I wanted to share an interesting statistic with you. Approximately 1 out of every 25 people with a Google Pixel phone is running GrapheneOS right now. While it’s difficult to get an exact number, we can make educated guesses to get an approximate number.

How many GrapheneOS users are there? According to an estimate released by GrapheneOS today, the number of GrapheneOS devices is approaching 400,000. This estimate is based on the number of devices that downloaded recent GrapheneOS updates. Some users may have multiple devices, such as organizations, and some users may download and flash updates externally, but it’s the best estimate we have.

How many Google Pixel users are there? Despite Google’s extensive data collection, this one is surprisingly harder to estimate, since Google hasn’t released an exact number. There’s a number floating around that Google has 4-5% of the smartphone market, which is between 10 million and 13.2 million users in the United States. I can’t find the source of where this information came from. That number is problematic, too, because Japan supposedly uses more Google Pixel phones than the United States. The Pixel 9 series was also a big jump in market share for Google. I couldn’t find any numbers smaller than 10 million, and it made the math nice, so that is what I went with.

Putting the numbers together, it means that 4% of Google Pixel users are running GrapheneOS. That means in a room of 25 Google Pixel users, 1 of them will be a GrapheneOS user. If you include all custom Android operating systems, that number would certainly be much, much higher.

To put it into perspective, each pixel in this image represents ~5 Google Pixel users. Each white pixel represents that those ~5 people use GrapheneOS:

Even with generous estimates to Google’s market share, GrapheneOS still makes up a large portion of their users.

  • Salvo@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I’m surprised it isn’t more.

    Pixels are the reference platform for a lot of open-source phone operating systems. A disproportionate number of people who purchased Pixels are the type of person who did believe Googles motto of “Don’t be Evil”, even after Google abandoned the motto.

    Now that Google is inarguably Evil (not Musk Evil, but definitely more Evil than Apple), these people are searching for solutions. They are gun-shy and are not likely to get an Evil iPhone, have a large investment in the Android ecosystem so are unlikely to pivot to Linux Phone, and the niche Android variants are more likely to be assassinated by Google.

    GrapheneOS is the obvious choice. I’m surprised it isn’t a higher percentage.

    • jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      hmmm, I’d consider Apple and Google to be roughly equal in terms of general overall evilness these days

      they both donate to support fascism and genocide, remove anti-fascism apps and anti-surveillance apps from their stores upon government request (even when not legally required), spy on their users, etc

      and their software/products seems to be in the final phase of enshittification

      the fact that GrapheneOS exists and works on Google hardware at all seems like a plus in Google’s column, however it’s only necessary because default Android/Chrome are not allowed to go so far as to protect users from surveillance capitalism (so it’s a plus only necessary because of a negative)

      unless there’s a specific measure where Google does significantly worse?

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I mean, I still buy (used) Pixels even after knowing Google is evil, because they’re still the least-bad option because of things like Graphene OS.


      Also, re: “unlikely to pivot to Linux phones:” that’s not because of any sort of “large investment in Android;” it’s because Linux phones either suck or are expensive (or maybe both). I say that as a desktop Linux user exclusively for almost a decade and owner of a Pinephone. I want to be using a Linux phone, but they just aren’t there yet.

    • human@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’m sure it’s a mix, but I would expect fewer people that have GrapheneOS because they have a Pixel than have a Pixel because they are the only devices supported by GrapheneOS.

      • Salvo@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        That is exactly right. But the demographic of Pixel owners likely to install GrapheneOS (or Sailfish or Ubuntu Touch or whatever) and the demographic of GrapheneOS users likely to buy a Pixel probably has a fair overlap.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I wonder how accurate it is. I have run Graphene off and on over the years but keep going back to stock.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Considering that they sell Pixels at normal stores, unlike the Nexus devices that came before them. It shouldn’t be any wonder that there’s a lot of normal people using them. Especially when only google was offering long software support for Android phones.

      • Salvo@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Long-term support is never something that Normies (that don’t want iPhones) contemplate. They would rather buy the cheapest phone; they don’t see the value in a software vendor supported phone. That is why Samsung is more of a household name than Pixel.

        Google have also shown that their long-term support is pointless when they pivot and implement their own version of Apples “walled garden” on the Play Store and the Android ecosystem.

        Their implied guarantee of openness is just as facetious as Apples implied guarantee of privacy.