Or maybe there's a reason why the mainline Android OEMs don't ship that allocator by default.
And then we can move the goalposts to "more secure distro with GrapheneOS" which isn't part of the conversation until you dragged it out.
GrapheneOS typically ships security updates within a day. But most of Samsung's phones get quarterly security updates[1]. There will never be a primary source with a Samsung insider saying "we're fine with our customers being vulnerable to widely exploited security bugs for the next 89 days, in order to save our massive corporation a few thousand dollars a month." But their priorities are revealed by their actions.
If the statement "OEMs don't care about security" is trivially proven false, as you said, then you should be able to prove it trivially by naming even just a single OEM whose update cadence matches GrapheneOS's.
The numbers aren't zero, certainly. Nor does it imply directly proportional levels of effort. But they are incredibly obviously given wholly different levels of attention on nearly all phones, by nearly all phone manufacturers.
(I'll let you find the others yourself.)
How did you think Pixels got features GrapheneOS needs if the OEM wouldn't care about adding the Titan chip, modem APIs and all the other security features that are featured on pretty much every launch doc?
Cut the crap already.
The only "secure" stuff I see in there is for local AI stuff, encrypted folders, and securely managing other devices. Nothing at all about hardware security or updates or anything that Google has been adding to Android (which imo they're fair to claim! but nearly none do).
iPhones are similar: https://www.apple.com/iphone-18-pro/ they have a small card to see Apple's general privacy policy near the bottom, but other mentions are stuff on the level of "it supports WiFi with passwords".
While there's tons about AI, cameras, and speed. Because those sell better.
Which is far beyond "a trend" and approaching "a truism" for phone sales pages. I challenge you to show even a single large-market-share phone sales page that makes a device security claim (niche ones do! but they're niche), outside Pixels. The very first one I visited demonstrated my point just fine, as did the second.
---
Pixels actually do make some claims ("7 years of updates", Titan chip, etc https://store.google.com/product/pixel_11_pro?hl=en-US) and Graphene routinely holds them up as the sole manufacturer doing a good job (now hopefully two manufacturers, for at least some products). Others really do stand out starkly against even that ankle-high bar.
equipment = the phone you physically hold in your hand
The OS is software, not hardware. The OS vendor is not the OEM.
Yes, Android does a lot of security work. No, it doesn't automatically mean Samsung cares about security, just because one of Samsung's many dependencies cares about security.
Your trivially proving things can't involve asking other people to prove the opposite of things. You've instantly backed down.
> And then we can move the goalposts
Why? You haven't done anything except ask others to do things. You've moved the goalposts from trivially falsifiable, and started begging.
Android release notes are easy to find: https://source.android.com/docs/whatsnew/release-notes
So are marketing materials: https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/platforms/android...
and so are marketing materials: https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/devices/pixel/goo...
and each of those shows that security is pretty much a constant focus for everyone.
Dismissing all the security work done by other people because they didn't jump on your feature is insane behaviour.