Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Android Update Alliance Already Struggling

Posted by Soulskill on from the actions-speak-louder-than-words dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "Earlier this year many Android phone vendors and U.S. wireless carriers made a long-awaited promise, which was to push timely OS updates to all new Android phones. Seven months in and especially with the release of Google Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), PCMag decided to reach out to all those vendors and wireless carriers to see how things were coming along. Brace yourselves Android fans, you're not going to like the responses."

5 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. Re:not surprising. by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even Microsoft does better job regarding Windows Phone 7 than Google with Android. They have by far updated all of their old phones. In fact, they demand from manufacturers that they update. Manufacturers are only allowed to skip one update. If they skip and next one comes, they are required to provide that update to users. That is how it should work, not unlike how Google runs things.

  2. CyanogenMod Fanboy by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Screw their pledge, just let us root our phones easily. CyanogenMod has treated me better than any carrier or handset maker, and it will never ever come with Carrier IQ: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/cyanogenmod-will-never-have-carrier-iq

    They plan Ice Cream Sandwich via CM9 for almost any CM7 (current version of CM) compatible phone they already support, except for really old models like the G1.

    --
    I8-D
  3. Re:Why do you think.. by obarthelemy · · Score: 4, Informative

    is it though ?

    http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html

    2.2 + 2.3 = 85%
    Add in 2.1 and you get to 95%

    95% covered in 3 minro revisions doesn't seem too bad, especially with the speed of Android versions slowing down.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  4. Re:Why do you think.. by geek · · Score: 4, Informative

    Siri processing is done server side. There have already been hacks released that let Siri run on older devices, from iPhone 3GS to iPad 1. Apple quickly put an end to that. There is no technical reason why Siri can't run on older devices. Apple chooses not to do it.

  5. Re:"Pledges" by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, it means that it is not in the public domain. Proprietary does not mean "licensed," it means "licensed under proprietary terms." If we are going to have a free/libre cell phone OS, then we cannot promote proprietary licensing, and that includes licenses that forbid forking or that require upgrading.

    Ultimately, the goal should be to open cell phones, so that your cell phone gives you as much freedom as a typical laptop can. Opening the source of Android was a step in the right direction; this is not the time to take a step backward.

    Don't mistake AOSP for Android. Android is only available to OHA members, and it included stuff like Honeycomb source code (which was under a very restrictive license), as well as access to the Google Apps, which make Android, well, Android (e.g., the Google Marketplace - it's extremely difficult to get apps without Marketplace access - it's easier to pirate than to try to find an official download).

    Cyanogen is using AOSP. And periodically Google pushes code from Android into AOSP. But Google controls the Android stuff for OHA members.

    Google can very well dictate update terms - they dictated how the Honeycomb source code was to be distributed, after all. They even dictated what you can and cannot do with the source and what customizations you could apply.

    Chinese manufacturers and everyone else using AOSP can disobey at will because they're using the free license, but the OHA members getting early code access and such cannot. Hell, Google can make it a part of the Google Apps licensing agreement.