Well "starting MSRP of $1,599." I'll stick to my 2nd hand Pixel 8 that I bought, for GrapheneOS long term support, for 1/10th of that price.

No doubt it's a way WAY better device, really, but I don't see where I would actually need that. I happily toss the one I have around and don't even care if it gets stolen or lost one day, different preference.

It's expensive, sure. But the news is huge IMO: GrapheneOS is getting enough traction that a manufacturer is willing to put some resources into supporting it.

My hope is that Motorola will continue like this, with cheaper models too.

If it makes anyone feel any better, Moto in particular never stays at MSRP long. I'd expect it to be well under $1000 within a month or two, which is a sweeter spot.

That said, I've never seen a regular Moto phone nearly this expensive, so who knows.

RAMpocalypse is real and high end phones are definitely going to feel it the most. I wouldn't be surprised if Motorola had to pay an insane amount of money to get any ram allocation at all.

Small correction: I think budget phones will feel it the most. The budget market has been practically wiped out at this point.

Crazy to think we were picking up 16gb M2 Mac mini’s for like $800 a few years ago.

$800? They were below that on sale. I seem to recall the all time low was $400 for 16gb models of the mini at one point.

I picked up an M4 16GB Mac Mini with a 1TB drive for ~$900 USD last year. Last train out of Saigon… though I wish I’d got more memory

Indeed, I was planning to buy this but the price is way too high. My biggest fear here is that the price causes the device sales to be poor, and people blame grapheneos for it

They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.

I'm a bit sad that it won't the default OS.

I was hoping that by being pre-installed, GrapheneOS's public image will slowly transition from being an "obscure OS that scary hackers go out of their way to install" into just yet another stock OS found on certain brands.

Which of the software features will GrapheneOS keep? Will the camera be a first class citizen? I can do without the AI stuff and the audio tuning, but will you keep them too?

GrapheneOS isn't based on the stock OS of the devices it supports. It will be the same GrapheneOS on Motorola devices as it is on Pixels. It's only the firmware, drivers and other device support code which will be different. We'll gradually work on supporting all the hardware features. We plan to add support for installing and using Motorola's camera app similarly to how we support using Pixel Camera on Pixels.

> biggest fear here is that the price causes the device sales to be poor, and people blame grapheneos for it

I'm unconvinced there is a market for a premium GrapheneOS phone. It seems to do well in a niche where phones built for another OS get repurposed to it on the cheap.

There will be cheaper Motorola devices with GrapheneOS support too. It's initially going to be limited to flagships due to Qualcomm not yet having MTE for a non-flagship SoC. A flagship SoC is easily more expensive than a lot of low-end phones. Pixels have a much easier time providing high security and long term updates for the budget 'a' series line because they have an in-house SoC used across their devices. Pixels also have no flagship SoC with competitive performance despite selling flagship devices using the same SoC as the lower end devices. It has drastically lower performance than a Snapdragon flagship to the point that the flagship Snapdragon will be an upgrade of ~60% to single threaded performance, ~80% to multithreaded and over 100% for GPU performance.

I'm part of the market for a premium phone that at least nods in the direction of allowing you freedom over your own device. I'm probably going to buy something from this batch of Motorola phones rather than a samsung which has got more and more user hostile over the years. And yes I might be part of a small niche, but I'm so pleased someone is finally making a premium phone that appeals to me.

> I'm so pleased someone is finally making a premium phone that appeals to me

I’m glad to hear this. And I hope it succeeds. The top comments all complaining about price may just be reinforcing my biases.

> And I hope it succeeds.

Me too! And that more Motorola phones will support GrapheneOS later, including cheaper ones.

My first impression from the comments here is: if the only thing people complain about is the price, I guess it's not too bad :-).

Same here. I don't care about the price. I'm never going to buy a Samsung phone again.

Same. A lot of voices saying "I would totally buy..." and then an excuse comes up when it's time to actually buy. (no shade, I've been guilty of this myself)

my sole excuse is price. I'd happily cough up anything below $1100 for this particular phone. anything above that is simply exorbitant. RAM went 5x over 2026, so I'm practically forced to not consider any hardware purchase at all, not even used, for now

I'll wait a few months for prices to go down a little, but I'm excited to get one.

It will probably go on sale soon close to your price point, as non-Apple phones typically do.

> my sole excuse is price

To be clear, I’m not criticizing anyone balking at a $1,600 phone. I’m expressing skepticism at marketing a GrapheneOS phone at that price point.

Its not being marketed as a GrapheneOS phone. It is a Motorola phone that will come with MotorolaOS. It additionally meets the hardware security requirements for GrapheneOS, and can be flashed with it. There is a possibility preinstalled options will be available but nothing has been confirmed.

I fail to see the logic in it being worth $1099 but not $2k.

If your max price point were $600 or something, sure, but once you’re above $1k what’s the difference? You already value it greatly.

So if you can pay 20k for a car, you may as well pay 100k, because you already want a car? I'm not sure I get the argument.

2k is two times 1k. There are many things that I would not buy for double the price.

> A lot of voices saying "I would totally buy..." and then an excuse comes up when it's time to actually buy.

Yeah, well, to me flagship is a one-word descriptor for "overpriced and enshittified device for suckers". Just in this case, now that the OS seems to deliver, it's the hardware. If you don't offer 3.5 mm audio, active stylus, full-feature USB-C 3.x+, and a uSD slot with a good enough screen in a slab you can get lost. It's that simple.

I mean, is there any phone left with a 3.5mm jack, SD card support, and decent specs?

Just those 2 alone disqualify a lot of the market. I'd like to have both, but I'm currently typing this on a pixel 9 with neither simply because the market isn't there for them.

I just want to buy a pretty good new phone that supports graphene, doesn't need to have 5 cameras, 2 is probably fine.

There is a market for a phone running GrapheneOS (that arent pixels) in general, and a wider range of devices can be supported in the future, once the needed hardware security features are implemented in them.

I don’t think anybody will blame GrapheneOS, it’s not even installed by default. Motorola will absolutely see that GrapheneOS support is not a value add and will decide against spending whatever nominal value it cost them to have first class support for it though.

Motorola has seen that there's immense interest in GrapheneOS and is very interested in expanding it to more devices. They want to have cheaper devices with it and the blocker for that isn't at all Motorola but rather Qualcomm not providing MTE support for lower end SoC variants yet.

People will be able to install GrapheneOS on supported devices themselves but it hasn't been stated that it will be the only option. There will be further announcements about support for it.

I'm really happy to read this. I am going to buy their phone specifically to run GrapheneOS! No idea how many of us there are but it's probably not nothing.

You guys are going to reach a much wider audience now. Google doesn't sell Pixels worldwide but Motorola does.

I really hope that interest turns into sales. I’ve just seen this movie a few times before.

The partnership between Motorola and GrapheneOS is a long term one. The effort that is put into providing the needed hardware security requirements also benefits Motorola directly, as they can use that hardware themselves. What you are predicting will happen is not corroborated by evidence.

Motorola is porting GOS to the device. They can just decide not to bother anymore. There’s no evidence to speak of, the partnership is 9 months old.

Motorola has directly seen the immense interest in GrapheneOS from both individuals and businesses. This post is an example of how it greatly increases in the interest in their devices. They're aware not everyone is going to buy a high end flagship and want to have cheaper devices with it.

Data point: I had never, ever considered buying a Motorola phone, until now :-). I did not even know that Motorola was a Lenovo company before, and I have been very happy with Thinkpad laptops for decades.

GrapheneOS literally puts Motorola on the map for me.

Motorola split itself up ~15 years ago, and the bits that dealt with consumer cell phones became Motorola Mobility. The rest became Motorola Solutions.

Motorola Mobility was sold to Google in 2012 for ~$12bn, and then in 2014 to Lenovo for ~$3bn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola#Split_of_Motorola

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Solutions

It's worth noting Motorola Mobility owns the Motorola trademark and can use it for any purpose. Motorola Solutions has a perpetual but very limited license for the trademark from a subsidiary for holding the trademark owned by Motorola Mobility. Motorola Solutions can continue making Motorola branded products in the same spaces as they did before but can't enter new spaces with the brand. Most people wrongly assume it's the other way around since Motorola Solutions is the original legal entity. They kept the legal entity the same for the company focused on government contracts and kept the trademark for the faster moving retail focused company where the brand is more important.

It's expensive but also a similar price to other flagship phone models.

Pixel 11 Pro Fold is MSRP $1900+

Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8 MSRP is $1900+ ($2100 for 512GB storage)

Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra 512GB MSRP $1600 (and this was before a lot of hardware price increases, I imagine the Galaxy S27 will be more expensive)

iPhone 18 Pro Max 512GB $1500 on Apple Store

As memory and storage chips get more expensive, phones will continue to get more expensive. Even Qualcomm SoCs have seen significant price hikes. [1]

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/qualcomm-tells-customers-double-digit-173344854.html

> Pixel 11 Pro Fold > Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 8

is motorola's phone folding?

No, it's not folding.

There's not a lot of flagship phones that released recently which is why I included them alongside phones that do not fold but were released a bit earlier.

I think the most fair comparison will probably be the Galaxy S27 when it releases in early 2027.

Folding commands an immense premium. Not really fair to compare folding phones, given the premium associated with those. 512GB storage phones sure… although the fact they don’t even offer a 256GB option seems odd to me. Clearly gaining margin back by only selling 512 and marking it up based on that.

As some who also just so happens to have a Pixel 8 (well 8a) 2nd hand phone with Graphene I think an underappreciated point here is access to older hardware with current software. Whether intended or not, a second life for hardware is another way GrapheneOS insulates from control of first party vendors.

Pixel 8 and later have 7 years of support from launch and so does the Motorola Signature 27. It isn't GrapheneOS extending the life of the devices but rather GrapheneOS only using devices with long term security updates. We do greatly improve the security updates during the lifetime of the device but it stops being safe to use devices without firmware updates after end-of-life. Official GrapheneOS releases are for devices which aren't end-of-life. We provide extended support releases for devices past end-of-life as harm reduction, but we don't do it indefinitely. We've found providing extended support releases can be quite counterproductive since people won't listen to us and will continue using or even buying the devices despite growing insecurity. It's going to be a lot worse now with AI models able to help anyone develop exploits.

Hey just curious, to what extent you using ai to help with proactive exploit discovery?

We use frontier AI models to review all our code but it hasn't replaced human review and humans need to review the output from it. It adds significantly more work and has resulted in a lot of issues being fixed.

We're not currently putting a large amount of resources into finding Linux, AOSP or Chromium vulnerabilities this way because many others are doing it with far more resources including Google. There are much higher impact things for us to focus on instead. Our focus remains systemic privacy and security improvement rather than case-by-case fixing of bugs. We definitely do that much better through shipping Linux and Android patches much faster than the Pixel OS along with fixing many issues ourselves but it's not our priority for the most part. Certain parts of it are priorities such as finding and fixing VPN leaks because Google doesn't consider it to be a relevant security issue.

GrapheneOS limits their support length to the original device so that it's always possible for new security updates to be available.

> Well "starting MSRP of $1,599."

Honestly I was looking lately for some deals for black friday or 11.11, and I saw that the Oppo Ultra 9X or whatever it's called, had a rom and a bootloader cve that would allow you to root it and replace god awful COS with someone AOSP based. The 12/256 is 1200€! And that's the chinese version. A phone with a last gen chip! Absolutely crazy. The ram prices are way worse than I thought.

Whenever a scarcity happens, manufacturers take the opportunity to tack on some extra profit. Likely the extra cost is mostly extra profit, not RAM all on its own.

It's literally every manufacturer of everything ever. Not just now, not just this century or this planet, or even this galaxy. From amoeba loaning glucose to a neighbour, to a star granting energy to its flock, the universal truth is the cost is what you'll pay, not what it costs to make.

If you set your pricing by what it costs you to make, you're not very good at capitalism.

Prices also skyrocket relatively fast, and come down much slower, for the same reason.

Pixel 10a going for 4 000 nok new atm - including 25% vat. ~430 USD

Been considering getting a couple just to test/use with Graphene...

A used Pixel 8a is a great option for trying GrapheneOS. It's still one of the recommended devices with over 4.5 years out of the original 7 years of support remaining.

Yeah, this is definitely a "yikes!" price. I was thoroughly disappointed in the Pixel 11 and hopeful for this new Motorola, but not at this price! I've been looking for some used older-gen Pixels that still support GrapheneOS, but I've yet to find any close to 1/10th the MSRP...

>I don’t see where I would actually need that.

In battery life and thermal performance alone, where Google seems to have conveniently ignored valid criticisms since the Pixel 6 series.

This critique makes zero sense.

1. Most companies release their most expensive models first, and then follow up with cheaper ones. Like, that's business 101. Nvidia does it, Lego does it.

2. You're comparing a new flagship to a three-year old phone, bought second-hand. Like, those two serve completely different markets.

Users of GOS probably does not need bunch od RAM and CPU cores anyway. I guess there are not many of those who use OS for privacy and in same time use privacy invasive apps with fancy AI stuffs, bloatware and spyware built in that consumes most of HW resources.

Not this narrative again. There are many people who don't fit in those groups who use GrapheneOS. For instance, because they like vanilla Android (which barely exists anymore outside GrapheneOS and perhaps Lineage), their phone not to be preloaded with all kinds of adware (including forced AI assistants), like a phone that is not controlled by big tech, etc.

Some of those people will also buy a premium phone because they want to have a great camera system.

> or instance, because they like vanilla Android (which barely exists anymore outside GrapheneOS and perhaps Lineage)

Absolutely. Vanilla Android is actually very nice, and compatible with many types of devices (phones, tablets, TV boxes, now some laptops). In fact, I recently compiled and patched an x86_64 version of LineageOS for an HTPC and it blows ordinary Linux distros out of the water in that role. Fully usable with remote only, etc. The problem with Android is that commercial versions people are used to are riddled with Google spyware and OEM crapware.

Odd to see Gemini promoted alongside GrapheneOS. One is effectively handing your life to the Google surveillance platform, the other encourages the opposite. What a strange partnership.

EDIT: after reviewing other comments in this thread, I can see how my post here wasn't received well by some. It looks like some people are questioning the trust put into Graphene. I definitely am not. When I said "strange partnership" here, that's not what I meant at all. I think Graphene is operating in a very hostile ecosystem and the more doors Graphene can open for their platform to reach people, the better. The "strange" part of the equation was more aimed at Motorola (and Google) for allowing privacy intrusions to happen and even encouraging it in some ways (Gemini), yet actively supporting a project that would counter it. Maybe I should have used the word "funny" instead of "strange".

The post is about the overall launch of the device, not only official GrapheneOS support for it. They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.

Defend from what? I haven't accused Graphene of anything. In fact I support the platform entirely.

Dude I don't know what to tell you. Go look at my post history, I'm not the gaslighting type. I explained my reasoning. Maybe I just have to concede here that I can't articulate my thoughts the way I'm intending to.

GrapheneOS partering with any manufacturer would be just as weird. They cannot have a non-weird partnership at this point because they're a niche product. So whoever is the manufacturer that agrees to work with them, they have to sell that grapheos-friendly phone to ordinary, Googled people as well to actually make money. No manufacturer is a charity here.

It does negate what you said. It does not make the partnership strange.

In what way? Please elaborate.

The word strange as defined by the dictionary is "different from what is usual, ordinary, or expected".

You have a large publicly traded corporation advocating using a platform known for large privacy intrusions. This same corporation has partnered with a team that is providing a mechanism for fighting against those privacy intrusions. That is unexpected. I never said it was good or bad, just that it is strange.

EDIT: Here is another data point. Motorola themselves have been sued for breach of privacy:

https://classactionu.org/our-news/motorola-solutions-faces-privacy-class-action-over-mass-vehicle-surveillance-and-illegal-data-sharing/

https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-lawsuit-claims-motorola-solutions-license-plate-readers-violate-california-privacy-laws

EDIT2: I can't reply to the posts any more, so I'll just finish this discussion off by saying I am merely making an observation. I see people here are getting offended and maybe misunderstanding my intentions. This is not an attack on GrapheneOS, I actually like Graphene and what they are doing. I just find it interesting that the very companies breaching our privacy are the ones that are partnering with Graphene. I did not say this was a bad partnership. The opposite, I actually think it's a very good thing. If I gave the impression this was somehow a jab at Graphene, it's not, I apologize if it came off that way.

Having a stock operating system certified by google is usual/ordinary/expected. That is how pixel support worked for many years. This approach is borderline necessary as paying an ODM directly is very expensive and loses out on several benefits.

Motorola stands to make a lot of money from this. They need to improve hardware but they benefit from that hardware. They likely provide early access but they already have that access themselves. From Motorolas perspective, they take on very little risk, if any, to tap into a market that has since been ignored, for existing GrapheneOS users, prospective GrapheneOS users, and for alternative OS users that benefit from yellowboot support. This is the most ordinary approach that could have been taken.

Motorola Solutions != Motorola Mobility.

Motorola Solutions, the radio and public safety company, was split from the phone company shortly before Google purchased the phones in 2012.

There's no way the largest provider of police radios in the US and EU would be owned by a Chinese company.

Ah I did not know this. Thanks for pointing it out.

Motorola was split into Motorola Solutions and Motorola Mobility in 2011. Everyone who owned the Motorola stock ended up owning both initially. Motorola Solutions kept the original stock ticker and Motorola Mobility kept ownership of the Motorola trademarks. Motorola Solutions uses the Motorola trademark under a perpetual license only permitting them to use it for the areas they already sold products. Motorola Solutions had more need for the original legal entity due to government contracts and Motorola Mobility had more need for the trademark due to selling retail products.

Motorola Mobility was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold to Lenovo in 2014. Motorola Mobility is still based in the US but is well integrated as Lenovo's mobile division. The devices are made by Lenovo with their in-house assembly/manufacturing and external supply chain rather than the typical setup of a western company paying another company to build devices for them.

Motorola Mobility sells smartphones and tablets mainly via retail. Motorola Solutions sells cameras, radios and drones mainly via government contracts. They're entirely separate companies with no business partnership. Motorola Mobility can use the Motorola brand for anything but Motorola Solutions would need to pay for a license to use it for new product lines.

> would need to pay for a license to use it for new product lines

Also, Motorola Mobility would have no obligation to accept it.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1495569/000119312510259036/dex103.htm

Why is it strange? They're successfully addressing both ends of the market with one product. That's efficient.

Those are the two sides of the market? AI addicts and privacy enthusiasts? Doubtful. Most people want an internet terminal that doubles as a strong digital camera, I think.

It's not. Some people have a threat model that includes being okay with AI.

Being ok with AI is not the same as being ok with Google - one of the most privacy invading companies on the planet - though...

The post is about the overall launch of the device, not only official GrapheneOS support for it. They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.

What's the overlap for that people with Graphene OS users?

You are going through the trouble of installing a privacy first OS and the first thing you do is handle your data to AI companies? That's pretty odd

The post is about the overall launch of the device, not only official GrapheneOS support for it. They have their own OS with Google Mobile Services. They've made sure the device will meet all of our requirements and are helping us develop and maintain support for it. It's not the main OS for it.

Do you have a source that Gemini is partnered with GOS? I dont see it anywhere

Apologies, I should have clarified I meant the partnership between GrapheneOS and Motorola.

This is a Pixel 11 Pro XL killer. Better specs and runs the same software for normal users, but it also can run GrapheneOS like a Pixel.

Gemini and GrapheneOS will not run at the same time. You pick either Google+Moto Android with Gemini and friends, or GrapheneOS.

I don't know if I can trust a motorola phone with grapheneOS. Motorola is owned by a Chinese company that has recently been caught for injecting affiliate codes in users purchases. Yes, I know it won't be Motorola's OS but they do modify a large part of the BSP (bootloader, modem, etc.) with their "mot_sec" additions which you'll find if you reverse engineer any motorola firmware. It's unclear if qualcomm will give grapheneOS permission to rebuild or see the source code everything else. Modern phones run multiple operating systems like in the DSP, modem, trustzone, etc.

It concerns me as well as the user-land OS isn't really where control of the RF happens. The OS running in their baseband chip is where the backdoors would best be placed from their perspective. But I'm happy that there are some additional options to run Graphene on the market.

The OS absolutely controls functionality of the baseband, it would be a legal nightmare if it just didn't actually respect proper radio settings. But from a design perspective, it doesn't actually matter that much at all I feel. Any practical and secure design for a cellular phone has to assume the network is totally compromised and hostile, and so it can never be in the trusted base. From this perspective, adding the radio chip and its software to that category is not actually a huge leap. Even today vendors who own all the IP on a bus will still insert IOMMUs, etc inbetween components. It isn't dissimilar to game consoles; they assume that anything outside their die is compromised and hostile, and if you start from that premise, you can still make it very secure even when your threat model includes hostile components on the PCB.

Radio firmware is probably somewhat broken in practice (what isn't these days) but ultimately the openness stuff is a red herring IMO as far as security is concerned, you either assume it's compromised or not.

The userspace OS needs to be where control of any radio (bluetooth, wi-fi, cellular, nfc, uwb etc.) components happens, otherwise it would be difficult to be compliant in terms of regulatory requirements like a working Flight Mode.

Baseband firmware/processors are still making strides in terms of defending against attacks so I don't think we are at the point where backdoors are needed. More likely that undocumented AT commands, plausibly deniable bugdoors and existing memory corruption vulnerabilities are already convenient reality. However, part of that reality is also that once the cellular modem is exploited OTA it is still a massive task to traverse IOMMU restrictions and get device owner data/secrets from the userspace OS. It doesn't even grant visibility into application traffic which has been aggressively TLS encrypted since the mid 2010s.

> The userspace OS needs to be where control of any radio (bluetooth, wi-fi, cellular, nfc, uwb etc.) components happens, otherwise it would be difficult to be compliant in terms of regulatory requirements like a working Flight Mode.

The entities that are putting in backdoors don't respect the law, and obviously will do what they can to obfuscate the backdoor enough to pass regulatory reviews.

My threat model is precisely entities that don't respect law or are unethical. So, the question then boils down to whether current regulatory review processes can catch such backdoors and the people running these processes cannot be bribed or otherwise forced to skip proper review?

It's my understanding that you cannot really defend against backdoors. You can somewhat mitigate their impact through good security/privacy design. Your energies may be better invested in a position that assumes any and all of the radios have been compromised or exploited and work from there (this is what mainstream flagship smartphone SoC/OS designers already do).

In modern phones, doesn't the main chip control the baseband chip rather than the other way? What is the threat model?

Obviously since phone calls and text messages are unencrypted the baseband chip could send them elsewhere. But your internet communication should already be encrypted before it hits the baseband chip. So is the threat model Motorola has intentionally introduced a backdoor to leak data from the main chip to the baseband chip?

"control" is mostly a gentlemans agreement. It sends commands. The OS running in the baseband can decide how to handle the commands. Assuming a malicious vendor, motivated by its host nation, that would be where they could place the most effective backdoors.

Vendors with nefarious intentions or operating on directives from a state agency are a real and valid concern, but the handset under consideration makes use of a Qualcomm baseband chipset, so the OS it runs on is supplied by Qualcomm, not the manufacturer.

If I understand it correctly (but please do correct me if I am wrong), Qualcomm supplies the baseband OS as a signed binary blob.

My knowledge is third-hand as I haven't worked at Motorola for over 20 years (and back then I worked on "server" side, not device side), but I think you are correct. What I'm unclear on is how it differs from the chips (and associated blobs) sold for use in China, where the legal requirements differ, and how reliable the "signing" really is. I do know that some groups get special permission from Qualcomm to load other firmware and expose certain features to the user-land OS. My threat analysis is mostly theoretical and I can't really say that Qualcomms control is lacking or co-opted.

Graphene doesn't expect to have control of the RF. It makes all the RF stuff happen on the other side of a firewall.

My thoughts exactly.

I'm pretty uncomfortable with how many smartphones I'd like to buy end up being Chinese owned companies. I wish Fairphone had a better camera, if it did, I'd just buy one of those and call it day.

Fairphones are designed and made for Fairphone by T2Mobile which is a Chinese ODM. Fairphones have very poor updates and security. Those devices are incredibly far from meeting the requirements for GrapheneOS and cannot be supported. Fairphones aren't European phones but rather Chinese designed and made devices sold by a European brand. T2Mobile not only designs the hardware but also builds and signs the firmware. Fairphone does very limited engineering and mainly combines AOSP, Google Mobile Services and the firmware/drivers from T2Mobile to make the stock OS. They're not in a position to meet our requirements. T2Mobile doesn't provide good security in practice and would need to greatly improve. Trying to get an ODM to improve security is only realistic with a security-focused organization as their direct customer and Fairphone definitely isn't.

Fairphone has a transparency report on their website about the manufacturing and supply chain which nearly entirely only provides a list of the companies, the location of their HQ and a link to their website for a subset of the companies. There's no information provided on the working conditions, pay or environmental impact of the supply chain. Past posts with vague details about this were mainly about their original ODM and they switched to 2 different ODMs since then. T2Mobile is their ODM since the Fairphone 4 and there's nearly no information available about it. Why did they switch ODMs twice and how do they compare? Is the supply chain for the T2Mobile-made devices more sustainable? Are they still prioritizing the ethics of the supply chain? None of that is clear.

Fairphone is marketed as being a sustainable device with good long term updates and an ethical supply chain. However, the updates are very poor from the beginning and get much worse over time. It isn't clear that the marketing about the supply chain is much more accurate. Pixels and iPhones get much better updates and hold up better over the long term. It isn't clear whether a Fairphone has better working conditions than an iPhone and it's quite possible an iPhone has lower overall environmental impact per device mainly due to the efficiency of scale.

It depends on the level of involvement you're comfortable with. As far as I'm aware, Fairphone are partnered with a Chinese ODM T2 Mobile for the hardware portion of their smartphone products. You can expect they are sourcing the hardware and spares, SoC/subsystem BSP components, peripherals and associated firmware from T2Mobile.

Independence from the Chinese manufacturing hegemony probably means opting for a flagship Samsung, 11-series Pixel or pre-2025 Sony flagship.

T2Mobile designs and makes Fairphones along with providing the firmware and drivers. T2Mobile even signs the firmware. Fairphone doesn't have a similar role as Apple or Google has with Foxconn. They also have much less involvement than Google had with Nexus devices prior to Pixels.

I wish fairphone was waterproof, what's the advantage of a repairable phone if a rainy hike will destroy it!

Fairphones also don't get proper updates which ruins the prospect of using those over the long term. Fairphone 5 and earlier already have end-of-life Linux kernel branches with no plans to port forward as Pixels do. Fairphone 6 will be in the same situation soon. OS updates are delayed for a year or more at launch and it gets much worse. Incomplete backports of patches to older releases start out delayed 1 to 2 months, which gets worse.

We can solve this if we make a non-Chinese smartphone company. But how?

Purism’s Liberty Phone is exactly this, but the security is poor compared to Graphene OS and it’s really expensive for the hardware you get. Regardless, I think it’s your only option if you want something that’s made here.

Trump Mobile

Is this sarcasm? It's a rebranded Chinese phone.

Yea but it's "designed with American values in mind".

Your sarcasm detector is working correctly!

The OS alone, however, still provides a considerable privacy upgrade over a Googled system and the associated apps including Gemini, GMail, Drive and others. By default, those apps and other Google system components are incredibly invasive and remove or limit the freedom to install other programs.

I wonder how many people forking over $$$ for a degoogled phone simply go on to use it to log in to their gmail via imap with K9 mail they installed from f-droid.

> log in to their gmail via imap with K9 mail they installed from f-droid.

This is still much better than handing over control of the entire OS and native apps to Google. The problem with email is that even if you operate your own server, realistically most emails will be sent to Google, Microsoft or Apple.

Ok so just don’t do banking and critical communication on a cellular device with mysterious CPUs. What’s your threat model? I like to use a flip phone and just don’t do anything important on it.

What non Chinese manufacture are you looking at? I liked Xperia I for being made in Japan but it’s still Chinese components underneath and as you say there’s no control of all the code.

There’s always Bunnie’s Precursor phone if anyone is interested in commercially developing something reasonably secure and auditable.

I probably trust banking the most on a locked-down phone. It is in fact the interests of the state and its monetary system that these systems that implement it are secure.

At the same time, the state has its flaws and I'm questioning whether a top down system can ever really work, not out of some kind of "fuck the man" point of view, but more of an engineering and systems design perspective. If the system is perfectly factored, there are no cross-cutting concerns. But in such a system there is no need to communicate or coordinate laterally, only up and down. This sounds very lonely.

And if this system has a flaw, not a specific flaw, but rather a flaw in the assumption that tree structures with abstraction are a good way to organize systems, it might be impossible to change from let's say a tree with a single root to multiple interacting trees, with multiple roots of authority. Or maybe this is possible if people can learn to exist in multiple seemingly incompatible realities simultaneously?

Why have a compromised phone at all? You're still exposing yourself to telemetry. And if you've ever said anything positive about a Hong Kong democracy activist, you still have to wonder what's going to happen to you if you travel to any country with a mature extradition relationship to China.

I also think it's easy to underestimate your footprint when it comes to ecosystems that involve money in any capacity. No Amazon, Steam, no card information on a Netflix app, no signing in to Google to read a NYT article.

I think either you care about these things categorically or you don't, and I don't think anybody is going to be in the middle space you seem to be envisioning, which is concerned enough about the risks to avoid all banking but still a casual enough attitude about a compromised phone that you're fine with it for uses you consider non-secure.

Amazon and Steam work fine over a browser, as does signing in to Google. Why are you using Netflix on a phone?

The major problem is banking, although some banks still work with Waydroid, and a few banks have full featured websites that work. But you do have to be more selective.

Netflix has over 1 billion app installs on phones, so go ask 1 in 8 people.

Is a browser on compromised hardware supposed to be more secure than an app? Amazon, steam etc still risk exposing accounts authorized to make payments using your money. It's easy to think "I just won't use banks" and underestimate the risks of doing anything on compromised hardware, and the answer isn't to play the "what could possibly go wrong" game, it's to not use compromised hardware.

Oh I know this exists, I just think it’s ridiculous. My attitude was best put into words by David Lynch: “It’s such a sadness that you think you’ve seen a film on your fucking telephone. Get real.” (I realize he later moderated this for, uh, reasons, but I take this as the proper attitude.)

I’m not really worried about mainstream Chinese manufacturers stealing my bank credentials. Fly-by-night budget phones full of crapware, yeah sure.

1. Aren't... all phones manufactured in China?

2. I know it's whataboutism, but from the perspective of a non-US consumer, it doesn't exactly make a difference which country exactly spies on me. I use a Chinese web browser because it covers all my use cases and I don't see a problem with that.

Also of note: they are a competitor to Flock. While it's not crazy for a company of that scale to bet on both sides of the "privacy vs surveillance state" match, it can be assumed that they'll need to commit to one over the other, somewhere down the line.

No, Motorola Solutions is an entirely different company from Motorola Mobility. Those aren't part of the same company and aren't business partners. Motorola was split into both companies all the way back in 2011. Motorola Mobility was acquired by Google in 2012 and sold to Lenovo in 2014. Motorola Mobility owns the Motorola trademark and Motorola Solutions has a limited perpetual license for it for use with existing classes of products.

Ah, my mistake. Thanks for clearing that up.

>chinese government is just trying to sell stuff, while USA government is trying to convert all the southern continent into a colony to impose governments and suck up minerals in the meantime.

Are you sure the Chinese government is choosing not to pursue these $evil_intentions[] you ascribe to the US, or are they simply yet unable to?

Well, they have their shady stuff, and they are also selling cheap stuff and killing local markets. And on their end of the world they are an empire like US is at this side.

Still, china are not the ones poisoning people criteria with AI ads and overtaking governments to sell entire countries to US funds.

Not talking about good or bad. I just say south people should defend south's national interest, which is not US interests as it has been demonstrated over the years.

You’re not wrong about the US but let’s not pretend China is just “trying to sell stuff”. They’ve got their own genocide going on with the Uyghurs and are famous for espionage

Oh boy you should read about US participation in south america dictatorships and genocides. In colombia we have a century of war fueled by US, check banana massacre to begin with. And each country has its own series.

If we're talking about national interest, it's easy to tell which countries espionage affects us the most.

> The difference is that chinese government is just trying to sell stuff, while USA government is trying to convert all the southern continent into a colony to impose governments and suck up minerals in the meantime.

Fascinating. The propaganda I've been fed is that China is the one hoovering up all the minerals so that they have control over the global supply chain for eg cobalt.

If anything, I think it would be ok to sell minerals to the best paying buyer.

US strategy is to pick up a fool with good marketing, inject a lot of money, win an election and rig the law so no contest happens.

So long for the "competitive capitalism" they so much preach about. You know how your politicians work in the inside, what makes you think they are less abusive with people they have no concern about.

Ohh it's spyware all the way down.

At this point I might as well code a messaging app called the honest spy.

Honest spy emails transcripts of all your conversations straight to the law enforcement in your jurisdiction.

I on the other hand am looking to purchase electronic devices because they are owned by the Chinese. I work under the impression that everyone and everything is spying on us in this surveillance-capitalist world, so if that's true then why not let others spy on me for a change. Just to give our guys a break. At least the other guys don't condition my loan or my kids' university admission.

I can sort of understand that. If you are an American, arguably the Chinese government is not all that dangerous to you, and worrying about university admissions is about as ugly as your life gets. I expect the Uyghurs have a different perspective on how dangerous the CCP is.

unfounded fearmongering

Supply chain attacks? Is grapheneOS itself audited by an external auditor?

how can grapheneos be audited if motorola/qualcomm doesn't provide source code for their blobs? it's no different than pixels, but I trust Google more.

I hope the hardware support GrapheneOS needs filters down to Motorola's mid-range phones over the next couple of years. I really like the Moto G line, historically anyway.

I still really like my G31 which was made in 2022 and cost $AUD240 - it's excellent.

I already struggle to scan into subway systems with QR codes in china, because my pixel 8 pro screen is so bright it saturates the readers' camera, and apps force the screen brightness to max when displaying qr codes. now grapheneos is going with an even brighter phone! I wish they'd make android limit this backlight control. They are also anti-rooting. I want to extract data and chat history from an app on my phone, but even I'm completely powerless to do so. The fact that Free Software can feel more locked down than some proprietary software is quite disheartening.

I have a Pixel 10 that I'm looking to install GrapheneOS on, but even at $1599 I'm still intrigued by this. It seems they are trying to build a real long term device with few downsides, which is a big contrast to a lot of Motorola's recent phones.

(edit: partially wrong! see below) Still packing a USB-2 connection, no replaceable battery, no UWB support, no headphone jack, maximum storage 512GB... the latter is doable for me (coming from 256GB on a device that's now eight years old and full to the brim), but for a "real long-term device", I'm not sure that would last another eight years without expanding to a microSD card -- which it also doesn't support -- or upgrading again prematurely

Signature 27 has USB-C 3.2 Gen 2 with audio output and DisplayPort 1.4 alternate mode. It does have UWB. Look at the official specifications:

https://www.motorola.in/smartphones-motorola-signature-27/p?skuId=780

Oh huh, gotta submit some corrections to the site I got this from... Thanks!

The price seems way too high to me. I hope Motorola will release budget smartphones in the future, similar to the A models in the Pixel series. It would be cool to have a smartphone running GrapheneOS that you could also recommend to regular folks and older people.

It's not going to be the only supported Motorola device. It's the first device they're making with proper MTE support and has much better secure element integration too. Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 was the only Qualcomm smartphone SoC with MTE support. Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 6 and Snapdragon 8 Elite Extreme Gen 6 also provide it. It wasn't available in the Snapdragon 8 Gen 5 but hopefully it will be for the next generation.

Pixels fill the need for budget devices well via the 'a' series, especially when purchased as used devices. 7 years of decent updates from launch for budget devices is very unique and makes used devices much more useful.

>much better secure element integration too

Is this confirmed as the latest iteration of the Qualcomm SPU or a different dedicated secure element?

It has a high quality dedicated secure element. Qualcomm SPU is present but it's configured to use the dedicated secure element. We would be fine with supporting a budget device with only the SPU but we're quite happy we don't have to accept that compromise for the initial flagship.

This device will probably go on sale for much less than $1599. That being said, at 6.8", it's huge. My Pixel with a 6.3" screen is already too large for my taste and I wish more sub 6" phone were available. Think iPhone X size for something modern but comfortably compact.

With current RAM prices, releasing budget phones just isn't possible without taking a big loss. Especially if there's no ads to recoup the loss ;)

G-Series is what you're looking for.

Moto G Power is my favorite phone. Cheap enough I don't bother with a case. Durable enough that I haven't regretted not buying a case. The extra battery life allows me to keep using the phone long after the battery starts to degrade.

I've run a g power for 4 years straight, only replacing it because the phone had become unusably slow. My current 2024 model is still going strong and I have no plans to replace it.

But man I wish it were smaller. I'd be fine with it being thicker if only I could have a smaller screen.

Such a shame they ended up enlarging that series just like every other phone out there. I had the first generation of Moto G all the way up to 6 or 7, when they made it too large for my hands.

I'd probably kill someone (bad) for the 3rd generation Moto G but with modern specs.

I wonder how good the camera will be on GrapheneOS compared to Motorolas stock OS.

I love grapheneOS but let’s not pretend that Gcam isn’t superior to the stock grapheneOS camera in terms of photo and video quality in the current pixel phones.

Would love to hear a response from the grapheneOS account on this subject. Would be awesome if we’d receive all the usual Motorola tweaks in the stock grapheneOS camera app.

We plan to add support for using their camera app similarly to how we did it for Pixel Camera. Our own camera app will also be heavily improved over the next year.

Or at least an easy way to install it the Motorola camera app. I'm running Google's camera on my gOS Pixel but with updates and internet permission turned off.

I'm looking forward to the RAMpocalypse being over and lower-end Motorola devices getting support.

I would buy this, if nothing else to show my interest, but this is literally more than 2.5 times the cost of my current phone, which I bought brand new not much more than a year ago. I'm willing to pay a premium for GrapheneOS, but I'm not willing to pay a premium something we already had before the world went even more crazy than it already was.

I am curious what if any progress has been made with free and open source software and computational photography. I don't have any expertise on this matter. I just remember about five or six years ago the meta was that free and open source apps such as open camera pretty much suck balls when it comes to any advanced photography that allowed the user to click and forget when the likes of the proprietary Google Camera app was where the "magic" happened.

I think progress in that area has kind of plateaued no? We got to a point in which the AI post processing was too noticeable and creating weird artifacts (like the ones in those hyper-zoom pictures) and companies took it down a notch. You can probably find open source alternatives that can compete with closed source ones

My nearly seven year old phone is still kicking, but it has long since stopped receiving security updates, which is an increasingly rough proposition as LLMs get better at exploiting vulnerable software.

This will likely be my next phone, my biggest hope is that Android Virtualization Framework (AVF) is well-supported along with DP Alt Mode, as the chips in modern smartphones are powerful enough to be a full-on laptops, just add a keyboard/mouse/display or a laptop shell.

I know it's a matter of taste but omg is this phone not good looking... and that's particularly odd, because pretty much all their other phones are quite OK.

I think that is a no-problem. Phone has such a steep price, that it's very hard to justify.

It showed up on some Polish listings (media expert) for ~7500zł and a thousand more for 16GB version. We are talking of a range of 1800€ for a phone.

> that it's very hard to justify

Not like consumers have any choice really.

You either get a Pixel or a Motorolla at this point or get a dumb phone but loose a lot in everyday comfort.

Everything else is a locked system with age ids, company-approved software and espionage coming.

EU prices include steep sales taxes (VAT).

what do you mean it looks bad? looks like a phone

Under availability, article says:

  Motorola signature 27 will be available in markets worldwide in the coming months, with a starting MSRP of $1,599. For local price information and availability, please contact your local PR team.

but https://mobilesyrup.com/2026/11/05/motorola-signature-27-reveal/ says:

  ... and while we expected a Canadian release soon, Motorola is now saying that the device will be exclusive to the U.S. with no availability in Canada at this time.

So are they saying the same thing (US only at start, slow rollout to other countries later) or is it US only?

It definitely isn't US exclusive. We aren't sure when it will launch in each country and don't have a list. We'd be quite surprised if it didn't launch in Canada though.

Taking a device across the border shouldn't be difficult though, if you really want one.

  > The world’s best camera system launched in 2026[25]

1. dxomark is flawed in terms of overall camera rating 2. there is no footnote 25 on the page

Moto Edge series would have been an instant hit with Graphene OS.

Those can be supported in the future but can't meet the requirements yet. Qualcomm needs to bring MTE to a non-flagship SoC. A flagship Snapdragon SoC costs more than a lot of phones.

This is 4x the price of my current phone running GrapheneOS... Not sure what they are thinking here but hope there are cheaper options.

> Motorola continues to build on its commitment to security with ThinkShield®, which helps protect users from the factory to the phone

Anyone know what ThinkShield is? "from the factory to the phone" sounds, well, weird, but maybe they mean it's some sort of tamper proofing from where they flash the firmware until you get the phone? Is that new for GrapheneOS versions?

> Motorola’s commitment to bringing cutting-edge security to everyday users across the globe. \n\n That commitment runs deeper than software: GrapheneOS sets demanding requirements for the hardware it runs on and how it’s kept updated

Besides providing timely security updates, which one would hope they do regardless of Graphene pushing them, isn't it Graphene doing all the actual software work? Since motorola refer to commitments "deeper than software", it sounds like motorola made some software commitments as well

Motorola has worked on implementing all of the hardware and firmware security features needed by GrapheneOS. They're helping us port GrapheneOS to their devices themselves and will be helping maintain it. They're also going to be providing us with the driver and firmware code we need and we'll have an opportunity to help harden it. It will be much better than Pixels when it comes to this. We won't have to do reverse engineering and won't be stuck with what's provided since we can get things improved or fixed.

>Anyone know what ThinkShield is? "from the factory to the phone" sounds, well, weird, but maybe they mean it's some sort of tamper proofing from where they flash the firmware until you get the phone? Is that new for GrapheneOS versions?

https://www.motorola.com/gb/en/business/thinkshield has been around for a few years and definitely predates their GrapheneOS partnership. My best guess for what it is would be an equivalent to Samsung's Knox https://www.samsungknox.com/en. A suite of features and tools and compliance certificates that make enterprise-oriented security easier.

>Besides providing timely security updates, which one would hope they do regardless of Graphene pushing them, isn't it Graphene doing all the actual software work? Since motorola refer to commitments "deeper than software", it sounds like motorola made some software commitments as well

They are probably referring to meeting GrapheneOS's hardware-backed (deeper than software) requirements which include things like usable MTE support, a decent quality integrated secure element with Weaver support, hopefully things like Wi-Fi privacy improvements and so on.

I still think it is miraculous that Motorola committed to seven years of security and OS updates, and I am not surprised they have mentioned things like "bi-monthly updates" and qualifiers like "up to seven years of security updates" in various bits of marketing copy so far. From my understanding Motorola intend to adopt some GrapheneOS features with Thinkshield rebranding for their Moto OS (for which they are solely responsible). GrapheneOS may well help them with AOSP bug fixes and security fixes, but Motorola will also have no involvement in GrapheneOS.

The phone will be released with Moto OS as normal and Motorola's developers will do all the work for it. It will however be fully compatible/relockable with GrapheneOS.

I just want a key-pad, dumb style phone with GrapheneOS. Part of the switch to GrapheneOS on Pixel 8 made me realise part of Google's evil (among the other tech companies) is how much they've crafted the most addictive device imaginable.

I've cut out social media and a browser. The only thing left that I want now is a smaller, less distracting form factor

I'm not sure how will you deal with all the apps shoved down our throat.

That being said, have you tried putting all apps in 2nd profile and forcing somehow the keyboard to always show?

PS: don't forget to enable T9!

>I'm not sure how will you deal with all the apps shoved down our throat.

Do you mean to say I'll find it difficult? Challenge accepted.

Thank you! No I really just want to get rid of the large screen phone. Yes, I like T9 a lot and will enable it.

GrapheneOS without extra apps is close to a dumb phone already. Nobody's forcing you to use the browser.