GrapheneOS is like a veteran and war zone expert: for them, not only the external environment is considered extremely hostile that you should leave your house only wearing an armor and with bodyguards, but also the internal environment is hostile: your bodyguards could be bribed and work against you, that's why you need to somehow be protected against that as well.

Just as physical security, digital security most of the time not as radical, and tradeoffs are usually accepted, especially when they are "invisible": hardware and software security features are usually not mentioned in the specs and the regular and even power user just don't know most of them and what do they do.

When GrapheneOS says "private" and "secure", they mean top-of-the-line security features, updates as soon as possible, all available mitigations against zero-days and insecure code which will limit the impact before the patch, etc. Security as in a killdozer.

When other say "private" and "secure", most of the time it means: "we've followed all the recommendations applicable to our development budget, device price point, and support life time". Graphene does not like that definition of these words.

For smartphone, chip manufacturer goal is not to protect the user at all costs, but to provide reasonable security features for the price.

BUT the goal of chip manufacturer to protect the device at all costs is for… game consoles! That's why Xbox, PlayStation, Switch all run on a custom silicon and not an ordinary chips!

Fairphone makes their fair share of blunders. Software updates are a big issue, especially around the times that critical vulnerabilities need to be patched.

With the hardware I'm not impressed, and on their own forum I've seen plenty of people reporting issues with overheating on the Gen 6. Hopefully kinks have been ironed out on their 6+.

The current CEO also has a persona that would stir up any community (read a few of his AI-gened posts on their blog, if interested of context).

Still holding on to my FP4, but they are not of consideration on my future phone purchase, unless there is some kind of reality check over there and improvements materialize beyond words.

Seems you have to compromise on HW openness and ethics vs paranoia.

They generally don't like other projects, they also compare the security to the "Android Open Source Project" as if it's a real thing, AOSP doesn't run on a single phone on earth and as such isn't an option for anybody.

And for the updates I could comment that

> Fairphone 6 with stock OS has very lacking security due to delayed patches (1-2 months for partial backports, much longer for full Android patches)

Is certainly much better than my Samsung flagship

Another day, another instance of GrapheneOS bitching about Fairphone. It's not like any other device meets their ridiculous standards either, and now that Google is closing up Android and delaying patches, neither will their own Motorola whenever they get around to actually making it.