Many of these read as defending GrapheneOS, which seems to be mostly in defense of Google's secure chip. Google Pixel phones do not have a means to disable power to the modem with the capability of real-time location tracking, so it seems kinda moot.
Discussion
This interpretation surprises me, curious to know what you determine we're defending against?
In real terms this is not an attempt to defend us but defend end users from misappropriated and redefined clear terminology used to mislead.
We would genuinely love to see any one of these OEMs provide a Pixel level device. We are always looking for an OEM to do so, in the effort of making GrapheneOS first party software. Ubfortunately like Obi-Wan with Anakin too many of them take the path to become Vader.
Very hard for the OEMs todo pixel level device due to the cost.
Which OEM have you talked to?
Keep going!
As far as revealing specifics that's outside my purview and would come from the main project/foundation accounts.
From what is already in the public domain though we were in discussions and thought we had found an OEM interested in working with us but they got sidetracked by a different focus (crypto). We think they would have have had a much more successful project if they'd heavily collaborated us and focused on making a highly private/secure device. We're still open to this, however as it stands has stalled.
We're currently in talks with another, major OEM, about early collaboration which we hope will eventually lead to them producing devices which we can support. This is going to take longer than expected since things didn't work out with the previous OEM we were in talks with, mentioned above.