[imgr8ness]

Privacy being separate from security... iOS is both closed source and it will likely scan your images. Android is open source and it will not scan your images. I'd also argue the open source approach is better for security, as flaws can be audited by the public. Security through obscurity has never worked. If you can't observe a system's workings, you can't exactly make the claim it's secure.

There are over 20,000 variations of Android devices, whereas iPhones are pretty much homogenous. The frequency of updates is not determined by just Google, but also manufacturers/carriers. In the case of flavors (like GrapheneOS/LineageOS), the frequency of updates is limited to their development team.

"Privacy being separate from security...'

Yes absolutely, the forward slash I used between privacy and security was simply shorthand for 'or'.

"In the case of flavors (like GrapheneOS/LineageOS), the frequency of updates is limited to their development team."

Yes compared to Google you could reasonably assume that updates are less frequent from a small development team. However, those OS's (GrapheneOS/LineageOS) are still much more secure and private than mainstream Android owing to their fundamentally secure and private configuration. So it may be also be a contributing factor for why there are less updates from these smaller developers, since their OS is inherently more secure and private therefore the rate of security issues encountered is less.

Either way, I think we both agree, if a person values security and privacy, they should not use any mainstream products.

[Dismas]

if a person values security and privacy, they should not use any mainstream products.

Roughly the same as security through obscurity, which doesn't work. Not to say custom ROMs don't have benefits, but I'd never choose a solution based solely on whether it's "mainstream". Longstanding support and support for Google services are why many will stick with a stock ROM. GrapheneOS is specific to Pixel devices and it's a small team, so there's no guarantee you'll receive support in 5 years.

[imgr8ness]

if a person values security and privacy, they should not use any mainstream products.

Roughly the same as security through obscurity, which doesn't work. Not to say custom ROMs don't have benefits, but I'd never choose a solution based solely on whether it's "mainstream". Longstanding support and support for Google services are why many will stick with a stock ROM. GrapheneOS is specific to Pixel devices and it's a small team, so there's no guarantee you'll receive support in 5 years.

"...why many will stick with a stock ROM."

I assume my audience here are not people which would be regarded as part of the 'many' when it comes to technical discussions, therefore what the 'many' would do is of no interest to me.

"GrapheneOS is specific to Pixel devices and it's a small team, so there's no guarantee you'll receive support in 5 years."

Of course, but this is based on the assumption that someone using GraphenOS or any other alternative would never consider another option and therefore be at a disadvantage when that choice falls behind in updates. However, any person who is involved deeply in field of computing will know that you never stay put, technology is always changing and a good technologist will always be looking to expand their knowledge and grow.
Computing is not a stagnant field, if you do not keep up with the many changes then your knowledge quickly becomes outdated.
Which brings me to my point, whether a particular OS loses support in 5 years time is completely irrelevant, as any real techie would of probably tried 5 different types of alternatives by that point.

[Dismas]

if a person values security and privacy, they should not use any mainstream products.

Roughly the same as security through obscurity, which doesn't work. Not to say custom ROMs don't have benefits, but I'd never choose a solution based solely on whether it's "mainstream". Longstanding support and support for Google services are why many will stick with a stock ROM. GrapheneOS is specific to Pixel devices and it's a small team, so there's no guarantee you'll receive support in 5 years.

"...why many will stick with a stock ROM."

I assume my audience here are not people which would be regarded as part of the 'many' when it comes to technical discussions, therefore what the 'many' would do is of no interest to me.

"GrapheneOS is specific to Pixel devices and it's a small team, so there's no guarantee you'll receive support in 5 years."

Of course, but this is based on the assumption that someone using GraphenOS or any other alternative would never consider another option and therefore be at a disadvantage when that choice falls behind in updates. However, any person who is involved deeply in field of computing will know that you never stay put, technology is always changing and a good technologist will always be looking to expand their knowledge and grow.
Computing is not a stagnant field, if you do not keep up with the many changes then your knowledge quickly becomes outdated.
Which brings me to my point, whether a particular OS loses support in 5 years time is completely irrelevant, as any real techie would of probably tried 5 different types of alternatives by that point.

My original point was that Android was a more viable solution for privacy/security than iOS. GrapheneOS exists because of Android being open source, and therefore modifiable. In 2022, being able to flash a custom ROM doesn't necessarily make you a technical user.

Consistency being an important factor in anyone's decisions, there can be value in the ability to deploy and rely on a single ROM long term. Perhaps you enjoy changing ROMs every year, but every use case is different. CyanogenMod lasted for many years, so it's possible for Custom ROMs to thrive.

[imgr8ness]

Roughly the same as security through obscurity, which doesn't work. Not to say custom ROMs don't have benefits, but I'd never choose a solution based solely on whether it's "mainstream". Longstanding support and support for Google services are why many will stick with a stock ROM. GrapheneOS is specific to Pixel devices and it's a small team, so there's no guarantee you'll receive support in 5 years.

"...why many will stick with a stock ROM."

I assume my audience here are not people which would be regarded as part of the 'many' when it comes to technical discussions, therefore what the 'many' would do is of no interest to me.

"GrapheneOS is specific to Pixel devices and it's a small team, so there's no guarantee you'll receive support in 5 years."

Of course, but this is based on the assumption that someone using GraphenOS or any other alternative would never consider another option and therefore be at a disadvantage when that choice falls behind in updates. However, any person who is involved deeply in field of computing will know that you never stay put, technology is always changing and a good technologist will always be looking to expand their knowledge and grow.
Computing is not a stagnant field, if you do not keep up with the many changes then your knowledge quickly becomes outdated.
Which brings me to my point, whether a particular OS loses support in 5 years time is completely irrelevant, as any real techie would of probably tried 5 different types of alternatives by that point.

My original point was that Android was a more viable solution for privacy/security than iOS. GrapheneOS exists because of Android being open source, and therefore modifiable. In 2022, being able to flash a custom ROM doesn't necessarily make you a technical user.

Consistency being an important factor in anyone's decisions, there can be value in the ability to deploy and rely on a single ROM long term. Perhaps you enjoy changing ROMs every year, but every use case is different. CyanogenMod lasted for many years, so it's possible for Custom ROMs to thrive.

I agree with what you're saying. For me at least, I can't see the what the overarching point is that you're trying to make.

Referring to my original statement about using a custom ROM, and to expand upon that, if you value privacy AND security then I suggest a custom ROM if you are technically minded and have the will.

You've mentioned that '...security through obscurity doesn't work...', and on that point I have to disagree.

The alternative being, in principle, to mask yourself by 'hiding' amongst a group. This has its uses and for most people is probably the most practical. However it is to say that you are essentially playing the odds.

I prefer to rely on myself as much as possible, certainly not place my security and wellbeing solely in the hands of a multinational corporation. If that is in fact what you're suggesting.

[Dismas]

For me at least, I can't see the what the overarching point is that you're trying to make.

A late reply, but my original point was based on this:

As bad as Apple is for privacy, Android is even worse.

You dislike "multinational corporations" and "mainstream products"... however you use GrapheneOS, which is based on Android (and therefore Google's open source). By proxy, GrapheneOS's updates are also somewhat reliant on Android's and in many cases overlapping features were removed/modified to adapt.

Here is a good quote from an article written by Nord VPN internet security expert Daniel Markuson:

"The number of Android devices Google has to serve makes it virtually impossible to keep all of them updated to the same level of security and for the same amount of time and frequency. It also makes it harder to roll those updates out, as they have to be distributed across multiple manufacturers and devices"

Yes compared to Google you could reasonably assume that updates are less frequent from a small development team. However, those OS's (GrapheneOS/LineageOS) are still much more secure and private than mainstream Android owing to their fundamentally secure and private configuration.

This is slightly contradictory as well and you're quoting someone from a "multinational corporation". However, the primary point was that iOS is not a better choice when it comes to privacy or security. This is, after all, a thread about Apple attempting to violate people's privacy.