thats fair. device support is a major downside of GOS. but, remember: its not really the fault of the OS, as it requires a lockable/unlockable bootloader, which only pixel phones provide (at least in terms of mainstream phones). blame the OEMs like samsung

The whole issue revolves around the fact Google is presuming a device is compromised or being used for illicit shit simply because root access is possible. If they put in effort to detect/prevent the actual problems they're concerned about, this wouldn't be as big a deal. This broad punishment for simply having root access is lazy and ridiculous.

It's like if Windows apps just stopped working if they detected a local admin account. It's patently absurd to assume the ability to access anything means the device is inherently "unsafe".

https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/13264di/comment/ji54e19/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

If you have the UI layer able to grant root access, it has root access itself and is not sandboxed. If the UI layer can grant it, an attacker gaining slight control over it has root access. An accessibility service trivially has root access. A keyboard can probably get root access, and so on. Instead of a tiny little portion of the OS having root access, a massive portion of it does.

In the verified boot threat model, an attacker controls persistent state. If you have persistent root access as a possibility then verified boot doesn't work since persistent state is entirely trusted.

A userdebug build of AOSP or GrapheneOS has a su binary and an adb root command providing root access via the Android Debug Bridge via physical access using USB. This does still significantly reduce security, particularly since ADB has a network mode that can be enabled. Most of the security model is still intact. This is not what people are referring to when they talk about rooting on Android, they are referring to granting root access to apps via the UI not using it via a shell.