have microG contacting the Google servers or sandboxed Play Services going through a Graphene-powered proxy?
How about microG not contacting Google servers at all?
In any case you're presenting an unnecessarily binary argument though. Letting Google handle push notifications is different from using them as your location provider, and both are different from letting all Play Services lose on your system.
I already addressed that in my comment, right after the line you quoted.
> Letting Google handle push notifications is different from using them as your location provider, and both are different from letting all Play Services lose on your system.
And what would you say GrapheneOS does of those? Do you know, or do you just assume that GrapheneOS does the worse there?
Where? You suggested it would go through Murena instead, but you can fully disable third party services by disabling external push providers and by using on-device databases for GPS. e/OS directly offers this configuration during initial setup.
> And what would you say GrapheneOS does of those? Do you know, or do you just assume that GrapheneOS does the worse there?
I'm not necessarily trying to present either as "better" or "worse" since they both have their merits depending what exactly you're after (which I don't feel this is the right time/place to have a detailed rundown of). It was the root comment that posited e/OS was strictly inferior for people who care about freedom.
I suspect that the venn diagram of the kind of person who takes issue with Bluetooth audio batteries and the kind of person willing to use wired headphones or prefers them outright has a lot of overlap.
Do you know how the Sennheiser's compare? I'm looking for some for using at the gym, but wanted something I can easily fix if needed.
The Fairbuds are also quite a bit cheaper
by using FOSS only myself and hating monopolies like Apple etc., i still pretty much convinced that being "green" or "ethical" is more about participating/volunteering/doing-something towards a better world than off-loading your duty to other companies... one could easily make a point that Apple products despite locked down, are still green (Apple has a bunch of zero-emission and whatever policies) and much more if one uses their devices for a long while. i had a 2° hand iPhone SE 1° gen. till 2021? if stuff breaks despite your not being able to fix it's not like you can't hop into a specialized shop to change batteries or even pay the expensive service Apple offers... sure that allows exploitation and it's always nice to get rid of it, that's why somehow these emerging companies are important and/or policies like the right of repair will make them obsolete
Then I realised that:
- Fairphone 3 was already "slow" when it was released in 2019
- Fairphone 3+ was pretty much exactly the same hardware, but I bought it 2.5 years later
- My Fairphone 3+ was annoyingly slow from the moment I bought it (I was using it less than a normal phone because of that, and I just completely gave up on using the camera and asked other people to take photos instead).
- My Fairphone 3+ became painfully after 1.5 - 2 years.
I did not change phone because the hardware was not running anymore. I changed because I just couldn't use the few apps I needed because they were unusable (lagging and crashing). I don't mean games: banking apps, weather forecasts, public transports. Pretty much only Signal/WhatsApp were fine (slow, but fine).
So I painfully kept my Fairphone 3+ for a little more than 4 years.
Then I realised that people who buy an iPhone routinely keep it 6-8 years, without it being painful at all. Is it "greener" if I buy one iPhone/Pixel, or 2 Fairphones? I'm not so sure anymore. What I know is that the iPhone/Pixel are not painful to use.
Not quite. The people who care about security first are better off with GOS, yes. However, GOS's threat model very specifically treats the user as a thing to defend against; the freedom-first crowd should avoid them.
Can you elaborate?
GOS mostly honours the Android security model, which many alternatives don't do (many times they don't have a choice because the device doesn't allow them to relock the bootloader, so they just defeat the whole security model from the moment you install).
There is absolutely nothing that can be done on a Stock Android and that I cannot do on GrapheneOS. Or at least I haven't found it.
GrapheneOS will never be closed source/proprietary because they believe code freedom (and user freedom by extension) is paramount. They have repeatedly said they don't have the resources to build a ChromeOS-esque firmware authentication and warning flow for ephemeral user-accessible root and support those builds alongside the existing production environment. They have NOT said it is something they have no interest in even discussing. They have also repeatedly said that where the utility is clearly demonstrated and can be architected in a maintainable way, they are open to contributions (and continued maintenance) that properly enable functions that people unnecessarily need to abuse root privileges for.
The main goal of their project is a system that can protect your personal thoughts, associations and memories to the best of its ability (against thieves, attackers, surveillance etc.) while preserving your interaction with the world. Current OSes (including GrapheneOS and iOS) are already far behind where they should be given the wealth of privacy enhancing technology, computer hardware security, systems engineering and OS design knowledge that has existed for decades- so their work is cut out for them and they are putting everything they have into leading the industry. Their hands are already full. For clear use cases the path of least resistance would be to contribute and commit to maintaining features everyone would benefit from.
If it is a feature/function someone understands they would benefit from personally but do not see the value to impose on others, we can circle back to the original fact which is that GrapheneOS is open source and can be bent/built to your will.
First, "protecting against an app running with user permissions" does not mean "considering that the human owning the device is malevolent", right?
The idea is that if the human installs a malware, we don't want that malware to own the system. I think it is completely fair, and for most people it is the better deal.
Second, your complaint about GOS is that you want root access, and they don't provide it. You want a feature they don't provide, sure, but that happens. And that's probably a good reason to use an alternative system. But turning "I want feature X" into "if you don't provide the feature I want, then you are not free software" is manipulative IMO. GrapheneOS is as open source as it gets, you can fork it and install it on your Pixel. It is free software. Maybe not the software you want (that's okay, different people have different preferences), but free software nonetheless.
Providing app accessible root in the OS greatly reduces security without people ever using it. It gives root access to a huge portion of the OS by having it around as a feature even if it's never used. It fundamentally breaks a large portion of the security model for verified boot, which can no longer defend against attackers maintaining privileged access after a compromise
In addition to the inherent reduction in security from providing it, nearly all apps built around using full unconstrained root access don't need anywhere close to that. In nearly all cases, it's used as a shortcut instead of doing things securely. Following the principle of least privilege by only granting the required privileges is a core part of security. For example, an app for managing low-level firewall rules only needs an API for doing so in netd and netd only needs CAP_NET_ADMIN rather than full root. Doing this by giving full root access to a graphical application which is not properly integrated into the standard firewall management is not a secure approach. Giving full root access to a large portion of the rest of the OS in a way that can be hijacked in many attack vectors to make it possible to dynamically grant it makes it a lot worse.
GrapheneOS does have user-accessible root access in userdebug builds. Those aren't the main production builds of the OS but people who believe they know better and want to have it can build, sign and use those instead. Building the OS also gives an opportunity to include safe implementations of features instead of insecure hacks.
Every app can be backed up as part of the baseline. Apps can exclude specific data but are nearly all doing so because that data is a cache or can't be used elsewhere. For example, Signal encrypts their database with the hardware keystore and bypassing them excluding it from backups to back up all the files for it will not result in the data being possible to restore elsewhere.
To answer GPs point, I think Fairphone doesn't primarily target either of the two audiences. I think they primarily target the people that care about the ethics of the creation of the hardware. Basically people who would like to minimize the invisible human cost that their phone creates.
Fair enough, but note that it does not concern GrapheneOS. Hopefully soon available on Motorola phones :-). That would be my next phone (assuming it's not too expensive of course).
I do have the feeling that many non-nerds can express the difference between all mentioned attributes, many just like FairPhone as an ethical phone. It’s not that simple, I agree.
And at that point I got quite disappointed by /e/OS, because I felt like their marketing had been abusing me for years. For instance, my Fairphone 3+ was 4 years behind the Fairphone Stock Android on some updates. /e/OS just wasn't forwarding them, they seemingly were just not maintaining the FP3. Though I bought it to /e/OS, under the promise that it would be supported!
Then I realised that all this time, not only my bootloader was unlocked (so the Android security model had been broken from the first day I powered the phone), but the system was signed with the Google test keys! When you are encouraged to install apps "from the internet" instead of the Play Store, on a phone that disabled the security model so that you're not protected against malware as on any Stock Android, would you say it's being a security nerd?
The thing that GrapheneOS keeps repeating and I realised is true is that many times, if you run a deGoogled alternative that is not GrapheneOS, you get worse security than if you were running Stock Android. It's not about "getting the best possible security", it's about getting the baseline. The truth with /e/OS (or LineageOS, which is pretty much what /e/OS ships, I believe?) is that it depends a lot on the phone. And with many phones, you get worse than the baseline you would get with Stock Android.
> I do prefer de-googled + freedom to do what I want over security (to a degree).
So I switched to GrapheneOS on a Pixel, and I feel like I get the best of both worlds: I get the privacy benefits of the sandboxed Play Services, and the better security. And it's not a "weird" system at all: I asked my family to use it and they didn't realise it was not a "normal Android". It is very different from running something like a Linux on mobile, which would be very very different.
> many just like FairPhone as an ethical phone
Yes, why not. If I was to get a Fairphone again, though, I would use the Stock Android.
And I wish Fairphone could get to the level where they can be supported by GrapheneOS. But it feels like my next phone will probably be a Motorola with GrapheneOS rather than a Fairphone.
If you're just a rando like me yes, it's paranoia.
Once open models catch up to the current frontier in vulnerability exploitation, the cost to target people will go way down. In the past, the cost to hack a random individual person was generally high enough that if there wasn't some special reason to hack you in particular, it wasn't worth it. That may no longer be the case in the near future. The floor of what is acceptable security for the General Public probably needs to rise quite a bit over the next few years.
Its just raising the bar across the board, I don't see how only attackers would benefit.
Even if you haven't done anything "wrong", you may have engaged in speech or activities that the current US admin has deemed problematic and will try to punish you for if they can find any evidence.
Fairphones are closed source hardware with closed source firmware and closed source userspace drivers. Fairphones are less open than Pixels, not more open.
It isn't truly known how a Fairphone compares to an iPhone or Pixel when it comes to environmental impact or fairness to workers. Fairphones are designed and built by T2Mobile since the Fairphone 4. T2Mobile barely has any public information available about it. There isn't information on the working conditions, pay and other aspects of of it. The same applies to the rest of the supply chain. Fairphone provides a list of companies involved in the supply chain without details.
I really would like to mention that many times, using /e/OS or LineageOS (or the likes) means that you get worse security than Stock Android.
It would be fine to run /e/OS or LineageOS on a Pixel, assuming those Android systems are not too slow with updates (my experience with my /e/OS phone was that they were 4 years behind as compared to Stock Android).
But really, if you have a Pixel, it doesn't really make sense to use something other than GrapheneOS IMO.
So to me it's really:
- GrapheneOS if you can
- Stock Android vs an alternative otherwise
Both /e/ and LineageOS lag far behind on current security updates on a Pixel. Neither is based on Android 17 yet which was released in June 2026. Neither has the June 2026 or later Pixel firmware, kernel, driver and HAL patches. Both also roll back the standard security of AOSP but /e/ does so much more than LineageOS.
The latest releases of LineageOS for Pixels do not provide the June 2026 and later updates to the firmware, kernel, drivers and HALs because those have only been provided for Android 17 since it was released and LineageOS isn't yet based on Android 17. Separately from that, since Lineage is still based on Android 16 QPR2 it also doesn't include the many privacy and security patches not backported from Android 17.
Android ships many security patches as part of the QPR2 and yearly releases which are not backported to older releases. The backports to older releases are increasingly incomplete. Years ago, they stopped backporting any Low and Moderate severity patches to older releases and more recently they've been scaling back the amount of High and Critical severity patches which are backported. An official policy announcement was made to OEMs that they'd no longer backport many High and Critical severity patches where an LLM discovered the vulnerability internally due to the large volume of patches.
Pixels move to the latest OS releases and that means the firmware, kernel, driver and HAL code is only provided for those. It's most difficult for the major yearly releases due to the new API level but it's not trivial for QPR1, QPR2 and QPR3 either.
It isn't truly known how a Fairphone compares to an iPhone or Pixel when it comes to environmental impact or fairness to workers. Fairphones are designed and built by T2Mobile since the Fairphone 4. T2Mobile barely has any public information available about it. There isn't information on the working conditions, pay and other aspects of of it. The same applies to the rest of the supply chain. Fairphone provides a list of companies involved in the supply chain without details.