Pixel 10 was so bad I had to trade it in after using for a month. The version I got was 128GB for a whopping $600. This was my first Google device after Nexus days and I was bitterly disappointed with weird performance bugs and battery drain issues. The software does little to make up for the issues.
The replacement I got is a Motorola razr ultra folding phone.. similar perf point with 16G RAM and 512G storage. This phone is legit.
We plan to support future versions of the Motorola Signature, Razr Fold and Razr Ultra. We'll have at least a non-folding Signature successor in 2027 but aren't yet sure if the folding devices will provide what we need.
We're confident it's going to be much better hardware than Pixels and that our users will be happy with it. Our initial goal was only providing competitive security with Pixels but it's now clear we can do better in most areas. Google will likely have a significantly better secure element for a while but that can change too.
What's the point of the Pixel 11 and later now that they aren't supported by AOSP and are no longer going to be best in class for security? The updates and security features are why GrapheneOS uses them. We have ~500k users on the Pixel 6 through Pixel 10a and many of those users had multiple previous Pixel and Nexus devices for GrapheneOS. Our userbase is rapidly growing at an increasing rate and was already significant for Pixels.
Does this mean we might finally get a phone with 3.5mm jack, microSD slot and GrapheneOS support? I believe I've been asking for that for 10 years now.
The last Pixel with a 3.5mm jack was the Pixel 5a launched in August 2021. The 3rd/4th/5th gen Pixel 'a' series headphone jacks had horrible audio quality far worse than using the decent USB-C DAC included with the Pixel 2 and Pixel 3. They stopped bundling that with the Pixel 4.
You can look at the Motorola Signature (2026) for an idea of the initial device which will be a successor to it.
Razr Fold (2026) and Razr Ultra (2026) are also helpful examples of how future folding devices with GrapheneOS support would be. That might not happen in 2027 though. It's the non-folding one we know is coming in 2027.
32GB is pretty common for new laptops, especially if you’re looking to utilize your integrated graphics (shared memory). Also keep in mind that modern integrated graphics can be really good, and therefore play games that demand more memory (e.g., Panther Lake X7).
The 24GB MacBook Air is the sweet spot of that model lineup in my opinion. Even if you’re a true “web browsing only” user, you can definitely find a sale or refurbished model with 24GB and that’s a much more wise purchase for long term ownership than being stuck with 16GB.
Especially considering most laptops have soldered memory, I’d have a hard time recommending a new laptop purchase with 16GB if your intention is to keep it many years.
Even though RAM is expensive, there are deals and sales out there.
> keep in mind that modern integrated graphics can be really good
Sort of but not really? Without the wider bus (and various drawbacks) of GDDR any iGPU is very severely memory bandwidth constrained compared to a dGPU from an equivalently recent generation. It's just that a 3 or 4 generation old dGPU is sufficient for an ever increasing number of titles.
TBF it entirely depends on what is meant by "really good".
> I’d have a hard time recommending a new laptop purchase with 16GB if your intention is to keep it many years.
One of my devices still has only 8GB and I use it daily. It's really not an issue for most things.
Don’t forget that all MacBook models are “integrated graphics.” If you start doing graphical stuff or gaming you’ll need more RAM. If you’ve got a Windows laptop with an RTX 5050/5060 with its own dedicated memory, then yeah, you don’t really need more than 16GB unless you’re doing something specific.
Integrated graphics are constrained but sufficient to play AAA games.
Panther Lake laptops are roughly equivalent to an RTX 4050, which is only a single generation old. Obviously not the strongest GPU to compare against but you’re also pulling a lot less wattage doing it.
I’m sure your 8GB device is working great, but someone buying a brand new device really should avoid that since the implication is that they’re going to keep that device for somewhere between 3-7 years.
I have multiple Pixel 7 phones GrapheneOS in my family with close to zero issues. It's a good choice for GrapheneOS IMO, except that support ends in Oct 2027. The Pixel 8 is still great also but has a more fragile screen.
Get a used Pixel 8a instead of a Pixel 7. Pixel 8 and later have 7 years of support from launch instead of 5 along with MTE. The 'a' series devices are cheaper but have a variant of the same SoC for 6th through 9th gen. A used Pixel 8a or a new Pixel 10a are both very good value.
Definitely. This is great considering our family Google One plan has 100GB storage which is more than 60% full, but I don't really need to sweat it because I can back up most things on this phone and ignore Google photos backup alerts.
Pixel 8 or later is required for DisplayPort alternate mode. Pixel 8 through Pixel 10a are also the recommended devices for GrapheneOS due to 7 years of support from launch and providing the full set of our security requirements. We don't recommend buying a 7th gen Pixel anymore and definitely not 6th gen.
Do they allow Dex on Samsung flagships but without a exernal screen yet? Samsung Tab A10 FE had this and it could turn into a desktop in seconds without needing a second screen. However when I thought this would be a killer feature of the Galaxy Fold it was completely missing and just like the flagships of the time it needed a wireless or a wired monitor to run Dex
Actually, because it's a fold and the external screen is very good, I end up checking notifications and stuff without having to open the phone, which results in less distraction and screen time.
It was removed from the non-Fold devices in the US. They kept it for other countries due to only considering the US carriers to be ready for eSIM-only.
It was removed from the whole non-folding Pixel 10 series in the US. It still has the SIM card slot elsewhere. We had to return a Pixel 10 bricked due to a firmware bug and it was the US model since we'd bought it in the US and sent it overseas with a forwarding service. Google's repair partner shop was quite confused about the lack of a SIM card slot to get the IMEI and we only had a serial number but they figured out using the serial number instead.
There's still dual SIM support either way and you can store dozens of inactive eSIMs. The main downside of eSIMs is widespread lack of transfer support by carriers.
After switching providers with a recent phone with eSIM, I would say I’d never want to go back to physical SIMs ever again.
They’re going to go away worldwide eventually, they’re just more easily removed in the US where the carriers are more bleeding edge on features and there are only 3 providers to think about in a very large homogenous market.
The difference between waiting for a SIM card to arrive in the mail or traveling to a store, fiddling with a paperclip, tray, and impossibly tiny nano-SIM versus switching providers in 10 minutes via an app is night and day.
Most SIM/dual SIM solutions also involve removing both SIM cards at once even to swap out one of two, and they tend to require device restarts.
In the past I’ve also had network problems as a result of bad/damaged SIM cards.
Can I switch out an eSIM while running an AOSP based ROM yet (ie no proprietary userspace)? Last time I checked (several years ago) it didn't seem to be possible. Did that change?
You seem to forget that moving an eSIM between phones isn't nearly as straightforward as moving a physical SIM, and often must be requested or approved by the carrier. If for some reason you intend to use the same SIM in various phones for one reason or another, it's a huge inconvenience.
Technically, the same thing can happen with a physical SIM. I tried that with a Nexus 5X on Verizon and that's how I learned their network has an allowlist system.
How does the carrier even know what phone you are going to use? My last SIM was bought in store at T Mobile, for cash, and I can freely move between phones. I never buy phones from carriers. My Pixel as bought directly from Google and immediately flashed with Graphene.
It was removed from the non-Fold devices in the US. They kept it for other countries due to only considering the US carriers to be ready for eSIM-only.
"Pixel 11 series is a lot more expensive for an incremental improvement to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and reduced RAM for the Pro base models. They finally caught up to the last generation of Qualcomm cellular radio. It's overpriced, the upgrades aren't impressive and losing MTE is appalling."
What, MTE is such a promising tech and for security and now that we need all security we can get. WTF this is terrible development. You cant go backwards when the world needs getting even more secure.
Such a shame. Google themselves barely utilised it in their stock builds. I wonder if there is some silicon or development overhead they decided to cut.
I'm optimistic about the Motorola partnership and when my 9 Pro is EOL I'll definitely look at how that's played out.
Google likely cut MTE to reduce the die space required by CPU cache. It saves them money on a feature they never deployed by default and only used for a few processes as part of Android Advanced Protection Mode (AAPM) without enabling it in the Linux kernel. Their security team should have gotten it deployed by default for a large portion of the OS by now and then it would have been much harder to justify removing it. The small performance impact of asymmetric mode is irrelevant for the vast majority of the OS and it can also be used in the near zero cost asynchronous mode. We use synchronous in the kernel for security reasons but they didn't have to do that.
It's a completely different story for GrapheneOS where it means losing one of the main kernel and userspace security protections. This is one of the only ways we can significantly harden the Linux kernel with existing security features. The Linux kernel has always been a huge security liability for Android and AI models are making that much more obvious to everyone.
Google will likely end up heavily using MTE in the future. Pixel 11 devices won't be able to benefit from it. They're at the start of 7 years of updates but they won't be getting the benefit of future updates enabling MTE. Pixel 8 and later will benefit from Google likely expanding use of MTE for AAPM and eventually beginning to use it by default. It's unlikely Google will stop working on expanding MTE due to the Pixel 11 hardware decision. Multiple other OEMs are interested in MTE for devices made for businesses and governments even if Google decided it wasn't worth the cost for Pixels.
I don't understand much from MTE/Android or MIE/iOS but the explanation is also confusing when:
- They claim Apple did a great job integrating MIE in iOS
- iOS doesn't encourage to opt into MTE ... Apple's docs warn developers of performance and stability issues
So it seems like even for iOS, this special security feature is only available for Apple own iOS app (at most?).
Then also:
> Even Signal doesn't opt-in. Our approach enables forcing using MTE in the standard allocators regardless.
So does that mean that Signal and any other apps are enrolled in MTE on Graphene?
iOS uses MTE for nearly all of the important parts of the OS. It uses MTE within the kernel and for a substantial portion of the base OS processes. They focused on deploying it to the most security relevant processes first but it's deployed for a large portion of the OS beyond those. Apple has done a very good job protecting the OS with it. They've done a very poor job getting the app ecosystem to adopt it.
Android has more app ecosystem adoption than iOS due to having a better open source app ecosystem where GrapheneOS users have asked apps to enable it by default. Many GrapheneOS users are also force enabling MTE for user installed apps via our recommended toggle for it. Those users are reporting invalid memory access to developers via our dedicated notification system for invalid memory accesses it catches. For Android app developers, not opting into MTE doesn't mean their app won't be used with MTE due to GrapheneOS.
GrapheneOS uses MTE for the kernel and nearly every userspace process including all the base OS apps. We've had to fix many upstream Linux kernel and Pixel kernel driver bugs found by MTE. However, we aren't trying to fix the Pixel userspace drivers code ourselves so we have a few userspace processes excluded from MTE caused by userspace driver library/service bugs.
We recommend users enable our toggle for enabling MTE by default for every user installed app not explicitly marked as incompatible in our compatibility database. GrapheneOS has user-facing notifications for invalid memory accesses caught by MTE providing a traceback to share with the app developers. Users can use the per-app toggle to work around it if it makes an app unusable. We take the same approach for other aggressive exploit protections provided by GrapheneOS. Exploit protections with only rare compatibility issues are enabled by default for apps with a per-app toggle to opt-out and no toggle for the global default.
I see a significant difference between making a security feature available but opt-in during a teething phase, and removing the feature altogether. Am I missing something?
This isn't terrible development, it's simply that GrapheneOS devs can't do miracles
They can't just continue supporting phones if they have security downgrades, especially if it's an important feature.
I think they mean "this is a terrible development" in the sense that this is terrible news/turn of events. They arent criticizing GrapheneOSs software development.
Lost any remaining respect for Pixel with the decisions they've made for Pixel 11. The product design and hardware teams have both tried to one up each other and who can deliver the bigger pile of steaming crap.
Pixel 11 has an incremental upgrade to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and less RAM for the base Pro models. It has a new major version of the secure element (Titan M3) which likely greatly improves Before First Unlock state security for users without a strong passphrase. It has a better radio from a performance and efficiency perspective but it's still a more than yearly generation behind Qualcomm. The cellular radio firmware is also likely a security downgrade but the userspace code is more secure due to moving to AOSP IMS code. If these devices hadn't removed MTE, then they would have been a sidegrade with marginally better security. Removing MTE ruins these devices for GrapheneOS. We could still support the Pixel 11 series but it would be greatly rolling back overall security to before the Pixel 8. It does at least have PAC and BTI but MTE was the main improvement with the Pixel 8 rather than those.
IMO they peaked with the Nexus 6 - camera has gotten worse and they make up with it in software or try to. You could and can see this at night or stacked shots in N6 vs pixel 4,5,6.
They bought the best phone hardware and software companies (Motorola and Android) and gutted them both.
They purchased Motorola Mobility for the patent portfolio as essentially a nuclear deterrent against Apple and then sold it to Lenovo. They're doing quite well internationally but haven't been a big brand in the US for a while. Their flagship phones are going to have GrapheneOS as a selling point soon and we'll hopefully be able to expand beyond the high end over the next couple years.
> They purchased Motorola Mobility for the patent portfolio as essentially a nuclear deterrent against Apple
By Apple, you mean Microsoft.
The early Android device makers had to pay a per device patent licensing fee to Microsoft.
Google sued Microsoft for massive amounts of money using video standards essential patents they purchased from Motorola, but it didn't work out well for them in court.
Apple was actively going after Android OEMs including Samsung too. We did mean Apple but Microsoft was also relevant. The point was that they primarily bought Motorola Mobility to strip mine it for patents.
...have you tried any of the cameras from the last 5 years or just the pixel 6? My 11 pro's cameras are by far the best cameras I've ever used on a smartphone, my previous iPhone included.
They do make limited use of it for Android Advanced Protection Mode (AAPM) introduced in Android 16. It no longer provides this upgrade for protection against exploits on the Pixel 11. They could substantially expand AAPM to using it across much more of the OS and could also start using it without AAPM since there's no significant downside to using it for most of the userspace code outside of the kernel.
It wasn't a failed experiment. There was lack of serious investment in ever widely deploying it and then cost cutting by bean counters. Apple deployed MTE significantly after Google shipped it but Apple uses it in production for everyone. Apple developed very good integration of MTE into iOS and dealt with all of the issues it uncovered in order to ship it in production. Google has been entirely capable of doing that and also entirely capable of getting a better hardware implementation to reduce the overhead.
The nearly useless LED added to the back of the Pixel 11 likely costs significantly more than the extra die space for MTE support in the CPU cache. Google's LED feature is widely panned in reviews and will likely result in selling fewer devices than if they hadn't added it. They're also going to be widely panned for removing a very high impact security feature instead of making extensive use of it and improving it. It's a poor way to run a business. Pixel 11 has been poorly received in reviews and that was before people knew they downgraded security in a major way.
Google is marketing the Pixel 11 based on incrementing the version number for the security chip (with unclear improvements) and using post-quantum secure cryptography (ML-DSA) for verified boot. If they had followed through on open sourcing the firmware and hardware for the Titan M then we would already know in what way they improved it instead of finding out over time through people's reverse engineering efforts.
Folks SWOTing everything in life like hubris ain’t a thing… all tech needs to be more secure, even more so as the asymmetry of attack and defence grows wider.
You can't just say "we need security, this is security, therefore we must do it". That's the politician's fallacy. Did you know that preventing sideloading also improves security, but GrapheneOS is adamant that sideloading must be allowed?
> Did you know that preventing sideloading also improves security
Play Store is only the safest way to obtain apps solely distributed through the Play Store. It's safer to get other apps more directly from the developers considering how much malware there is on the Play Store. There are tons of apps impersonating other software on the Play Store. There are lots of useful open source apps for people focused on privacy and security not available through the Play Store too.
It's funny how much Google lies about Android being 'secure' [1] and how much GrapheneOS, for free, improves the security of everyone with their work. Google should be, immediately, merging all patches/changes GrapheneOS makes and releasing a new build of Android to AOSP. Instead, users are subject to weak efforts to protect their security and privacy while Google parade about how good and amazing they are. They mention [1] 'This unencrypted data can be used to build user profiles or, in the hands of malicious actors'...And can't see the irony. They ARE the malicious actor and they absolutely build profiles about everyone. Whatever happened to the 'privacy sandbox' initiative again?
Anyone who values Graphene's work will purchase one of their Motorola devices, whatever the cost, otherwise it seems your choices are going to be giving up more data and control to Google, because they are clearly, obviously and systematically trying to remove GOS from Pixels (lack of source code, removing hardware features, making it purposely difficult to support pixels).
I predict by 2030 GrapheneOS will not support any new pixels entirely. The existing pixels will eventually die off and that will be that.
It's obvious they see open access to users data as a threat to their business model. No, they haven't suddenly decided to care about your privacy, they want to deny other actors access so you need to get data directly via them. They will obviously still collect it themselves via their numerous methods (play services, chrome, ad networks etc).
Good riddance to Google. I'm happy GOS is no longer dependent on their hardware.
My concern is that Motorola is a Chinese company. Sure, Pixel and Apple phones are made in China too, but they're overseen by American companies. How can we know these Motorola phones will not one day be placed on the "do not trust" list like e.g. Huawei phones?
The US government puts them on the list. I don't care that they are on the list, but it does mean they can't sell the devices in the United States. If that ever happened to Motorola, and there were still no other devices that Graphene OS supports, then there would be no options left.
Pixel 10 has 6 years of support remaining and the more recently launched Pixel 10a has even more of the support time remaining. We're hoping the Pixel 12 series brings back MTE so that it's only 1 generation not meeting our requirements. We could support the Pixel 11 series if we wanted but we'd have to heavily recommend against it. We haven't fully decided on how to handle it yet.
> placed on the do not trust list?? who places them on this list?
The President of the United States, or members of the Federal Government that have the various levers of power.
> and why do you listen to the people who place them there
If they won't allow the devices to be imported then it's not really an option. Which also means they wouldn't be allowed to connect to the cell network.
Or they could be barred from all Federal or State facilities, having to be left in a faraday bag upon entry.
Federal grants and loans to states and companies could be denied if company policy allows the use of those devices for corporate communications and purchasing decisions, etc.
You can get a Pixel 10 or wait for the upcoming Motorola flagship with GrapheneOS support. Pixel 11 only has an incremental CPU upgrade and the same GPU as the Pixel 11 anyway. It isn't much of a hardware upgrade and is even a downgrade for RAM with the base Pro devices. It's more expensive than the Pixel 10 was too.
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
Motorola doesn't have a great track records for flagships smartphones. I will keep finger crossed that we won't have to choose again between security and features but either way it's a great news, and I truly hope that GrapheneOS will be adopted by more manufacturers in the future
Motorola Signature (2026) was well received. They committed to 7 years of updates and provided top tier smartphones cameras which were previous limitations. Razr Fold (2026) has the top rated camera for a folding device on DXOMARK, unlike the huge camera downgrade for folding Pixels.
One detail that remains to be seen is whether you'll cater to the EU market, and how the impact of the memory crisis will impact the possible consumer-base. It's a weak market and sales are likely to be only the 'hardcore' users who demand/require security. I sincerely hope there are no numbers you need to hit to keep the partnership going. Sales are not likely to be at first significant, people are extremely price sensitive and I'm not sure GrapheneOS support will draw people in enough to justify the obviously now inflated costs to cover component price increases (and tariffs).
Pixels offer affordable options which is why unless you can cater to that market, a Motorola-only GrapheneOS future will only gain traction if you're able to get a cheaper low/mid-range option out there, akin to the Pixel A-series.
Is the Motorola partnership that they're ensuring support in the phone, and helping the port with docs/support perhaps, or is it even actually shipping with GrapheneOS?
They're implementing all of the features required by GrapheneOS, are helping us port GrapheneOS to the devices and may help us maintain it. They'll provide us with the drivers and firmware needed to support it too. Selling devices with GrapheneOS is planned but the details and timeline aren't worked out.
Wouldn't OHA agreements prevent shipping a non-Google-certified Android? Unless you mean a future device with GrapheneOS might potentially go through CTS and ship with Google apps preinstalled?
OEMs are fully allowed to include official support for GrapheneOS and sell batches of devices to companies selling those devices with GrapheneOS. It isn't hard to work around Google's licensing terms. It's already being done by multiple OEMs today.
Google's licensing terms are also clearly a blatant violation of antitrust law. The licensing terms have already been invalidated in multiple countries including South Korea. Samsung is no longer bound by the same terms, which isn't fair to other OEMs.
Motorola Signature (2026) has 7 years of support and the successor to it is what we'll be supporting. GrapheneOS will be providing the updates for a device running GrapheneOS so it doesn't particularly matter how quickly they ship the AOSP patches or major Android updates themselves. GrapheneOS already provides AOSP patches months before Pixels via our security preview releases. We provide Linux kernel patches many months earlier than Pixels but it's currently limited by the speed of Greg KH's GKI LTS branch unless we start doing it ourselves again.
Motorola will directly Qualcomm firmware and drivers we need which are mainly from Qualcomm. The updates will be up to us.
As far as I know, only Motorola is given access to the driver source code for all the chips, which then as part of using it, they are obligated to release it, which then GrapheneOS can then access and use it.
As a result, Motorola's software support is just as important as Motorola's hardware
We won't have to depend on Motorola's public OS releases for access to the firmware and drivers as we do for Pixels. We'll also have access to a lot more than what's mandatory to provide due to GPLv2.
You can get a Pixel 10 or wait for the upcoming Motorola flagship with GrapheneOS support. Pixel 11 only has an incremental CPU upgrade and the same GPU as the Pixel 11 anyway. It isn't much of a hardware upgrade and is even a downgrade for RAM with the base Pro devices. It's more expensive than the Pixel 10 was too.
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
Feeling like my Pixel 9 Pro was the best timed hardware buy I've made in recent years.
The 10 dropped the physical SIM slot and Google started with their device tree shenanigans that year, with little to no improvements in exchange.
I've got 16GB of RAM and 512GB in an ecosystem that shows every sign of regressing in capacities due to component price inflation.
Very interested to see what Motorola does next year, however.
Pixel 10 was so bad I had to trade it in after using for a month. The version I got was 128GB for a whopping $600. This was my first Google device after Nexus days and I was bitterly disappointed with weird performance bugs and battery drain issues. The software does little to make up for the issues.
The replacement I got is a Motorola razr ultra folding phone.. similar perf point with 16G RAM and 512G storage. This phone is legit.
We plan to support future versions of the Motorola Signature, Razr Fold and Razr Ultra. We'll have at least a non-folding Signature successor in 2027 but aren't yet sure if the folding devices will provide what we need.
We're confident it's going to be much better hardware than Pixels and that our users will be happy with it. Our initial goal was only providing competitive security with Pixels but it's now clear we can do better in most areas. Google will likely have a significantly better secure element for a while but that can change too.
What's the point of the Pixel 11 and later now that they aren't supported by AOSP and are no longer going to be best in class for security? The updates and security features are why GrapheneOS uses them. We have ~500k users on the Pixel 6 through Pixel 10a and many of those users had multiple previous Pixel and Nexus devices for GrapheneOS. Our userbase is rapidly growing at an increasing rate and was already significant for Pixels.
Does this mean we might finally get a phone with 3.5mm jack, microSD slot and GrapheneOS support? I believe I've been asking for that for 10 years now.
The last Pixel with a 3.5mm jack was the Pixel 5a launched in August 2021. The 3rd/4th/5th gen Pixel 'a' series headphone jacks had horrible audio quality far worse than using the decent USB-C DAC included with the Pixel 2 and Pixel 3. They stopped bundling that with the Pixel 4.
You can look at the Motorola Signature (2026) for an idea of the initial device which will be a successor to it.
Razr Fold (2026) and Razr Ultra (2026) are also helpful examples of how future folding devices with GrapheneOS support would be. That might not happen in 2027 though. It's the non-folding one we know is coming in 2027.
Ahm… phones have as much memory as my laptop? Man, here was I thinking a Pixel 7 would make a good Graphene device.
32GB is pretty common for new laptops, especially if you’re looking to utilize your integrated graphics (shared memory). Also keep in mind that modern integrated graphics can be really good, and therefore play games that demand more memory (e.g., Panther Lake X7).
The 24GB MacBook Air is the sweet spot of that model lineup in my opinion. Even if you’re a true “web browsing only” user, you can definitely find a sale or refurbished model with 24GB and that’s a much more wise purchase for long term ownership than being stuck with 16GB.
Especially considering most laptops have soldered memory, I’d have a hard time recommending a new laptop purchase with 16GB if your intention is to keep it many years.
Even though RAM is expensive, there are deals and sales out there.
> keep in mind that modern integrated graphics can be really good
Sort of but not really? Without the wider bus (and various drawbacks) of GDDR any iGPU is very severely memory bandwidth constrained compared to a dGPU from an equivalently recent generation. It's just that a 3 or 4 generation old dGPU is sufficient for an ever increasing number of titles.
TBF it entirely depends on what is meant by "really good".
> I’d have a hard time recommending a new laptop purchase with 16GB if your intention is to keep it many years.
One of my devices still has only 8GB and I use it daily. It's really not an issue for most things.
Don’t forget that all MacBook models are “integrated graphics.” If you start doing graphical stuff or gaming you’ll need more RAM. If you’ve got a Windows laptop with an RTX 5050/5060 with its own dedicated memory, then yeah, you don’t really need more than 16GB unless you’re doing something specific.
Integrated graphics are constrained but sufficient to play AAA games.
Panther Lake laptops are roughly equivalent to an RTX 4050, which is only a single generation old. Obviously not the strongest GPU to compare against but you’re also pulling a lot less wattage doing it.
I’m sure your 8GB device is working great, but someone buying a brand new device really should avoid that since the implication is that they’re going to keep that device for somewhere between 3-7 years.
And then there's Apple, selling new MacBooks with 8GB RAM (e.g., the neo)
For what it is, it’s not a bad device, but you’re definitely better off grabbing an M3 MacBook Air 16GB for around the same price.
I have multiple Pixel 7 phones GrapheneOS in my family with close to zero issues. It's a good choice for GrapheneOS IMO, except that support ends in Oct 2027. The Pixel 8 is still great also but has a more fragile screen.
I haven't used any newer devices with it yet.
Sounds good, thank you. The Pixel 8 is way outside my budget, it’ll mostly be a testing device for my mobile apps (gotta make them work on GOS).
Get a used Pixel 8a instead of a Pixel 7. Pixel 8 and later have 7 years of support from launch instead of 5 along with MTE. The 'a' series devices are cheaper but have a variant of the same SoC for 6th through 9th gen. A used Pixel 8a or a new Pixel 10a are both very good value.
Definitely. This is great considering our family Google One plan has 100GB storage which is more than 60% full, but I don't really need to sweat it because I can back up most things on this phone and ignore Google photos backup alerts.
And that's why I refuse to buy phones without microSD slot. I've got 2TB of storage in a $300 phone, for all my music and photos.
With a BT keyboard, and a decent USB-C/HDMI screen, such a phone may be an acceptable laptop. Both Samsung and Google support desktop mode now.
Pixel 8 or later is required for DisplayPort alternate mode. Pixel 8 through Pixel 10a are also the recommended devices for GrapheneOS due to 7 years of support from launch and providing the full set of our security requirements. We don't recommend buying a 7th gen Pixel anymore and definitely not 6th gen.
Do they allow Dex on Samsung flagships but without a exernal screen yet? Samsung Tab A10 FE had this and it could turn into a desktop in seconds without needing a second screen. However when I thought this would be a killer feature of the Galaxy Fold it was completely missing and just like the flagships of the time it needed a wireless or a wired monitor to run Dex
Or a lapdock for an all-in-one equivalent. The latest NexDock finally has a decent touchpad.
Actually, because it's a fold and the external screen is very good, I end up checking notifications and stuff without having to open the phone, which results in less distraction and screen time.
At what point do we blame google for going the route of regressive and damaging business tacitcs to earn a penny while burning a dollar?
The 11 is a complete turd. Less RAM than the 10.
Sticking with a 9 Pro or 10 Pro is the smart move right now. I’m actually considering spending $400 to get a broken 9 Pro XL fixed…
"The 10 dropped the physical SIM slot"
I'm assuming that's a country specific/dependent thing?
(My pixel 10 does have a physical sim slot).
It was removed from the non-Fold devices in the US. They kept it for other countries due to only considering the US carriers to be ready for eSIM-only.
> The 10 dropped the physical SIM slot
Not sure about the 10, but at least the 10 Pro still has one.
It was removed from the whole non-folding Pixel 10 series in the US. It still has the SIM card slot elsewhere. We had to return a Pixel 10 bricked due to a firmware bug and it was the US model since we'd bought it in the US and sent it overseas with a forwarding service. Google's repair partner shop was quite confused about the lack of a SIM card slot to get the IMEI and we only had a serial number but they figured out using the serial number instead.
There's still dual SIM support either way and you can store dozens of inactive eSIMs. The main downside of eSIMs is widespread lack of transfer support by carriers.
After switching providers with a recent phone with eSIM, I would say I’d never want to go back to physical SIMs ever again.
They’re going to go away worldwide eventually, they’re just more easily removed in the US where the carriers are more bleeding edge on features and there are only 3 providers to think about in a very large homogenous market.
The difference between waiting for a SIM card to arrive in the mail or traveling to a store, fiddling with a paperclip, tray, and impossibly tiny nano-SIM versus switching providers in 10 minutes via an app is night and day.
Most SIM/dual SIM solutions also involve removing both SIM cards at once even to swap out one of two, and they tend to require device restarts.
In the past I’ve also had network problems as a result of bad/damaged SIM cards.
Can I switch out an eSIM while running an AOSP based ROM yet (ie no proprietary userspace)? Last time I checked (several years ago) it didn't seem to be possible. Did that change?
You seem to forget that moving an eSIM between phones isn't nearly as straightforward as moving a physical SIM, and often must be requested or approved by the carrier. If for some reason you intend to use the same SIM in various phones for one reason or another, it's a huge inconvenience.
Technically, the same thing can happen with a physical SIM. I tried that with a Nexus 5X on Verizon and that's how I learned their network has an allowlist system.
How does the carrier even know what phone you are going to use? My last SIM was bought in store at T Mobile, for cash, and I can freely move between phones. I never buy phones from carriers. My Pixel as bought directly from Google and immediately flashed with Graphene.
IMEI maybe?
This could have also been an issue where I needed to activate on some other phone before transferring to a Nexus 5X in order for me to get it to work.
Verizon is known to be the most restrictive carrier in the US as far as allowed devices.
ooo I can't wait for the CDMA carrier locking boogaloo all over again.
it might be worth considering that for many Phones different hardware is sold _under the same marketing name_.
The most common versions (in the "west) are AFIK:
- US version vs. international version
(just the most common divide of Phones you will see "in the west", e.g. if a brand sell to China, that also is normally it's own sub-versions.)
the most common differences include:
- different modems
- US phones being carrier locked (which is not normal outside of the US and a few other countries)
- US phones not having sim card slots, the international version of the same (Android) Phones, often still has a physical sim card slot
Can confirm, pixel 10 is esim only.
It was removed from the non-Fold devices in the US. They kept it for other countries due to only considering the US carriers to be ready for eSIM-only.
Not in the United States. Only the Fold still has a physical SIM slot.
"Pixel 11 series is a lot more expensive for an incremental improvement to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and reduced RAM for the Pro base models. They finally caught up to the last generation of Qualcomm cellular radio. It's overpriced, the upgrades aren't impressive and losing MTE is appalling."
I guess that's a thumbs down then?
What, MTE is such a promising tech and for security and now that we need all security we can get. WTF this is terrible development. You cant go backwards when the world needs getting even more secure.
Such a shame. Google themselves barely utilised it in their stock builds. I wonder if there is some silicon or development overhead they decided to cut.
I'm optimistic about the Motorola partnership and when my 9 Pro is EOL I'll definitely look at how that's played out.
Google likely cut MTE to reduce the die space required by CPU cache. It saves them money on a feature they never deployed by default and only used for a few processes as part of Android Advanced Protection Mode (AAPM) without enabling it in the Linux kernel. Their security team should have gotten it deployed by default for a large portion of the OS by now and then it would have been much harder to justify removing it. The small performance impact of asymmetric mode is irrelevant for the vast majority of the OS and it can also be used in the near zero cost asynchronous mode. We use synchronous in the kernel for security reasons but they didn't have to do that.
It's a completely different story for GrapheneOS where it means losing one of the main kernel and userspace security protections. This is one of the only ways we can significantly harden the Linux kernel with existing security features. The Linux kernel has always been a huge security liability for Android and AI models are making that much more obvious to everyone.
Google will likely end up heavily using MTE in the future. Pixel 11 devices won't be able to benefit from it. They're at the start of 7 years of updates but they won't be getting the benefit of future updates enabling MTE. Pixel 8 and later will benefit from Google likely expanding use of MTE for AAPM and eventually beginning to use it by default. It's unlikely Google will stop working on expanding MTE due to the Pixel 11 hardware decision. Multiple other OEMs are interested in MTE for devices made for businesses and governments even if Google decided it wasn't worth the cost for Pixels.
If there will be a GrapheneOS image for the Pixel 11 without MTE, could that open the door for GrapheneOS on a lot more phones that support AOSP?
Ironically the recent CVE that's being used to root Android phones (Ghostlock) running GKI images is mitigated by MTE.
Weird omission then... Seems asinine...
I don't understand much from MTE/Android or MIE/iOS but the explanation is also confusing when:
- They claim Apple did a great job integrating MIE in iOS - iOS doesn't encourage to opt into MTE ... Apple's docs warn developers of performance and stability issues
So it seems like even for iOS, this special security feature is only available for Apple own iOS app (at most?).
Then also:
> Even Signal doesn't opt-in. Our approach enables forcing using MTE in the standard allocators regardless.
So does that mean that Signal and any other apps are enrolled in MTE on Graphene?
iOS uses MTE for nearly all of the important parts of the OS. It uses MTE within the kernel and for a substantial portion of the base OS processes. They focused on deploying it to the most security relevant processes first but it's deployed for a large portion of the OS beyond those. Apple has done a very good job protecting the OS with it. They've done a very poor job getting the app ecosystem to adopt it.
Android has more app ecosystem adoption than iOS due to having a better open source app ecosystem where GrapheneOS users have asked apps to enable it by default. Many GrapheneOS users are also force enabling MTE for user installed apps via our recommended toggle for it. Those users are reporting invalid memory access to developers via our dedicated notification system for invalid memory accesses it catches. For Android app developers, not opting into MTE doesn't mean their app won't be used with MTE due to GrapheneOS.
GrapheneOS uses MTE for the kernel and nearly every userspace process including all the base OS apps. We've had to fix many upstream Linux kernel and Pixel kernel driver bugs found by MTE. However, we aren't trying to fix the Pixel userspace drivers code ourselves so we have a few userspace processes excluded from MTE caused by userspace driver library/service bugs.
We recommend users enable our toggle for enabling MTE by default for every user installed app not explicitly marked as incompatible in our compatibility database. GrapheneOS has user-facing notifications for invalid memory accesses caught by MTE providing a traceback to share with the app developers. Users can use the per-app toggle to work around it if it makes an app unusable. We take the same approach for other aggressive exploit protections provided by GrapheneOS. Exploit protections with only rare compatibility issues are enabled by default for apps with a per-app toggle to opt-out and no toggle for the global default.
I see a significant difference between making a security feature available but opt-in during a teething phase, and removing the feature altogether. Am I missing something?
This isn't terrible development, it's simply that GrapheneOS devs can't do miracles They can't just continue supporting phones if they have security downgrades, especially if it's an important feature.
I think they mean "this is a terrible development" in the sense that this is terrible news/turn of events. They arent criticizing GrapheneOSs software development.
Lost any remaining respect for Pixel with the decisions they've made for Pixel 11. The product design and hardware teams have both tried to one up each other and who can deliver the bigger pile of steaming crap.
They also say that the Pixel 11 is a very very tiny improvement wrt the Pixel 10, with less RAM and more expensive.
So basically they say don't buy it, wait for the Motorola phones.
Pixel 11 has an incremental upgrade to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and less RAM for the base Pro models. It has a new major version of the secure element (Titan M3) which likely greatly improves Before First Unlock state security for users without a strong passphrase. It has a better radio from a performance and efficiency perspective but it's still a more than yearly generation behind Qualcomm. The cellular radio firmware is also likely a security downgrade but the userspace code is more secure due to moving to AOSP IMS code. If these devices hadn't removed MTE, then they would have been a sidegrade with marginally better security. Removing MTE ruins these devices for GrapheneOS. We could still support the Pixel 11 series but it would be greatly rolling back overall security to before the Pixel 8. It does at least have PAC and BTI but MTE was the main improvement with the Pixel 8 rather than those.
They have their reasons. Pixels are only getting worse and worse after the 9
IMO they peaked with the Nexus 6 - camera has gotten worse and they make up with it in software or try to. You could and can see this at night or stacked shots in N6 vs pixel 4,5,6.
They bought the best phone hardware and software companies (Motorola and Android) and gutted them both.
Google also bought the HTC hardware folks for the Pixel phones - see https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-20-google-buys-htc-pixel-te...
Nexus 4-6 were manufactured by LG IIRC.
They purchased Motorola Mobility for the patent portfolio as essentially a nuclear deterrent against Apple and then sold it to Lenovo. They're doing quite well internationally but haven't been a big brand in the US for a while. Their flagship phones are going to have GrapheneOS as a selling point soon and we'll hopefully be able to expand beyond the high end over the next couple years.
> They purchased Motorola Mobility for the patent portfolio as essentially a nuclear deterrent against Apple
By Apple, you mean Microsoft.
The early Android device makers had to pay a per device patent licensing fee to Microsoft.
Google sued Microsoft for massive amounts of money using video standards essential patents they purchased from Motorola, but it didn't work out well for them in court.
https://www.ft.com/content/46d36fce-15c6-11e3-950a-00144feab...
Apple was actively going after Android OEMs including Samsung too. We did mean Apple but Microsoft was also relevant. The point was that they primarily bought Motorola Mobility to strip mine it for patents.
There is really no "they", all Nexus phones weren't made by Google. Hence why, the 5X aside, everyone has nice memories of them.
...have you tried any of the cameras from the last 5 years or just the pixel 6? My 11 pro's cameras are by far the best cameras I've ever used on a smartphone, my previous iPhone included.
Can someone from AOSP/Pixel hardware security shed some light? This is strange timing, especially when the approach has been validated by Apple also.
Probably just that Google doesn't use it so why pay for it? They're not obligated to support whatever GrapheneOS wants.
They do make limited use of it for Android Advanced Protection Mode (AAPM) introduced in Android 16. It no longer provides this upgrade for protection against exploits on the Pixel 11. They could substantially expand AAPM to using it across much more of the OS and could also start using it without AAPM since there's no significant downside to using it for most of the userspace code outside of the kernel.
It sounds like it was a failed experiment. Since it worked, it probably lost on a cost/benefit analysis. Which is fair enough.
It wasn't a failed experiment. There was lack of serious investment in ever widely deploying it and then cost cutting by bean counters. Apple deployed MTE significantly after Google shipped it but Apple uses it in production for everyone. Apple developed very good integration of MTE into iOS and dealt with all of the issues it uncovered in order to ship it in production. Google has been entirely capable of doing that and also entirely capable of getting a better hardware implementation to reduce the overhead.
The nearly useless LED added to the back of the Pixel 11 likely costs significantly more than the extra die space for MTE support in the CPU cache. Google's LED feature is widely panned in reviews and will likely result in selling fewer devices than if they hadn't added it. They're also going to be widely panned for removing a very high impact security feature instead of making extensive use of it and improving it. It's a poor way to run a business. Pixel 11 has been poorly received in reviews and that was before people knew they downgraded security in a major way.
Google is marketing the Pixel 11 based on incrementing the version number for the security chip (with unclear improvements) and using post-quantum secure cryptography (ML-DSA) for verified boot. If they had followed through on open sourcing the firmware and hardware for the Titan M then we would already know in what way they improved it instead of finding out over time through people's reverse engineering efforts.
Folks SWOTing everything in life like hubris ain’t a thing… all tech needs to be more secure, even more so as the asymmetry of attack and defence grows wider.
You can't just say "we need security, this is security, therefore we must do it". That's the politician's fallacy. Did you know that preventing sideloading also improves security, but GrapheneOS is adamant that sideloading must be allowed?
> Did you know that preventing sideloading also improves security
Play Store is only the safest way to obtain apps solely distributed through the Play Store. It's safer to get other apps more directly from the developers considering how much malware there is on the Play Store. There are tons of apps impersonating other software on the Play Store. There are lots of useful open source apps for people focused on privacy and security not available through the Play Store too.
Fediverse link: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117179231167297908
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/41564-pixel-11-doesnt-meet-...
I have a pipe dream that Apple will pull a 180 and offer support for GrapheneOS.
Lol, I'm very curious what's in that pipe. It must be some exceedingly hallucinagenic stuff.
I'm guessing this is why the pixel 8-10 models have been in such high demand recently
I wish ShiftPhone - which is fitting all my other needs - would offer a config that would work for GrapheneOS.
I just don't get why smaller OEMs don't seem to care about meeting Graphene's requirements.
GrapheneOS has 500k users and growing, and most GrapheneOS users would be more than happy to leave the Pixels because of Google's bullshit.
It's funny how much Google lies about Android being 'secure' [1] and how much GrapheneOS, for free, improves the security of everyone with their work. Google should be, immediately, merging all patches/changes GrapheneOS makes and releasing a new build of Android to AOSP. Instead, users are subject to weak efforts to protect their security and privacy while Google parade about how good and amazing they are. They mention [1] 'This unencrypted data can be used to build user profiles or, in the hands of malicious actors'...And can't see the irony. They ARE the malicious actor and they absolutely build profiles about everyone. Whatever happened to the 'privacy sandbox' initiative again?
Anyone who values Graphene's work will purchase one of their Motorola devices, whatever the cost, otherwise it seems your choices are going to be giving up more data and control to Google, because they are clearly, obviously and systematically trying to remove GOS from Pixels (lack of source code, removing hardware features, making it purposely difficult to support pixels).
I predict by 2030 GrapheneOS will not support any new pixels entirely. The existing pixels will eventually die off and that will be that.
[1]: https://blog.google/security/new-android-network-security-pr...
> Anyone who values Graphene's work will purchase one of their Motorola devices, whatever the cost
Well the current Motorola Signature (2026) is 3 times the price of a Pixel. Not everyone can afford "whatever the cost".
I hope Motorola will just get more and more phones to support GrapheneOS.
They see the irony, they know the irony, they know their money comes from that irony being ignored so they will never lampshade it.
It's obvious they see open access to users data as a threat to their business model. No, they haven't suddenly decided to care about your privacy, they want to deny other actors access so you need to get data directly via them. They will obviously still collect it themselves via their numerous methods (play services, chrome, ad networks etc).
Good riddance to Google. I'm happy GOS is no longer dependent on their hardware.
My concern is that Motorola is a Chinese company. Sure, Pixel and Apple phones are made in China too, but they're overseen by American companies. How can we know these Motorola phones will not one day be placed on the "do not trust" list like e.g. Huawei phones?
You should buy one before that happens then. Maybe buy several. Or get a proxy in Europe to smuggle them for you.
It's upcoming Motorola devices providing GrapheneOS support rather than current ones.
Then when it comes out you should buy one. In any case, don't buy a device for GOS unless GOS supports it right now.
Gor Huawei the main thing was that they didn't have access to Google services, so would graphene users care?
placed on the do not trust list?? who places them on this list? and why do you listen to the people who place them there.
The US government puts them on the list. I don't care that they are on the list, but it does mean they can't sell the devices in the United States. If that ever happened to Motorola, and there were still no other devices that Graphene OS supports, then there would be no options left.
Pixel 10 has 6 years of support remaining and the more recently launched Pixel 10a has even more of the support time remaining. We're hoping the Pixel 12 series brings back MTE so that it's only 1 generation not meeting our requirements. We could support the Pixel 11 series if we wanted but we'd have to heavily recommend against it. We haven't fully decided on how to handle it yet.
> placed on the do not trust list?? who places them on this list?
The President of the United States, or members of the Federal Government that have the various levers of power.
> and why do you listen to the people who place them there
If they won't allow the devices to be imported then it's not really an option. Which also means they wouldn't be allowed to connect to the cell network.
Or they could be barred from all Federal or State facilities, having to be left in a faraday bag upon entry.
Federal grants and loans to states and companies could be denied if company policy allows the use of those devices for corporate communications and purchasing decisions, etc.
Urgh I was about to buy one for GOS. Maybe back to iPhone it is.
You can get a Pixel 10 or wait for the upcoming Motorola flagship with GrapheneOS support. Pixel 11 only has an incremental CPU upgrade and the same GPU as the Pixel 11 anyway. It isn't much of a hardware upgrade and is even a downgrade for RAM with the base Pro devices. It's more expensive than the Pixel 10 was too.
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
Motorola doesn't have a great track records for flagships smartphones. I will keep finger crossed that we won't have to choose again between security and features but either way it's a great news, and I truly hope that GrapheneOS will be adopted by more manufacturers in the future
Motorola Signature (2026) was well received. They committed to 7 years of updates and provided top tier smartphones cameras which were previous limitations. Razr Fold (2026) has the top rated camera for a folding device on DXOMARK, unlike the huge camera downgrade for folding Pixels.
https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/
We aren't sure when the first Motorola folding devices we can support will be released, but that will happen.
One detail that remains to be seen is whether you'll cater to the EU market, and how the impact of the memory crisis will impact the possible consumer-base. It's a weak market and sales are likely to be only the 'hardcore' users who demand/require security. I sincerely hope there are no numbers you need to hit to keep the partnership going. Sales are not likely to be at first significant, people are extremely price sensitive and I'm not sure GrapheneOS support will draw people in enough to justify the obviously now inflated costs to cover component price increases (and tariffs).
Pixels offer affordable options which is why unless you can cater to that market, a Motorola-only GrapheneOS future will only gain traction if you're able to get a cheaper low/mid-range option out there, akin to the Pixel A-series.
Is the Motorola partnership that they're ensuring support in the phone, and helping the port with docs/support perhaps, or is it even actually shipping with GrapheneOS?
They're implementing all of the features required by GrapheneOS, are helping us port GrapheneOS to the devices and may help us maintain it. They'll provide us with the drivers and firmware needed to support it too. Selling devices with GrapheneOS is planned but the details and timeline aren't worked out.
> Selling devices with GrapheneOS is planned but the details and timeline aren't worked out.
I hope they get worked out in short order. I'd love to buy one preconfigured if for no other reason then I'd like to show my support.
It also shows more of a commitment by Motorola. Harder to suddenly forget about providing you with what you need if they're selling gOS preinstalled.
Wouldn't OHA agreements prevent shipping a non-Google-certified Android? Unless you mean a future device with GrapheneOS might potentially go through CTS and ship with Google apps preinstalled?
OEMs are fully allowed to include official support for GrapheneOS and sell batches of devices to companies selling those devices with GrapheneOS. It isn't hard to work around Google's licensing terms. It's already being done by multiple OEMs today.
Google's licensing terms are also clearly a blatant violation of antitrust law. The licensing terms have already been invalidated in multiple countries including South Korea. Samsung is no longer bound by the same terms, which isn't fair to other OEMs.
Cool! Thanks.
Eagerly waiting for the Motorola flagship! Will it be released worldwide?
One thing about Motorola. They aren't known for supporting devices long term with fast updates.
Is there any guarantee that in 4 years this device will be getting monthly patches, source and builds regularly?
Motorola Signature (2026) has 7 years of support and the successor to it is what we'll be supporting. GrapheneOS will be providing the updates for a device running GrapheneOS so it doesn't particularly matter how quickly they ship the AOSP patches or major Android updates themselves. GrapheneOS already provides AOSP patches months before Pixels via our security preview releases. We provide Linux kernel patches many months earlier than Pixels but it's currently limited by the speed of Greg KH's GKI LTS branch unless we start doing it ourselves again.
Motorola will directly Qualcomm firmware and drivers we need which are mainly from Qualcomm. The updates will be up to us.
That's the point of GrapheneOS. They've been excellent at providing fast updates and long-term support for their supported devices.
Let Motorola do the hardware and GrapheneOS the software.
As far as I know, only Motorola is given access to the driver source code for all the chips, which then as part of using it, they are obligated to release it, which then GrapheneOS can then access and use it.
As a result, Motorola's software support is just as important as Motorola's hardware
We won't have to depend on Motorola's public OS releases for access to the firmware and drivers as we do for Pixels. We'll also have access to a lot more than what's mandatory to provide due to GPLv2.
Oh that is very exciting to hear!
GrapheneOS is fully dependant on the OEM of the phone to supply them with up to date drivers and can't support their builds longer than that.
We won't have to depend on Motorola's public OS releases for access to the firmware and drivers as we do for Pixels though.
Same here! I had everything lined up to import the phone just for GrapheneOS!
Google just can't help being a fucking disappointment at every single opportunity!
You can get a Pixel 10 or wait for the upcoming Motorola flagship with GrapheneOS support. Pixel 11 only has an incremental CPU upgrade and the same GPU as the Pixel 11 anyway. It isn't much of a hardware upgrade and is even a downgrade for RAM with the base Pro devices. It's more expensive than the Pixel 10 was too.
The upcoming Motorola flagship will have a dramatically better CPU and GPU than the Pixel 11 and competitive cameras. It will still have 7 years of updates, MTE and a secure element with the features used by GrapheneOS. Motorola Signature (2026) is the predecessor not quite meeting our requirements mainly due to lack of MTE but also lack of other features which had to be developed.
Just buy whichever device GOS does support right now. It's always been very picky about device support.
They have bare minimum sane standards for device support but it seems picky from the outside because most Android OEMs are incompetent.