I said “most users”. There are some who are still experiencing issues, which is being looked into. Other people have had issues that were fixed by clearing the storage for Google Play, Google Play Services, Google Messages, then granting all necessary permissions before launching Google Messages again.
It’s my understanding that the changes that were made didn’t make things more or less proprietary. Some drivers are still open source, others are still closed source. The device trees mostly have other things in them like configuration files and stuff like that.
It just won’t work on GrapheneOS. Not sure if disabling it will work on the stock OS. We will have to wait and see on that one.
The way Google will block apps with unverified developers won’t work on GrapheneOS. The change won’t be part of AOSP. On the stock OS, the functionality will be handled by another Google app that has privileged access. GrapheneOS won’t be affected directly.
Just check the project’s X account. The OEM partnership is mentioned very regularly.
Google has already shared how apps’ developers will be verified. They’re adding another app that will have access to block installing apps or disable them. That won’t work on GrapheneOS because 1. the app won’t be installed and 2. the app won’t have that kind of privileged access.
It’s my understanding that RCS was fixed for most users after this update: https://grapheneos.org/releases#2025092700. You may need to grant permissions to Google Play Services first, then clear Google Messages’ storage, grant permissions to Google Messages, then try setting it up again.
At this point GrapheneOS is big enough that there are people who do pay attention to changes and forks that would notice as well.
Well, the fact is it is impossible to target someone with a modified update. The update client sends no IDs to the server, it just fetches static files and determines whether it needs to update or not. The server only has static files.
thet could, in theory, make a single OTA that everybody gets, but checks for a specific IMEI or other device ID and only there enables some malicious payload.
That would be very obvious in the code. And how would devices be targeted if GrapheneOS project members don’t know the unique IDs because they’re not sent in the first place? There are also community members who build GrapheneOS on their own and check if the builds match because GrapheneOS builds are reproducible. It just isn’t possible. But even if people don’t believe all of that, they can still disable the updater app and sideload updates manually. Instructions are on the website.
That’s because they’re the only ones that meet the project’s requirements at the moment, but that may soon change soon. Maybe you’ve seen the news that the project is in talks with an OEM for them to meet the requirements and have official support for GrapheneOS for some of the existing devices.
Me being a GrapheneOS moderator doesn’t change things. I’m a random person on the internet who was interested in the project and helped out in the community before joining the moderation team. All of the Rossmann stuff happened before I was a moderator.
I’m a GrapheneOS user and I am a member of the team. If I ever saw anything I had a problem with, I’d jump ship. All people I’ve met that are involved with the project are smart and dedicated. None of them are “lunatics”.
But since my affiliation with the project makes you think this way, I feel it’s only fair to point out that from where I’m standing I’m the one who’s being reasonable here. You’re the one who seems to have an odd, unwavering support for Rossmann or maybe an odd unwavering dislike for GrapheneOS. What are your affiliations? Why are you defending Rossmann’s harassment? Why are you using such over the top charged language about our team, such as calling us lunatics?
Rossmann has only ever said that he no longer feels comfortable using GrapehenOS on his personal device due to Micay’s personal grudge.
Which was a lie. He kept using GrapheneOS for a long time after that. Even though targeted updates aren’t possible he left his video up with that disinformation anyway.
Rossmann has never even criticised GrapheneOS itself, only Micay.
He didn’t have to. All he needed to do was make people think the lead developer was crazy and that the OS isn’t trustworthy. His video has negatively affected GrapheneOS for sure. Still does considering comments like these…
he is an unhinged lunatic
and these.
GOS team is now working on trying to find OEM to meet their specs. TBD.
More like actively working with an OEM now for them to add official support to some of their devices in the near future.
This could prevent my next phone from being a Pixel.
But it doesn’t make sense for them to do that. They can’t just sell devices promoting them as “unlocked” then brick people’s phones or locking them out so they can’t access their data down the road.
Now, I agree that the long term future of GrapheneOS, if it has one, probably isn’t Google hardware.
Maybe, maybe not. 10th generation Pixels can be supported, so it’ll be a while still. But GrapheneOS is in talks with an OEM and it’s looking likely that they’ll have official support for GrapheneOS for their devices soon enough.
Well I suppose they could? But then how would that end for them? They sold devices with unlocked bootloaders. Changing that might get them in legal trouble. I’d think if a device is sold unlocked, it’ll remain unlocked.
GrapheneOS isn’t dying. There’s an OEM partnership in the works and they’ll release devices with support for GrapheneOS in a year or two. GrapheneOS still provides updates and while the changes have made some things harder, the project is still going strong.