It's very annoying that they restrict themselves to Pixels. I get they can't guarantee all the security features they want on other phones, but even a subset of those security features and the other advantages like the lack of cruft would make it very attractive to be able to run on other phones.
I can understand the frustration, but it wouldn't be right to say they 'restrict themselves to Pixels'. They believe strongly in a standard for privacy/security of people's personal devices, and unfortunately only Pixels are close to meeting those standards. It's not even like Pixels are their ideal device.
I feel the frustration should be targeted at OEMs that don't meet very reasonable requirements like minimum 5 years of monthly (timely) security updates.
> I can understand the frustration
It's not frustration, just disapproval.
> but it wouldn't be right to say they 'restrict themselves to Pixels'.
It's absolutely right to say that. You justify why in your next sentence.
> They believe strongly in a standard for privacy/security of people's personal devices, and unfortunately only Pixels are close to meeting those standards.
That doesn't prohibit them from releasing a version that runs on other phones, even if it's missing a few (and it would only be very few) features. Most of the graphene users are not using it because of those features.
> I feel the frustration should be targeted at OEMs that don't meet very reasonable requirements like minimum 5 years of monthly (timely) security updates.
Again, though, no frustration; I wouldn't run graphene even if I could as I have my own setup I'm quite happy with. Just disapproval at an arbitrarily high standard that isn't doing the good they think it is, and ultimately, actually does more harm in not making their product accessible to the hundreds of thousands of people it would benefit.
They are working with a partner to get their own phone hardware, hopefully by next year.