> the answer is "it's insecure".

Can you give me a quote where they outright say this? Because my hunch is that what they actually say is something along the lines of 'because it doesn't have the security requirements that we desire' which would be true. Whatever their reasons for those choices, it also makes sense to limit scope given the extreme constraints they're working under and that scope is best limited to phones with the widest security feature support for their security-focus Android OS.

> Are you calling the above a "character attack"?

Grow up.

> This is another project that knows what you need better than yourself. People are constantly asking them to add support to other hardware, but the answer is "it's insecure". This is completely wrong and forces everybody without a(n expensive!) Pixel to abandon reasonable security. Even Qubes OS allows installing itself on hardware without VT-d, with respective warnings, and plans to enable GPU acceleration in VMs on demand. Their priority clearly isn't to make as many people as possible more secure but to force Google on you.

GrapheneOS is actively working with a major Android OEM towards a subset of their future devices meeting all of our official requirements and providing official GrapheneOS support. This OEM is providing us with partner access to Android which is already helping the project. The vast majority of mobile devices have poor security including lack of firmware security updates and lack of essential defenses for providing the security GrapheneOS offers. GrapheneOS has to do substantial work on each supported device to integrate the hardening features and fix the issues those uncover. Supporting other devices is not easy and involves a lot of resources.

> Are you calling the above a "character attack"?

Yes, it is a character attack falsely claiming our goal is to "force Google" on people. That's utter nonsense.

Support for the devices we're working on with an OEM will become available and will be much better than their current devices not meeting our requirements. They were already planning to make substantial improvements to security but now more will be done and the end result will be devices we can support. The devices will meet all of the official requirements listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices and may not be more secure than Pixels initially but future generations can make further improvements and we can do lower level hardening at a firmware and even hardware level. It starts with the OEM having devices meeting the very reasonable baseline standards.

> I would love to use GrapheneOS on my Librem 5 and Pinephone. No proprietary drivers are required. Yes, some security features are lacking. Yet it would be a win for everybody.

These have absolutely atrocious security and do not come anywhere close to the security requirements listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. Using devices with outdated components not receiving important security patches for known vulnerabilities and not providing basic defenses is not what GrapheneOS requires. It's far more than security features being lacking. The standards we list are very reasonable, which is the position of the OEM we're working with which did not previously meet them. There's nothing Pixel exclusive listed there, only standard security patches and features. We've kept the requirements lower than what Pixels provide to keep room for other devices such as only requiring 5 years of proper support instead of 7, omitting many unimportant security features, etc.

Both devices are still closed source hardware with closed source firmware, not open devices. They have a closed source SoC (CPU, GPU, MMU, etc.), radios, SSD, memory, battery, touchscreen, etc. They're advertised as if they're open despite that being the case. PinePhone has misleading marketing presenting the cellular baseband as having open source firmware available as a replacement when it doesn't based on having an extra general purpose CPU running a super outdated proprietary fork of Android next to the cellular baseband which can be replaced, but not the cellular baseband firmware itself. The radios are also less isolated and much less secure including lacking proper security support. The most important and most privileged component in a device is the SoC, which is not more open.