Pixels running GrapheneOS sure, but stock Pixels lag months behind patches that exist but not yet shipped. Check any bulletin and it links to git commits to months ago.
>Check any bulletin and it links to git commits to months ago.
Is there any evidence that the git commits weren't in the ROMs from months ago? The monthly ASB corresponds to when the bugs are publicly disclosed, not when they made it into ROMs.
Pixels only ship a tiny subset of the security preview patches early. Samsung ships a subset for their flagship devices too and it's likely larger than Pixels. Samsung lists these patches in their bulletins and you can retroactively figure out which were future Android Security Bulletin patches. Go through the vulnerabilities for September 2026 or October 2026 and search for them in Samsung's bulletin.
The only way to get the full set of security preview patches is through GrapheneOS. It's strange Google doesn't ship more for the Pixel OS but that's the way it is right now. It takes them around 4 weeks to make a release and even longer when including the time for adding changes to it so there's a long delay built into the process. They should fix it but are clearly not prioritizing it without media pressure that's not happening. They do a lot better than other OEMs but that's much different from doing a good job.
It's concerning to hear about the disarray within the internal workings of Android, they've spoken quite a lot about this recently such as getting access to the code and having to make manual requests.
I'm curious if there's any back up plan to an operating system used by billions. One would think, and hope, the EU would have an alternative ready to go at a moment's notice. Android is literally too big to fail, but I doubt the EU would be ready even though you could consider the failing of Android a national security emergency.
I would like to know more about what's going on at Google that are causing these issues.
The EU Commission at least seems comfortable with requiring that everyone uses Google approved versions of Android, because it makes their authoritarian push for mandatory age verification easier to enforce.
Most national governments in the EU are probably too authoritarian technology-wise to recognize the importance of supporting a project like GrapheneOS as well.
I read a lot of comments like this, saying "we should have an alternative". And I agree that it would be really cool, BUT:
AOSP and the Android SDK are open source. GrapheneOS is exactly an alternative to Google Android. Sure, Google could shut down the Play Store (but alternative stores exist), or destroy the Play Services (but even then, there is microG).
I am happy that Google is still contributing to Android because they have a ton of money and many brilliant engineers, even though as a company it seems like it's somehow trying to burn it to the ground. But I am optimistic: it would be possible to build on top of the open source parts of Android if needed.
AOSP is open-source, but unlike Linux distros, AOSP per se doesn't really support any platform other than the Android emulator. To support real devices you need devicetree/firmware/drivers from a vendor. So it's concerning to see this move from Google, which is also the device vendor for all currently supported GrapheneOS devices.
Linux also doesn’t have device trees and firmware for most phones. E.g. many Ubuntu Touch ports just use the device tree, firmware, and kernel tree provided by the manufacturer for Android.
So from that perspective there is not really a difference between AOSP and Linux, you need support from the device vendor. But AOSP is many times more secure than the traditional Linux desktop and has many times more apps available (most of which do not require Play Integrity).
Well to support real devices you need the device manufacturer to not prevent you from supporting it. Samsung can totally make a smartphone that does not support Android today. But I'm not sure what you are trying to say with that...
> So it's concerning to see this move from Google, which is also the device vendor for all currently supported GrapheneOS devices.
It is, and the solution to that is the partnership with Motorola.
The model for Android is that the OS is provided by the OEM. They work in partnership with Google. GrapheneOS tries to work against this model by not partnering with the OEM on supporting their hardware with its OS. Ultimately that's not sustainable given the dynamics of the ecosystem. This is why they are moving to a model where they do work with an OEM directly. These sorts of problems will subside once that happens.
You could argue that the current ecosystem dynamic is not great for the longer term, but it will require a change from the OEMs to enable something different as they are the ones actually in control of the situation.
This is the biggest disappointment, imagine running a full blown "Ubuntu Touch" that gives you the freedom of Linux with full root access. This is the biggest failure of legislation in the 21st century so far that has enabled a strict Android/iOS duopoly.
I sincerely hope one day we can free these hardware devices from the shakles of their software and run anything that's possible.
Until such a time iOS devices are strictly off limits until at least a grapheneOS can run iOS at a minimum.
The iOS app iSH [0] allows you to do this, it’s a full blown Alpine environment running through x86 emulation in the app. I’ve been using it for a while, as far as I can tell almost all of the Alpine packages run without any issues.
One detail that remains to be seen is whether you'll cater to the EU market, and how the impact of the memory crisis will impact the possible consumer-base. It's a weak market and sales are likely to be only the 'hardcore' users who demand/require security. I sincerely hope there are no numbers you need to hit to keep the partnership going. Sales are not likely to be at first significant, people are extremely price sensitive and I'm not sure GrapheneOS support will draw people in enough to justify the obviously now inflated costs to cover component price increases (and tariffs).
Pixels offer affordable options which is why unless you can cater to that market, a Motorola-only GrapheneOS future will only gain traction if you're able to get a cheaper low/mid-range option out there, akin to the Pixel A-series.
Much of that is out of their hands unfortunately. Motorola don't use the latest Snapdragon SoCs in most of their more affordable models, and Qualcomm are the only ones so far (outside Samsung/Google) who seem willing to support what is needed (MTE, Android SE imp etc.)
It's funny how much Google lies about Android being 'secure' [1] and how much GrapheneOS, for free, improves the security of everyone with their work. Google should be, immediately, merging all patches/changes GrapheneOS makes and releasing a new build of Android to AOSP. Instead, users are subject to weak efforts to protect their security and privacy while Google parade about how good and amazing they are. They mention [1] 'This unencrypted data can be used to build user profiles or, in the hands of malicious actors'...And can't see the irony. They ARE the malicious actor and they absolutely build profiles about everyone. Whatever happened to the 'privacy sandbox' initiative again?
Anyone who values Graphene's work will purchase one of their Motorola devices, whatever the cost, otherwise it seems your choices are going to be giving up more data and control to Google, because they are clearly, obviously and systematically trying to remove GOS from Pixels (lack of source code, removing hardware features, making it purposely difficult to support pixels).
I predict by 2030 GrapheneOS will not support any new pixels entirely. The existing pixels will eventually die off and that will be that.
It's obvious they see open access to users data as a threat to their business model. No, they haven't suddenly decided to care about your privacy, they want to deny other actors access so you need to get data directly via them. They will obviously still collect it themselves via their numerous methods (play services, chrome, ad networks etc).
> The thing is, you can buy a Pixel 8a or 9 for a fraction of the price.
Those are still going to be supported. In some countries such as Brazil, those are more expensive than a Signature due to not being officially sold there and high import taxes.
That's not 3 times the price. It's also a flagship device and that's the model with 16GB storage and 512GB memory. Pixel 11 Pro with RAM/storage upgraded is a better comparison and the Motorola Signature (2026) has vastly better CPU and GPU performance with a cheaper price. Regardless, it's clearly not 3x the price of the regular Pixels and is priced similarly to the Pixel 10 Pro series which was cheaper than the Pixel 11 Pro series.
It really depends on where you are. Here (NL) the Signature 2026 is 750 Euro from reputable sellers. But yeah, the Signature is not available everywhere, similar to how the Pixel is not available everywhere.
> Well the current Motorola Signature (2026) is 3 times the price of a Pixel.
I understand the sentiment, certainly, but the price difference depends a lot on which model we're comparing to. The Signature will be the flagship from Motorola, and I'll be very, very surprised if it's 3x the price of the Pixel flagship.
Presumably someone who was planning to buy something like the Pixel 10a would be more interested in the non-flagship Motorola devices with GOS support, which are expected to launch later.
Sure. But we're talking about a phone with GrapheneOS. If I need to choose a phone with GrapheneOS, there are cheap to expensive Pixels, and it is not clear at all if there will ever be cheap Motorolas. The Signature is very expensive, just like the most expensive Pixel.
> not clear at all if there will ever be cheap Motorolas
They've indicated that support will eventually be added for midrange Motorola devices, which I believe are historically price-competitive with the a-series Pixels.
I guess it depends where you are. Here the Signature 2026 is 750 Euro, which is about the same price as a Pixel 10 Pro.
They are quite a bit more expensive than the a-series, but I'm sure that the a series will hold up for a few more years, until GrapheneOS support percolates to mid-range Motorola phones. It's even possible, given that Pixel 10a uses the Pixel 9 CPU, that Pixel 11a will use the Pixel 10 CPU, so there might even be a new budget model next year with MTE support.
reply