I have a Garmin watch, but my banks don't support it for tap to pay. I can add cards to Garmin wallet, but not to my watch.

I switch between an iPhone and a GrapheneOS phone. I have a garmin watch and never thought to use it for tap to pay. I’m dumb. Setting this up this evening

I used to use OpenTracks to record, then upload to Strava API with an app called HTTP Shortcuts. But now Strava wants me to pay to use their API lol.

Default camera app is decent and has imo all the basic necessities. You could obviously install the Google camera app and use that if you're after the software features like AI enhancement etc.

Got 3 banking apps (Europe) and they work without a hitch or complaint since installing over 3 years ago. I still use physical cards though so tap-to-pay is a no but I was never interested in that.

I have a garmin but my banks don't suppose it for tap.

There are a few settings you have to adjust for the camera to be any good. I thought it was trash until this weekend when I found the settings. The default has quality at 95% and has "highest photo resolution" toggled off. The stock camera app doesn't seem to let you set the resolution specifically.

I use Varo and Sofi. Both apps work on my phone. The only app I have had a specific problem with was the MyQ app, but there is a workaround for that one.

You can install google's camera app if you want, and it works exactly the same.

I also use a garmin and haven't bothered with banking apps (all banks have a website and I avoid closed source software when I can), but it looks like quite a few are supported: https://privsec.dev/posts/android/banking-applications-compa...

I do have the cards in my purse, but I like the convenience of having it on my phone. I'll eventually leave the iphone behind though.

As honeypots go (I'm only joking, well, half-joking), Cape's pretty great on a lot of levels.

I'm glad Cape has competition and hope Phreeli succeeds, but the time when I'd happily contribute to anything he starts is long gone. The substantial credibility he genuinely earned has finally been fully spent, at least for me, but I do hope it becomes a viable option.

Cape has SIM swap protection and IMSI rotation. As far as I know, Phreeli doesn't. Phreelie just promises not to collect, use or sell your data but doesn't seem to have any actual privacy tools like Cape does.

Any thoughts on silent.link ? It seems a little slow but otherwise fine.

Threat modelling, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, etc. What are you defending, and from who? You have to consider that.

For real though just bring your actual card instead of trying to load it onto your phone. Why give Apple and Google your card's private key?

> You don't want tap-to-pay to work

Stop doing this. Yes, I want tap-to-pay to work. I don't want to be told I don't want that; I want it to work without the proprietary attestation garbage.

You can always buy an used Pixel. GOS only supports phones with hardware that they deem secure enough, and Google is currently the only manufacturer that makes phones that match their requirements[1], with upcoming Motorola phones that also support or even come with GOS installed coming out next year. I find this point so obvious that I can't understand people making comments like "can't take them seriously": you make security/privacy OS, having insecure hardware that compromises the whole project would simply not make any sense. Ask other manufacturers to do better.

1: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

The goal is that you want a privacy-focused phone. Whether Google makes money or not doesn't matter to the goal. Has nothing to do with you liking or not liking Google...Google is a "don't care".

The razr forum on reddit has some examples.

It doesn't seem extremely common, but the reports are for phones that are relatively new - not even two years of use.

Grapheneos has take over the alternative OS scene even with manual installations. ~400k+ users based on updates (no telemetry).

Anyone can sell phones with it preinstalled and you can verify it's a legit install.

They mentioned they would like to eventually have Motorolas sold with it as stock so that's hopeful.

> An alternative to the Android-iOS duopoly that involves futzing with cables and command lines is never going to go mainstream

All you need to install graphene is a web browser and USB cable.

> By contrast, a vertically integrated FOSS(ish) hardware-software stack might eventually get to 5% market share, like desktop Linux

Those exists. They've never gained traction. If you think graphene is too much tinkering, you'll be traumatised by that landscape.

I feel like this glows.

Motorola... which used to be owned by Google (naturally).

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.

Fairphones have very poor security at a hardware, firmware and software level. They've shown complete disinterest in making devices meeting our requirements.

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand...

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.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116353973732143171

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.

Or it's just in no particular order

Can't be, because bank transfers are free in much of the world, and cryptocurrencies all(?) have a transaction fee.

That's the thing - I do prefer microG approach (or spoofing it altogether).

However, ideally - we should strive to have a generic interface (for location and push) to which (privacy preserving) implementations could be provided (akin microG) instead of saying everything is dandy and just propping up Play Services more "because there is nothing wrong by having to install them and we sandbox it"… meh…