If Graphene thinks they can make the requisite hardware, then so can Fairphone.
The only reason why big hardware makers other than Google don’t have the security features required by Graphene is that they haven’t prioritized them, not because it’s near impossible (as some comments above seem to imply). Android OEMs famously don’t really care about security or privacy.
Of course, I understand that Fairphone is a small OEM with much more limited manpower. But if they teamed up with Graphene and split profits of a separate Graphene Fairphone release with them, perhaps the Graphene team could help them with keeping their hardware security up to snuff.
Fairphone has long had a number of security issues that prevented GrapheneOS support. From Graphene’s Twitter:
Fairphone 4 was shipped with publicly available private keys for the firmware and stock OS. This means verified boot and many other security features including the hardware keystore are broken. It’s missing a secure element and they don’t provide firmware, etc. updates on time.
However, perhaps now that they need an OEM partner, they could help Fairphone improve their security to meet their requirements and in exchange get a cut of all sales of separately-sold GrapheneOS Fairphones?
As much as I would like to see that, too - have you read the comments below from Graphene about Fairphone? Doesn’t sound like it’s anywhere realisitc they want to come close to any Fairphone, even if the Fairphone 6 would surprisingly have all the required hardware:
I had the impression so far that the “attitude” of the Graphene Developers was not made for cooperation, as this def would mean to accept other opinions and compromise.
From that conversation, it seems like they’ve talked to Fairphone before and Fairphone was not willing to implement the security options, unfortunately.
[Fairphone has] explicitly stated they have no plans to add a secure element or the other features in response to people repeatedly asking them about it. They do not keep up with Android updates or the partial security backports. They don’t follow through on the support claims. Their devices are missing basic security features. They replaced their non-GMS OS with a partnership with a company making an extraordinarily insecure OS, misleading people about it and attacking GrapheneOS.
I dont see that developing a niche product out of a niche product makes any sense in terms of economics thinking. FP would first have to have a much greater part in the market to start producing a FP that actually is a Pixel phone
This specific issue doesn’t seem like a matter of opinions, though.
Graphene OS has strong security expertise and their security requirements are clear and have strong reasoning behind them. “Compromising” would mean compromising a user’s security, and as a security-focused ROM, it makes sense why they wouldn’t do that.
I understand Fairphone is prioritizing other things. That said, it seems like the ball is in Fairphone’s court, not Graphene’s.
I mean, Graphene could help increase Fairphone’s marketshare in order to have such a product make economic sense.
I’m not sure a secure, privacy-friendly phone is a “niche” product. In fact, I’d say security and privacy are the iPhone’s strongest selling points.
When I bought my Fairphone, I was also seriously considering a Pixel or a second hand iPhone. I decided to prioritize fair trade + reparability over security, but it was a close call.
Having the security features that Graphene requires could open up Fairphone to all the people who prioritize security and privacy. There’s a lot of people like that out there today and, given the state of global politics, I feel like the number will only increase.
Are there somewhere actual numbers/facts for this statement?
Only having one side of the discussion (Graphene) is rather a opinion based discussion and I doubt we will ever get a substial statement of FP about this, if any at all.
At the end all this is not fact based discussion and for me this is rather a dead end, not saying it should not be discussed.
With my limited knowledge I have the impression all complains about missing hardware and software support, full and timely security updates, etc. are valid. There is a lot to improve (and I would highly appreciate to see it).
My impression though is that GrapheneOS devs are quite unfriendly, rude about Fairphone, feels like looking down at Fairphone and that’s just unnessesary. I think that’s also what @yvmuell implies?
Totally not a partnership. I think Graphene is also aware of that, and therefore looking for a phone provider that already fullfills all their hardware and security update needs. So that Graphene would not reuqire more from them but passing the phone and already present software (still questionable if anyone wants to do that). That’s how I understand the other comments in that thread.
Edit: I’m a bit slow typing on the phone. You already went on, sorry for late input
I don’t have specific numbers, but have been following tech for a while and security and privacy are commonly cited. Searching for “research on why people choose iPhone” yields these among top results:
All of these feature security as one of the top reasons why people are choosing iPhones.
One key fact here is that Fairphone’s security is lagging behind compared to the competition.
One of the purposes for this discussion is to show Fairphone that there is high demand for strong security and possibly convince them to increase their security standards enough to meet Graphene’s criteria.
When it comes time for me to buy a new phone, I would love it if I could buy a Fairphone with Graphene on it directly. Even if I can’t, though, I would like that Fairphone to be as secure as possible.
Well thats rather how our brain works: when I’m focused on something specfic, I suddenly see this more often, giving the impression the demand is high in general. However this would alwayshave tp be set into correlation and hard facts/numbers.
So I still dont think the demand is high compared to overall sold phones in general and/or is missing structured studies, at least I could not identify links to actual studies in the articles you linked?
Edit:
What competition are we talking about. Such discussions here, in my eyes need facts/numbers not feelings/emotions/opinions.
I dont want you stop the discussion I just think it will lead nowhere when you cant add hard facts to your opinion, to show the demand to FP.
I have searched for “research on why people choose iPhone”.
Out of the first 5 results, 4 cite security among the top reasons. (The 5th cites a study about “How People Actually Buy Clothes and Shoes” and tries to extrapolate those findings to the iPhone. Obviously, though, that study is not relevant when trying to determine how much of a factor security is in buying phones.)
The top result, “Why Do People Buy iPhones? We Asked Apple Users”, states they “reached out to some of the most respected voices in the Apple community, including top bloggers and journalists from 9to5Mac, Apple Insider, Cult of Mac, TechCrunch, The Verge, and CNET”.
The DuckDuckGo AI summary for my search, which itself is based on aggregate data, says: “Many people choose iPhones for their seamless integration within the Apple ecosystem, strong security features, and user-friendly interface.” The Google AI summary is similar: “People choose iPhones for a variety of reasons, including perceived security, ease of use, performance, and brand image.”
Given the neutral wording of my search query and given that I’m not cherry-picking results here, I’d say this is not just confirmation bias on my part, as your post seems to imply.
You write that you “don’t think the demand is high”, but you’re not substantiating that with any proof whatsoever.
I feel like I’ve backed up my claim that security is an important factor for people when choosing phones with a lot more data.
Corect and I’m not here to be for or against this , just trying to skip the focus to facts (which I pesonally am missing as all you link doesnt give me numbers to compare), for those “demanding” this. I’m neutral, I dont care
Edit: However to give a few numbers and specific questions for numbers missing for me:
FPs sold in 2024 103.053 Thousand!
Q4 2024 shipments (not clear what “shipments” means, however the number speaks for itself…) 331.7 Billions! The number comes from IDC (no real research, however the company is specialized in data collection, and from a first glimpse isnt connected to any OEM)
FP stopped FPOOS because the number of people who used it was too small, I think not even 10% (will see that I find the numbers that were published somewhere…) EDIT> numbers were mentioned here in this Podcast by one of SW developer from FP
so what I would like to see: whats the real percentage of Iphone user (privat sector) buying it only because of security?
whats the percentage of Graphene OS user compared to sold Pixel phones?
how many people currently using other Custom Roms for privacy reasons, would switch to Graphene if available to non Pixel Phones?
how many people just dont care and love the Google world because of “its easy” even if they care about privacy somehow?
how many people are willing to skip usability for privacy? Because thats what happens when going for Graphene (or do they have a lets say cloud/back-up ecosystem like Google and Apple?) and thats the actual difference for me when you take Apple numbers, i.e. taking Apple numbers/users doesnt say a lot as those also love their easy to use ecosystem with cloud, wallet etc…
After that: what are the costs needed to produce, maintain etc a FP that fits Graphene needs and what would it have to cost and what are people willing to pay, or how many people would be willing to pay the price?
