Hacker News Reader

Comment by palata | Hacker News Reader

My understanding is that the problem is not on GrapheneOS' side. We need more manufacturers to care and build devices that meet GrapheneOS' requirements.

My hope is that Motorola will be very successful with that. GrapheneOS currently has half a million users and growing. The more users it gets, the more interesting it is for manufacturers to actually consider it.

Google being Google, if Motorola gets a relatively cheap phone to run GrapheneOS (the flagship is quite expensive IMHO), I think people will flock away from Pixels (I definitely will, and I will tell everyone and their dog that they should when they renew their phone).

View on HN

> GrapheneOS currently has half a million users and growing

That is a total install base right? Unless all 500k of them are upgrading yearly, this number is miniscule. You are underestimating the R&D required to put out a new phone each year only to have 30% (high estimate) of users buying it. That's 150k devices, which is not worth any volume.

For a smaller manufacturer (e.g. Fairphone), that may mean a lot. If I remember correctly in 2021 Fairphone was selling 100k phones per year?

Also I am genuinely interested: is it that hard to meet GrapheneOS' requirements? Feels like it shouldn't take years of R&D for every new iteration. And also that it's about getting the right deals with the suppliers, which is not really an R&D issue?

Hardware-wise it seems to be doable now that more and more CPUs have MTE. (And secure processors exist, most OEMs outside Google/Samsung are just too cheap to add them.)

What does add ongoing cost is doing monthly driver/firmware/kernel/etc. updates. But IMO they should be required by law. Just doing the minimal ASB patching is not keeping your users secure.

It’s selling an additional 150k flagship devices. They are selling the Signature line with Google-certified Android by default and those 150k would buy a Pixel to run GrapheneOS otherwise. For smaller OEMs, selling 150k flagships extra yearly is a pretty sizable increase.

Also, the GrapheneOS user base is really growing rapidly, plus I’ve seen quite some people who want to run GrapheneOS, but don’t want to give money to Google, so they might switch when there is a Motorola alternative.

Outside raw user numbers, I think there may be other motivations for Motorola. First, the way they pitched it, the seem to want to position Motorola + GrapheneOS as a secure alternative for business users (so, they may bring in new users themselves). Plus there may be strategic reasons for them to do that. Google has been tightening the grip on Android. Supporting GrapheneOS as an alternative could also be a message to Google - we have an alternative if you tighten the grip too much. Kinda similar to how Samsung has their own App Store, etc. as a message to Google.

> For smaller OEMs, selling 150k flagships extra yearly is a pretty sizable increase.

It is but the cost of making that phone is nearly the same for Samsung and Motorola. You're discounting the fixed costs here.

If it takes $10M to produce a phone, the numbers need to make sense before it makes profit. And you need to have deep pockets to keep doing it until it becomes good.

So yes, 150k in first year might be red, but you must be willing to put up another $10M next year and another .. to slowly get to say $500k in year 5 before it turns profitable. Will Motorola have that appetite? maybe not.

Define cheaply.

Sub 200 is immediately off the table but a refurbished pixel last time I checked was about $400 post tax. They have long (7 years now) support windows now which is also a bonus.

Pixel A series are often under 400 here new.

Refurbished Pixel 7 pro (EOL next year) or Pixel 8 (EOL 2030) is £200-240 here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com