Replies (54)
GrapheneOS is easy to install for now.
Many OEMs have done this for a decade and a half. Some come with locked bootloaders. The best devices for custom ROMs are Google's devices as they always come with unlocked bootloaders, at least from Google, some carriers have locked the bootloaders and made them unlockable in th past (FU Verizon).
Fomo kickin' in...
And how convenient that the EU has just passed a bill this month that bootloader- unlocking features are no longer allowed on devices with CE approval?? Samsung is already officially complying. Not that it was ever easy to do so with their crap.
Stock up on devices that still can take Lineage and Graphene OS, or be at the mercy of these retarded circumstances.
This kind of shenanigans is why defending open source projects that are creating bridges to internet freedom, like
@Zapstore ,is so important ✨🧱🫂
#bridge2freedom
View quoted note →The web installer is retarded easy. Nothing like the old ROM days.
This is quite terrible news. My trash vibe-coded morse code app will now doxx me. Lovely.
sir. that's what we call them because that's what they used to be, when firmware was read only.
the only way you'd be able to do that is 1) the developer would have to verify themselves with the googs. 2) you would have to install a custom operating system on your phone from a third party provider, such as Graphene.
it's going to prevent a lot of people from easily sideloading applications.
oh wow. i didn't see that? wtf times are we living in?
I mean, as long as Apple gets away with it, Google will trend towards it... Give them another five years, and they'll push everyone into some kind of TestFlight system to side-load, and just claim they are following best practices.
Is there any info on how this would be enforced? Will it be enforced on the system level or with Play Protect or something similar?
Try telling that to the
@GrapheneOS team. 😉
I installed custom ROMs for nearly a decade on my phone before Graphene was even a thought on anyone's mind. I'll die on this hill.
I assume part of Google Play Services.
So much easier than it used to be. You can basically roll your face across a keyboard and do it.
BRB installing
it is almost that easy
And it seems like its even worse: now everyone who wants to make an app for global usage needs to pay Google 25 USD for the developer account even if they don't publish on the Google Play!
Android Developers
Android developer verification | Android Developers
Be that as it may, the more important point is this: "custom ROM" sounds shady. It's not. Let's not deter people from trying.
Graphene OS every day and twice on Sunday.
will be interesting how they are gonna handle stuff already installed, if they are tackling this im sure they are gonna try and make graphenes' life even harder too.
This is true. it even says it on the official site 😁
It will be pushed out via Google Play Services to genuine devices most likely.
LOL
If this goes down, and ROMs go, there is no longer an incentive to leave iOS.
View quoted note →PinePhone here i come
In practice that's sounds cool, but the hardware specs are just not on par with modern new devices.
Everything will now be a web app. Only thing we will need on our phones is the browser…lol
View quoted note →touche
They will have completely fallen at that point. I won't believe that's where we are headed. Literally goes against everything AOSP and the Open Handset Alliance stands for.
I hope you are right. But every couple months we seem to have another story about Google tightening its grip. 🥶
I think it will be for new installs only, however there are some related specifications on the verification page:
Android Developers
Android developer verification | Android Developers
Welll... the times of irresponsible amounts of time (all weekend) vibeing bitchat 😂
Seems like an orchestrated "attack". Laws for research:
Radio Equipment Directive (RED) 2014/53/EU and Delegated Act 2022/30.
Damn.
I always buy direct for this reason. I once had an issue with a phone that was apparently carrier unlocked but still locked in the bootloader sense. That was an early Pixel, but I still just buy direct now anyway.
This is all the reason I needed to not upgrade to a new Pixel this year. Now I'll buy a used 9 Fold to upgrade my dedicated graphene device. Google gets no extra dollars from me for this shitty behavior.
The different between verified and not verified developer is decided by Google .
not good
They responded after this though saying that the binaries are coming. I don't know if they've been released yet.
You don't have to worry about that, recital 19 of the bill literally prohibits the use of this bill as a way to excuse prohibiting the installation of 3rd party software:
Directive - 2014/53 - EN - EUR-Lex
you no longer own the device you purchased. that's what i'm reading. an other nail in the coffin. now they just need to get manufacturers disable unlocking the bootloader. game over, thanks for playing!
Damn, I hate this timeline. Fighting for self-sovereignty is so tiring ...
#GrapheneOS it is.
"Google has now stopped providing driver binaries and device trees for Pixel devices as part of the AOSP’s code."
I went and found the tweet. Damn. I remembered it incorrectly. It seems the omission was intentional because they want to support a cheaper reference device, one that's not a $1000 Google device. That makes sense, but damn does it hurt custom ROMs.
"AOSP needs a reference target that is flexible, configurable, and affordable — independent of any particular hardware, including those from Google.”
That said, in the for decade of custom ROMs, most popular devices form Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc were all getting the custom ROM treatment and none of these had device binaries or radios released.
Just arrived...from verified developers in Brazil, Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia.
Kinda futile. Not totally futile but not worth buying a whole device, imo
So based on your logic: Apple, Xiaomi and Samsung have been illegaly not allowing bootloaders to be unlocked in smartphones since 2014, impeding third parties from flashing custom software into the hardware, hence disrupting market competition?
How do you propose anyone litigates against these companies, if they are legitimately complying with 2014/53 Article 3.3(i): having features that keep their radio equipment with software that is compatibly demonstrable???
Reminding that this is about Delegated Act of 2022, which is an ammendment (by "Queen" Ursula) to, and redundantly cites, Article 3 of 2014/53.
AFAIK Samsung and Xiaomi only blocked BL unlock recently, so IDK what you mean by the 2014 (if you are referring to Odin and MI unlock tool then its a valid point)? Also, if I understand the EU RED and the recital 19 correctly, the device shouldn't block the firmware if it is compliant with RED to facilitate competition. If the ROM doesn't allow to surpass the limits imposed by the standards, then the device should allow you to use that said ROM.
