Everytime I read GrapheneOS news I search for news related to Fairephone. It's such a shame that there's still no official plan for Fairephone to work on requirements for GrapheneOS. The combination of those 2 would be fantastic. It would also open a big new market (I assume) for Fairephone so not sure why there seems no clear sign in that direction at all (to my knowledge).
Everytime I see Fairphone mentioned whenever there's news about GrapheneOS I'm confused as to why people keep on conflating both when they obviously have very different goals.
The overwhelming majority of consumers just prefer larger screens (myself included). People seem to forget that Apple releasing the Mini was them listening to the minority and the sales numbers if it were poor versus the rest of the lineup.
The follow-up strategy of “smaller width and height didn’t work, let’s try thickness next” reportedly not going any better.
I really think COVID shutdowns did the mini in. People couldn’t go to the store and try holding a phone where they could use it comfortably one-handed again. And then by the time they could, Apple axed it.
I don't believe this at all. If people yearned for smaller phones, they would have gotten it despite COVID. My wife and I both had a Mini and I remember going to the local electronics store (most of the summer there were no closures) and the iPhone islands were well-visited, but simply nobody was looking at the Minis.
I think people get the wrong estimation about the size of the contingent that want small phones. It is a vocal minority, similar to people ranting every time about headphone jacks. Most people do not care about these things. If they want to hook a wired headphone, they'll get a 10 Euro dongle and most people use Bluetooth. My wife uses a wired headphone for listening audio books at night and I never heard her complain about the stereo jack going away.
Sorry but this is maximum level conspiratorial thinking. Meta probably has some created some incentive for OEMs to make larger screens by way of people liking content consumption but the idea that they’d be paying for that is ridiculous lol.
I find reading ebooks and long texts like wikipedia a lot more enjoyable on my 6.8" AMOLED panel than on the smaller screens i've had before. You can also doomscroll on smaller screens.
Just today I giggled and reminisced over the old XDA Developers Nexus 7 posts about LTE and wifi calling hacks…the many few of us worked hard to only rely on a tablet! Ironically, there is now not a second of my day in which id find a folding phone useful or logistically feasible. Alas…13 years too late.
> the sales numbers if it were poor versus the rest of the lineup.
For one, the sales were still perfectly respectable. "Versus the rest of the lineup" is doing a ton of work here, because the rest of the iPhone models sell like crazy. For two, it is still bizarre that manufacturers refuse to make small phones even with that in mind. If you wear very small clothes (or very large clothes) that won't sell as many units, your options are limited, you have to pay more, but you aren't forced to go naked. But there's nobody out there doing the equivalent strategy for phones.
Bro the Mini was a flop for Apple, it could barely surpass 5% of all iPhone sales during its run. It would be nonsensical for a publicly traded company to leave money on the table and keep an underperforming product alive when they could put that towards the better performing bigger screen iPhones instead.
For a small company sure it could be considered a success.
I don’t think tech can be compared to the fashion industry. Also that example doesn’t really work. Because you basically have a locked in group who needs the clothes. Just also culturally there’s reasons why these clothing sizes exist. Nobody needs a small phone.
But across the board it makes no sense for any OEM to make small phones when the data all shows that bigger screens sell more. That’s just absorbing an unnecessary opportunity cost.
I think the only real way small phones will reach the market at this point in time is via a private company that’s basically run as a passion project.
Honestly in this case the consumers do share the blame. They begged for the mini and didn’t show up. If apple couldn’t do it it’s unlikely that the android oems could.
But you see people talking about the mini almost every time there's a discussion about iPhones (or phones in general). Surely it would have been worth it to Apple to keep the mini alive just to avoid the negative press and pretend they care about their consumers beyond making a profit. But I guess it really isn't possible to do things like that in a publicly traded company.
But you see people talking about the mini almost every time there's a discussion about iPhones (or phones in general).
...in tech forums where people hold strong opinions about tech and the people who have their pet peeves come out. IRL I have rarely heard somebody wanting Apple to bring the Mini back. Or the stereo jack for that matter.
A brief search says that iPhone sales in 225 were approximately $200 billion. 5% of that is therefore approximately $10 billion. If you call that a "massive flop", your standards are completely unrealistic. That is a massive success.
And no, the clothes analogy is not flawed. The point is that in other markets, niche tastes and needs get served even if it isn't as cheap or plentiful. It's only the phone manufacturers which refuse to try to get sales from a smaller (but still quite extant) market.
A brief search says that iPhone sales in 225 were approximately $200 billion. 5% of that is therefore approximately $10 billion. If you call that a "massive flop", your standards are completely unrealistic. That is a massive success.
It's all about scale. Yes 10B is a lot for most companies, but for Apple 5% is just a blip on the radar. They probably also did their market research and found that the vast majority of Mini users would buy another iPhone model if they discontinued the Mini. Those facts combined give Apple little incentive to continue the lineup.
Another thing that further clouds the 5% discussion is that some Mini purchasers may have bought it not because of the size, but because it was $100 cheaper while still getting the same SoC. Maybe those buyers were disappointed by the worse battery life, and Apple could choose to axe it or make it the same price as the regular iPhone and it would drop way below 5%.
To be honest the specs of the Fairphone are middling and the device is rather expensive for what you get. The Pixels are a much better value, especially with a series. If you want something truly high end, wait for the Motorola with official GOS support.
Supporting an alternative OS wouldn’t change the fate of Fairphone, imo. Most people don’t care to move away from the stock version of Android that comes with their phone or iOS.
I mean, aside from /e/OS as a first-party option, there are also official Lineage builds[1]. And they're at least a target for PostmarketOS[2], even if that wiki doesn't actually describe something daily-driveable yet.
It's because Fairphone doesn't fulfil GOS's hardware requirements. If Fairphone addresses that, there's no reason for GOS to not support a Fairphone device.
I don't think they can, even if they wanted to. From the GrapheneOS device requirements:
Device support code updated to new monthly, quarterly and yearly releases of AOSP within several months to provide new security improvements (Pixels receive these in the month they're released)
Fairphone's hardware and software is developed by a Chinese ODM (T2Mobile), who even have difficulty pushing out monthly patches very timely. They don't even do QPR2s, major Android updates are very late (usually almost a year), they rarely do driver firmware or kernel updates. There is no way they could fulfill this guarantee unless they started doing software development in-house and paid Qualcomm for monthly firmware updates.
I don't understand the issue. If Fairphone wants GOS can't they just compile it themselves with whatever unsupported hardware based security features disabled? Ditto for any given end user. It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions.
Forking GOS and porting it to a new device is a huge and unreasonable ask for an individual user. Even less so when you include the fact that you'll need to keep it up to date.
I understand that bringing AOSP to an unsupported device is a huge endeavor. But fairphone already has the driver situation sorted out. What's the complexity here? (Genuine question, I'd like to correct any misconceptions about the android ecosystem that I have.)
You are dependent on Qualcomm for hardware firmware updates and apparently they charge quite a bit extra if you want continuous monthly security updates [1]. This is possibly one of the reasons that smaller OEMs like Fairphone do not update firmware regularly and instead choose to keep their customers vulnerable to many known CVEs.
> Fairphone has said they don't plan to add a secure element. It can be seen from their current devices that they don't fully keep up with privacy/security backports and lag a year behind on shipping yearly OS releases. They skip over the monthly and quarterly releases entirely. They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS option in partnership with Murena. They clearly demonstrate that security and even privacy are not the priorities.
They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS
it sounds like they are saying that /e/OS is less secure than fairphone's own OS. with all criticism against /e/OS taken into account, i highly doubt that fairphone would have been able to make their own version of android more secure than /e/OS when they are not even interested in working on that.
It starts with simply rolling major releases out earlier than /e/OS. Remember that to get security fixes for vulnerabilities not marked high/critical, you need the QPR/major updates. Those vulnerabilities may not be an immediate RCE, but they might get used in exploit chains after an RCE. Also, Fairphone and /e/OS will have many known RCEs, because they do not roll out embargoed patches like GrapheneOS and to some extend Samsung & Pixel do.
One of the reasons I haven't switched to Graphene is this kind of drama. I wish there was more middle ground. I don't think the post is in any way constructive and will lead to fairphone to consider adding a secure element.
I don't see their post as 'drama' or nonconstructive at all. It's simply a list of well-founded criticisms of Fairphone's extremely lax position on security that is incompatible with Graphene's. If being critiqued for it doesn't lead to them considering adding a secure element, that's a problem on Fairphone's side imo.
I constantly see those projects that would benefit from a screenshot in a readme, but for some reason the thought about adding one doesn't even come to the authors' mind, even though it's pretty obvious. I'd really like to know what's going on.
I think the reason is that you can get quite much of a tunnel vision while developing. Everyone involved already knows what they're building and how it looks, so it's very easy to overlook it.
Case in point, I recently wrote a CLI to show which of your AWS infra is not captured in terraform, and you can either print the result as a json to consume by a machine or generate a dashboard with some charts. It took me an embarrassing while to realise that I should have included a damned screenshot in the README, in fact I think I only realised when I wanted to show it to my brother.
That's true as well, especially if you're still developing and changing things - because you tend to realise problems only after you've pushed the new screenshot :P
> I think in many cases the authors value functionality much more then esthetics.
In many cases the repository isn't meant to be more than for source code too, not everyone use their git repository as also the marketing page, that'd go somewhere else.
With that said, grapheneos.org doesn't seem to have any screenshots either, which I also don't understand and think is a bummer. Even though the point of the differences with GrapheneOS might not be mainly visual, just showing what it looks like seem like a no-brainer.
Yeah but see, we're talking about a functionality that is inherently visual. Ergonomics has nothing to do with esthetics, and it's such a dumb excuse to hand wave aside interface issues as of they are just about "making things look pretty"
I wish they prioritised the call app. It is beyond appalling. You can't even determine when a call happened, beyond the generic low fidelity "[time] ago". It also almost feels like tapping anything makes me accidentally call people. Abhorrent UI/UX to be completely honest.
I'm using LineageOS so I have the AOSP Phone app. If Graphene uses the same, then you can actually determine the exact time of call, but you need to jump through a couple of hoops: Go to "Call History" from the three dots then click on the call of interest. You'll see a button called "Call Details". Then you can see the exact time.
This is completely false. Tap the call, tap "call details" and its there. Took be 2 second to disprove. This is lazy to the point of being seemingly malicious commentary.
I agree with parent. When I tap the icon/picture on the history it should pull up the contact not call. I also find the need to click into a submenu for context bad UI.
I'm just reading from the barrier here, and not knowing what it even looks like, but reading your description I can immediately agree that it is a bad design.
There's only a handful of critical details in a call history, and absolutely no reason for any UI to implement them as secondary or tertiary details: Whether it was in- or outbound. To/from what contact. The date and time.
2 taps for some other extra info such as call length, or further contact details, would be OK I guess, but for first-level info as these, it's 100% bad design.
>There's only a handful of critical details in a call history
And they're all there: profile pic, contact name, indicators that show incoming/outgoing + missed/connected, which SIM, a redial button, how long ago (which after about a week shows the date), Tapping the middle expands the row (no obstructive pop-up) to show Block, Message, & Details buttons.
The reason it has 'human times' is because multiple calls with the same contact are grouped, so a precise time doesn't always make sense. Tapping the Details will show all calls in that group, whether it's one or seven, with their full dates, times, durations, and further options. It's never been a difficult UX.
> design-wise this was already a "Done" thing in the golden Nokia days!
I might be mistaken but I seem to recall it being a done thing for android prior to several years ago when it was "improved" with an update. Although it's possible I'm confusing the call apps from AOSP and various vendors. Either way several of my past android devices had a significantly better address book, dialer, and call history.
Good news! GrapheneOS has ported Messaging to kotlin, jetpack compose, and material you. The same is planned for the Contacts app, Dialer app, and more. Dont quote me but it seems Contacts and Dialer are up next after Messaging.
Also, GrapheneOS has very recently released automatic call recording for the Dialer.
It's probably for the best. As recently as 2016 (and probably more recently; that's just the last time I tested this), they weren't even validating SPF records on their email-to-SMS gateway. You could spoof the "From" address to any email address you fancied and your messages would go through, appearing to be from that sender. Back in high school, my childish self had a field day showing off my phone's SMS inbox filled up with spam Viagra ads that were "sent by" Hillary Clinton's "hacked" email server.
It's not as funny in hindsight, given the unexpected results of that election, but at the time, it felt like top-tier humor.
I'm really hoping they're doing this to pave the way for an RCS implementation. If it can be done, GOS is in the best position to make it happen, and without RCS, chatting with normies is both extremely inconvenient (large group chats straight up do not work) and categorically insecure. If I could convince all my friends and family to use Signal I would, but they just think I'm on about some weird Edward Snowden shit, and they just write me off as crazy. "Why would I checks notes download software to solve a problem when I could use the one that came with my phone?"
I'm thinking quite the opposite. I hope RCS can die fast. We already have chat apps WhatsApp, signal, telegram, you can even create your own.
I'm quite happy that SMS for one are not something centralized by the giant US big corp. Would be the dream of Google to get all your messages as a gateway.
So I looked into this because my idea of RCS was that it was pretty decentralized direct encrypted communication.
TIL that RCS was designed as a fairly decentralized protocol where every carrier could run their own RCS servers, but it didnt get adoption. So Google stepped in and built their own routing infrastructure, and now mostly all RCS is centralized on Google's servers (even if you use an iPhone, because the RCS server is mandated by your carrier)
particularly if you want to support all of the message-body features, of which there are MANY. it's very business-comms oriented.
I broadly expect third-party RCS apps to drop that though, like how essentially none support all of MMS. did you know MMS supports slideshows (I built support for this once)? 3d objects (mimetype model/gltf+json)? "timed text" (mimetype text/mp4)?
Thanks! I noticed on one of my phones that RCS breaks once the Messages app is out of date by a certain amount of revisions. I hope this is an arbitrary decision by Google to invalidate older versions, given that the RCS protocol hasn't changed. I wouldn't want the Graphene team to have to keep up with each change Google makes with their Messages app, and instead is a security oversight Google has found in their own app.
SMS is a defacto carrier tech that people expect to work, people also don't expect e2ee or any kind of privacy scheme on SMS but it might be a place to hand communication off to a different tech. Whereas RCS leaks meta data to the goog or worse (I don't know the ins and outs of RCS) but by default I would trust it less then signal, who may also collect meta data leaked through the goog, so I guess the real solution is to be boring and assume there is no security or privacy for anyone of reasonable means.
Just because RCS can't be done without metadata doesn't mean it's a fruitless endeavor. Why not have someone use RCS to then get on Signal? That is so much better than plaintext SMS to Signal.
And for most people, RCS between Android <-> iOS is the biggest advancement in encrypted communication for the layman that I've seen since Let's Encrypt.
RCS is way more secure than SMS what are you talking about? RCS+MLS (i.e. GSM standard RCS E2EE) is basically as secure as you can get unless you lock all users involved into a specific app (ex: signal, etc)
RCS is really the only thing I truly am annoyed by with rooted devices. If GrapheneOS can build something open that works we should be able to rip it apart and get it to work without passing play integrity.
Where I live, an sms app is not very important. It's almost exclusively used for two factor authentication messages. Everyone uses WhatsApp, signal, telegram etc, even businesses and services.
So having a bare bones aosp messaging app was never an issue for me. Having said that, I find fossify messages pretty good.
If you look at the history they have been working on this for a few months. The announcement probably was tied to this public release being cut for testing.
With a seemingly insurmountable workload - maintain an actually secure OS fork - for a small team, I wonder how GrapheneOS prioritizes things like messaging apps? I'm not saying it's wrong at all; I am just interested in the thinking inside a project like that.
I can imagine many reasons to devote resources to it:
* A platform is only as good as its apps. If they want to grow GOS in the general public, it requires a good SMS/MMS messaging app.
* LLM tools greatly reduce development costs, especially for well-known functions like text messaging.
* Without secure messaging (as far as SMS/MMS can be secure), the platform security is greatly reduced.
* GOS got a big donation, or has a volunteer that wants to do messaging ...
But idk what I'm talking about. What is their approach?
Well they're going to be shipping GOS on Motorola and I think some other devices, so basic things like the messaging app need to actually have some polish to them. I really like GrapheneOS overall as-is, but the messaging app felt like baby's first texting app. Not necessarily their fault since it's pretty much straight out of AOSP if I understand correctly. But any time I've installed GrapheneOS, the messaging app is one of two things I must replace every time (the other being the downright bad AOSP keyboard).
If they fix(ed) their messaging app and their keyboard, then they've really eliminated a lot of potential complaints if a less tech-savvy crowd ends up buying future Motorolas.
GrapheneOS has made a big push to hire a bunch of experienced, talented app devs, and they have been slowly chipping away at Messaging for a few months. They now have the resources to take on the AOSP apps and resume with the GrapheneOS apps. The rest of the AOSP apps are also planned to be overhauled.
They also plan to eventually support RCS in the Messaging app.
> Iirc they said something like 2 million in donations in 2025.
That's not enough for 14 devs, plus infrastructure, etc.
> There's estimated 500k users so if 25% donated 10 dollars a year that's 1.25 million.
Unfortunately, 25% would be extraordinary for any project.
They should make their financing public (and maybe they do), being a non-profit and also asking people to trust them with their security. Funding provides influence: if 50% came from adtech or public surveillance companies (e.g., Flock, Palantir, etc.), then people would have questions.
Yeah it is. Their infrastructure costs are super tiny, the biggest percent of funding goes to pay the dev team, and many are paid a wage comparable to where they live, they dont get inflated US software dev wages or anything.
Most of what they earn is public as a result of the donation method, like crypto. And most donors are completely anonymous.
GrapheneOS does not accept any funding with strings attached.
GrapheneOS makes 100% of their money off of donations, and have made quite a lot of it. The bottleneck is not funding, but finding talented developers to pay with that money.
A bunch of the AOSP apps feel like you have to rewrite them for modern standards now and then you can basically have them in maintenance mode for years. The AOSP messaging app has also lasted for 15+ (?) years and has basically had no maintenance from Google for many years.
Modernizing these apps seems very high-impact. These are the very first things a new user sees and after the initial modernization, they should be relatively cheap to maintain.
I know this isn't the solution you are looking for, but there is a fairly simple workaround and IMO it is superior: set up a Samba server or a Nextcloud instance, either at home or in the cloud, place it with behind a Wireguard tunnel, and don't store anything on the phone itself other than apps and things like maps for OsmAnd that can be redownloaded if lost. The Nextcloud app can automatically sync photos or other files too.
If my phone were lost, stolen or destroyed, I would simply revoke its Wireguard key, buy a new Pixel, flash Graphene, and provision a new Wireguard key. Essentially no data of value would be lost, and restoring my apps and settings manually would take an hour tops. Admittedly, I don't use many apps, so YMMV.
I you look at the commits of the new Messages app it's mostly made by 2 people whose Github profiles show them as employees of GrapheneOS and who are mostly committing to different system apps. So I assume they have a separate team of devs whose job it is to make the system apps.
IIRC when they started first announced their replacement for the AOSP camera they said they hired a developer specifically for it.
The biggest issue I have with the degoogled Androids is no RCS chats out of the box. At least for me, it stinks these days to not have it, and you're forced to do sneaky things to get it.
GrapheneOS wants to eventually support RCS in the default chat app. It may take a lot of time for it to work without google components/google services but it is the eventual plan.
I had a scary bug on an older version where for months the contact names didnt match the actual senders/recipients. I have received SMS from my WISP under the same contact as Github MFA codes but also send mssages to relatives that never where received...
Seeing "Material 3/Material You" is a negative point for me, not a positive. It's almost comical just how atrocious the UI is. Yes let's make all phones 20% huge-er and all whitespace 40% wider, said no sane person ever.
Other than that -- next year. And this is other companies' choice, not GrapheneOS team, to fix on releasing grossly insecure hardware or NOT releasing patches and fixes.
Go down to literally any 2nd hand phone store and buy a refurb. None of your money will go to Google and you'll have your phone at a fraction of the new price.
It's doubly disappointing because just 4 days ago the project wrote [1], on using AI for the new Messaging app:
Why? Using an LLM as an additional reviewer seems like a good use of LLMs? Personally I have found LLMs very useful for that and they catch issues that other experienced programmers do not always find. It’s not like they are vibecoding a messages app.
And why would Meta even do that?
I really think COVID shutdowns did the mini in. People couldn’t go to the store and try holding a phone where they could use it comfortably one-handed again. And then by the time they could, Apple axed it.
I think people get the wrong estimation about the size of the contingent that want small phones. It is a vocal minority, similar to people ranting every time about headphone jacks. Most people do not care about these things. If they want to hook a wired headphone, they'll get a 10 Euro dongle and most people use Bluetooth. My wife uses a wired headphone for listening audio books at night and I never heard her complain about the stereo jack going away.
- remind you that the phone is in your pocket, to initiate the infinite scroll
For one, the sales were still perfectly respectable. "Versus the rest of the lineup" is doing a ton of work here, because the rest of the iPhone models sell like crazy. For two, it is still bizarre that manufacturers refuse to make small phones even with that in mind. If you wear very small clothes (or very large clothes) that won't sell as many units, your options are limited, you have to pay more, but you aren't forced to go naked. But there's nobody out there doing the equivalent strategy for phones.
For a small company sure it could be considered a success.
I don’t think tech can be compared to the fashion industry. Also that example doesn’t really work. Because you basically have a locked in group who needs the clothes. Just also culturally there’s reasons why these clothing sizes exist. Nobody needs a small phone.
But across the board it makes no sense for any OEM to make small phones when the data all shows that bigger screens sell more. That’s just absorbing an unnecessary opportunity cost.
I think the only real way small phones will reach the market at this point in time is via a private company that’s basically run as a passion project.
Honestly in this case the consumers do share the blame. They begged for the mini and didn’t show up. If apple couldn’t do it it’s unlikely that the android oems could.
...in tech forums where people hold strong opinions about tech and the people who have their pet peeves come out. IRL I have rarely heard somebody wanting Apple to bring the Mini back. Or the stereo jack for that matter.
And no, the clothes analogy is not flawed. The point is that in other markets, niche tastes and needs get served even if it isn't as cheap or plentiful. It's only the phone manufacturers which refuse to try to get sales from a smaller (but still quite extant) market.
It's all about scale. Yes 10B is a lot for most companies, but for Apple 5% is just a blip on the radar. They probably also did their market research and found that the vast majority of Mini users would buy another iPhone model if they discontinued the Mini. Those facts combined give Apple little incentive to continue the lineup.
Another thing that further clouds the 5% discussion is that some Mini purchasers may have bought it not because of the size, but because it was $100 cheaper while still getting the same SoC. Maybe those buyers were disappointed by the worse battery life, and Apple could choose to axe it or make it the same price as the regular iPhone and it would drop way below 5%.
https://www.fairphone.com/the-fairphone-gen-6-plus-e-operati...
[1] https://forum.fairphone.com/t/official-lineageos-23-for-the-...
[2] https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_(Gen._6)_(fairp...
Device support code updated to new monthly, quarterly and yearly releases of AOSP within several months to provide new security improvements (Pixels receive these in the month they're released)
Fairphone's hardware and software is developed by a Chinese ODM (T2Mobile), who even have difficulty pushing out monthly patches very timely. They don't even do QPR2s, major Android updates are very late (usually almost a year), they rarely do driver firmware or kernel updates. There is no way they could fulfill this guarantee unless they started doing software development in-house and paid Qualcomm for monthly firmware updates.
Forking GOS and porting it to a new device is a huge and unreasonable ask for an individual user. Even less so when you include the fact that you'll need to keep it up to date.
I wonder if fable or astra could wire everything up.
You are dependent on Qualcomm for hardware firmware updates and apparently they charge quite a bit extra if you want continuous monthly security updates [1]. This is possibly one of the reasons that smaller OEMs like Fairphone do not update firmware regularly and instead choose to keep their customers vulnerable to many known CVEs.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48079791
https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_(Gen._6)_(fairp...
it sounds like they are saying that /e/OS is less secure than fairphone's own OS. with all criticism against /e/OS taken into account, i highly doubt that fairphone would have been able to make their own version of android more secure than /e/OS when they are not even interested in working on that.
https://imgur.com/a/C8yV83v
Case in point, I recently wrote a CLI to show which of your AWS infra is not captured in terraform, and you can either print the result as a json to consume by a machine or generate a dashboard with some charts. It took me an embarrassing while to realise that I should have included a damned screenshot in the README, in fact I think I only realised when I wanted to show it to my brother.
Which is a bummer because it is a complete different point of view from the more typical user experience
In many cases the repository isn't meant to be more than for source code too, not everyone use their git repository as also the marketing page, that'd go somewhere else.
With that said, grapheneos.org doesn't seem to have any screenshots either, which I also don't understand and think is a bummer. Even though the point of the differences with GrapheneOS might not be mainly visual, just showing what it looks like seem like a no-brainer.
It's like we've had this ancient knowledge passed down for generations but people constantly just ignore it.
https://imgur.com/a/ZGpbqB7
Your comment is unnecessarily inflammatory.
There's only a handful of critical details in a call history, and absolutely no reason for any UI to implement them as secondary or tertiary details: Whether it was in- or outbound. To/from what contact. The date and time.
2 taps for some other extra info such as call length, or further contact details, would be OK I guess, but for first-level info as these, it's 100% bad design.
I mean come on, design-wise this was already a "Done" thing in the golden Nokia days! https://the-gadgeteer.com/2009/03/02/a-week-with-the-nokia-n...
[*] Ctrl+F to find the image below "miss a call".
Clearly.
>There's only a handful of critical details in a call history
And they're all there: profile pic, contact name, indicators that show incoming/outgoing + missed/connected, which SIM, a redial button, how long ago (which after about a week shows the date), Tapping the middle expands the row (no obstructive pop-up) to show Block, Message, & Details buttons.
The reason it has 'human times' is because multiple calls with the same contact are grouped, so a precise time doesn't always make sense. Tapping the Details will show all calls in that group, whether it's one or seven, with their full dates, times, durations, and further options. It's never been a difficult UX.
I might be mistaken but I seem to recall it being a done thing for android prior to several years ago when it was "improved" with an update. Although it's possible I'm confusing the call apps from AOSP and various vendors. Either way several of my past android devices had a significantly better address book, dialer, and call history.
Also, GrapheneOS has very recently released automatic call recording for the Dialer.
You mean the perfectly functional (if barebones) AOSP call app? :)
Unfortunately I think that feature is shutting down.
https://www.verizon.com/support/vtext-vzwpix-shutdown/
I'm still waiting until RCS is supported before I actually use it.
It's not as funny in hindsight, given the unexpected results of that election, but at the time, it felt like top-tier humor.
AFAIUI though GOS does intend on providing an RCS impl eventually even if it takes years to do.
TIL that RCS was designed as a fairly decentralized protocol where every carrier could run their own RCS servers, but it didnt get adoption. So Google stepped in and built their own routing infrastructure, and now mostly all RCS is centralized on Google's servers (even if you use an iPhone, because the RCS server is mandated by your carrier)
I broadly expect third-party RCS apps to drop that though, like how essentially none support all of MMS. did you know MMS supports slideshows (I built support for this once)? 3d objects (mimetype model/gltf+json)? "timed text" (mimetype text/mp4)?
In my experience, Graphene OS doesn't make compromises.
Just because RCS can't be done without metadata doesn't mean it's a fruitless endeavor. Why not have someone use RCS to then get on Signal? That is so much better than plaintext SMS to Signal.
And for most people, RCS between Android <-> iOS is the biggest advancement in encrypted communication for the layman that I've seen since Let's Encrypt.
So having a bare bones aosp messaging app was never an issue for me. Having said that, I find fossify messages pretty good.
Will try out the new GOS app too.
(sarcasm obvious, but indeed full system backup is sorely missing. Seedvault is crap, not an option)
I can imagine many reasons to devote resources to it:
* A platform is only as good as its apps. If they want to grow GOS in the general public, it requires a good SMS/MMS messaging app.
* LLM tools greatly reduce development costs, especially for well-known functions like text messaging.
* Without secure messaging (as far as SMS/MMS can be secure), the platform security is greatly reduced.
* GOS got a big donation, or has a volunteer that wants to do messaging ...
But idk what I'm talking about. What is their approach?
If they fix(ed) their messaging app and their keyboard, then they've really eliminated a lot of potential complaints if a less tech-savvy crowd ends up buying future Motorolas.
They also plan to eventually support RCS in the Messaging app.
That's great. How can a FOSS project afford that? Where does GOS money come from? Did Daniel win the lottery?
They have 14 devs 13 are payed in ETH and 1 in CAD.
Iirc they said something like 2 million in donations in 2025. Vitalik Buterin may have donated at least some time ago.
Proton donates double digits.
Cape has donated around 100k https://www.cape.co/blog/cape-supports-grapheneos and plans to donate 100k this year.
There's estimated 500k users so if 25% donated 10 dollars a year that's 1.25 million.
> Iirc they said something like 2 million in donations in 2025.
That's not enough for 14 devs, plus infrastructure, etc.
> There's estimated 500k users so if 25% donated 10 dollars a year that's 1.25 million.
Unfortunately, 25% would be extraordinary for any project.
They should make their financing public (and maybe they do), being a non-profit and also asking people to trust them with their security. Funding provides influence: if 50% came from adtech or public surveillance companies (e.g., Flock, Palantir, etc.), then people would have questions.
>plus infrastructure
A lot must be sponsored. https://xprivate.lol/GrapheneOS/status/2070298479897833725#m
I expect the official account will give you a reply besides my speculation.
They've stated that all money comes from donations.
Most of what they earn is public as a result of the donation method, like crypto. And most donors are completely anonymous.
GrapheneOS does not accept any funding with strings attached.
Modernizing these apps seems very high-impact. These are the very first things a new user sees and after the initial modernization, they should be relatively cheap to maintain.
Messaging can be replaced with one of the hundreds decent messaging apps.
Unlike the backup app which is utterly unusable, untrustworthy and frankly crap. And CANNOT be replaced by anything else.
As it stands it's impossible to have reliable backups in GOS.
If my phone were lost, stolen or destroyed, I would simply revoke its Wireguard key, buy a new Pixel, flash Graphene, and provision a new Wireguard key. Essentially no data of value would be lost, and restoring my apps and settings manually would take an hour tops. Admittedly, I don't use many apps, so YMMV.
IIRC when they started first announced their replacement for the AOSP camera they said they hired a developer specifically for it.
People prefer larger tap targets on touch screens.
Only in a completely stupid, nonsensically A/B tested notion of "prefer". I'll refer you to this ~~excellent piece of satirical writing~~ actual post from Google design team: https://design.google/library/expressive-material-design-goo...
Are you this … poorly informed
Other than that -- next year. And this is other companies' choice, not GrapheneOS team, to fix on releasing grossly insecure hardware or NOT releasing patches and fixes.
People sometimes.
I suspect there are fewer regressions per release on graphenes alpha messenger than there are in googles message's app.
Why? Using an LLM as an additional reviewer seems like a good use of LLMs? Personally I have found LLMs very useful for that and they catch issues that other experienced programmers do not always find. It’s not like they are vibecoding a messages app.