▲ 759 ▼ GrapheneOS could break Pixel exclusivity in 2026 with major OEM deal (piunikaweb.com) submitted 10 months ago by baatliwala@lemmy.world to c/android@lemdro.id 162 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] courval@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (3 children) Disappointed to learn about Fairphone lagging behind in terms of security.. I really wanted to get one. But still good news I guess. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] fodor@lemmy.zip 9 points 10 months ago (1 child) I'm not saying the information about Fairphone is wrong, but you shouldn't assume it's all as bad as they made it out to be. You're reading a marketing pitch from one group that works with one vendor saying why another vendor isn't that good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 10 months ago GrapheneOS has criticized Fairphone from a security perspective for a long time, long before any partnerships with OEMs were ever made. GrapheneOS chose to partner with this specific company (which they don't want to broadly disclose yet) because they have shown, that they actually care about security, and are willing to invest time and effort to meet the GrapheneOS device requirements, not the other way around. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago Not really a 'Fairphone issue' and more a general 'smartphone issue'. The vast majority of OEMs don't invest into security and just use random parts with mostly stock Android. Sometimes they actually make it worse by replacing AOSP apps with their less secure ones. Which sadly will become more common with Google abandoning AOSP. Fairphone simply isn't focused on security. Should that change? Are Fairphone users interested in improved security? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Leax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 months ago Not too surprising as they don't have the same company size, it's hard to keep up. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 9 points 10 months ago (1 child) I'm not saying the information about Fairphone is wrong, but you shouldn't assume it's all as bad as they made it out to be. You're reading a marketing pitch from one group that works with one vendor saying why another vendor isn't that good. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 10 months ago GrapheneOS has criticized Fairphone from a security perspective for a long time, long before any partnerships with OEMs were ever made. GrapheneOS chose to partner with this specific company (which they don't want to broadly disclose yet) because they have shown, that they actually care about security, and are willing to invest time and effort to meet the GrapheneOS device requirements, not the other way around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 10 months ago GrapheneOS has criticized Fairphone from a security perspective for a long time, long before any partnerships with OEMs were ever made. GrapheneOS chose to partner with this specific company (which they don't want to broadly disclose yet) because they have shown, that they actually care about security, and are willing to invest time and effort to meet the GrapheneOS device requirements, not the other way around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago Not really a 'Fairphone issue' and more a general 'smartphone issue'. The vast majority of OEMs don't invest into security and just use random parts with mostly stock Android. Sometimes they actually make it worse by replacing AOSP apps with their less secure ones. Which sadly will become more common with Google abandoning AOSP. Fairphone simply isn't focused on security. Should that change? Are Fairphone users interested in improved security? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Leax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 10 months ago Not too surprising as they don't have the same company size, it's hard to keep up. permalink fedilink source parent