You are asking if a partnership with Fairphone would bring in revenue for GrapheneOS.
Fairphone would need to design a new phone with hardware that meets the security requirements of GrapheneOS, which is what Motorola is doing in the announced partnership. There is the development cost, and then the new phone hardware would be more expensive than the Fairphone 6. For Fairphone, there is the question of whether the cost of developing this new phone will be recovered in sales of this more expensive phone.
Would Fairphone give GrapheneOS a big enough share of the profits to fund the port of GrapheneOS to this new hardware and pay for the share of the costs of the monthly software updates? Otherwise it wouldn't reduce GrapheneOS's need to fundraise via donations, which is the subject of this thread.
I don't know if Motorola is offering any cash to GrapheneOS, but they are a famous enough manufacturer that the partnership will raise the profile of GrapheneOS and help them be more successful. By contrast, I'm not sure how many people have heard of Fairphone but have not heard of GrapheneOS. The only reason I've heard of either project is through tech social media. Retail outlets in my area don't sell Fairphone and local mobile operators don't offer Fairphone hardware. But these guys do offer Motorola.
In summary, I'm not sure a Fairphone GrapheneOS partnership makes financial sense for either project, even if it sounds great from a tech nerd perspective.
In all honesty, I first found out about LineageOS while looking for “pure Android”, then GrapheneOS when I wanted more sane privacy defaults and only then I learned about Fairphone when I started looking for devices to run GrapheneOS and discovered that it would need a Google Pixel.
Fairphones have very poor security at a hardware, firmware and software level. They've shown complete disinterest in making devices meeting our requirements.
Fairphone is closely partnered with /e/ and Murena which have repeatedly claimed GrapheneOS mainly benefits criminals and pedophiles. They've also said that about hardened devices in general on several occasions. They've falsely claimed GrapheneOS is mainly used by GrapheneOS. That's part of years of misleading people about what GrapheneOS provides to promote their products. Fairphone stood by them on this.
It's very relevant the context leading someone to post this thread. /e/ and Murena directly got involved in attacking us during the attacks on GrapheneOS with misinformation in France by a national law enforcement agency. Many of the claims made to attack it closely resemble years of past attacks by /e/ and Murena falsely framing it as being for criminals and not suited for regular people.
Wow I didn’t expect you guys to reply to my comment. Really appreciate you sharing the insights about Murena! I don’t like EU’s stance on privacy at all, it’s a ticking time bomb that WILL be used by malicious political parties as they come into power. But it’s pretty low to embellish your project like that.
I only discovered GrapheneOS last year when I decided to reduce dependence on big tech and started migrating use cases one by one. Looking forward to purchasing a Motorola phone to use with GrapheneOS once it launches.
I only know about differences between LineageOS and GrapheneOS and I think you guys have the better model for the average end user. It inspired the design for my self hosted cloud infrastructure.
Me too. It was my first Linux back in 2003 and I was immediately hooked. Back then codecs weren't as much of an issue as they were in the late 2000s to early 2010s so everything worked out of the box and the performance on Pentium 4 with 128 MB RAM was phenomenal compared to Windows XP.
Then why are you complaining about the language requirement for permanent residency? You knew the tradeoffs and chose them willingly, enjoy your income, invest in your home country and move back once you retire.
Simply making higher-than-median income should not make you eligible for permanent residency. Cultural immersion and assimilation is important to maintain social stability and language is just the first step. From what I found (and as another commenter pointed out) the bar is not even that high.
Edit: For context I am not a right winger and am an immigrant myself. But I am seeing the social fabric of my host country (Canada) degrade because of immigrants' refusal to assimilate.
Why do you want people with foreign backgrounds to “assimilate”? If you were to move to France, are you going to abandon your own language, culture, and play-pretend to be a Frenchman?
If you live somewhere long enough, know the country, work and handle daily life without issues, have social connections with other people in this society, understand at least some language - in my opinion you are as integrated in that country as needed.
> Why do you want people with foreign backgrounds to “assimilate”?
It’s a healthy, human process that forces weighing what works and what doesn’t across cultures and, hopefully, walking away with something better than either individually. The idea that immigrants shouldn’t have to assimilate is arrogance redressed.
You're making it sound like the desire to be a Frenchman is an unreasonable requirement for becoming a Frenchman.
> abandon your own language, culture
Thank god nobody is asking this. They're being asked to learn enough French to participate in France. B1 is hard, but it ain't B2, and you'll still barely understand what's going on around you.
The discussion is about permanent residence, not citizenship.
Permanent residence allows eg an employee be able to continue staying in a country without being dependent on a particular employer and having to reapply everytime they change jobs. It is gives a person who works in a country for a certain amount of time already, paying taxes etc, having the same rights as an employee.
If someone wants to be a permanent resident of a country and build their life there, they should have to plan to eventually become a citizen of that country.
To allow otherwise leads to its destruction, just people with no long term skin in the game extracting before moving on.
It is a huge conflict of interest among the population. Its like having a corporation where half the owners want a quick return and exist and half want to run it like a lifestyle company.
Extraction is a weird way to put it. Usually, immigrants, especially skilled workers, are overwhelmingly net contributors. That's part of why modern economies want them so badly.
It's actually the perfect opposite, a skilled worker who plans to leave is a burden on their home country as they presumably will use services there they never paid for. Hopefully, in developed nations this balances out more or less. In undeveloped nations there's not much of a system to take advantage of.
I live in a country I was not born in, I pay taxes as much as anyone else and pay into social security programs I'll likely never get to use. The state did not have to spend a penny to educate me. If I return to my home country without having worked there another day in my life, I'm probably quite the net loss to them.
The extraction phase of your life is overwhelmingly being a child or elderly.
All of the net benefits you're talking about require some form of assimilation and we're in a discussion about rejecting/refusing assimilation.
There is plenty of evidence that immigrant enclaves depress wages because these immigrants are trapped in their local community instead of being part of the broader national economy.
Everything you're talking about just proves the point of the person you're responding to.
Now you’re being some “immigrant enclaves” into the mix to support your point. I think you show vast arrogance about how modern (high-skilled) immigration looks like and how it integrates into western society.
The main difference is citizen rights like voting for government, flexibility over regaining residence when leaving the country for some time, and how potential kids get the citizenship (depends on country). But otherwise I do not see how there is conflict of interest, in most other respects in the places I know permanent residents have the same rights and imposed to the same rules as citizens (social benefits, health, pension etc). In the corporation case, it is like some having shares with voting rights and shares without. In some ways, (permanent) residence and citizenship are orthogonal, because you can have citizenship in a country, but not be a resident there because they live abroad, and then they do not have certain resident rights like public healthcare.
Getting citizenship is a different thing, and in some places much harder, easier to get denied if you have the wrong ethnicity etc. I think that when settling long term in a place, having equality wrt work, health, social rights as native citizens is important, and thus getting permanent residence in a country should not depend on irrelevant factors. The important thing is to not have people who live long term but their residence rights are tied to their current employer. In these situations, the system produces a workforce that is pressured to be much more compliant and accept stuff that citizens and permanent residents typically don't. This is the kind of difference that creates people with different interests within a country. Stuff like cultural assimilation and similar mentioned here in comments should be irrelevant imo for solving issues like this, and frankly, it presupposes already a certain dynamic and as if the local culture is on homogeneous thing, which is often not. A country don't accept economic migrants (at scale) as some kind of philanthropy, but to fulfill needs/jobs within the country. If they need people to work, they should expect those who stay long term to be given rights equivalent to citizens wrt work etc.
Either you argue that the job requires you to stay in another country and the stay is always temporary and there you would not focus on any given language since you're going to leave before you reach any level of proficiency
or you want to stay in the country because you like it and therefore learn the language.
You cannot cherry pick the option where you have your cake and eat it too.
It is illogical to demand permanent residency for a temporary stay that is short enough to not bother learning the language.
This argument makes sense if learning the language is the default and you require an excuse to get out of it. But I don't think that's true. If you don't want to learn, that's not a big deal. There's no cherry picking involved. Learning the language isn't inherently tied to working somewhere. It's tied to citizenship but this isn't citizenship.
In other words, yes it's illogical to argue that a stay is short and long at the same time but who declared that learning the language is an inherent part of long stays?
So how the “assimilation” looks like to you? If you ever have kids, are you going to be speaking French only with them? Do you try to catch up with vast cultural background that people experience since childhood in France? Do you plan to change your name to sometime more French-sounding?
It depends on your goal. If you want to just work, pay taxes and save money and move back after retirement then maintain your home culture all you want. But don’t complain about PR then. Especially on the basis of how much money you make.
But if you want “permanent” residency then yes you have to be a bit of a “pretend-Frenchman” or however you want to put it. I just pointed out that tradeoff in the GP comment.
The biggest hypocrisy is that you will never be considered a real Chinese/Japanese/Indian/Vietnamese even if you learn their languages and adopt all their cultural traits. Western countries are very generous about this but you do have to meet them half way. B1 level proficiency is not even that high of a bar - compare that to living in China.
How is it eliminating market competition? Uber, etc don’t compete with google voice and similar services.
And its a valid reason for preventing scammers. I am literally tired of scammers on every single app. I still want an open internet but I think ALL phone numbers should be tied to real human identity and geolocation. Yes, it seems dystopian but it’s no different than the time when we only had landlines with verified callers. Democracy is as fine back then, maybe even better.
Some structure and verification around telecommunications will go a long way towards improving the experience for everyone even if it hurts the libertarian part of my brain.
The problem is that scammers juice engagement numbers and everything right now makes money via user engagement. The platforms are incentivized to not punish scammers, spammers, etc. one ounce more than they can manage without pissing off their users.
Its a market positioning thing. I will pay platforms that reduce my daily friction over those that don’t. You may not. The overall market sentiment will determine which companies win.
I’m saying this as someone who moved 100% off of public cloud storage recently and who has self hosted my own email from 2010 to 2017.
Phone numbers is one thing where I want less privacy. I personally can vet but it’s still super annoying. Non technical users fall for scams all the time. I literally want people’s IDs be linked to phone numbers. I’m literally TIRED of screening calls even though Apple made it easier recently.
Agree to disagree, sorry.
Edit: I want every phone number calling me to be linked with a physical ID and address (whether individual or legal entity) and accessible via a single button tap. In 2026 there is no reason for someone to call someone anonymously.
As someone who also self-hosts, I absolutely do not want phone numbers tied to verifiable personal information. Why? Because then every major "service" will make phone registration a requirement. It's bad enough as it is.
Look around, its basicaly impossible to sign up or freaking buy something online without handing over all your most personal information, even when they literally never call you.
that hack I've wanted to do is to set up myself as a phone company and then be able to give out different phone numbers to different people so that if only one person has that phone number than I know where that phone number got leaked from. if it is being handled digitally and everything gets forwards, calls to 0001 are from my family, 0002 is friends 0003 is work, 0004 and up are given to each business that wants to contact me. If 0042 gets called by a company that isn't the one I signed up 0042 with, then I know their database leaked.
There aren't enough phone numbers to make this work. There are only ~5.7B phone numbers in the NANP that can be assigned to individuals [1] and these countries have >400M people, so it's just ~14 phone numbers per person. Which works if we each have a couple, but not if we start handing out many per person.
[1] 10B ten-digit numbers, less prohibited ones like area codes starting with 0 or 1, the 555 exchange, etc.
Sigh. Yes, you're right. Like IPv4 address space and private jets, it's a limited resource and it won't work the same as you can do for email addresses. Though, maybe adding an office extension number to it might work.
Tieing it to a real person will juat make the pressure to hack real peoples accounts much higher. Just maje a way for a user to cost them money if irs spam. Like deposit a quarter to call if no complaints for a month you get it back. If they report you youlose the quarter. Spam phonecalls gone in a month
As per their financials it’s roughly 50-50. I personally buy groceries and household consumables for the most part apart from the occasional electronics purchase.
IMO Costco’s food hits the sweet spot between high end grocery store quality and walmart level price.
I think the equivalent of various native tribes would be Romans, Etruscans, Samnites, Greeks etc. The core "Italian" Romans were themselves a mix of various Italian populations and they even fought the social wars to gain equal rights. And outside of that we have the Celt, Iberians, Berbers, Mainland Greeks, Anatolians, Illyrians, etc.
Broadly speaking you cannot draw an equivalence between Roman Empire and Americas because the dominant ethnicities in US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and other countries are from outside. But IMO this would be the closest analogy.
The equivalent would be if the Italian Greeks had become the dominant ethnicity in Italy and absorbed the Romans, Samnites, Etruscans, etc into their culture.
If your diffs are too large to review your project structure needs change. I go by the broad statement that EVERY line should be read, understood and explainable by the developer.
For critical files like package-lock.json I'd also expect developers to explain why a library was added or a version was changed and the impact of the version change. The lack of such basic hygiene is why supply chain attacks are so common these days.
What you are describing is not Google’s alturism but keeping competition in check. If Google didn’t “allow” GrapheneOS it opens up a new market segment for other smartphone manufacturers. Apple really cashed in on privacy for a few years so it’s not unfathomable that Xiaomi or someone else goes all in on “privacy focused android” in absence of pixel+graphene combo.
I don't think any Chinese company can pull the privacy card. They're bound by their government to spy on their customers just like American ones are.
Otherwise Huawei would have already jumped into that gap. They have their own Google-independent OS now so they could have marketed it to privacy enthusiasts where the lack of Google services would have been a positive not a negative.
> Apple really cashed in on privacy for a few years
Apple didn't "cash in", their marketing dept made sure privacy/security engineering got just enough budget to pull off miracles & then spend even more to successfully make the public forget about the very nasty Celebgate.
I’m not an economist but it seems that a lot of things boil down to “X is cheaper in country A” or “Y is more costly in country B” creating arbitrage opportunities for players operating in grey area.
Again, I’m not an economist and am just speculating as a layman who understands math, but without wage normalization it seems the other option would be to only have per-country regulated social media. So Canadian social platforms are only accessible to users with Canadian IDs, US to US ID holders, and Indian ID holders can only access Indian social networks. And so on and so forth.. but then we become China.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2k1dgz142o