> copy your response

To avoid writing the same thing a 2nd time without forcing people to use a link and lose their place where they were reading.

> barely answers the question

We fully answered the question by explaining why we currently have to use Pixels and why we won't depend on Pixels anymore in less than a year. You're ignoring our explanation of our Motorola Mobility partnership. It explains why we need the partnership instead of adding support for devices without it too.

> But you answered with your text about how other smartphones don't have important "hardware-based security features".

No, we explained most devices don't even allow another OS and many of the ones which do cripple functionality including security so we can't support those. We also explained we need firmware, kernel, driver and HAL updates for a reasonable amount of time. We need the hardware-based security features we use to implement the core protections provided against attacks. It wouldn't be GrapheneOS without solid protection against remote attacks, apps and data extraction. We linked to https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices which lists out what we need. It's strange to ignore updates or put scare quotes around something we provided a detailed explanation for in the linked content.