Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Google Operating Systems

Motorola Partners With GrapheneOS 72

At MWC 2026, Motorola announced a partnership with the GrapheneOS Foundation to bring the hardened, Google-free Android variant to future devices. Until now, the OS had been designed exclusively for Google Pixel phones. "We are thrilled to be partnering with Motorola to bring GrapheneOS's industry-leading privacy and security-focused mobile operating system to their next-generation smartphone," a GrapheneOS statement reads. "This collaboration marks a significant milestone in expanding the reach of GrapheneOS, and we applaud Motorola for taking this meaningful step towards advancing mobile security."

GrapheneOS is a privacy and security focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility developed as a non-profit open source project. It's often referred to as the "de-Googled OS" because Google apps are not available by default. However, users can install them via a sandboxed version of Google Play Services.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Motorola Partners With GrapheneOS

Comments Filter:
  • by SlashbotAgent ( 6477336 ) on Monday March 02, 2026 @03:02PM (#66018834)

    This might be something. It depends on which App Store they permit access to.

    If they restrict it to some pathetically limited GrapheneOS or Motorola App Store, then it's DOA.

    • They are going to want it to run normal apps, so it is going to come with Play Services.

      Even if they don't, you will be able to add gapps, and get access to the Play Store that way.

      Google might lock that down in the future of course, but it remains possible. And that would be a detriment to Google, but that doesn't mean they definitely won't do it of course.

      • by Khopesh ( 112447 ) on Monday March 02, 2026 @04:10PM (#66018956) Homepage Journal

        GrapheneOS allows you to install Play Services and its store. They run as unprivileged apps in a sandbox. I run GOS on a Pixel and it has ~99% compatibility.

        Learn more at their Frequently Asked Questions [grapheneos.org].

        • by jonwil ( 467024 )

          But do apps that care a lot about security (e.g. streaming media/content apps that rely on DRM or banking apps) run properly in this sandbox environment?

          • Most do, yes. I used to have Disney+ streaming (now using self-hosted Jellyfin so I wouldn't know anymore). And the typical banking apps I have also work fine.

            • Thank you for your quick mention of banking apps, this is what I would worry about the most.
              • Not all banking apps are the same od course. But my impression was that the GrapehneOS community is generally aware of the problem at large, and generally feels motivated to fix issues that pop up with such apps, if made aware of them.

                • Thanks for the addition. I wasn't going to jump blindly into this, but knowing there's a good chance peaked my interest, where before I'd likely have shrugged it off.
          • by Khopesh ( 112447 )

            Almost all apps work. Even banking and streaming apps. In the name of security, apps sometimes require the "Play Integrity" authenticity check that only commercial Android (not AOSP-derived builds like GrapheneOS) can satisfy, but that's typically because the apps' developers don't understand that GrapheneOS is actually safer and more hardened than any other AOSP or Android build (arguably iOS as well). Here's a discussion on app compatibility [grapheneos.org] that describes workarounds for problematic apps and how to conta

          • Funnily enough, the only App that doesn't work for me on GrapheneOS is the McDonald's App. It does an OS integrity check and doesn't like Graphene. No other app I use does this. Very weird.
      • They are going to want it to run normal apps, so it is going to come with Play Services.

        GrapheneOS would never come with any preinstalled app stores aside from the one used for updating it's own built in middleware (think calculator, vanadium, etc), let alone Google play.

        I don't imagine you'd ever see grapheneos preinstalled on any phones -- more likely, you're going to see an unlockable bootloader with open source divers, which pixel seems to be moving away from.

        Either way, this isn't the kind of phone that somebody like you would benefit from, nor would that be the intent.

    • It's says it right there, in last sentence of summary.
    • I presume this wont appeal to normal chumps who promiscuously install social media and other garbage apps.
      For people who just want a phone, this is very welcome.

      I'm pretty sure I'm an outlier, but I do know factually, there are many people like me who have zero social media, zero garbage apps, no games.
      i.e. all my clients. Other than base utilities, I just have web browser, email, a few messaging apps and even a regular mobile number and sms. Bam. I'm done.
      Fairly sure that's what a lot of people want... and
      • What you say. Unfortunately I do need WhatsApp, because of family, 2FA for security and my bank insists on having their app on my phone.

        That and Wordament, a word game on Android, to entertain me while on the toilet. I could not care less about Facebook, Instagram, TikTok or any other of the socials. I removed these from my current phone.

        Other than that, I use my phone as you seem to do. Dreadful interface and too small of a screen to be remotely useful, in my opinion. Especially when I have 2 desktops and

        • ... which would make grapheneos the perfect choice for you.

          first of all, Whatsapp doesn't even need any of the google stuff, install it via an alternate store, and it works just fine.

          but grapheneos also allows you to easily make multiple accounts, have some of the apps that require a google account or whatever? put them on a different account, and switch to it when needed, and you can keep your main account as unshitty as you want. switching accounts is really fast, so not much of a bother.

          I love how people

          • So i could run e.g. WhatsApp on an account with a reduced address list, and that would work fine? If so, this sounds more and more enticing.
      • I don't need an app store. F-droid had everything I needed and plenty more horrible junk, I'll never ever want or need. Droid-ify I found quite useful. But if I had to sideload every app, that would be fine too. You don't need an app store to have a functional phone for communication.

        Agreed. My phone may be a little less barebones than yours, but probably not a lot. I'm running LineageOS with no Play Store and no Play Services. I have a wide selection of apps that I sideloaded via USB or from browser downloads, or obtained from F-Droid.

        I watch YouTube videos - ad free - via PipePipe. I browse the web using either Firefox or DDG browser. I have K-9 mail for the mail on my own domain; it's seldom used because I greatly prefer my laptop for email. I have Protonmail installed - again, seldo

        • thanks for the youtube tip (pipepipe)... that's seems to be a cat and mouse game, I had NewPipe, and some other similar app, they worked for a while, then they didn't, then the new version worked, then it di.... you get the idea... I'll lookup your choice now...

          I have a few phones for clients on Lineage and Graphene but their hardware is timing out... which is why the Motorola deal sounds so appealing to me... the biggest problem I had was with GPS for ridesharing apps.. but that was cleared up with some op
          • The GPS angle hadn't occurred to me - I have location services turned off and don't use my phone for navigating, beyond a (very) occasional browser lookup on MapQuest. But it's a valid concern. I guess I'm spoiled by my wife having an iPhone and using Waze in the car when we're travelling. It's still tracking, but at least it's not on MY device... ;-)

            As for PipePipe, it can be a bit flaky, at least on my phone. But updates are pretty frequent, and it's very usable once you go through the occasionally head-s

    • It's not blocked, if that's what you are wondering. I have been running GrapheneOS for about 5 years, and it does indeed come with its own store. The first thing you can download in that store is Google Play if you so want, giving you access to everything else. The biggest difference between Graphene and Stock Android is that Google gets no special permissions and cannot override permissions or settings. All things Google have to be permitted the same way as any other app. You can install everything Google

  • by Big Hairy Gorilla ( 9839972 ) on Monday March 02, 2026 @03:04PM (#66018842)
    about time. sick and tired of our digital overlords, overlording us.
    Thou shalt not install what you want.
    Yeah, fuck you google.
    Saves me a lot of horseshit, de-googling, or getting past locked bootloaders.
    • about time. sick and tired of our digital overlords, overlording us. Thou shalt not install what you want. Yeah, fuck you google. Saves me a lot of horseshit, de-googling, or getting past locked bootloaders.

      Do you know why GrapheneOS has always run on Pixel devices, and basically only on Pixel devices?

      • I was wondering too, would have been good if i could try it on my old Samsung S23.

        Probably because they need an unlocked or unlockable bootloader i guess.

        If the bootloader is locked or restricted like samsung / apple then graphene either can't be installed or will remain with some "unofficial / hacked" flag when it runs. I have forgotten but samsung used to have some flag set if you would unlock the bootloader and install some ROM wherein it would keep informing apps that its unofficial OS/ROM so bank apps

        • Probably because they need an unlocked or unlockable bootloader i guess.

          Bingo! Got it on the first try.

          Another aspect is the availability of vendor binaries, all the grungy, binary-only stuff needed to make the device work. Those can be extracted from a jailbroken device but it's way, way easier to go to Google's web site and just download the vendor packages for Pixels. It's precisely because of Google's openness that all the ROMs target Pixel first, and why many of them don't bother targeting any other hardware.

          When I was at Google I was working with some ROM authors t

      • Do you know why GrapheneOS has always run on Pixel devices, and basically only on Pixel devices?

        They claimed it was because only Pixel devices were secure enough to make it worth it, but it's pretty obviously because they didn't want to put out the effort to run on other devices. Lots of what they did to improve security would have been useful on other devices as well and didn't depend on the Pixel-specific functionality.

        • to be fair to whoever's working on Graphene or any opensource project... there's only so much time and effort to go around, you have to pick where you can be most effective. I would have liked to see Graphene for other hardware, but I understand that you can't be all things to all people.
        • They claimed it was because only Pixel devices were secure enough to make it worth it

          That's a nice story, but the truth is that it's because Pixel devices have (a) unlockable bootloaders and (b) published vendor images. If modders have to start by jailbreaking and trying to dig vendor binaries out it makes their jobs way, way harder.

          The security story isn't completely bogus. Pixel hardware does do some nice things, security-wise. But that's not the deciding factor.

          The GP was grousing about Google being awful, but it's actually Google's openness that made GraphenOS (and Calyx, Lineage

          • Well looking at it that way, it's thanks to Google's openness that it's possible, but due to Google's awfulness that it's necessary...?
            • Well looking at it that way, it's thanks to Google's openness that it's possible, but due to Google's awfulness that it's necessary...?

              What awfulness? That Google doesn't build its OS exactly the way you want? They build it for what most people want.

              • No, I was referring to the privacy raping aspects. If Google Android would be just an operating system like Linux but for phones, what would be the point of GrapheneOS? One would just configure the base system to be what GrapheneOS is. I'm guessing internally there must be enough good guys to make GrapheneOS possible, but there's enough bad people who make it oh so necessary.

                My Android Galaxy has no Google account, my GPS is off, and yet from time to time I see some Google service using GPS. For certain

                • BLE does enable precise location of your device, just as much as GPS does, at least unless you're out in the boonies far from any Bluetooth devices with known locations. That's not Google being obnoxious, that's Google being careful with your privacy.

                  And, FWIW, it's not that I "know good people working at Google" (I do), it's that until a few months ago I worked at Google, on Android, on the security team... and I played a role in that exact decision you're complaining about. And it's the right decision

                  • How about ketting me turn off GPS and turn on Bluetooth, as my phone interface let's me and then have things mean what they mean? Because that's what my phone offers. Now, if BLE allows precise tracking, then let me toggle that, but don't force me to enable GPS locating for that. Conflating things in the name of userfriendliness and legal things is exactly why Google deserves its reputation.
          • That's a nice story, but the truth is that it's because Pixel devices have (a) unlockable bootloaders and (b) published vendor images.

            That's a nice story, but it's not what the people behind the project claimed, which was that Pixel devices had security features missing from other devices. Thanks for agreeing that they were gaslighting, though.

            • They claimed it was because only Pixel devices were secure enough to make it worth it

              That's a nice story, but the truth is that it's because Pixel devices have (a) unlockable bootloaders and (b) published vendor images.

              That's a nice story, but it's not what the people behind the project claimed, which was that Pixel devices had security features missing from other devices.

              I'm confused. That's the opposite of what you said before. I pasted your earlier statement in for context.

              • They claimed it was because only Pixel devices were secure enough to make it worth it

                That's a nice story, but the truth is that it's because Pixel devices have (a) unlockable bootloaders and (b) published vendor images.

                That's a nice story, but it's not what the people behind the project claimed, which was that Pixel devices had security features missing from other devices.

                I'm confused. That's the opposite of what you said before. I pasted your earlier statement in for context.

                LOL. Sorry, I read your recent statement backward. Yes, I agree that what they said wasn't the real reason.

                • Thumbs up.

                  Anywho, I'm happy to let bygones be bygones with their claims as well, if I can get a nice cheap Moto phone running their OS. I need to upgrade soon because, ironically, my bank app won't support my current Moto phone any more. It still works just fine, although I think it's only getting about four days of battery life now.

                  • Thumbs up.

                    Anywho, I'm happy to let bygones be bygones with their claims as well, if I can get a nice cheap Moto phone running their OS. I need to upgrade soon because, ironically, my bank app won't support my current Moto phone any more. It still works just fine, although I think it's only getting about four days of battery life now.

                    Lots of apps are starting to refuse to run on devices that are unpatched. This is annoying, but it's actually good security practice. So once your device gets old enough that it stops getting security patches, stuff will stop working. Google is pushing OEMs to provide 8 years of security patches for this reason. The unfortunate side effect of that is that it will make phones cost a little more. Because OEMs make ~100% of their money on the day the phone is sold, they have to build the cost of lifetime s

      • Their FAQ covers this well. As others have said, Pixels meet their requirements. One part is the security being solely hardware based, rather than something like Samsung who use Knox which is a mix of hardware and software. This would mean a Samsung device is vulnerable unless using their proprietary OS to complete the picture. https://grapheneos.org/faq [grapheneos.org]
  • I will be switching to this for my next upgrade.
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday March 02, 2026 @03:26PM (#66018882) Homepage Journal

    I was a Motorola fan, had several triplets phones and a couple of RAZRs (which were just slimmed versions of the same thing at the time) and after they sold out to Lenovo I cautiously tried them again and... still great. If you buy an unlocked phone, which remains affordable, they come with zero crapware on the system partition. Any bundled apps are therefore uninstallable. Moto Actions remains the most convenient way to control your phone's special features, like shake for flashlight, twist for phone, face down for do not disturb.

    If you combine that with this you're going to get the most reasonably priced and reasonable to own Android phones that exist.

  • by denisbergeron ( 197036 ) <DenisBergeron AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday March 02, 2026 @03:26PM (#66018886)

    And with the upcomming restriction of the Android Platform that Google annonce for this year, I'm very glad at Motorola / Lenovo to bright this option, I hope that other major manufacturers follows.

    I also hope that the first Motorola GrapheneOS will be out in Canada before the Googlerestriction on third appstore software.

    Long live to the OSS
    Long live to f-Droid
    And prospert

    • It would be nice if f-droid worked. It consistently fails to download updates for me, let alone install them.

      • I have f-droid on a bunch of phones recent and old for all my familly, samsung S24, Ulefune, Unihetz, Motorola all without any problem.

    • And with the upcomming restriction of the Android Platform that Google annonce for this year

      It's pretty unlikely that the restriction will actually prevent you from using many non-Play apps. There might be a handful, but I expect that nearly all will either fall into one of the exception buckets or their developers will register. Malware authors probably won't, of course, which is the point.

      • It's pretty unlikely that the restriction will actually prevent you from using many non-Play apps. There might be a handful, but I expect that nearly all will either fall into one of the exception buckets or their developers will register. Malware authors probably won't, of course, which is the point.

        Personally I hope no developer registers. Capitulation only lends legitimacy to this naked power grab.

  • by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Monday March 02, 2026 @03:45PM (#66018912)

    Thanks to Google overstepping by attempting to exert control over what is allowed to be executed hopefully there will be much more of this.

    https://keepandroidopen.org/ [keepandroidopen.org]

  • I thought they stopped making phone like a decade ago
  • I am so through with Google's Playstore because of all the datamining spamware that is shoved to the front of any search query of something your looking for, I already decided my next purchase will be a small GPD laptop and wipe windows off for a vanilla Slackware install, google has enshitified their product enough to make me do this (iPhone is just as guilty)
  • by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Monday March 02, 2026 @05:46PM (#66019148)
    ... and it seems quite unclear what this "partnership" actually means. They do not mention any specific measure, like for example "providing GrapheneOS developers access to firmware and hardware documentation" or such. I wonder if this boils down do anything more than "well yeah you can unlock the boot-loader to install GrapheneOS".
    • I wonder if this boils down do anything more than "well yeah you can unlock the boot-loader to install GrapheneOS".

      They've had phones with unlockable boot loaders literally the whole time (although it's not all models) so no that's obviously not it.

      • by ffkom ( 3519199 )

        I wonder if this boils down do anything more than "well yeah you can unlock the boot-loader to install GrapheneOS".

        They've had phones with unlockable boot loaders literally the whole time

        Yes, but with significant red tape and data harvesting to go through before you received a "code" to free your phone from the boot loader lock-down. So it would be a new thing if all you had to do was pressing a button to confirm you want to "unlock" the phone.

  • Can we move away from Android? It’s still a laggy OS that uses brute force processing to hide its lag and lack of responsiveness. It was originally designed as a blackberry clone. Just try using it on a slower, cheaper phone and you’ll see what I mean.

    • Linux phones are coming along. Still 10 years out from being viable for most I guess but that is the ultimate goal if you ask me- something that can't be locked up by one gigantic corporation and that lets you do what you want with your own hardware.
  • And I just replaced by dying Motorola phone with a Samsung. Had I known about this, I'd have held off.

    I don't care if Motorola supplies GrapheneOS, as long as they provide a way to install it and all the hardware works.

  • Google's been doing a pretty poor job in the CPU and GPU department, lets hope that Motorola can do better. At least something say 75% as fast as the current flagships from Samsung or Apple.

  • by slincolne ( 1111555 ) on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @03:48AM (#66019882)
    If you check the linked article it states that Motorola is a "Lenovo company". Given that Lenovo is Chinese owned, and the CCP isn't a great protector of peoples privacy the idea of a CCP infiltrated privacy product is somewhat bizarre. You would be better off just trusting Apple or Google and buy their branded hardware
    • Well Apple and Google use Chinese company Foxxconn to build their devices. And heck, every computer in the world would touch Chinese production lines at some point. Google and Apple both fall under a huge amount of US anti-privacy laws, and any country in the FiveEyes alliance requires tech company to give server access to the NSA. So, China isn't really much worse than the USA. And we use Lenovo in Federal Defense for staff laptops in Australia. So it can't be that bad.

"An entire fraternity of strapping Wall-Street-bound youth. Hell - this is going to be a blood bath!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...