GrapheneOS vs CalyxOS vs iOS comparison

All tests were performed on a Pixel 3a geekbench single core test >GrapheneOS score 310 >CalyxOS score 350 >Stock Android score 350 >Iphone SE IOS score 1400 Geekbench multicore test >GrapheneOS score 1000 >Calyx score 1250 >Stock Android score 1250 >Iphone SE IOS score 2500 Geekbench 5 Compute GPU >Graphene score 605 >Calyx score 610 >Stock Android score 615 >iphone SE IOS score 6500 You get the idea, this is just a fraction of the benchmarks but the video contains them all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iS4leau088 On all real world and synthetic benchmark GrapheneOS fell far behind CalyxOS and Stock Android. IOS had a massive lead on all Android distros in nearly all benchmarks Their devices are known for being overpriced, yet in benchmarks it performs 2-10 times faster than the Android equuvalent in the same price range. No matter how much you may dislike Apple, this is impressive

>man I hate Google so much, they are so evil and shiiet >buys google-branded phone to own them

>>35209 That's the best option if you want to run graphene.

>>35217 Kind of ironic though

>>35209 Is there another solution? I means for real, is there any good non spyware phone Hardware out there?

>>35209 Pixels aren't manufactured by Google, just the software that runs on literally every android phone. >>35224 There's no non-spyware phone that exist. The cellular is easily pwned by fake cells or cooperating infrastructures.

>>35224 A good ol fashioned dumbphone.

>>35231 you have even less control over "dumb" phones though. at least you can run whatever android flavor you want on a smart phone, have options for disk encryption, and can run e2ee chat over IP. that's not even getting into how easy it is to mitm calls and sms on a proper dumbphone. some of them use LTE and aren't susceptible, but these are the same dumbphones that have a web browser and whatnot, so it's really stretching the distinction between the two. basically, not having a touch screen doesn't make your phone less botnet. smartphones have the potential to be worse because they can run generic android apps, but nobody's forcing you to install that soykaf.

>>35236 Get a Pinephone then, I don't know what to tell you man

>>35236 Well said. Dumbphones are only a defence against the big ad companies like Google and Facebook. They're wide open to everyone else.

Just for the distinction >Dumbphone >proprietary RIL RIL-CPU backdoors: Yes - can do its own soykaf fake cell: Yes cell intercept: Yes >Smartphone >reverse-engineered RIL that barely works RIL-CPU backdoors: No fake cell: Yes cell intercept: Yes software privacy/security problem: Maybe Smartphone > Dumbphone.

>>35238 oh, im not the guy you're responding to. i run lineageos, and would probably run graphene if i had a pixel. i think this is overall a better option than a flip phone. hoping to pick up a pinephone at some point and switch to that once it's a bit more stable. >>35239 >only a defence against the big ad companies like Google and Facebook right, but it really depends on what you decide to install. overall i would place them like so, from worst to best: >OEM android with carrier bloatware and a bunch of social media bullshit installed >iphone with a bunch of social media apps >"pure" google android from an internation/dev phone and no social media apps >dumbphone >iphone with no social media apps >custom rom with some botnet neutering via root and most apps from fdroid, but still running google nano services (probably tied with the previous) >custom android rom without google play services >linux phones (pinephone et al) >VOIP over wifi instead of a conventional phone plan >>35245 cell intercept and fake tower severity depends on how new your phone is and what it supports. you're right that this isn't strictly a point in either's favor since smart phones and mid/high tier dumb phones basically run the same mobile network stack these days. but if you're talking old flip phones or gas station burner phones vs. basically any smart phone on the market the former gives up a lot more information a lot more easily than the latter.

>>35201 always remember when comparing results from geekbench that apple owns geekbench

>>35245 I wonder if more open dumbphones exist. I don't care for all the features of a smartphone

>>35581 Don't know why techlore didn't mention that That explains everything

>>35585 There was that pi phone thing but it's gone quiet unfortunately. I think there are still working instructions to build one though. It's very, very simple but it works.

It doesn't matter what software your phone runs when you burn it's modem circuitry rendering all radio capabilities to none. Just look up a schematic online or study the PCB and de-solder all chips between antenna and the SoC. You can also buy completely new or slightly used Samsung phones intended for display demos called "live demo unit", they already lack the modem circuitry and run special display mode software which is easily bypassed. Such phones used to be target for VR enthusiasts a few years ago during mobile VR boom.

>>35249 I don't get why you retards always spew this FUD about iphones being more private than google phones? They are not. Apple sells your data to third parties, Apple cooperates with law enforcement, Apple shows you ads, Apple does not let you control the device, Apple is crap. https://consumerist.com/2010/06/21/privacy-change-apple-knows-your-phone-is-and-is-telling-people/ >muh cell intercept 2004 technology Dumb idiots, anyone with a few grand dollars and connections in some African phone company can intercept your calls from another part of the globe, anything from number spoof rerouting all incoming calls, sms, getting your location, this is basic SS7 functionality, fuarrrking police doesn't need to act like retards driving an imsi catcher van like you see in spy movies from 70's, they can do it all from their comfy chair by looking at cell carrier logs from their official wiretraps and subpoena agreements.

>>35594 >I don't get why you retards always spew this FUD about iphones being more private than google phones? They are not. I have not been able to find a source to back this up, but many to the contrary. I'm going to stop looking now and assume you're bullshitting, but if you have one please share it. Nobody is claiming that Apple is good for privacy, just better than the absurdly low bar which is android. They're probably roughly on par with Microsoft in this aspect. The only point android has in its favor is the slightly more fine grained permissions model which can help mitigate spying from third party apps under certain circumstances. However, this does nothing to protect you from google. Of course nobody should ever use either OS. That goes without saying.

>>35224 PinePhone

>>35644 >Extremely insecure >REALLY REALLY SLOW >Can set itself on fire from charging >lots of glitches in multiple oses >still botnet if you have simcard No its terrible

>>35645 >Extremely insecure How so? It shouldn't be any worse than any other ARM board + whatever OS you're using. >REALLY REALLY SLOW Is that so? >Can set itself on fire from charging There have been precedents of such? That's problematic. >lots of glitches in multiple oses That's a pretty common thing on pretty much any SBC, wait for upstreamed fixes to occur. >still botnet if you have simcard I thought it had a hardware switch enabling one to power-off that component at will, as well as having it as a separate hardware module so it cannot pull DMA-style shenanigans.

>>35601 You're looking to common media to back up the claim that apple devices are not private? I don't think it's a wonder you're not finding anything. But in any case, apple to you might be private if you choose to just take their word for it. I don't see any good reason however to just trust apple, even though they appear to boast quite grandly with their privacy premise. Now I don't want to discredit some of the efforts to make parts of their phones private, keep in mind this is a gigantic company with unbelievably many departments and product teams, of course some of them are going to do the right thing, inasmuch they have the ability to. But I sincerely believe apple has actually pulled it off to make people believe they do their best not to compromise your privacy while actually being no better. Lastly most of the contents of our discussion is conjecture, there is at the end of the day really no way to be sure. I don't believe there exists a company that is more locked down and protective of their secrets than apple. This has been their stance for practically forever. They don't just make it hard for you to do what you want with your devices, they actively prevent you from doing practically anything. At least with android people can make their own versions and decide what to strip out, and development is much more open, you don't get to play with apple without investing some real money into other things than your already expensive phone. Long story short, except for some precedents and specific compartments of ios that were actually designed in favor of privacy, I really have no reason to believe apple in their claims, just because they occasionally throw bait in some spectacular fashion using the media every once in a while.

>>35663 >You're looking to common media to back up the claim that apple devices are not private? No I'm looking for evidence that apple phones are equal to or worse than googled android on privacy issues, which was your claim. I implied iPhones are marginally better than googled android and you said they aren't. If you don't think I'm finding good information, post what you've got. I'm completely prepared to be wrong here. >But I sincerely believe apple has actually pulled it off to make people believe they do their best not to compromise your privacy while actually being no better. What makes you think this? It's probably a safe operating principle, sure, but I'm not convinced it's actually true. >I don't see any good reason however to just trust apple, even though they appear to boast quite grandly with their privacy premise. I have never encouraged you to trust apple. In fact, I explicitly said nobody should use their devices. The issue under question here is whether you're better off with stock/OEM android or an iphone. The fact that both options are bad does not imply that they are both equally bad. >At least with android people can make their own versions and decide what to strip out, and development is much more open Which is why I ranked de-googled android forks higher than iphones when I made that list. Frankly, that post wasn't made with much thought. In retrospect, I'd probably bump dumb phones above iphones with no social medias. I do still contend that an iphone is better that pure google android, simply because you can use it without a google account. As bad as we might speculate Apple is, google is undoubtedly worse.

Not using any kind of phone is better privacy, security and anonymity than any of your "security focused" custom operating systems.

>>35702 The problem with `security focused' systems, is that they're less secure than if they didn't loudly advertise their security. And that many they lie.

>>35702 No soykaf. Do you think anyone posting here doesn't already know that? Not using a car is also safer than any of your seatbelts, airbags... >>35705 >that they're less secure than if they didn't loudly advertise their security This has no bearing in their security, I have no idea what you mean.