Graphene OS on Motorola’s new flagship cellphone

There have long been rumours that the Graphene OS folks were working with Motorola to bring out a new Graphene-capable cellphone. These rumours were more-or-less confirmed in a post on X, that stated that Motorola’s new Signature 27 would be the first officially-supported handset. It isn’t clear at this stage whether Motorola will ship the device with Graphene pre-installed, or whether the purchaser will have to do it. This distinction isn’t important in a purely technical sense, because Graphene is easy to install – at least on the handsets it supports at present. Offering Graphene pre-installed might send an important message, though.

This will be the first time that a major handset vendor officially supports de-Googled firmware. To be sure, companies like Murena are selling handsets with /e/OS installed, but they aren’t making them. The Motorola/Graphene deal could represent a significant milestone along Android’s long road. Making Graphene an official choice at purchase time sends a clear signal that it’s a first-class component of the handset, not a geek toy.

Here’s the problem, though:

It seems that the Signature 27 will be monumentally expensive.

To be fair, we don’t know for sure how it will be priced in different regions, but most of the rumours are suggesting about $1600 in the US, so probably about £1500 in the UK.

There’s no question that the Signature 27 is, or will be, a technically impressive phone. It will, no doubt, be exceptionally fast, and offer a huge screen with stupidly-high resolution and refresh rate. No doubt it will have a slew of camera lenses, backed by sensors with crazy-high resolutions. There’s no doubt that some Android enthusiasts want this kind of specification, and will be willing to pay top dollar to get it. Some people, or course, just like to have the latest, most expensive, gadgets, regardless of their need.

My question, though, is: will this handset appeal to the typical Graphene user?

People usually use Graphene – and other custom firmware – because they want to be free from the spyware imposed by Google and the handset vendors. They don’t necessarily want a 200-megapixel camera. And almost no cellphone application truly needs the supercomputer resources of any contemporary flagship handset. The Signature 27 has this computing power for the same reason that Samsung’s top-end handsets do: so they can run AI services, which are notoriously resource-hungry.

These services are closely integrated with Google’s AI platforms, and are likely to be exactly the kind of thing people use Graphene to get away from.

If you don’t need AI, you’ll get a similar experience to using the Signature 27 from a refurbished Pixel 8 Pro. This has a screen of about the same size and resolution, similar camera specification, and similar mechanical construction. The difference is that the Pixel can be had for about £200.

It can’t even be argued that the Motorola offers enthusiast features like expandable storage and a proper headphone jack because (sigh) it doesn’t. It’s just as pointlessly diminished as the Pixel range in these respects.

Still, if Motorola joins the Graphene effort, might we see other manufacturers doing the same? And with cheaper devices?

We’re unlikely to see Samsung offering a mid-range handset with Graphene OS. Partly that’s because Graphene has rather demanding hardware requirements, but mostly because Samsung is as egregious a privacy destroyer as Google. I suspect that Sony would be a better candidate – Sony is one of the few handset vendors that actually states a commitment to open software. However, Sony’s handsets are themselves priced at the top of the market. In the end, handset vendors are going to offer de-Googled firmware if they think doing so will increase their overall profits. If enough Graphene users buy the new Motorola – presumably by mortgaging their homes – other vendors might move in the same direction.

In terms of the future of de-Googled handsets, the importance of the Signature 27 can hardly be overstated. It shows that there’s enough demand for privacy-respecting cellphones, that it’s worth the effort of a major vendor to market one. In practical terms, though, I rather suspect that its impact will be limited.