Ask HN: Why aren't Android manufacturers interested in GrapheneOS?
It probably sounds naive, but I have been following GrapheneOS for a few years, and it seems like adoption is growing at a fair speed. They currently estimate [1] that they have more than 300k users.
I know it's not a lot for the likes of Samsung, but FairPhone, for instance, sold 100k units in 2023.
So if FairPhone made their hardware work with GrapheneOS, they would possible double their marketshare. Also for a major manufacturer like Samsung or Huawei, it feels like it shouldn't be too hard to meet the GrapheneOS requirements, and that would immediately get them those customers that want GrapheneOS (especially given that Google has been seen less reliable recently).
Why is it that Android manufacturers just don't care? Is it too much work for a market of hundreds of thousands of users (and growing)?
[1]: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/1137-market-share/16
>Why is it that Android manufacturers just don't care? Is it too much work for a market of hundreds of thousands of users (and growing)?
It's the same reason car manufacturers basically dont care about your car once it drives off the dealership lot. Why Tesla continuing to update has been a new era of your car getting better after purchase giving Tesla a huge value advantage. Which later turned into a negative as they can decide to brick your car on a highway, but that's another discussion.
Whereas android auto was supposed to make the cars less obsolete from an infotainment pov anyway.
But also dont just jump to 'cost center' and corporate greed. They have a bigger problem to deal with. Aging batteries that take a beating from being dropped. Everyone drops their phone.
If they built these to last 10 years. The battery degradation of dropping to 50-70% original capacity would make their brand look bad. There would certainly be way more cellphones bursting and catching fire in public.
The balance is then in the pudding. Sell more every 3 years, or 5 or 7, and keep on the cutting edge.
This is also why there's no rush toward better batteries. If solid state batteries in cellphones become a thing, then replacing your cellphone may drop; and so will their bottom line.
Well they care about your [object] after they sell it to you if regulations make them. It's as simple as that.
The fact is that if you buy a Google Pixel now, you already get 7 years of security updates with the Stock Android. And the people who care about GrapheneOS won't keep it 3 more years without the security updates (that only Google can provide for the proprietary bits).
So I'm pretty sure that a GrapheneOS user will not keep their phone longer with GrapheneOS than they would with the Stock OS. But a GrapheneOS enthusiast will definitely buy a phone that supports GrapheneOS vs a phone that does not.
The smartphone market is controlled by hardware manufacturers.
They have every incentive to obsolete your phone as soon as possible and sell you a new one --- even if the old one is still perfectly functional.
One way they do this is by limiting software updates, patches and bug fixes.
This is a money losing endeavor from their perspective. Allowing an independent OS to step in and provide updates and support does the same.
This is not true:
* More and more manufacturers already provide 5-7 years of support, e.g. the Google Pixels.
* More and more regulations enforce that manufacturers provide a minimum time of support (which is most likely the reason why that number went up in the last few years).
* Alternative Android OSes don't have access to the proprietary blobs and therefore rely on the hardware manufacturers providing updates. It means allowing alternative OSes does not help make the hardware secure longer.
Therefore it looks similar to selling laptops: most users have Windows, so the manufacturer must make sure that Windows runs on their devices. But even if it's niche, it may be worth making sure that the laptop works with Linux if enough users are interested.
A company is a profit maximising machine. If it makes more money to allow independent OSes, they should do it. So if it takes a couple of engineers 2 weeks to make sure that the latest Samsung works with GrapheneOS, it may be worth it if it means that they sell 200 000 more of those.
I’m not sure about FairPhone but large companies such as Samsung don’t want to upset Alphabet / Google.
Btw, afaik GrapheneOS is coming out with their own hardware. Evidently in 2026 or 2027.
> large companies such as Samsung don’t want to upset Alphabet / Google.
Hmm, we're talking about a few hundred thousands phones, I don't think it would upset Google. I'm just wondering because if all they need to do is provide a way to lock/unlock the bootloader, then they can potentially sell hundred thousands of units with a minor change.
> GrapheneOS is coming out with their own hardware.
Do you have a source for that? I've seen mentions of them trying to do it, but mostly I have seen that they "are talking to major manufacturers". It's not clear to me if they are trying to come up with their own device or if they are trying to convince a major manufacturer that they should "support" GrapheneOS (simply by meeting their requirements).
I personally hope it's the latter: it seems very difficult to release their own hardware that would come close to a Pixel 10 with 7 years support.
I saw it mentioned on another HN thread a couple of weeks ago with a link. It was legit.
Updated w link
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44678411
Right. I'm a little skeptical because I believe I've seen before that it was expected "end of 2025 or at least 2026", and now this says 2026/2027.
They mention:
> hoping to have a device of theirs meet our requirements
Which suggests it's not a device made specifically for GrapheneOS, to me it sounds more like it would be something like the Pixel. I wonder why it would take more than a year to get there, other than lack of interest by the manufacturer (which goes back to my original question).
I mean, there must be flagship smartphones out there that meet all the requirements except for the locking/unlocking of the bootloader, and that shouldn't be hard to solve, right?
I hear you. But I hope you’re wrong. I mean that kindly.
Same here, I really wish Android manufacturers allowed us to properly use an alternative OS without breaking the secure boot (i.e. by allowing to relock the bootloader).
Large companies don't want to confuse their customers for no real gain.
Is that confusing, though? You can already install alternative OSes (including Linux, like PostmarketOS) on many Android devices.
Not saying that they should heavily promote GrapheneOS. Just saying that by merely meeting the requirements of GrapheneOS, a community of hundreds of thousands of people may start buying their phone instead of Pixels. No extra support needed except for guaranteeing that they won't prevent users from unlocking/relocking the bootloader, right?
Normies don't even have to hear about it.
Good point.
GrapheneOS is coming out with their own hardware.
Good luck with that.
Economies of scale (or the lack thereof) means their hardware will be significantly more expensive and less capable than the large scale manufacturers.
I can hear it now, "Those specs kinda suck for that amount of money".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44678411
You might be right, but GrapheneOS with a removable / self-replaceable battery would be worth +$200 ish to me.