GrapheneOS cannot be fully trusted because it runs on Google's proprietary hardware stack, which remains a critical vulnerability. While GrapheneOS markets itself as a privacy-focused alternative, its security is undermined by the fact that it operates on devices like Google's Pixel smartphones—hardware designed and controlled entirely by Google. Unlike other OEMs, Google does not merely integrate off-the-shelf components; it designs its own processors (e.g., Tensor chips) and develops the closed-source firmware and software that power them. Other manufacturers receive binary blobs from chipmakers, which they cannot modify, but Google retains unilateral authority to embed hidden functionalities or surveillance mechanisms directly into the hardware-software ecosystem.
This means Google could inject malicious code into the processor’s firmware—code that operates independently of Android (and thus independently of GrapheneOS itself). Such malware would run at the hardware level, bypassing the operating system entirely and evading detection. If Google exploits this capability in its proprietary GApps, the same logic applies to the foundational software controlling its processors. Since GrapheneOS cannot audit or modify these closed-source components, users are left exposed to potential backdoors.
If you trust GrapheneOS on Pixel devices, you must also trust Google’s closed-source hardware stack—the very same infrastructure that could enable pervasive surveillance. In that case, there is no meaningful distinction between GrapheneOS and stock Android; both rely on Google’s opaque technology. Conversely, if you reject GApps and Google’s data harvesting, you cannot reconcile that distrust with reliance on Google’s hardware. To truly deGoogle, you must abandon devices where the manufacturer controls the silicon itself.
66 posts and 15 image replies omitted.>>30907Why not a pinephone
>uberDon't they have a browser webapp?
>>30905>massive anti-GOS shillingWhere? Go to Reddit, Youtube or any mainstream plattform, the, are all pro Gos. Mainstream media is promoting and advertising Gos on a massive scale: "These phones are so secure, police can't break them!"
I have to own a smartphone for my job and the software my company uses is only on IOS, therefore I must own an iPhone to continue being employed. I have already lost my right to choose which devices or software I will or won't use in my work life, does it really make any difference if I take some principled stand against proprietary software during my free hours? Is everybody in the world supposed to quit their jobs if their jobs force them to use proprietary software?
kinda seems like a privacy oriented OS on your voluntary government sponsored wiretipe is not a thing
There are issues with GrapheneOS worth discussion, but most of what someone seems to be posting in this thread is very badly misinformed.
Pixels, like the Nexus before them, were the "developer focused" phone that got AOSP and similar development for it primarily, instead of contesting with whatever bullshit Samsung wanted to drop atop it, or how Samsung or Verizon decided to stop updating your OS or firmware in a year or two etc.
>Pixel hardware
Pixel hardware is exactly as proprietary as the rest of mobile hardware. Do you think that a Qualcomm Snapdragon chip is magically FOSS top to bottom? Hell, most Tensor chips were basically Samsung Exynos which again were certain proprietary bits. Like all other phone SoC, there are licensed bits and proprietary hardware elements, as well as closed baseband firmware and the use of binary blobs etc. This is common with just about any device. Do I wish it was different? Absolutely and we should leverage Google, Qualcomm and others into shipping more open hardware if possible, but there's nothing magically more locked down or suspicious with the Pixel line vs other manufacturers.
>but uh what if its compromised, i don't have any evidence it is but if it was it could be reading everything and saving everything etc
There's literally more evidence that Chinese made smartphones from their major companies have vacuumed up tons of data vs those from other brands, yet you're worried about a hypothetical like this? There's more evidence for and wider hypothetical potential for a lot of the chinese devices using chinese chips made in chinese factories etc.
These are issues with GrapheneOS and Pixel that are worth critiquing fairly, but nothing like what is being discussed here.