[like_any_other]

I applaud them - finding an OEM to build a phone for an Android fork is extremely difficult, because Google conditions access to the Play store on a manufacturer not building any phones with Android forks [1]. A move so ridiculously anti-competitive and hostile that it's outrageous they haven't been sued for it yet by at least the EU. It's not only that their products spy on you - they are actively doing all they can to kill any other products. If you care about privacy, they are your enemy, it's as simple as that.

[1] While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork. Acer was bit by this requirement when it tried to build devices that ran Alibaba's Aliyun OS in China. Aliyun is an Android fork, and when Google got wind of it, Acer was told to shut the project down or lose its access to Google apps. - https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...

[pavon]

This is at least partially banned by the injunction from Epic vs Google:

  7. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement with an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or carrier to preinstall the Google Play Store on any specific location on an Android device.
  8. For a period of three years ending on November 1, 2027, Google may not condition a payment, revenue share, or access to any Google product or service, on an agreement with an OEM or carrier not to preinstall an Android app distribution platform or store other than the Google Play Store.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.37...

[ocdtrekkie]

So the Android MADA and the AFA was wholesale struck as illegal a couple years ago, both in the US and elsewhere. So this requirement cannot legally exist. Whether Google will give someone a license who also ships a fork though is certainly in question, I suspect most OEMs aren't willing to risk their business seeing if the mafia wants to follow the law. Google has such a reputation for being abusive at this point an actual agreement or rule is no longer necessary.

[distances]

The article doesn't say that the manufacturer would ship anything with GrapheneOS. I read it as users will still get to install it themselves, which now finally will be possible with a non-Pixel device.

[aniviacat]

GrapheneOS' Reddit comment shown in the article says "selling devices with GrapheneOS preinstalled would be nice but wouldn't be required".

To me that sounds like devices with GrapheneOS preinstalled is not gonna happen.

[biotinker]

I would suspect that the sort of person (like myself) that would rather run GrapheneOS over LineageOS would rather install themselves than buy preinstalled. Much easier to verify no one slipped you an altered image.

[strcat]

Verified boot and hardware attestation enable verifying a GrapheneOS install is genuine. It can't prevent all hardware tampering but it provides very strong protection against tampering with any firmware or software.

[subscribed]

It takes 10 minutes of clicking "Next" to install GrapheneOS on the pixel. It's the least of the problems.

They problem was always getting a hardware secure by design (like pixels) and with years of firmware updates.

I really wonder which vendor it is, because up until now there was NO alternative to pixels because of lousy hw security. That suggest the big vendor and really great relationship.

[strcat]

It will likely happen after the initial generation with official support. It's hard to do it for the initial generation, but it's possible.