130
GrapheneOS makers take a knife to this 'Google-free' phone coming to the US (Updated)
(www.androidauthority.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
130 points (90.6% liked)
Android
31236 readers
18 users here now
DROID DOES
Welcome to the droidymcdroidface-iest, Lemmyest (Lemmiest), test, bestest, phoniest, pluckiest, snarkiest, and spiciest Android community on Lemmy (Do not respond)! Here you can participate in amazing discussions and events relating to all things Android.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
1. All posts must be relevant to Android devices/operating system.
2. Posts cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
3. No spam, self promotion, or upvote farming. Sources engaging in these behavior will be added to the Blacklist.
4. Non-whitelisted bots will be banned.
5. Engage respectfully: Harassment, flamebaiting, bad faith engagement, or agenda posting will result in your posts being removed. Excessive violations will result in temporary or permanent ban, depending on severity.
6. Memes are not allowed to be posts, but are allowed in the comments.
7. Posts from clickbait sources are heavily discouraged. Please de-clickbait titles if it needs to be submitted.
8. Submission statements of any length composed of your own thoughts inside the post text field are mandatory for any microblog posts, and are optional but recommended for article/image/video posts.
Community Resources:
We are Android girls*,
In our Lemmy.world.
The back is plastic,
It's fantastic.
*Well, not just girls: people of all gender identities are welcomed here.
Our Partner Communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This isn't even an issue from Fairphone's perspective. It's devices are supported by every other privacy-based ROM out there and its primary focus is on shipping and supporting devices with "stock" Android. As I said above, there is nothing actually wrong with Fairphone devices from a security perspective compared to the majority of its competitors, and even those issues that do exist are fringe cases that consumers do not care about.
The only reason this discussion about "GrapheneOS on Fairphone" keeps resurfacing is because of the cult-like behaviour I described elsewhere in this thread, where GrapheneOS is so widely recommended without context that people new to this space think it is the only solution to stock Android's privacy issues. So they keep pestering the GrapheneOS team, asking for something that has been resolutely denied on multiple occasions previously, provoking a response that inevitably gets recirculated on social media and run as content on "news" sites. And then we get comments lile yours that frame GrapheneOS on Fairphone as an achievable and realistic thing that could happen with better communication, even though neither party is interested in pursuing that.
I'm not sure if you just didn't read my reply properly or if you're engaging in bad faith here but you've just stitched the first sentence of a paragraph and half of the last sentence of a paragraph together as if they're related when they clearly aren't. One is referring to the non-existent issue (from Fairphone's perspective as clearly stated) of lack of GrapheneOS support, in direct response to you. The other is referring to the perceived security issues with Fairphone devices referenced in the article, and this is clearly stated in the first half of the same sentence which you decided to cut for some reason.
Nice strawman but I never said it was good. Again, respond in full instead of cherrypicking half a sentence. "Slow" updates compared to a Pixel is obviously not a problem considering Google has a minority market share and many people do not even bother to update their phone regularly. It is a fringe issue that is irrelevant to most.
It doesn't matter whether they're equal to GrapheneOS. Like I said, if you are new to this space and don't know anything then you think you need GrapheneOS because an influencer told you "iTs tHe bEsT oNe" and you looked at a comparison chart where it had the most green rows in its column. In reality many of its unique features and differences are well beyond the requirements of most people simply looking to reduce the amount of information big tech holds on them. Threat modelling exists for a reason but unfortunately many people burn out and return to big tech because they listen to bad advice from morons instead of thinking for themselves.
These projects don't need to be identical to each other, and in fact it's actually very healthy for the ecosystem and movement if they have differing feature sets and goals. Your utopian dream of GrapheneOS having a market monopoly is a terrible idea because it assumes the people in control are mentally stable and that nothing will ever go wrong, which we already know is a completely unrealistic assumption to have because Micay exists and Google just made custom ROM development much harder for Pixels.
Fairphone has zero interest in GrapheneOS and vice versa. Pretending that the only hindrance to this fictional collaboration is a lack of communication is delusional.
You really struggle with reading, don't you?
"The increased userbase gives Graphene more leverage and in a just world big companies and countries would maybe rethink their approach to data collection."
Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the meaning of the words "compared to". If, as you admit:
Then it is impossible for there to be something wrong with Fairphone security compared to the majority of competitors.