Just because they have the same function in the OS doesn't mean the hardware is the same. That's where custom ROMs falter, with closed sourced hardware drivers.

The issue isn't normalisation, it's inaccessibility to understand the core functionality to drive the hardware.

It is on purpose

What the hell are you talking about?? You've just made up this "ARM ecosystem" thing, when it never was a thing.

ARM design processors, then license those designs to other companies to build devices. There is no "ecosystem" because they don't define the rest of the device.

The "ecosystem" you're referring to is the overall phone itself, much of which is defined by Android and Google more than it is by ARM.

First, phone makers need a strong market signal that a significant number of people do give a damn about security and privacy.

When "everyone" is on Whatsapp/Facebook/X/etc., it's hard to believe!

You'd need be able to relock the bootloader while allowing any properly signed OS to be installed, even custom ones. There's a few phones that let you do this that aren't Pixels but not really documented well. Apparently the bootloader relock is an advertised feature and not an oversight like other phones^1^.

That and google has the titan m2 chip so I'm assuming Motorola will incorporate something similar as well along with proper hardware support.^2^

If you want to have a cheap phone that runs a secure os securely, you'd need to build it (like Lineage os)and sign it yourself with your own keys.

And then with this you'd have to find a phone that supports lineage os, has an unlockable bootloader, has an unlockable bootloader that will let you use your own keys, and have the patience to build LOS yourself. I've tried this once and it's hard.

My last Android phone was a moto e2 LTE running lineageos and I was running around with an unlocked bootloader. I was a teenager so no banking apps and nothing was really looking for root or bootloader state. This was a $40 smartphone in 2015 with 1 gb of ram. Anything was an improvement.

^1^: Documented phones that had self signed copies of LineageOS are the Pixel 4, OnePlus 7 pro and OnePlus 8t. https://xdaforums.com/t/guide-re-locking-the-bootloader-on-the-oneplus-8t-with-a-self-signed-build-of-los-18-1.4259409/

^2^: Im used to old Lenovo owned Motorola with ill supported phones. The aforementioned moto e2 lost support less than a year after launch (but that was more due the handover to Lenovo and that was a Google designed phone). A lot of their E line phones would get one version and then a new phone would drop with basically the same hardware. E4 and E5 were like that. The more expensive ones had a bit of improvement but not much more. Supposedly they want to get better with support but I won't be surprised if that promise falls short.

Have you seen RAM and storage prices there isn't going to be any more 200 dollar phones.

The FLX1s has this feature:

https://furilabs.com/flx1s-meets-the-big-screen/

Sigh, me too

Unfortunately no, I tried using Nix on Droid and it's super buggy and Android's aggressive OOM killer and lack of systemd didn't help, NixOS-AVF on Android Terminal is probably going to be my next shot, and hopefully the Linux support on Fairphone makes more progress

Till it lags like crazy and closes all your apps.

Unfortunately once microSD, headphone jack, and removable batteries were gone I moved to iPhone.

My thought was if I lose all the the things I like about Android, why would I not be in the more cohesive ecosystem?

I use Linux for gaming and Mac OS for work. I waited years for Android/chromeOS to catch up, but Google can’t even get a messaging app/video chat app right.

The day memory cards and removable batteries come back I’ll think about leaving.

They're keeping a low profile on their surveillance technology while successfully marketing themselves as a privacy alternative in consumer tech. Its pretty fascinating to watch. I wouldn't blame anyone for missing it.

It's also worth reading up on Aviglon, a subsidiary of Motorola specializing in surveillance technology.

Or so we hope, anyway.

It's open source, but the license agreement prohibits using it in other projects. You can do it for your own personal builds, but not any published builds.

This is supported in AOSP now.

No it isn't. GrapheneOS is directly based on AOSP, so it includes everything AOSP does. GOS devs have made it clear they want you to use gestures, and they only include the navbar at all because it's still in AOSP.

Inverted navbar is in wide a range of other AOSP custom ROMs (including LineageOS, which could be confused with pure AOSP), because those developers chose to incorporate it. But it isn't in AOSP by default.

This doesn’t seem like a mature thing to say just because you want to flip buttons and are annoyed that the privacy and security-focused project didn’t add a feature to flip buttons.

It's an accurate take on their general attitude to polite requests on their github. And the reason the requests are so excessively polite is because people are treading on eggshells due to their diva reputation - albeit, this reputation is somewhat drowned out by their fandom.

It's also not mature to downvote people just because you disagree with them.

And furthermore, the reason I use the navbar is because I want a force close long-press gesture on the back button, so I can more easily close apps and stop their background processes. To me, that's a fairly important feature for privacy and security. That's also likely a big reason Google pushed away from that, and to see GOS devs align themselves with Google in such a manner raises my eyebrow against them, at the very least.

For 300-350 € I can find just refurbished pixel 8 at best. Can you indicate where to get pixel 10 for that price?

By reading this comment, you ("the reader") agree to relinquish all of your past, future & present assets, property, capital & souls to me ("the commenter").

This policy supersedes any applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances, international treaties, and legal agreements that would otherwise apply.

If any provision of this contract is found by a court to be unenforceable, it nevertheless remains in force.

Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by the lemmy user ferric_carcinization from the lemmy instance lemmy.ml.