Hacker News Reader

Comment by I_am_tiberius | Hacker News Reader

Everytime I read GrapheneOS news I search for news related to Fairephone. It's such a shame that there's still no official plan for Fairephone to work on requirements for GrapheneOS. The combination of those 2 would be fantastic. It would also open a big new market (I assume) for Fairephone so not sure why there seems no clear sign in that direction at all (to my knowledge).

View on HN

Everytime I see Fairphone mentioned whenever there's news about GrapheneOS I'm confused as to why people keep on conflating both when they obviously have very different goals.

? Not conflating, just we want a phone with both goals ...

The only one conflating anything is yourself.

This is no great conundrum. There is simply a large set overlap. A lot of the people who care about one one, also care about the other.

It's the same as Framework owners and Linux users.

FW is not a linux laptop company. They didn't even barely say the word Linux initially. Their selling point was the repairability and configurability. Only after they had been shipping for a while it became unavoidable that a huge fraction of their users were linux and even freebsd users. Only after some time and only gradually they started providing a little bit of official acknowledgement and support for Linux.

But repair parts and linux os don't have anything to do with each other! zomg why is everyone conflating Framework with a linux laptop company???

Every time Fairphone release new device I check width size. Still waiting for small device.

I believe Fairphone relies on popular off-the-shelf parts. If that stays consistent, the Fairphone will never be small. Save for a change in business model (e.g. pay more for smaller phone)

Smaller phone means smaller battery, which is not what majority consumers wants. However, there is a group of people that dont need power for feeding 147 apps on background.

I wonder if Meta pays phone manufacturers under the table to keep their size large

The overwhelming majority of consumers just prefer larger screens (myself included). People seem to forget that Apple releasing the Mini was them listening to the minority and the sales numbers if it were poor versus the rest of the lineup.

And why would Meta even do that?

50% of the population has hands that are too small to operate a typical phone with one hand. It's ridiculous that there is nothing for such a huge number of people.

Most people take what they're given. Whatever is on the shelf or the front page, that's what they buy. Manufacturers make bigger screens because it's impressive and good for delivering content and provides room for cpu & battery, and most people just go along with it. They think about products the same as the weather. Whatever is, is just what is, like it's just part of the world, not something that people made and people can make differently. If there is choice available, they buy what they were told to want.

Sales numbers are not a strong argument in an environment like that. Countless things sell in huge numbers without anyone actually liking the product or service, even when there isn't a hard monopoly like your cable/internet.

There is a whole other big perverting factor too, which is that for many years now a phone is many people's only computing device. They are preferring phones that are larger that they'd really like for a phone, because they can only have one, and need it to do every job that you and I use a laptop for.

> the sales numbers if it were poor versus the rest of the lineup.

For one, the sales were still perfectly respectable. "Versus the rest of the lineup" is doing a ton of work here, because the rest of the iPhone models sell like crazy. For two, it is still bizarre that manufacturers refuse to make small phones even with that in mind. If you wear very small clothes (or very large clothes) that won't sell as many units, your options are limited, you have to pay more, but you aren't forced to go naked. But there's nobody out there doing the equivalent strategy for phones.

Bro the Mini was a flop for Apple, it could barely surpass 5% of all iPhone sales during its run. It would be nonsensical for a publicly traded company to leave money on the table and keep an underperforming product alive when they could put that towards the better performing bigger screen iPhones instead.

For a small company sure it could be considered a success.

I don’t think tech can be compared to the fashion industry. Also that example doesn’t really work. Because you basically have a locked in group who needs the clothes. Just also culturally there’s reasons why these clothing sizes exist. Nobody needs a small phone.

But across the board it makes no sense for any OEM to make small phones when the data all shows that bigger screens sell more. That’s just absorbing an unnecessary opportunity cost.

I think the only real way small phones will reach the market at this point in time is via a private company that’s basically run as a passion project.

Honestly in this case the consumers do share the blame. They begged for the mini and didn’t show up. If apple couldn’t do it it’s unlikely that the android oems could.

A brief search says that iPhone sales in 225 were approximately $200 billion. 5% of that is therefore approximately $10 billion. If you call that a "massive flop", your standards are completely unrealistic. That is a massive success.

And no, the clothes analogy is not flawed. The point is that in other markets, niche tastes and needs get served even if it isn't as cheap or plentiful. It's only the phone manufacturers which refuse to try to get sales from a smaller (but still quite extant) market.

It's all about scale. Yes 10B is a lot for most companies, but for Apple 5% is just a blip on the radar. They probably also did their market research and found that the vast majority of Mini users would buy another iPhone model if they discontinued the Mini. Those facts combined give Apple little incentive to continue the lineup.

Another thing that further clouds the 5% discussion is that some Mini purchasers may have bought it not because of the size, but because it was $100 cheaper while still getting the same SoC. Maybe those buyers were disappointed by the worse battery life, and Apple could choose to axe it or make it the same price as the regular iPhone and it would drop way below 5%.

Thanks you said it better than I would’ve

But you see people talking about the mini almost every time there's a discussion about iPhones (or phones in general). Surely it would have been worth it to Apple to keep the mini alive just to avoid the negative press and pretend they care about their consumers beyond making a profit. But I guess it really isn't possible to do things like that in a publicly traded company.

But you see people talking about the mini almost every time there's a discussion about iPhones (or phones in general).

...in tech forums where people hold strong opinions about tech and the people who have their pet peeves come out. IRL I have rarely heard somebody wanting Apple to bring the Mini back. Or the stereo jack for that matter.

> Bro the Mini was a flop for Apple, it could barely surpass 5% of all iPhone sales during its run.

They were making the SE at the exact same time as the mini, two years in a row, and the mini still got billions in sales. If they want a bigger percent, then do it less often and don't split the demand. It's been four and a half years since they did either mini or SE. People would buy plenty.

> leave money on the table

> opportunity cost

If it cost them that much to have extra models, they wouldn't have five iphone 16 variants that are all just different enough to need five internal layouts. And four 17 variants plus the air.

Don’t know what else to say here I guess you and the others here know more than Tim Cook does.

That's a weird statement. Do you think knowing the most about something inevitably leads you to a specific decision? It doesn't.

And this isn't something that would affect their revenue particularly much. So while it's possible I've missed an important factor, even if I'm 100% right it could make sense for most people to say "do the option that leads to more happy customers, while still making boatloads of money", while a CEO says "we have enough happy customers, go for the extra sliver of money". Or an extra payment from Meta or whatever, I wasn't really talking about that idea, I was just arguing against their abandonment of small phones. The point is, don't use CEOs to guide your intuition of what decisions are best.

I would argue that it’s weird to expect that Apple should maintain a product that sells less when people have consistently shown that they will buy the better performing product anyway instead of not buying at all.

Like this isn’t a hypothetical, Apple literally released the Mini and it was the worst performing item in their iPhone lineup by far. If it was profitable enough, Cook would’ve kept it.

Like ultimately I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re trying to say, but like this:

> “do the option that leads to more happy customers, while still making boatloads of money", while a CEO says "we have enough happy customers, go for the extra sliver of money".

The consumers do take some blame here cause they did take the Mini away and people just ended up buying the other more expensive iPhones instead of not buying one at all. Why would Apple do anything different in that case?

The obsession with the Mini is something that is only really popular within an online bubble and isn’t reflective of real life trends, people here are being extremely disconnected from the public with this (and this is coming from someone who wants Apple to add a desktop mode to iOS). The only time Apple seems to maintain lagging product lines are with things like the Air which seemed to essentially be an R&D product for the Duo.

Customers shouldn't have to boycott to convince companies to make a good product. Companies should value millions of happier customers over a negligible change in product design cost.

Also do you think people wouldn't buy just about as many iphones if they killed a middle model? That's not by itself a good reason to kill a model or they wouldn't have as many as they do. Like, I'm sure pro and plus each get tons of sales but you could cut one with nobody being upset and redirect that budget to mini.

- facilitate the infinite scroll

- remind you that the phone is in your pocket, to initiate the infinite scroll

I find reading ebooks and long texts like wikipedia a lot more enjoyable on my 6.8" AMOLED panel than on the smaller screens i've had before. You can also doomscroll on smaller screens.

Sorry but this is maximum level conspiratorial thinking. Meta probably has some created some incentive for OEMs to make larger screens by way of people liking content consumption but the idea that they’d be paying for that is ridiculous lol.

I forgive you I guess

Honestly, maybe it's a market specific thing, but from having worked for a carrier, the overwhelming majority of consumers just dont know anything about any phone but the brand. They'll come in store looking for "an iPhone" or "a Galaxy", and the employee will usually push them towards whichever phone has the best deal (and very often, incentives to be sold), which rarely happens to be these alternative models like the Mini. The minority who does buy their phones outright or know what they want does tend to gravitate towards larger phones, but the rest typically just buys the standard, base model.

The follow-up strategy of “smaller width and height didn’t work, let’s try thickness next” reportedly not going any better.

I really think COVID shutdowns did the mini in. People couldn’t go to the store and try holding a phone where they could use it comfortably one-handed again. And then by the time they could, Apple axed it.

I don't believe this at all. If people yearned for smaller phones, they would have gotten it despite COVID. My wife and I both had a Mini and I remember going to the local electronics store (most of the summer there were no closures) and the iPhone islands were well-visited, but simply nobody was looking at the Minis.

I think people get the wrong estimation about the size of the contingent that want small phones. It is a vocal minority, similar to people ranting every time about headphone jacks. Most people do not care about these things. If they want to hook a wired headphone, they'll get a 10 Euro dongle and most people use Bluetooth. My wife uses a wired headphone for listening audio books at night and I never heard her complain about the stereo jack going away.

I bought the mini and I bought the Air so it worked on me. I think it’s crazy that Apple sold millions of devices and that’s not enough of a market. We should make devices few people use, not everything needs to be mass market, to me that’s enshittification and greed.

Or maybe the majority of people buying a new damn phone every other week just prefer it'd be a tablet

Just today I giggled and reminisced over the old XDA Developers Nexus 7 posts about LTE and wifi calling hacks…the many few of us worked hard to only rely on a tablet! Ironically, there is now not a second of my day in which id find a folding phone useful or logistically feasible. Alas…13 years too late.

Galaxy Tab 2 had builtin telephony! I’ve used the 10-inch model in my high school and it was great.

Majority that I know complains all over about poor durability, uncomfortable wearing in pockets and difficult to operate phone by one hand.

Lack of jack port and microSD card is next.

Both are for for different niches, but their intersection is relatively big.

I agree they are separate. What annoys me is that every time FairPhone has news, there are obligatory FUD comments about how people should stay away from FairPhone because they don't support Graphene.

I think it's obvious that the target audience has a huge overlap...

I wouldn’t say obvious, no. It’s what I observe, yes. But I have some doubt about my observations scaling up to a valid statistics. Lots of folks out there are not techies yet do care about the environment. I can’t see them caring much about grapheneOS, but maybe I’m wrong.

HN readers aren't a huge demographic.

Poster said huge overlap, not huge audience:)

But I agree with the overlap. I use e/OS partly because I can run it on a Fairphone. I'd love to try Graphene.

Is there a huge demographic for grapheneOS and/or fairphone? Let alone one that doesn't overlap with the archetypes that post here?

A huge overlap in two groups would obviously be at most 100% of the smaller group.

You should search for the many times where GrapheneOS has stated they won't work with Fairphone

It's because Fairphone doesn't fulfil GOS's hardware requirements. If Fairphone addresses that, there's no reason for GOS to not support a Fairphone device.

I don't think they can, even if they wanted to. From the GrapheneOS device requirements:

Device support code updated to new monthly, quarterly and yearly releases of AOSP within several months to provide new security improvements (Pixels receive these in the month they're released)

Fairphone's hardware and software is developed by a Chinese ODM (T2Mobile), who even have difficulty pushing out monthly patches very timely. They don't even do QPR2s, major Android updates are very late (usually almost a year), they rarely do driver firmware or kernel updates. There is no way they could fulfill this guarantee unless they started doing software development in-house and paid Qualcomm for monthly firmware updates.

Oh for some reason I thought Fairphone does all this in-house, not that they just take Chinese ODM. It makes more sense now.

I don't understand the issue. If Fairphone wants GOS can't they just compile it themselves with whatever unsupported hardware based security features disabled? Ditto for any given end user. It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions.

An incredibly incomplete port without many of the core security features and decent updates is not GrapheneOS. It isn't possible to bring GrapheneOS to Fairphone devices.

> It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions.

Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life Linux kernel. Fairphone 6 is approaching the same fate. None of their devices keep up with the incomplete security backports to older releases, let alone the full security updates via new major releases. All of their devices are missing important hardware security features which should be standard. They're repeatedly said they don't consider any of this a significant issue and have no plans to significantly change it.

Yes, I realize that the official stance is that it isn't grapheneos without the security features. That doesn't change the fact that someone who won't have the security features either way (and presumably doesn't care because otherwise he would switch to a different piece of hardware) might want the option of using a build of grapheneos that isn't officially condoned by the maintainers. (That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right?)

I didn't realize fairphone was stuck on an EoL kernel. I guess that means that even if the build can be made to work right now (far from certain given an old kernel) it would likely break in the future.

> might want the option of using a build of grapheneos

An OS without the core features and updates of GrapheneOS clearly isn't GrapheneOS. It's not permitted to refer to it as such.

> That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right?

No, the point of FOSS is that you can take all of our code and use it for other purposes. Calling an incomplete port to another device GrapheneOS is misleading users. It isn't GrapheneOS and must have a unique name.

No one was suggesting that your trademark should be infringed when marketing to users. If I do my own custom build of firefox referring to it as such in casual conversation is entirely separate from marketing it under that name for others to use (see ex icecat).

Honestly while grapheneos is a useful thing that I'm glad exists you're being absolutely insufferable.

an objective statement of fact should not be considered "absolutely insufferable"

As always, context is all important.

Yes, they can, but they have promoted /e/OS, and they have no ability to develop Android.

Simple. Fairphone doesn't want GOS.

Forking GOS and porting it to a new device is a huge and unreasonable ask for an individual user. Even less so when you include the fact that you'll need to keep it up to date.

I understand that bringing AOSP to an unsupported device is a huge endeavor. But fairphone already has the driver situation sorted out. What's the complexity here? (Genuine question, I'd like to correct any misconceptions about the android ecosystem that I have.)

Why? Because of drivers? Don’t they already have Linux drivers for the fairphone?

I wonder if fable or astra could wire everything up.

LLMs do not solve every problem.

You are dependent on Qualcomm for hardware firmware updates and apparently they charge quite a bit extra if you want continuous monthly security updates [1]. This is possibly one of the reasons that smaller OEMs like Fairphone do not update firmware regularly and instead choose to keep their customers vulnerable to many known CVEs.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48079791

They're getting remarkably good at reverse engineering. I wonder if the relevant firmware updates can be provided by the user or OEM or if they're blobs that have to be signed by qualcomm?

As a company that often lies, they won’t spend a single penny on this.

Unsubstantiated accusations are against the HN guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49669636

Given the state of Fairphone hardware, software and business, it is not surprising.

For those of us out of the loop, could someone summarize the situation?

  > Fairphone has said they don't plan to add a secure element. It can be seen from their current devices that they don't fully keep up with privacy/security backports and lag a year behind on shipping yearly OS releases. They skip over the monthly and quarterly releases entirely. They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS option in partnership with Murena. They clearly demonstrate that security and even privacy are not the priorities.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114733211017800480

They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS

it sounds like they are saying that /e/OS is less secure than fairphone's own OS. with all criticism against /e/OS taken into account, i highly doubt that fairphone would have been able to make their own version of android more secure than /e/OS when they are not even interested in working on that.

It starts with simply rolling major releases out earlier than /e/OS. Remember that to get security fixes for vulnerabilities not marked high/critical, you need the QPR/major updates. Those vulnerabilities may not be an immediate RCE, but they might get used in exploit chains after an RCE. Also, Fairphone and /e/OS will have many known RCEs, because they do not roll out embargoed patches like GrapheneOS and to some extend Samsung & Pixel do.

as if fairphone ever did that: they don't fully keep up with privacy/security backports and lag a year behind on shipping yearly OS releases

so, again, how is /e/OS being behind on updates any worse than fairphone's own OS?

Android 16 was released on Fairphone 6 on March 16 2026. Yes, I know, way too late. The Android 16 build of /e/OS for Fairphone 6 was released on July 20 2026. Four months later. This was exactly the point of my comment.

fairphone probably rolls out a stock android release with little change whereas /e/OS has to forward port all its changes and patches on all the phones they support. maybe taking 4 months is to much for that, but that's most likely a resource problem that can probably best be solved by buying more murena phones.

It should be noted that GrapheneOS had similar criticisms about almost every smartphone vendor, including Motorola before their upcoming cooperation IIRC.

Most of their criticisms are valid, but they seem to be absolutely unwilling to make any compromise at all.

Not sure if they want to protect their brand, if any of those criticised issues would increase the work needed by them significantly, or why they are like that.

But I would prefer to have a slightly less secure GrapheneOS on many phones, that helps many many more users than just Pixel owners, over the current all or nothing situation.

> Most of their criticisms are valid, but they seem to be absolutely unwilling to make any compromise at all.

Making no compromise to security is the entire point of it's existence.

You can achieve the best security without compromises by not using any technology.

GrapheneOS making compromises on their requirements would signal that vendors producing low quality, less secure hardware and software is OK. On something as important as a secure and private smartphone, GrapheneOS not making compromises is actually beneficial to everyone. Maybe it is pushing these vendors to actully care a little more about secure hardware and software. The good thing is that if you actually want a good secure smartphone, you can buy a Pixel and install GrapheneOS.

One of the reasons I haven't switched to Graphene is this kind of drama. I wish there was more middle ground. I don't think the post is in any way constructive and will lead to fairphone to consider adding a secure element.

I don't see their post as 'drama' or nonconstructive at all. It's simply a list of well-founded criticisms of Fairphone's extremely lax position on security that is incompatible with Graphene's. If being critiqued for it doesn't lead to them considering adding a secure element, that's a problem on Fairphone's side imo.

The core criticism to the vendor is the missing security element. This is a fair point.

However, calling out on e/OS in the same post, seems to me very counter-productive. We need more OS vendors and less infighting. Calling all custom ROMs insecure and claiming to be the only one is IMHO 'drama'. Particular there are contributions of me microG that are helpful if you want to de-Google ones phone. Graphene has a different approach: fair. People will use GrapheneOS if they share their goals.

Fairphone is about sustainability and a bit about not supporting major tech like Google. I don't think this hurts. In an ideal world we could have both. But sustainability seems to be a non-goal of GrapheneOS.

I think in this context it's fair to call out /e/.

In some ways /e/ and GOS are trying to achieve different things (/e/ is not hardened and does not claim to be), but /e/ is severely lacking security wise compared to AOSP.

This [0] is, in my opinion, a fair review that mentions many of the issues. That Fairphone is ok with these is telling about their position on privacy and security.

[0] https://www.kuketz-blog.de/e-datenschutzfreundlich-bedeutet-...

> Calling all custom ROMs insecure and claiming to be the only one is IMHO 'drama'.

No, what it is is true. microG lets you de-Google a phone, but the resulting phone is provably less secure. If stating the truth causes "drama", the problem isn't the person or entity saying the true thing. If that truth shakes people, if it upsets them, they should look into the problem that truth has revealed (not created, as truth isn't something that exists only after someone speaks it) rather than blame those who are speaking it.

Can you provide evidence that GrapheneOS is less secure than LineageOS or other custom ROMs? Because GrapheneOS (and even leaked documentation from commercial adversarial phone hacking tools) provide a hell of a lot of evidence that it is, in fact, considerably more secure than just about every other phone OS in existence.

I am not saying that what they say is wrong. However, this is about current phones. If your goal is supporting aftermarket phones the case looks very different. It is the only way to get a decent level of security. The problem is IMHO how graphene communicates. It is mixing tons of different things to always make their communication more 'bold'. Then they complain about people complaining about their communication style. It is my personal choice, but I accept less security while not having to care about GrapheneOS announcements. I value their work in a similar way that I value WikiLeaks.

What I've seen (that doesn't outwardly appear astroturfed) is largely people getting their feelings hurt because of an opinion they've expressed about the qualities of project they're involved in, or just a user/fan of. Their dislike of the Linux kernel or the relative insecurity of desktop Linux projects in general tends to piss people off, even though the negative points they make are invariably detailed and well communicated.

Because of that, instead of refuting the actual argument being made, discussion always swings towards their tone.

What it is, exactly, that is objectionable? Are there personal attacks being made? Yeah. Towards the GrapheneOS developers. It's something I've seen for myself and if you get into these threads on HN early, you can see how the comment deletions pile up. When they say they are the target of organized disinfo and targeted attacks by malignant third parties, it's pretty easy to believe them. It is in the best interests of many, many very powerful people that GrapheneOS is destroyed.

No one who takes infosec seriously cares about GOS' PR filling their communication with tummy rubs and head pats. Infosec is a nightmare, adversaries are everywhere, all anyone should want to know is whatever is as close to the truth as possible.

To be honest, I am happy that a somewhat influential account is raising these issues. I have tried to explain for probably two decades now that the Linux desktop has poor security and the Linux kernel has issues. But somehow a significant portion of the Linux community lives with the delusion that the Linux desktop is the most secure OS. The whole idea that a vulnerability in some image parser that their Mastodon client uses could give an attacker access to their full user account, simply doesn't occur to them.

I want the open source desktop to succeed, but we can only make progress if we accept that there are a lot of security, UX, and UI issues and start tackling them.

When they say they are the target of organized disinfo and targeted attacks by malignant third parties, it's pretty easy to believe them. It is in the best interests of many, many very powerful people that GrapheneOS is destroyed.

Yeah. There it's clear that there is a lot of organized disinformation, probably by government actors and certainly by other open source and phone vendors that try to sell privacy/eurowashed phones (one Volla astroturfer outed themselves accidentally on Mastodon by sharing information only an employee could know).

Imo i think actually naming the problems is a lot more productive than walking around them

To them Murena seems to be the biggest problem.

To be honest the specs of the Fairphone are middling and the device is rather expensive for what you get. The Pixels are a much better value, especially with a series. If you want something truly high end, wait for the Motorola with official GOS support.

Isn't the whole idea behind Fairphone that they are more expensive because the parts are responsibly sourced? That they pay a fair price for labour and materials? And that the phones are highly repairable?

Why would that mean it could compete with a Pixel which generally has none of those goals?

There's nearly no information available on the working conditions, pay or environmental impact of Fairphones. T2Mobile is the company designing and making Fairphones since the Fairphone 4 and little information is available on them. Fairphone provides a long list of companies involved in the supply chain without more details than their location and website.

Pixels have long term availability of official parts for repairs and also official repairs.

Unlike Fairphones, Pixels have very good updates over the long term. Fairphones do not provide anything close to decent updates and it greatly degrades over the lifetime of the device. Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life kernel without security support. The devices start out lagging months behind on partial security backports and a year or more behind on full security updates which gets worse over time.

Without support of alternative OS Fairphone is basically a landfill. Why would anyone buy this apart from novelty factor.

Supporting an alternative OS wouldn’t change the fate of Fairphone, imo. Most people don’t care to move away from the stock version of Android that comes with their phone or iOS.

This isn't a hypothetical, Fairphone supports alternative OSes. Heck, you can even buy it with /e/OS in their store:

https://www.fairphone.com/the-fairphone-gen-6-plus-e-operati...

Can I flash my own?

Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49667725

tbf that was just more so me insulting fairphone and kinda unnecessary from me

I mean, aside from /e/OS as a first-party option, there are also official Lineage builds[1]. And they're at least a target for PostmarketOS[2], even if that wiki doesn't actually describe something daily-driveable yet.

[1] https://forum.fairphone.com/t/official-lineageos-23-for-the-...

[2] https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_(Gen._6)_(fairp...

I would throw serious money at them both if this collaboration happened.

Every fairphone I've seen to far the camera was kinda ass. Did it improve? Pixel phones usually have old Samsung sensors which are pretty damn decent.

The sensor of the Fairphone camera is good enough, the software processing is what's lacking. Imo, owner of an FP4.

Pixel cameras seem to do tremendous amounts of software-based post-processing but specifically in the official Google app. My partner has tested some camera apps and nothing comes close to Google’s. So I imagine that’s one of the reasons for the disparity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com