No. As long as the base remains opensource (AOSP), they can remove the bad parts. Graphene has made numerous contributions to AOSP, I'm confident they can manage that. And if the user base growths, I hope their fundings will follow.

It would be a good thing for the world if AOSP was forked with big resources behind an open project with an open governance. But that needs lot of resources.

Neither is true, that's not how forking works. But there is some truth to it in that it can start to become significantly more difficult to keep in sync as time goes on, depending on how obnoxious the security becomes and how many places they have to remove it.

Consider the trivially naive case where Google implements this feature in a single function: "function app_is_signed() -> bool" then the fork just adds "return true;" to the beginning of that function, and happily merges every other update Google makes from then on with zero issues. Even if the code for "app_is_signed" itself changes, nobody cares, because the first thing it does is return true and everything else Google ever tells it to check or do is ignored, the function can still be used everywhere throughout the code, it just no longer actually checks anything in Graphene, whereas it does check things in Google's Android.

Of course the reality is much more complicated than that, but the principle is the same. It's only a question of how obnoxious and difficult Google chooses to be about it. They could move the function around every update, or use many different functions, make a whole system out of it, make it do crazy cryptographic validations and checksums in various different places of the code, have watchdog tasks that are checking that the validation code is getting used. They could be really, really obnoxious about it, if they want to be, and they have more resources than the Graphene OS developers probably do to undo and keep undoing all these obstacles, so if they really want to devote that much time and energy to making Graphene's position untenable, they can. But they could also be doing that now, and they're not. Crackers have been fighting these sort of battles against copy-protected software for ages, it's the same principles, and much of the same economic choices go into it. How much does Google want Graphene OS to go away? How much is it worth to them? It has to have a dollar value to them, and that dollar value might be significantly higher than they're willing to bother with.

They're working on it. Unfortunately most phones have poor security hardware, which is why its limited to Pixels at the moment.

It bugs me also.

My thinking is that the part of Google that I think is bad is their advertising and algorithmic recommendation systems which are built on private data that I no longer wish to divulge.

The Pixel is made by a company that used to be called HTC before they were consumed by Alphabet. That company produced good hardware that was smartly designed and innovative. That legacy continues with the device that Google has sells as the Pixel.

There are a few things about the phone that Alphabet has tainted, such as the inability to use NFC payments because hardware running GrapheneOS isn't allowed into their secure hardware attestation chain. Not for any real technical reason, only because it allows Alphabet to disincentivize people away from a competitor by abusing their many monopoly powers.

GrapheneOS takes advantage of the excellently designed HTC hardware to create an operating system that is designed from the ground up to be secure. It then leverages the complete control over your hardware to put Alphabet's other software inside of a little box where it constantly lies to the software in a way that lets your applications work without them actually being able to access everything on your device.

Yes, it is technically an Alphabet product and giving them money can feel distasteful. However, in this case by buying their hardware you can cut off their software, which is the actual thing that is negatively affecting everything.

I'd buy any other phone that fully supported GrapheneOS's requirements for future devices.

Until then, I'm less worried about giving HTC money than I am about having a device that I know is under my control and that works to protect my privacy.

Buy refurbished. GOS support will be coming to a (yet unnamed) OEM.

The banks don't want their payment systems being accessed by devices that are compromised by malicious actors.

The attestation chain allows for Google to tell the apps 'Yep, this system is running a known safe image that has been crytographically verified using the secure hardware on the device'. The apps will only allow their payment systems to be accessed (like, to send an NFC payment) if this check can verify that.

If you want technical details: https://developers.home.google.com/matter/primer/attestation

They don't NEED it for NFC payments to work, this is a way of limiting attack vectors on their payment infrastructure (or, cynically, a way for Google to ensure that no competing OS can exist because people would rather give Google all of their privacy so they can pull a phone out of their pocket rather than a credit card.