Slashdot Mirror
Google Can't Ignore the Android Update Problem Any Longer
An anonymous reader writes: An editorial at Tom's Hardware makes the case that Google's Android fragmentation problem has gotten too big to ignore any longer. Android 5.0 Lollipop and its successor 5.1 have seen very low adoption rates — 9.0% and 0.7% respectively. Almost 40% of users are still on KitKat. 6% lag far behind on Gingerbread and Froyo. The article points out that even Microsoft is now making efforts to both streamline Windows upgrades and adapt Android (and iOS) apps to run on Windows.
If Google doesn't adapt, "it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner. And if users want those platforms, OEMs will have no choice but to switch to them too, leaving Google with less and less Android adoption." The author also says OEMs and carriers can no longer be trusted to handle operating system updates, because they've proven themselves quite incapable of doing so in a reasonable manner.
If Google doesn't adapt, "it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner. And if users want those platforms, OEMs will have no choice but to switch to them too, leaving Google with less and less Android adoption." The author also says OEMs and carriers can no longer be trusted to handle operating system updates, because they've proven themselves quite incapable of doing so in a reasonable manner.
But the doom-saying is inappropriate:
FTA: "Otherwise, it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner."
Among the problems with this conclusion, the most egregious seems to be: Android is used in a way that Windows and IOS are not. People use it for lower-grade hardware that they are still manufacturing today. Go buy a $39 "unlocked" phone at your local Fry's (search for a brand like Blu). What will it be running? Android 2.3. Which is wonderful. They are calling this "fragmentation," but it's really people who could never spend the money for a $400 dollar phone finally getting access to one to what was a $400 phone 5 years ago. It can't run the latest O/S, but that's fine. The 2.x series phones (like my beloved Motorola Cliq) were really quite functional.
Dear Lucian (article author): Not everyone in the world is rich. That does not mean there is a "critical problem" that Google needs to address.
Yes. It would be great if Android kept major version trees alive and patched, like we do with the Linux kernel, and if all the manufacturers built their their complete phone stack from Puppet scripts, so they could get an Android update, rebuild against it, retest against real hardware and reissue the complete O/S for scant money in a few days.
They don't. If you want to make this happen it won't come from Google. It will come from us, the consumers walking into [insert generic carrier name] and asking which phone manufacturer got the greatest number of updates, after launch, for their top end phone. If the number is 3 refuse to buy from them.
When the stores know that is a selling point, they'll push back. Right now the people in that store and the manufacturer benefit most by selling you a new phone as soon as the old one is paid off. Until we change that evolutionary pressure, they will remain correctly adapted to our behaviour.
Technically 5.1 is out and there's supposed to be an update coming for my Moto G, but it hasn't arrived yet. Arguably this is Moto's fault more than Google's.
That said, from what I hear Android 5.0 wasn't all that stable, so it seems likely that a lot of manufacturers just skipped it in favour of waiting for 5.1.
Nah. Your typical user doesn't give a shit as long as they can make phone calls and open Facebook.
It's irritating as hell when my provider won't post new Android versions, but at this point I'm on a pretty old phone (I don't want to give out my slide-out keyboard) and I don't want to be forced to upgrade to something the hardware can't run as easily.
Deploy the GDF! Nobody may speak ill of our ad network overlords, Fuck Micro$oft (LolOL) and Apple sheep
... for Lollipop. It only got it this past weekend.
I have to lay the blame with T-mo. I had no other easy option to get it.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
Relying on the carrier for updates is truly the worst thing about Android - then there's the premium-seeking apps compiled into the base rom that generate evil warnings of how the system may become unstable if they're uninstalled. WTF does my phone need with NFL whatever baked in and threatening to become unstable if I dare disable it?? At least with some OEM Windows computer this kind of crap can be uninstalled. I wouldn't mind them putting in default apps to try to upsell service if I could remove them.
And then there's carrier hardware support decisions baked into the rom. A Galaxy Note 2's radio chip isn't accessible when sold by Verizon because their rom has that disabled. They want you to use your data plan to stream radio; they don't even provide a streaming radio app but they want to at least try to get you to pay for more data allowance.
Windows 8 isn't as universally hated as Vista was but I haven't heard anyone with much in the way of nice things to say about it. As far as Android goes my wife's Note3 got updated the other day and she's been on a constant bitch ever since. A lot of people, my wife included, don't like changes that don't have some obvious improvement. Changing the way her phone works or looks just to be doing it makes her unhappy.
In a nutshell, this shows one reason why the iPhone (and iOS) are so popular.
I have an iPhone and I'm happy with it, but if Apple disappeared tomorrow, I could easily move to the Android ecosystem. The differences in usability between iOS and Android aren't that compelling.
But one thing I absolutely refuse to do is buy a phone where the manufacturer washes its hands of it, and forces me to either root the phone, or deal with the carrier to get updates. No. I'm done with that. I learned my lesson back when I owned Palm OS phones, and I'm not going back again.
Android fragmentation exists because manufacturers refuse to maintain their phones. Pushing that job onto the carriers is a recipe for customer dissatisfaction and security breaches. If Google wants to solve this problem, they need to force the manufacturers to accept responsibility for updating their own hardware.
This seems to be more a carrier problem than a Google or manufacturer problem. Google has the base OS updates available quickly. The manufacturers have to handle the hardware-related stuff, making sure firmware blobs for their hardware are compatible and such, but that doesn't seem to be that hard a problem what with a lot of phones sharing common hardware. I've commonly seen LG and Samsung have updates available within a week or two. The big delay always seems to be my carrier not letting my phone update because they haven't finished doing all the modifications they do for locked built-in apps, custom apps (eg. LG uses a custom calendar app instead of plain Google Calendar), UI customization/branding and so on.
It seems remarkable similar to Internet access, where ISPs always want to sell you not just Internet access but a whole wrapped-up package that includes them controlling what content you get and how you get it so they can steer you to content they control or get paid for. And as with net neutrality, the cel-phone carriers are going to strongly resist being relegated to the role of mere sellers of a pipe without any control over the device and the "user experience" that goes with it and allows them to steer users towards stuff the carrier gets paid for.
This shit is why I wont buy anything other than a Nexus.
Also other manufacturers like to make a total mess of the android UI
How is it a problem? How many apps won't run on 4.4?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's a load of horse shit. The issue isn't new OS won't run on old hardware, the issue is OEM's don't want to support updates. Google is the only company that even has this issue as far as I know. MS dictates updates and Apple makes it's own hardware. Take Larry's cock out of your mouth for a second and you might be able to see it.
My z10 is now two years old. It runs better than it did when I first bought it. It now runs almost all Android apps without issue. I pretty much only charge it when I notice it running low -- I can't remember the last time it died overnight. The battery lasts at least 24 hours even with regular use. In an hour on the charger it is almost back to full charge. Then there's the security, BlackBerry Blend, the fact that if I lose it or it gets stolen it is a brick to whomever ends up with it.
For the life of me I do not understand all the BlackBerry hate on slashdot.
Of course they can ignore it. Google is a vendor providing a part to the phone manufacturers, just like the company that makes the plastic case. Consumers buy their phone from the manufacturer or the service provider, so they are responsible for the customer's experience, not Google.
This is not an expensive computer. Phones are relatively inexpensive, and people just end up buying a new one every year or two anyway if they want the latest doodads. If people are still using the old phone with old versions of Android software, then they must be happy with it. Believe it or not a lot of people really do use their phone just for making phone calls.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
I finally downgraded my 2012 Nexus 7 today back to KitKat. It was essentially unusable running Lollipop.
Unless Google can make their new versions perform well on older hardware, of course you're going to have a lot of people on the older OS versions. I'm not going to buy a new phone/tablet every time Google releases an update to their OS.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I became fed-up with the constant nagging to upgrade from 4.4.4 on my N5 earlier today so did the update - however I immediately wanted to rage quit and go back as I lost the aitplane mode switch when I hold down the power button, but alas I can't go back. If Google starts forcing users to upgrade, it would be nice if they didn't take away popular features entirely (as I understand there is no way to get this option back despite the terrible battery life on my N5).
Manufacturers barely want to support their devices once they are out the door. It is a shame. Carriers are a stumbling block, but not the major one here. Even tablet devices barely get updates. Google needs to tighten this up. As people get more savvy and upgrade cycles lengthen as devices get more powerful (just as has happned in PCs) then they will not stand for it much longer. The OS needs to be separated from the low level drivers so at least security and performance updates can be applied independently.
This has nothing to do with Google. Maybe Google is at fault for not making updates mandatory, but that would have been a completely different set of issues.
Actually, it does.
The Android partner model is to snapshot the tree, and then the OEM productizes the snapshot, adding hardware driver support, their own apps and UI changes, and then they do a deal with the carrier for badging and more apps -- like pointing by default to the OEM or carrier's app store, in order to monetize the device further.
This model exists to avoid disclosing information between OEMs and different carriers, since Google does not do the actual productization.
Because of this, pretty much every Android device, other than the ones which were Google-badged as "buy them from Samsung, resell them under the Google name", is a one-off with a one-off version of the OS. In order to update the OS, it'd be necessary to (effectively) re-do the port of the OS to the device for each new version.
On top of that, there's really not a lot of incentive for the carrier to have the versions of the OS an Android phone is running changing on them, since each new one requires recertification, and, depending on the degree of changes made to things like the baseband and changes in electronic noise due to changes in the software, FCC recertification, or whatever the local equivalent happens to be in your home country.
It's like building a whole new phone, except you're not getting paid for it, and theres no upsell to get you back under contract for the next 18 months.
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
They make you upgrade to the latest version, whether you want to or not, otherwise your software stops working. It is more obvious on the desktop of course. Every version they release, they remove at least one of the features I like, but in the end I have to upgrade otherwise a critical piece of software (e.g. Xcode) will not run. That would not be that bad (except releases like Yosemite which are that bad), but then they suddenly decide that your hardware cannot upgrade to the latest OS, without which your software won't work, ergo you have to get a new device.
So while on first glance it looks much better than the Android mess, it is not the best possible scenario either.
My favorite ever mobile OS was MaeMo/MeeGo (N900 & N9 owner) and now that I think about it it even had that right. You could install newer OS versions if you wanted, you did not really have to, but they were actually better by adding more features.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Fragmentation???? What about product destruction. My Nexus 7 and many hundreds or thousands are now junk from the 5.0.2 update. My Nexus 7 2013 32 gb is bricked, and all I did was charge it and turn it on. Now its totally bricked and dead. Think I am the only one, Nope!!!!! I really like android, and the nexus 7. But I never expected it to kill my tab. I have talked to both google and nexus, and the only answer is send it in to Asus and pay 200 dollars for a new logic board. I can buy a used one for 100 on ebay. What about the tab I had that was working fine until the update killed it. https://productforums.google.c... Google this is how you ruin a brand. davidpbrausntein@gmail.com
Back in the Android 1.x and 2.x days, I agreed that updates were important. Every new release brang new essential features such as Exchange support, multi-touch display, WiFi thetering, front camera, etc.
But since Android 4.x, I can't think of a major OS feature that changed the way I use my phone and what I can do with it.
Smartphones do not improve at the same speed as 5 years ago. Buying a smartphone now, and being stuck on the same OS for 2-3 years before replacing it for a new one, isn't as bad as it once was.
Geeks will still prefer Nexus phones and updates, but for the average Joe, updates can be a nuisance as it can make their stuff no longer working.
I still think devices should be updated, at least for security reasons (even though most cell phones are behind giants NATs), but I understand that the average Joe doesn't see the benefit and therefore will continue to buy phones that will never be updated.
I always upgrade my android devices as fast as the updates are available through normal channels. I don't root my devices and load custom ROMs. I'm too old for that. I just want my shit to work without spending hours messing around. But the manufacturers and carriers are not pushing updates in a timely manner, even on their flagship devices. My Nexus 10 tablet got upgraded to Lollipop last fall. My S5 phone didn't get upgraded until 2/4. My Tab S 10.5 didn't get upgraded to 5.0 until 3/23. By then, my Nexus 10 was already on 5.1.
Despite being Samsung's flagship devices at the time of purchase, my phone is still on 5.0 and my Tab S is still on 5.0.2. Meanwhile my creaky old Nexus 10 (also made by Samsung) is running 5.1.
How is Windows not fragmented being that there are multiple versions out there from XP up to Windows 8?
Google on On Android Compatibility
I rarely upgraded windows since I could run most of the same software that was 10-15 years old and only upgraded if the OS was EOL. I have no desire to have to upgrade the OS on my phone there' s that I would need to have to upgrade. If it still functions let the people use what they want. How about some LTS options like Linux.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
What everyone doesn't want to spend $800 US on a new phone every six months? I can't fathom what people spend their money on, do they actually have limited funds available?
Is anyone else who owns an iPad 1 that's stuck at iOS 5.1.1 laughing at everyone comparing Apple as an alternative?
When was the last security update released for Windows 7 ?
Answer: last tuesday.
When was the last security update released for Android 2.2.3 ?
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
But I lost my cheap (but usable) Froyo phone. It started with Eclair, so really I got a lot more phone than I originally anticipated.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The main issue with cellphone firmwares is that they either have to have custom drivers or the vendor requires that the firmware be tweaked in someway... typically fucking things up for the user.
Going forward, I think android should be morel like a desktop operating system in that, the drivers are seperate and can be queried for update as needed. But the central OS works regardless. Yes, drivers get broken by updates. But allow people to do other things like roll back to an earlier version if you want. One of the more annoying things with the updates is that they will pester you until you say yes and then you can't go back.
Beyond that, look at limiting some of the shitty things venders do to lock phones down. Android is big enough at this point that if google puts their foot down no one will be able to say anything against them on it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The only point I see this changing is if someone discovers a horrible, easy-to-abuse exploit in older versions of Android, and releases the mother of all DDoS attacks on the cellular network, prompting quick security updates.
Aside from something like that happening, I don't see the update problem going away.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
I think there is definitely an issue with the vendors not updating their phones. One issue being that most operating system updates are done by the OS manufacturer. Many Android users don't pay attention to updates so they aren't about to ask their carrier why their phone hasn't updated. I know from personal experience with my Galaxy 4S on AT&T that they keep it updated far better than Verizon does for the same phone. My GF is several versions behind on both her tablet and Galaxy 4S. This just seems like an easier solution if Google deals with the updates instead of the providers. That is how it works with almost every other OS out there.
If Samsung was willing to send upgrades to my not-even-2-year-old devices, I'd be upgraded by now.
Google doesn't have to sell the upgrade features to the end users. Google has to sell the upgrade to the OEMs (especially Samsung) to make them be willing to make the upgrade available for "old" devices (given that, today, 'old' means 9 months or less). Samsung and ASUS are more willing to let these older devices rot, under the expectation that they'll buy something new and get the upgrade then, so what is the point of back-porting it?
Google needs to better market the OS to the OEMs, not to Slashdot.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Hold on... If android is based on Linux... Why not Linux?
The Android fragmentation boogeyman.
What nobody's ever explained to my satisfaction is why I should give a flying f*ck. As far as I can see "fragmentation" is simply the result of users and developers not all being forced to upgrade to the latest and greatest when the platform vendor demands it. This is actually a *good* thing.
It means I can find a $40 Android tablet running KitKat, which is perfectly fine for things I want to use a $40 tablet for. I'm out of the developer business now, but I still dabble to keep up with developments, and far as I can see the Google tools do a really nice job of allowing developers to target a range of platforms and still look up to date on the latest and greatest. So I don't have to shut out people who bought a smartphone last year if I want to use Material Design (which is cartoony for my taste but does a nice job setting out consistent UI guidelines).
If this is fragmentation hell, all I can say is come on in, the the lava is fine. Sure it would be *nice* if the adoption rate for the latest and greatest was higher, but as a long time user and developer I have to say that not being pushed over the upgrade cliff on the platform vendor's orders is nice too.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
indeed. and Google's solution to this (for their own apps) was Google Play itself, which provided the core APIs they could update and control so it didn't matter what OS you were running.
but not everybody else in the app developer space had access to those same APIs, so there we are.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Google and the OEMS have an upgrade path. It is buying a new phone and profitable for device makers. This is troublesome for developing regions. If the past is a guide, it's going to take a major executed security exploit on millions of Android devices to see anything change. Realize that planned obsolescence is extremely profitable and practiced in multiple industries. See http://www.economist.com/node/... and wikipedia for more info. It's often practiced in our economy, especially for lower-end products. Everlasting gobstoppers, Greg Nelson www.greglnelson.info
I used a Galaxy S3 with 4.3 for about 2 years and was quite happy with it for the most part.
I picked up a used Galaxy Note II from someone at a very very reasonable price, it shipped with 4.3 and I updated it to the very latest build of 4.4 available for that model.
It ran well, was surprisingly snappy for basically the same phone (plus 1GB more memory) and then all my god damn fucking tools went haywire because of some dipshits policy change on MicroSD card usage. EVEN WITH ROOT AND SD CARD FIXES, the functionality of data stored on the SDcard is reduced. This is causing me major headaches as an advanced user.
I've got Titanium Backup doing a scripted full backup at 2am (if charging) and then I've got a great app called FolderSync doing an SMB via Wifi upload of the ENTIRE /phone/ and ENTIRE /sdcard/ to my NAS. It ensures I have a complete backup of the phone, in full. This all went tits up with 4.4 though.
Google have turned into Apple, enforcing shitty policies at their own whim. Combine that with the ghastly adoption of "material design" (all looks flat, colourless, no shades, no borders and offten no text labels) plus killing off old useful services, seriously - fuck them.
I believe that's what it is called. I didn't read TFA but it sounds like they are claiming that Google is not doing anything about the problem. Not true. They have started putting things you might expect in the OS in a downloadable app. Then when it needs to be upgraded, they put a new version in the store and you get it. You do not need to wait for your carrier/manufacturer to provide an upgrade.
They are also unbundling stuff from the OS like the browser. Several years ago the browser was part of the OS and recently a security issue was uncovered in it. Google declined to fix it knowing the possibility that manufacturers and carriers would roll out an OS update. Today the browser is Chrome and it can be updated separately from the OS.
Both strategies allow Google to bring new features to older phones regardless of the lack of diligence on the part of the carriers.
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
This is only true as long as consumers don't prioritize upgrades at point of purchase. If we could get OEMs to begin making binding upgrade and update support commitments, and get consumers looking at and comparing devices on that basis, then OEMs would be motivated to provide updates.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You can get a BLU phone running the latest release of WP8.1 for under $70 (http://smile.amazon.com/BLU-Win-JR-Smartphone-Unlocked/dp/B00PYWQ7QK/ref=sr_1_1?s=wireless&ie=UTF8&qid=1430876487&sr=1-1&keywords=BLU). It's certainly more than the cheapest Android models, but it's also current software and continues to get upgrades. It can run all the apps that will run on its hardware (no API limitations), can receive software updates promptly, and can even enroll in Microsoft's developer preview program to get new builds as soon as they are released without waiting for OEM review.
Microsoft's own Lumia line - the 4xx and 5xx models in particular - are similarly cheap; I've seen the 520 (now two years old, but it'll still run the latest builds) for under $50 brand new. Android is no longer the uncontested ruler of the low-end smartphone space. In fact, the regions where WP8 has the highest market penetration are those where these low-end phones are the standard choice.
As WP matures, the choice of an antique, insecure, no-longer-targeted-by-developers OS or a modern one that is still getting updates will drive more and more customers to it, unless Google steps up their update game. (Of course, at present, developers don't target *any* version of WP very much, but probably still more than new Android apps that target 2.3 or are tested on it).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
What should happen is Google should get behind something new to replace android. Something with a license that forces more "open" hardware or drivers and then gets behind multiple "distribution groups".
There is simply not a single path. There are design philosophies. Some like SD card and removable storage others don't for example.
Let people buy their phones from whomever. Just make it trivial to support the phone hardware and change whatever "distribution" you choose to use. Make it impossible for the hardware manufacturers to lock down devices. Then support the 10 most popular/original with 2 million a year grants in exchange for feature development and store rights.
>There is nothing to note beyond 'welcome to the low end of the phone business'.
I'd love to know what the high end of the phone business is, since models that have an MSRP of US$1,000 are not getting updates in a timely manner, if they even get them.
Wind Beneath Thy Wings
Android 2.3 rolled out in Jan 2011, it reached 10% six months later in July 2012.
Android 4.0 rolled out in Jan 2012, it reached 10% six months later in July 2012.
Android 4.1 rolled out in Aug 2012, it reached 10% six months later in Feb 2013.
Android 4.4 rolled out in Dec 2013, it reached 10% six months later in June 2014.
Android 5.0 rolled out in Jan 2015, it reached 10% FOUR months later in May 2015.
And Lucian Armasu of Toms Hardware thinks there's a problem here? This is business as usual. In fact Google have already improved things in recent years by moving more and more features into their Google Play Services app which can be updated from the Market just like any other app. There's very little actual difference in functionality these days between a Kitkat and a Lollipop phone.
TFA said: "Otherwise, it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner."
I'm curious what platforms those might be.
The only one I'm (slightly) familiar with at the moment is Replicant, which is an all-open port of Android - with support for a limitied - and (thus?) somewhat pricey (when even available)- handful of platforms.
("All-Open" being defined as "Functionality dependent on binary blobs we don't have open source replacements for is left out of the distribution. You might get it working by installing proprietary modules. But we think that's a bad idea / counterproductive / reduces incentive for people to MAKE open source replacements, so we don't recommend it or provide instructions." i.e. do a web search for somebody who figured out how to do it if you want, say, the front camera, WiFI, or Bluetooth to work and forget about GPS for now. (v4.2 on Samsung s3))
Now I think that's the right approach. And I'd love to see more support or help for the project.
But are there others? If so, what are they?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Every time, I was told this wasn't a problem...?
Google is fixing the updates problem. While the best way to fix it would be to somehow get device makers to provide them (How? This is never addressed!), Google has moved to resolve this another way.
And that is moving more of the operation from Android to the Google Play services, and Google - sourced apps on the store. These are regularly updated, and updates are pushed out through the play store in the usual manner. This allows most security issues to be rectified or worked around.
Personally, I'd like a different solution - requiring source drivers for everything and unlockable boot loaders, so Google or someone else can provide updates even if the manufacturer defaults - but I'll live with what I have. (What I actually live with is an old Moto Defy running 4.4.4 from CyanogenMod.)
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
This is only true as long as consumers don't prioritize upgrades at point of purchase. If we could get OEMs to begin making binding upgrade and update support commitments, and get consumers looking at and comparing devices on that basis, then OEMs would be motivated to provide updates.
They can prioritize all they want, but no one wants to pay for the carrier certification of thee modified SDRs, particularly when using a T-Zone on a Snapdragon chip in order to run the baseband, and the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
Also no carrier using a contract lock-in revenue model is going to provide an update that doesn't lock you into a new contract, and a version update won't do that unless there's a charge for the update, based on FAS (Federal Accounting Standard) rules, since without an exchange of consideration, there is no contract. This is why Apple charged for the WiFi software update on iPods, and non-cellular network iPads, but didn't charge for cellular connected iPads and iPhones. It had to do with realization of revenue over time, versus a one time sale, and adding features to the device via software.
You should also be aware that the image that's shipped by the OEM is often not even buildable by Google engineers; apart from the fact that the devices used during development are generally signature neutered, and it's impossible to cryptographically sign the image for the given device without it either being neutered like that, or signing code that they device manufacturer generally does not share due to it containing a signing key they don't want out there... they entirety of the board file is generally not committed back to the Google maintained Android source tree. Nor is it maintained going forward so that it's up to date, nor is the remainder of the OS productization standardized across all the OEMs. They are trying to differentiate their products, after all, and my Samsung device looking and feeling exactly like a non-Samsung device is not in Samsung's interest: it makes them into a commodity, which is a quick race to the bottom on margin.
Google has significant dictatorial powers when it comes to Chromebooks, which are not available to the Android folks, even if they had the ability to code sign, and could dictate a code cut, the Android in the tree is pretty raw, and never productized.
Finally, Android lacks a uniform app ecosystem; this is a more or less direct consequence of having allowed third party stores, without a strong compatibility for the apps across all devices.
Seriously, one of the smartest things that Apple did was keep the baseband processor separate from the application processor so that there was no telecom recertification required, unless they were explicitly hacking the baseband for some reason (e.g. the carrier lock they did by re-doing the SIM/IMEI handshake when doing a hand-off between cell towers in order to intentionally break SuperSIMs and similar techniques for hardware carrier unlocks).
Without the app ecosystem and the continuity of app and other content going forward on Android -- which it doesn't -- I don't see a means of enforcing carrier lock-in to support that economic model, particularly if you started supporting software updates.
Microsoft has been dealing with this issue for...ever? Older hardware can't run the newer versions of operating systems.
Unless you have the most absolute low end system then even systems from a decade ago can run Windows 8.1 just fine.
Not really sure why Android is being singled out for such accusations, Windows suffers the same issues, and has always had problems getting people to upgrade.
The difference is that most people can upgrade if they want to and for those who can't/don't want to the older operating system still gets updates and security fixes. For example you pointed out that there are a lot of Windows XP installations going, well these systems received updates for well over 10 years. In fact most 10-year-old systems can quite easily be upgraded to Windows 7+. Now if you have a look at Android Froyo for example, there were a lot of installations of that and while there were updates released for it for just one year most of the systems couldn't get any of those updates and almost none of them could be upgraded to Android Gingerbread.
Many people don't see a point to upgrading for a very simple reason: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
But the older versions of Android are broken, they have bugs and security problems that will not and can not be fixed. People didn't upgrade from Windows XP because it was still supported and still received updates and security fixes, then shortly after Windows XP stopped receiving fixes its usage plummeted as people upgraded.
This is why I am wary of getting a newer car with an integrated touch screen blah blah system.
I can easy see being stuck with a 10 year old OS.
Couldn't they leave the crapware and drivers alone and still provide critical security updates we expect and need on computers since well, the Windows XP SP2 days?
Instead of updating the whole OS, Google would better provide say monthly security fixes for three years on the Android 4.4 OS, the 5.0 OS, the 5.1 OS etc.
This is not going to end well, I guess fragmentation hampers malware somewhat but what if some powerful piece of malware manages to get installed on say 10 million of Android computer phones and starts doing something really nasty?
Google could say to OEMs that if they want the Google Play Store and all the other Google apps, they have to ship the newest Android version (i.e. no more shipping devices running FroYo or Gingerbread or Ice Cream Sandwich anymore if you want all the Google stuff).
What are the OEMs going to do? Fork Android and forgo all the Google apps? (and things like the Google Play Services middleware library)
And it would be no different to how Microsoft wont let OEMs ship old version of Windows or Office anymore, even on older hardware designs.
Get a Nexus, or a Motorola.
kthxbye
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Part of the problem with adoption is that many of these releases are radically different from the previous versions.
And of COURSE the carriers are falling down on the job!
When you have to completely replumb an OS over and over and over again, as they do to make sure it's locked down for their network?
They're not equipped for meaningful updates to existing equipment. Small firmware and software updates? Sure. Whole new OS? No fucking way.
They're set up for static hardware and mostly static software release. Then they focus on the next generation. Retrofitting doesn't fit for them.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I agree. Whereas Farty Ferret, Naughty Narwhal, Puffy Polecat - you can't get more professional sounding than that.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
After a career of working on Linux OS development, from embedded to cloud I decided to give Android a try. I recently started at a company where my task was to bring up Android on a new hardware platform. One of the first things I learned is that the hardware manufacture has to get their source code for Android from their SoC provided. If you go with AOSP they refuse to support you in any way if you have issues with their drivers. They do incredible hacks to get their hardware working. As someone who has submitted patches to the mainline Linux kernel I die a little inside every time I see what they do to it. Their own section for thier own hardware. No integration into the mainline kernel and I won't even begin to speak of the code quality. Google themselves force you to use an Androidized kernel with specific patches from them. There is a project to mainline these but Google has been resistant to working with the mainline kernel guys in changing things. One of the things I really don't understand is why Google had to throw everything out thats standard in every Linux distro and do their own thing. Android throws out the entire Linux filesystem heirarchy and uses its own thing which is undocumented and a huge mess. They have their own init manager, logger, use busybox AND toolbox for some reason. The source tree itself is managed by a tool called repo which manages about 100 git repositories, each a project which is a part of Android. The SoC vendors often make small changes to things like bluedroid. Like the kernel changes they have no intention of ever upstreaming any of this to the open source projects or Google. This collection of projects are built with Androids own Make build system, where they heavily hack up Make. If Google wants Android users to all be up to date they need to take a standard distro like Fedora or Debian and make it run its own window manager which is Android and its GUI. They need to get vendors to focus on upstreaming their changes and maintaining high quality code. Ideally Android should be a Linux distro you run on your phone with full package manager with updates from Google. Google has the power to do this. No one else can because it will cause Google's CTS tool to fail verifying which won't allow you to ship with Google Play.
Eg the Lumia 520, released in early 2013, currently runs win phone 8.1 which is supported to July 2017, but will support win phone 10 which will get a minimum of 36 months support upon release so summer 2018, which will be just over 5 years from release.
I use iOS, not win phone. But this is a win for windows phone.
One of the reason why I still haven't updated my Nexus 5 to Android 5.x is due to the looks. I don't like the boring flat look, it's ugly (I also don't like it in Windows 8, and therefore I'm happy to hear they reinstated Aero in Windows 10)..
Couldn't they leave the crapware and drivers alone and still provide critical security updates we expect and need on computers since well, the Windows XP SP2 days?
Instead of updating the whole OS, Google would better provide say monthly security fixes for three years on the Android 4.4 OS, the 5.0 OS, the 5.1 OS etc.
This is not going to end well, I guess fragmentation hampers malware somewhat but what if some powerful piece of malware manages to get installed on say 10 million of Android computer phones and starts doing something really nasty?
I'm fairly certain that the biggest security threat is unverified and unmoderated software packages in the various web stores, and the ability to side-load applications. Most of the malware probably comes through the app installer, rather than a security exploit.
Although there have been issues with untrusted parties signing domain certs -- the latest was China's CNNIC root certificate removal -- and there are the heartbleed and other SSL exploits -- those are mostly untrusted public hotspot access or governmental eavesdropping attacks.
Malware is a much bigger problem.
Note that Apple is starting to have this same problem in China: there are unauthorized app stores which pirate apps (at best) or pirate them, and bundle them with malware, and then use an enterprise enrollment to let you install from their "enterprise app store", which is actually a pirate/malware site. But it's not nearly as widespread or fragmented as the Android marketplaces, and it's pretty easy to avoid -- unless you are going there because the app you want is not legally being sold by the app vendor in China. In which case: you take your chances.
I have the option to switch to Lolipop for my phone, but unless its numerous bugs and annoyances are solved AND Xposed runs reliably on it I won't switch.
And since almost all Android apps run on versions >= 4.0 there is not really a problem there either. With iOS running not the last version gives serious problems on this area.
The situation with Android and Linux and the userland Android uses is essentially the same mess the Linux kernel suffered 10 years ago with ARM.
After years neglecting the problem, Linus finally decided something had to be done spend a lot of time merging, unifying and mainstreaming all the ARM shit. It was a great success, in part because ARM, Linaro and essentially everybody saw the benefit.
I've seen people reporting that the memleak of Lollipop that was supposed to be fixed in 5.1 already, and in 5.1.1 is still not fixed, and I experience my Nexus 7 being really slow.
I can see this new post on Reddit but also this post on a much more reliable source, xda-developers.
Verizon Moto G and *still* on 4.4.4 and probably forever, regardless of the pretty promises from the Chocolate Factory.
They can prioritize all they want, but no one wants to pay for the carrier certification of thee modified SDRs, particularly when using a T-Zone on a Snapdragon chip in order to run the baseband, and the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
Heh. That isn't the problem. Unfortunately, I can't explain in more detail, because my conversations with carriers are confidential.
Also no carrier using a contract lock-in revenue model is going to provide an update that doesn't lock you into a new contract
Also not the problem, and I also can't explain. I'll just point out that the carriers have so successfully branded Android as their own that many consumers see the failure to upgrade as the carriers' fault. The carriers aren't blind to this, or what it costs them.
You should also be aware that the image that's shipped by the OEM is often not even buildable by Google engineers
Why yes, Terry, as a Google Android engineer I'm quite aware of this :-)
Except you should replace "often" with "never". Or at least "almost never". There may be some exceptions, though I've never heard of one.
apart from the fact that the devices used during development are generally signature neutered
A bigger issue is that the devices used during development are Nexus devices, not OEM devices. We never see those, either the hardware details, or the code that OEMs build after all of their customization.
Seriously, one of the smartest things that Apple did was keep the baseband processor separate from the application processor so that there was no telecom recertification required, unless they were explicitly hacking the baseband for some reason
That does make a lot of sense, but I don't think it's actually relevant to the problem. The carriers validate a lot more than just telecom functionality on devices that carry their brand.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The real problem is that Google has no EOL procedures and because the OS is "free" they can get away with it. If the older versions still received security updates everything would be just fine. From my (limited) experience the android SDK makes it very clear which version of Android you are building for and that allows devs to choose what they want to support easily without much hassle.
Say what you want about microsoft but they support their OSs for years after the initial release.
I don't want an OS I can't have root on.
Lollipop certainly works better with more RAM. It looks like several recent phones with 'only' 1GB RAM will not get it.
Plainly older phones with less than 1GB RAM will also not be upgraded. The OS has grown enough that it's not a satisfying experience for users to shoehorn the latest and greatest onto their machines, despite being so well endowed just 2 years ago.
Sort of obvious, isn't this?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
How often do you get a vendor update to your home gateway router? This is in spite of the fact that all consumer grade routers use the same 3 or 4 chips.
I think that's why, despite it's obvious added costs, the iPhone thrives. It just works and that's what most people want a phone to do. My wife is still raging about her "upgrade." I told her to take it to AT&T and tell them to downgrade it back to where it was. I looked at it and it's really not that bad but all the changes are just cosmetic. Why annoy your customers with that crap?
the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
1. The 20 thousand dollars or so that the certification costs per year should be less than chump change for these carriers.
2. The FCC only controls what goes on in the USA. So the "per country" part of your "cost analysis" is completely bogus.
3. Run with the big dog, or get back on the porch.
All Google needs to do is open source gapps and we're rockin and rollin our own, legally. BTW - Bought a brand new Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4" and the first thing I did was root it and put CM12. That fixes most problems you have with it as it comes out of the box. Fuck you Samsung.
Android phones are essentially running manufacturer/carrier Linux distros. If someone doesn't want to update theirs, you can't force them. You can, however, switch to one more to your liking. There are always Nexus devices, but also a good business opportunity for smaller players who can't afford to develop heavy customizations like TouchWiz anyway.
the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
1. The 20 thousand dollars or so that the certification costs per year should be less than chump change for these carriers.
The carriers don't pay the money; the money is paid per device by the OEM who wants to sell those devices.
2. The FCC only controls what goes on in the USA. So the "per country" part of your "cost analysis" is completely bogus.
Quite correct. I use "the FCC" in its royal sense here, i.e. to refer to all the regulatory agencies like the FCC that operate all over the world. I'm not going to list 120 regulatory agencies every time I talk about the type of regulation that's carried out by:
Albania: Telecommunication Regulatory Entity
Argentina: Secretaría de Communicaciones
Austria: Austrian Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Broadcasting
Australia: Australian Communications and Media Authority
Bahrain: Telecommunications Regulatory Authority
Barbados: Ministry of Finance, Investment, Telecommunications and Energy (MFIE)
[...]
United States: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
[...]
Venezuela: Comisión Nacional de Telecommunicaciones
Western Samoa: Ministry of Communications and Information technology
Zambia: The Communications Authority (CAZ)
I think you get the freaking point here.
The carriers don't pay the money; the money is paid per device by the OEM who wants to sell those devices.
Then I have a really good idea for the OEMs: Negotiate new contracts that don't allow Carrier-Specific modifications of the codebase, like Apple does; OR, shift the cost of the Certification to those Carriers that believe they MUST modify the codebase. The OEM would still pay the Regulatory Agency, then would get reimbursed by the Carrier.
See how easy that was?
I use "the FCC" in its royal sense here, i.e. to refer to all the regulatory agencies like the FCC that operate all over the world. I'm not going to list 120 regulatory agencies every time...
Then either do the following (which you have actually done in your snarky response) : a) Use a more generic term, such as "Regulatory Agency"; b)place "FCC" in quotes, which at least suggests you are using it as a "jargon term", rather than a "literal".
See how easy that was?
No need for a snarky, pseudo-pedantic response.
The carriers don't pay the money; the money is paid per device by the OEM who wants to sell those devices.
Then I have a really good idea for the OEMs: Negotiate new contracts that don't allow Carrier-Specific modifications of the codebase, like Apple does; OR, shift the cost of the Certification to those Carriers that believe they MUST modify the codebase. The OEM would still pay the Regulatory Agency, then would get reimbursed by the Carrier.
See how easy that was?
Not really. You are aware that not all GSM or CDMA networks are configured identically, operate on the same frequency bands, etc., right? That translates to different radio tables in the baseband firmware, different dipole antenna lengths in the per-carrier phone models, and so on. There are also differences in the SIM/IMEI code exchange when doing a cell hand-off between cell towers in various countries.
Further, one of the things that the iPhone did early on with Orange was reclock the application CPU to a different frequency in the UK, since the CPU frequency happened to be a harmonic of the carrier band preferred by that provider. That meant that grey-market iPhones imported from the U.S., as opposed to configured for sale in the U.K., tended to drop calls, and ran at a slightly slower clock frequency than those configured for the U.S..
Rogers (the GSM carrier in Canada) faced similar issues.
I use "the FCC" in its royal sense here, i.e. to refer to all the regulatory agencies like the FCC that operate all over the world. I'm not going to list 120 regulatory agencies every time...
Then either do the following (which you have actually done in your snarky response) : a) Use a more generic term, such as "Regulatory Agency"; b)place "FCC" in quotes, which at least suggests you are using it as a "jargon term", rather than a "literal".
See how easy that was?
No need for a snarky, pseudo-pedantic response.
You mean snarky, as in suffixing every paragraph with the snarky, pseudo-pedantic "See how easy that was?", and being pedantic about being too damn literal about terms when it's obvious that other countries have similar regulatory agencies to the FCC, but limiting yourself to pretending that the FCC is only a problem for the U.S., and it's totally clear sailing through the regulatory agencies of other countries?
All you had to do was ask politely.
See how easy that was?
There are two kinds of 2.x phones out there - really old phones, and cheap low-end phones that run 2.3 because they don't have the horsepower to run 4.x. Many of them are pay-as-you-go phones you can buy at 7-11 or low-end ones from carriers for customers who don't want to pay iPhone prices.
My HTC was locked to Android Market, and wasn't willing to talk to Google Play, and the carrier never pushed out the 2.1->2.2 upgrade in a way that worked for me. 3.x was mainly a tablet release that didn't affect phones, and most of those seem to have been upgradeable to 4.0.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Phones and Tablets are different problems - with phones and 3G/4G/LTE tablets, you've got a carrier who can push updates to you, but if you've got a Wifi-only tablet, there's no carrier, just a manufacturer. Do they have an incentive to upgrade? Does the user have a way to tell?
Google's new product announcements always say "See all our shiny new features! If you have one of these three Google Nexus products, you can get it! Otherwise, wait for your carrier to maybe do something!", but never say (at least to consumers; I assume they tell manufacturers) "If your device has at least this generation processor and this much memory, you can upgrade, here's how." Part of that is because, for the big-vendor phones, the manufacturer and sometimes the carrier heavily customize the product, replace half the user interface and tools with custom ones and add a bunch of useful apps or bloatware, and then you can't just do the OS upgrade yourself because you'd lose the customization and probably also lose the bloatware.
My old HTC phone was heavily customized, and the upgrade from 2.1 to 2.2 wasn't actually pushed out, though you could pull it for a little while, if your phone wasn't broken when locked-to-AndroidMarket got replaced with Google Play. My noname 4.0.x tablet which has Google Play but no obvious customization is now running 4.0.4 (I think it originally had 4.0.1), so it shouldn't be a problem to upgrade it if it's got enough horsepower - and Google never tells you how much horsepower they need, just what Nexus models support it.. I ended up replacing the HTC with a Samsung, and haven't taken the time to go back and install Cyanogen on the HTC; I assume if I did that to the tablet I'd lose Google Play access, which I depend on for apps and patches.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks