https://9to5google.com/2024/01/03/graphene-os-android-auto/
When buying a new car, it’s become almost a requirement to support Android Auto and CarPlay among buyers. So, it...
Honestly this is one of the only things holding me back from going to graphene. Once this is available to non alpha users I might make the switch properly.
I tried out this OS last year and really loved it, until I went on a road trip and couldn't use Android Auto. This is huge and will make GrapheneOS an extremely attractive option to privacy minded people.
I think Android Auto is really the only thing keeping me from completely de-googling. Many times in the past I've installed some stripped down ROM or whatever but I always go back because Android Auto is too convenient.
I wish there was a nice open source alternative that worked with my head unit.
So you can have Android Auto while beinging degoogled. I do. As others have pointed out there is: https://github.com/sn-00-x/aa4mg
It's a bit of a faff to install, but works.
The problem I found is no SatNav that can take into account traffic. The best I've found is "Organic Maps", but it is open and works without the Google infrastructure. No getting round that traffic knowledge makes Google Maps better.
I have non AA things forcing me towards having to at least partly re-google.
I've been eying GrapheneOS as a way to compromise without being compromised.
To me it is super weird that GrapheneOS positions itself as a way to degoogle - but it is only supported on google's Pixel hardware.
Pixel hardware is some of the easiest to get/best/cost effective with an unlocked bootloader.
The following devices are end-of-life, no longer receive firmware or most driver security updates and receive extended support from GrapheneOS as part of the main releases with all GrapheneOS changes including all of the latest Android Open Source Project changes:
Pixel 5 (redfin)
Pixel 4a (5G) (bramble)
well, I see. thankfully there's loads and loads and loads of alternatives over on XDA still in development
That sounds like a reasonable position. Google would have an advantage in getting timely AOSP and security updates, but getting that stuff done should be a high priority for all manufacturers anyway. As for the rest of the list, there are things I don't know about - but at a glance it looks fair enough. So I guess there could and probably should be other phones trying to meet those conditions.
For example, they'll regularly suggest using sandboxed Google Play over F-Droid or Aurora Store
Because many of my used apps are only available in Google Play.
GrapheneOS gives you options that you don't have to use. I don't agree with you.
Thanks. I thought there may have been some sort of controversy about it, that's why I asked.
I think because on other manufacturer android phones, like Samsung, you'd have to de-Google and also de-Samsung.
Awesome. I've been using GrapheneOS on my Pixel 7 for almost a year now and it's been great. I won't be using this feature, but am happy it might attract more users.
I'm still sour that Google disables hdmi/DP over USB-C on Pixels on purpose, and it bothers me that Graphene devs never bothered adding it back.
Daniel Micay says he will retire from lead developer and move on to management role, yet I think he is still committing a lot of the code https://github.com/GrapheneOS/platform_manifest/commits/14
However, I do believe he is very devoted to improving the privacy and security for all users, despite his communication issue. So I personally still uses grapheneos.
Similar alternatives are divest and calyx, but it seems like graphene is still the best for me and probably for most beginners and experts alike.
If you need Android Auto, the closest thing you'll get is LineageOS with some sort of GApps, but those are far from the "privacy and security first" goals of GrapheneOS.
If you are looking for something private/"FOSS-focused" and don't need Android Auto, I like CalyxOS a lot, and have heard good things about DivestOS.
I generally like Louis Rossmann, but his arguments in the GrapheneOS video were beyond stupid. He says that he can't trust GrapheneOS because it's developed by Daniel Micay. I guess he doesn't understand that GrapheneOS is open source and anyone can see the code. Then he switched back to the proprietary Google ROM. So he's trusting proprietary software that's filled with spyware over privacy-respecting open source software that can be audited by anyone.
You don't seem to understand the situation either and you blindly follow some YouTuber. I'd advise you to overthink your opinion on this topic.
Yes it's proprietary and depends on a lot of Google services. Usually if you want it on a custom ROM, you need to use the full GApps packages. No Android Auto on smaller GApps packages.
Do you need to root your phone for that? Or is it possible without rooting? Afaik Auto app has to be installed in priv-app
Thanks. I tried an experiment recently, how long can I live without rooting. This is finally a reason to install magisk again.
microG doesn't work on GrapheneOS, because it requires root privileges for basic functionality. The Sandboxed Google Play implementation in GrapheneOS is far superior.
I'd have rather seen Google Pay support than Android Auto though I imagine it's a lot less feasible.
Would they? Why? I'm asking as I'm unaware of what restrictions are in place for it to work.
Edit: i meant to ask: "would they have to approve it?"
They would not. Best case scenario is that you can trick Google into thinking your device/OS is legit. It's of no benefit to them to in any way compromise the security of their highly sensitive payments app.
Because it requires full safetynet compliance
Google Pay support
I can not comprehend this. Ditching Google is why I yearn for alternatives to stock Android.
Here's an example and why I'm not on a custom ROM. My job has "restaurant credit" as one of the benefits. That's 200 euros a month in a card that can only be used through Google/Apple pay.
So either I skip the money or I need a second phone with me all the time.
It may be possible to convince them to offer that another way, if you care about software freedom and they care about what you value.
That's very short sighted of you. I value my privacy, but 200 euros a month for using a custom ROM it's a very expensive price. My company values me, but it's a large company and making exceptions like this is an accountant s nightmare, specially for a benefit that's not even part of my contract.
I didn't mean just privacy but software freedom. I would try to avoid that perk if I could afford it.
I don't recommend asking for an exception, but for everyone to get the opportunity to get that restaurant perk without needing proprietary software.
It's a random number, same as the user. I'm not even on Americas. What's the story with that zip code?
Privacy isn't a binary choice. Obviously I would love for there to be an alternative to Google Pay but no such service exists.
The most private form of payment is to use cash but that's just hugely inconvenient in 2024. Sometimes it would be nice to be able to pay from my phone when I don't have my wallet on me but custom ROMs don't allow it.
Strive for the future you want, reject bad choices where you can.
I've never paid via my phone. If I could replace debit card with cash I would.
This is huge, but are there any navigation apps which work with Android Auto except Google Maps and Waze (which is re-skinned Google Maps)? Afaik OSMAnd or Organic Maps do not support it
oh wow! i doubt im going to use that feature because android auto is insufferable but that's still really neat!
I am curious why you think that? My reasons for liking it are the fact that it essentially just works, and gives me a consistent UI across multiple vehicles. What are your issues with it?
I'm just fundamentally against those tablets in cars. I've never seen a single good implementation of it. This first question I always have is... what can this do that my phone cant do easier, faster, and better? And 100% of the time I've had to ask this it has been nothing. I just use a phone grip on either my dashboard or my windshield and that accomplishes the same thing without having to use the massive, clunky, and usually dysfunctional tablet stuck on my console. Another enormous complaint is that most cars that work like this also remove aux/tape/cd and then BURY the bluetooth audio option underneath a bunch of finnicky android auto shit that has so many different problems all of which wouldn't exist in the first place if i could just set my phone in a clamp and plugged in the aux cable. The only benefit android consoles have i can tell it has is being big if you have bad eyesight.
If you're talking an Android tablet/headunit, separate from Android Auto, that makes sense... But Android Auto is essentially a simplified interface for specific apps installed on your phone, and is generally quicker and safer than using the phone interface. No one here is arguing for a separate android console interface, so I'm not sure we're talking about the same things. The whole point of Android Auto is to take a separate interface and OS out of the equation and to allow you to use your phone as the brain.
What don't you like about Android Auto? What alternative would you use to interface with a vehicle head unit if you didn't AA?
That's what I use (or Bluetooth) and I don't see how you can get more consistent.
Android Auto is the same screen on each vehicle and always in the center head unit area of each vehicle
When I drove multiple different vehicles for workas well as my personal the only consultant mount point was android Auto, all other phone locations changed and MANY were just ass to actually use my phone and the vehicles controls
You just plug your cable into the vehicles USB (if it supports AA it supports USB, Bluetooth was a recent addition) and your favorites apps/widgets are up on the head unit like always, no matter the vehicle
Though thats a fringe use case I guess
this is a phenomenal reason to disagree with me, i have no argument. if you use multiple vehicles on a regular basis through vehicle share or work, android auto sounds extremely useful. thanks for the reply
The main argument I have against just phone + bluetooth is that you have to unlock your screen, keep it on, and it's a smaller size. I have wireless android auto set up, along with a magsafe case+charger, so my routine is to get in the car, slap the phone on the charger, and everything just comes up on my head unit display. For me it is way more convenient than having to deal with my phone display, and the larger screen is also better for navigation.
I have yet to hear any real negative points against AA or CarPlay for that matter, mostly it comes down to preferences like yours rather than actual interface issues.
I vaguely remember one of my cars supporting AA and I disabled it because I saw no benefit. Either it's not very intuitive or the apps I prefer to use don't integrate with AA.
I am not sure how it could be much more intuitive, at least from a touch screen perspective. It's just a touch interface with an app drawer, nothing much more to it than that. However, if it wasn't a touch screen I could believe it not being very nice to use, as I have a friend that has an Audi that does CarPlay but the screen isn't touch, so he had to use physical buttons to use the interface. THAT is definitely not good.
As for the apps, I use Signal, WhatsApp, Messages, Spotify, YT Music, Waze, and Google Maps and they all support AA, so at least for my purposes it does what I need from a car apps interface standpoint.
Other than Maps I use none of the apps you mentioned. Guess I'm not their target market.
I use a phone holder... It has better viewing angel, don't require any connection (except bluetooth for audio) and even better, it don't cost a new head unit, both in price and in e-waste.
It could use passenger mode.
On trips I have to unplug, search maps, start directions, and plug in the phone again because the keyboard is locked out. The car interface sucks for finding and comparing data like gas prices or restaurant reviews.
I just use AA for displaying maps. I do all information gathering like gas prices and such before I even connect it to my car. My head unit I can type on, and when I pop up the keyboard in AA it also shows on my phone to type.
So the issues you mentioned, I guess I have lucked out on.
what baseless_discourse said. a windshield or dashboard mounted phone clamp. it is far cheaper, easier, and downright better, for myriad reasons. viewing angle is better, music playing is unspeakably easier, system resources are almost guaranteed to be better, software compatibility is better, etc.
I much prefer utilizing the head unit already installed in my car. Otherwise, before I did just use my phone.
Is it easy to install graphenos on iOS? I got an iPhone 14. Does anyone have a good recommendation to help me through the process?
GrapheneOS only works on Pixels. Also, you can't install anything other than iOS on an iPhone.