It seems quite stable from my experience, and from online reviews. Some might say it us more stable than stock pixel. For example pixel 6 used to suffer from network issue due to google’s software: https://www.androidcentral.com/pixel-6-possible-network-connection-fix , which I haven’t found any discussion about the same problem on grapheneos.
However graphenos has its problems:
App installation is very slow, this it further worsened by crapy apps on google play, for example Mcdonald app took me around 5mins to install app for the first time. But it will only be annoying when you install, since update is done in the background, so you will hardly notice it.
No support for android auto.
No now playing, call screning, face unlock (camera and photo, on the other hand, works fantastically, even without network premission).
fingerprint will not trigger at least 30% of the time in low light. (I have a 7a, so it is probably because the software is not yet optimized)
“Android Runtime Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation/profiling is fully disabled and replaced with full ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation. The only JIT compilation in the base OS is the v8 JavaScript JIT which is disabled by default for the Vanadium browser with per-site exception support.”
The issue was resolved in a software update. I recently got a Pixel 7 and didn’t even know about the existence of a fingerprint scanner issue until I came to this thread. It works perfectly fine now regardless of lighting conditions.
I think the in screen fingerprint reader on pixel is currently optical (which is just a little in screen camera), so it needs more optimizations to work well under low light.
I don’t use GPS much, but I haven’t encounter any problem so far. Graphene uses GPS instead of network location, so it likely doesn’t work as well under a roof. But again, I personally have not encountered a problem.
The fingerprint scanner issue has been resolved with an update. I recently bought a Pixel 7 and am surprised to hear about a fingerprint scanner issue. It is working just fine now regardless of lighting conditions.
I have used GrapheneOS for years now and it’s absolutely great as a daily driver. Very few apps malfunction and you can even use Google play store if you want. Updates are very frequent and Android OS updates usually release even faster than Google
Depends on how you use your phone. Main thing I miss is Google Pay’s tap to pay (disabled by Google unless you run a Google certified OS…which Google could easily certify Graphene but won’t), but most banking apps NFC tap to pay work.
Android Auto also doesn’t work, but I never used it. Some people might, though.
which Google could easily certify Graphene but won’t
I’m not on the Google fan bus and would be the first one here to drop Android at the drop of a hat, however, you are being deliberately deceptive here and I hate people like that: the reason it’s not certified is because Graphene devs don’t want to pay to get it certified, it’s not because Google refused to, like you are saying.
I’m not being deliberately deceptive. Google absolutely could whitelist GrapheneOS if Google chose to, just like any app developer can as well by checking for the verifiedBootState with proper verifiedBootKey (GrapheneOS attestation link below).
Now, I don’t see Google doing that as GrapheneOS doesn’t and won’t ship with Play Store, Play services, or Service Framework. GrapehenOS actually has a compatibility layer so those don’t get special and device wide privileges like they do on devices that ship with them (sandboxed link below)…which Google probably requires. And I don’t see GrapheneOS budging on this as that’s one of their main selling points for security and privacy.
But I’m always down to learn and I’m not a developer. I don’t suppose you have a link that says the main thing that Graphene is missing is handing over money to Google to get certified, and ideally how much? If that was it, I’d be willing to bet money Graphene would’ve forked over the cash by now.
I did acknowledge what you said by saying Google doesn’t want Graphene not including GMS stuff and won’t whitelist GrapheneOS, despite Graphene’s extra security measures. But this doesn’t change the fact that Google could…but won’t.
When I got a degoogled phone, I’d already decided I do not trust Google with my data and I want to be far away from them. With that decision came the decision that I don’t consider them an authority I rely on, and don’t want their opinion on what is good and what isn’t. If people aren’t ready to degoogle, that is fine, but to ask google if it’s cool to degoogle is a an area where maybe folk aren’t ready to degoogle.
you are being deliberately deceptive here and I hate people like that
To be fair, you have no idea if they are being deceptive. They might simply not be aware that GrapheneOS chose not to pay to get certified. I certainly didn’t know that, and I’m not at all certain that Google would certify them if they chose to pay. Do you have a source for that?
Any developer can go here to start the process for GMS certification. If the Graphene devs didn’t know this, then they are fucking stupid, which i know they are not. Their TOS provides you the answers:
GMS is only available through a licence with Google and delivers a holistic set of popular apps and cloud-based services.
And I think the costs vary depending on how much bandwidth traffic you will be bringing Google to serve the certified content. Also, they allow you to certify non-Android OSes (such as Tizen and etc).
That’s a very funny post to read. In summary they are demanding Google comply with their own standards they designed. It’s definitely two children yelling “No, you!” at each other.
I like Graphenes standards better, but it looks like Google is sticking with Play Integrity API over hardware-key attestation because it’s less insane to force end users to rely on costly solutions and more compatible with different commercial vendors (looks like some Certificate Authority vendors are effected).
Are there any major daily driver features from Android missing here? Also are the updates usually stable?
deleted by creator
It seems quite stable from my experience, and from online reviews. Some might say it us more stable than stock pixel. For example pixel 6 used to suffer from network issue due to google’s software: https://www.androidcentral.com/pixel-6-possible-network-connection-fix , which I haven’t found any discussion about the same problem on grapheneos.
However graphenos has its problems:
Why would the app installation be slow? Do they create sandbox for each app?
“Android Runtime Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation/profiling is fully disabled and replaced with full ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation. The only JIT compilation in the base OS is the v8 JavaScript JIT which is disabled by default for the Vanadium browser with per-site exception support.”
https://grapheneos.org/features#exploit-mitigations
No Android auto is a deal killer for me.
Why would fingerprint reading get worse if the ambient light is low?
The issue was resolved in a software update. I recently got a Pixel 7 and didn’t even know about the existence of a fingerprint scanner issue until I came to this thread. It works perfectly fine now regardless of lighting conditions.
I think the in screen fingerprint reader on pixel is currently optical (which is just a little in screen camera), so it needs more optimizations to work well under low light.
https://www.howtogeek.com/694294/how-does-in-display-fingerprint-scanning-work/
However pixel 8 is rumored to move to ultrasonic, which probably will not be affected by low light.
Face unlock and fingerprint unlock are the biometric stuff I avoid when I get a phone to improve my privacy. I’ve not had issues with download speeds.
What is android auto?
Edit: auto = some car integration. Hands free works OOTB for me on GrapheneOS. Not needed anything more.
Does GPS work as expected for you?
I don’t use GPS much, but I haven’t encounter any problem so far. Graphene uses GPS instead of network location, so it likely doesn’t work as well under a roof. But again, I personally have not encountered a problem.
The fingerprint scanner issue has been resolved with an update. I recently bought a Pixel 7 and am surprised to hear about a fingerprint scanner issue. It is working just fine now regardless of lighting conditions.
Nice! I have a 7a so it is probably because the software is not optimized yet.
I have used GrapheneOS for years now and it’s absolutely great as a daily driver. Very few apps malfunction and you can even use Google play store if you want. Updates are very frequent and Android OS updates usually release even faster than Google
Depends on how you use your phone. Main thing I miss is Google Pay’s tap to pay (disabled by Google unless you run a Google certified OS…which Google could easily certify Graphene but won’t), but most banking apps NFC tap to pay work.
Android Auto also doesn’t work, but I never used it. Some people might, though.
https://grapheneos.org/features#sandboxed-google-play
I’m not on the Google fan bus and would be the first one here to drop Android at the drop of a hat, however, you are being deliberately deceptive here and I hate people like that: the reason it’s not certified is because Graphene devs don’t want to pay to get it certified, it’s not because Google refused to, like you are saying.
I’m not being deliberately deceptive. Google absolutely could whitelist GrapheneOS if Google chose to, just like any app developer can as well by checking for the verifiedBootState with proper verifiedBootKey (GrapheneOS attestation link below).
Now, I don’t see Google doing that as GrapheneOS doesn’t and won’t ship with Play Store, Play services, or Service Framework. GrapehenOS actually has a compatibility layer so those don’t get special and device wide privileges like they do on devices that ship with them (sandboxed link below)…which Google probably requires. And I don’t see GrapheneOS budging on this as that’s one of their main selling points for security and privacy.
But I’m always down to learn and I’m not a developer. I don’t suppose you have a link that says the main thing that Graphene is missing is handing over money to Google to get certified, and ideally how much? If that was it, I’d be willing to bet money Graphene would’ve forked over the cash by now.
https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide
https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
Hi google, can you approve our phone that basically cuts your apps out and offers privacy from your mass spying operation please? Such a weird point.
I did acknowledge what you said by saying Google doesn’t want Graphene not including GMS stuff and won’t whitelist GrapheneOS, despite Graphene’s extra security measures. But this doesn’t change the fact that Google could…but won’t.
When I got a degoogled phone, I’d already decided I do not trust Google with my data and I want to be far away from them. With that decision came the decision that I don’t consider them an authority I rely on, and don’t want their opinion on what is good and what isn’t. If people aren’t ready to degoogle, that is fine, but to ask google if it’s cool to degoogle is a an area where maybe folk aren’t ready to degoogle.
To be fair, you have no idea if they are being deceptive. They might simply not be aware that GrapheneOS chose not to pay to get certified. I certainly didn’t know that, and I’m not at all certain that Google would certify them if they chose to pay. Do you have a source for that?
Any developer can go here to start the process for GMS certification. If the Graphene devs didn’t know this, then they are fucking stupid, which i know they are not. Their TOS provides you the answers:
And I think the costs vary depending on how much bandwidth traffic you will be bringing Google to serve the certified content. Also, they allow you to certify non-Android OSes (such as Tizen and etc).
According to this post, it’s not that they don’t want to, it’s that GrapheneOS can’t be certified:
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/475-wallet-google-pay/9
That post implies that there is something Google won’t do which prevents them from certifying, which supports what the OP was saying.
That’s a very funny post to read. In summary they are demanding Google comply with their own standards they designed. It’s definitely two children yelling “No, you!” at each other.
I like Graphenes standards better, but it looks like Google is sticking with Play Integrity API over hardware-key attestation because it’s less insane to force end users to rely on costly solutions and more compatible with different commercial vendors (looks like some Certificate Authority vendors are effected).
In the UK we have tap to pay debit cards. Mixing that in with the phone is always weird, especially from a privacy perspective. I wouldn’t want that.