Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Scans 6B Apps, 400M Devices Each Day; Says 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches (googleblog.com)

Posted by msmash on from the state-of-Android dept.

Reader Trailrunner7 writes: As part of the enhancements to Android security, Google scans more than 6 billion installed applications per day on users' devices. The company also scans more than 400 million devices each day, it announced on Tuesday. Google last year also began releasing monthly security updates for devices running modern versions of Android, which includes devices on version 4.4.4 (KitKat) and later. "70.8% of all active Android devices are on a version that we support with patches," the Android report says. However, that still leaves hundreds of millions of Android devices without regular updates. There were roughly 1.4 billion Android devices active in September, according to Google, so that would leave about 420 million Android devices without patches. In the Android ecosystem, carriers are also responsible for pushing security patches to users, so while Google pushes security updates each month, not all carriers and device manufacturers release them to all users regularly.In its report, Google also says that fewer than 0.15% of devices, that only get apps from Google Play, had potentially harmful apps installed on them.

105 comments

  1. Ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many of those supported versions actually receive patches, though?

    1. Re:Ok, but... by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Yep, my Nexus 4 was on 5.1.1 and hasn't received a security update that I can recall since Google released Marshmallow. So what hope do non-Nexus devices have?

      One thinks that ultimately there needs to be more separation between hardware, android and vendor customization so Google can just push updates ala Microsoft and PCs.

    2. Re:Ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, my Nexus 4 was on 5.1.1 and hasn't received a security update that I can recall since Google released Marshmallow. So what hope do non-Nexus devices have?

      One thinks that ultimately there needs to be more separation between hardware, android and vendor customization so Google can just push updates ala Microsoft and PCs.

      But you just said that Google has abandoned their own hardware in your first sentence!

    3. Re:Ok, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      None. In most cases, the patches are controlled by the phone maker or carrier, and they don't patch regularly.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:Ok, but... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      The security updates will have come via google play services updates. You only get system updates when they are at a lower level.

    5. Re:Ok, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like "most of them don't patch anything, at all, ever, unless it's the flagship device they released last month".

    6. Re:Ok, but... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Incorrect. Patches can be delivered by either the maker/carrier via an OS update, or via Google Play. In versions of Android from 4.0 onwards (I think, it might be 4.1) Google can and does mitigate issues without any action from the manufacturer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Ok, but... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Google core apps are updated via Play, but I'd not heard of OS updates through Play, and Google apparently hasn't either. I can find no way to view this feature or verify it. So as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
  2. 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches by Threni · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, Google, you're in the best position to make that happen. Allow your update process to update stuff like the libraries which had the stagefright problem to get updated by yourselves and not require the manufacturers to do it, because you know better than we do how bad they are at it. And have a word with Samsung, who tell you they'll provide major updates to Android for 18 months and then simply refuse to to it.

    Or is this just a ploy to get people to buy from your increasingly bad value for money Nexus range?

  3. Do I really need to point out the fix? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> Google Says 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches
    >> In the Android ecosystem, carriers are also responsible for pushing security patches to users, so while Google pushes security updates each month, not all carriers and device manufacturers release them to all users regularly.

    It sounds like the ball's in Google's court. "Want to be an 'Android' vendor? You agree to keep your devices updated with our security patches."

    1. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No money in that. It's why cell providers are trying to avoid selling WinPhones, without forced obsolescence a big part of the cell provider income stream goes away. They don't want to relay patches at any speed, they want customers to sign new 2-year contracts every two years, get a new phone running a modern build, and recycle the old one for raw materials (especially if the only problem with the old one is an obsolete OS version).
      Remove Android's big advantage to the cell providers and watch them go back to pushing proprietary software like they did before Google's lax oversight unified their business plans.

      Apple gets around this by having a very devoted fan base. They don't want "a good phone" they want "this month's iPhone," and AT&T gives in to the demand.

    2. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 5, Informative

      >> Google Says 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches >> In the Android ecosystem, carriers are also responsible for pushing security patches to users, so while Google pushes security updates each month, not all carriers and device manufacturers release them to all users regularly. It sounds like the ball's in Google's court. "Want to be an 'Android' vendor? You agree to keep your devices updated with our security patches."

      (I'm a member of Google's Android security team, but not an official spokesperson. Treat all of the following as informed personal opinion, not an official statement.)

      If only it were that easy. A lot of people overestimate the power that Google has to tell OEMs and carriers what to do. There is some power there, certainly, but the fact that Android is open source means that if Google pushes too hard the partners can simply set up their own app stores, stop calling their devices "Android", and do what they like. Some of the big players are totally capable of doing this. Also, the contractual arrangements aren't renegotiated at whim, there's a schedule (every other year, I think?) so Google can only change them on that schedule, and even then it's a negotiation, not an opportunity for Google to dictate terms.

      Still, Google does have considerable leverage, is using it, and this aspect of the ecosystem is getting much better. Rapidly, actually, on the time scales associated with designing and building hardware (as opposed to Internet time).

      One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.

      If you're planning on doing regular software updates for a substantial period of time, that's a ridiculous way to structure your product line and build processes, but most OEMs weren't planning on that. Now, most of the major (and many minor) players are, which means that going forward they're going to be working to simplify their offerings and streamline their development and update cycles to be able to turn updates around quickly and test them cost-effectively. They rarely have the bandwidth to go back and fix things up for older products, though, so to some extent the transition to a fully-patched Android ecosystem is going to involve waiting out the decline of older devices.

      And keep in mind that by the time a device hits the market it's already been in development for well over a year. So if OEMs got the message in 4Q2015 that they were going to need to do regular updates on future devices, it'll be 2Q2016 or so before they figure out what that means they need to change for new device planning, and then late 2017 before the new crop of devices launches, all set up for monthly update cycles. Carriers have their own retooling to do.

      This all means that the Android security team fully expects that we'll have to continue focusing on defense in depth rather than rapid patch deployment as our primary method of protecting user devices for the next few years. Luckily, the current set of techniques seems to be working astonishingly well. Much better than I would have thought.

      Once the ecosystem gets far enough down the regular-update path, mind you, it may well become reasonable for Google to mandate regular patching in the contractual relationships that provide OEMs with access to Google's apps, just as you'd like to see happen now. Given that hardly anyone is tooled up to do it right now, though, I don't think there's any way Google could impose that mandate.

    3. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are on the Android security team (and I am not questioning that), then I feel that I need to make two points to you.

      1. Twice now, I have had to root my devices to prevent them from auto-installing patches that caused serious problems with the machine, e.g. overheating, massive slowdowns, lock-ups, draining a battery 5 times more quickly than designed, and otherwise making the phone/tablet basically useless. One was so bad that the manufacturer actually pulled the patches down for several weeks to try to fix them - only to put up patches that didn't fix much at all! These problems were noted by thousands of users (and both were major version upgrades, specifically 4.4.4->5.0 and 5.x->6.0). While I realize Google has limited control over the manufacturers' behavior, stopping this would cause a lot more people to actually want to update their machines. As-is, in order to have a device that works, I have to avoid upgrading pretty much period.

      2. Updates that un-root the phone take away a lot of control. In fact, not having root in the first place effectively means that Google owns my hardware and I just pay for it. There are many uses for rooting and most are not, in fact, malicious. Offering a way to maintain root despite the update would also be a major draw in terms of wanting to install patches. I realize that this causes problems for your security system, but I would think users who do not install patches at all would cause worse problems, particularly in the reputation department.

      I realize that your options and pull are limited, but I think you should seriously consider these options. I fear that your leaders likely have already veto'd at least the 'avoid un-rooting' option, but nevertheless, I thought that I should mention it.

    4. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google played ball with the carries when Apple pretty much told them to fuck off. Apple devices are updated until they're considered quite obsolete. Android devices are stuck in an uncertain limbo.

      I'm not saying mistakes were made. Google simply filled a demand and they have a good product that serves billions.

      The lesson everyone should take away, though, is that carriers are the fucking problem.

    5. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by macs4all · · Score: 0

      One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.

      And this is one of the biggest reasons why Android sucks and iOS rocks.

      Google wax apparently too stupid and short-sighted to look into the future a little bit, and see the all-too-predictable outcome of losing control over their "Brand". And make no mistake: Most people DO know that Android means Google.

      So, now that Android has a reputation as a festering shithole of Carrier-Infused Crapware, Fragmentation, and rampant Malware, how can Google's reputation and "brand" NOT suffer?

      Perhaps NOW we know the REAL reason why "Alphabet Soup Corporation" was created, eh? They are trying to gradually distance themselves from the (now-tainted) "Google" brand...

    6. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by macs4all · · Score: 0

      Google played ball with the carries when Apple pretty much told them to fuck off. Apple devices are updated until they're considered quite obsolete. Android devices are stuck in an uncertain limbo.

      I'm not saying mistakes were made. Google simply filled a demand and they have a good product that serves billions.

      The lesson everyone should take away, though, is that carriers are the fucking problem.

      While I agree with your first point, the Carriers are the problem ONLY because Google wanted to suck them off sooooo bad it let them walk all over them. They apparently didn't realize they were actually in a HUGE position of power, being the only other viable alternative to IOS (which Apple wouldn't license to third parties under ANY circumstances). They COULD have nipped the crapware and update issues in the bud; but NOOOOOOOO...

    7. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      1. Twice now, I have had to root my devices to prevent them from auto-installing patches that caused serious problems with the machine, e.g. overheating, massive slowdowns, lock-ups, draining a battery 5 times more quickly than designed, and otherwise making the phone/tablet basically useless... While I realize Google has limited control over the manufacturers' behavior

      Correction: Google has basically no control over manufacturers' behavior.

      Updates that un-root the phone take away a lot of control. In fact, not having root in the first place effectively means that Google owns my hardware and I just pay for it.

      You mean that the company that made your phone owns your hardware and you just pay for it. If you don't want that, buy unlockable phones. All Nexus devices are unlockable, and there are a few other companies that also sell devices with unlockable bootloaders. And, FYI, rooting phones that don't have legitimately unlockable bootloaders is going to become very, very hard, perhaps in many cases impossible, as we continue tightening down the security model. So if you want to continue rooting, prioritize that in your purchase choices.

      But, actually, rooting is a bad idea from a security standpoint. I firmly believe that you should be free to do it, but it does reduce device security.

    8. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Google had no power, because Google didn't make phones at all, and had no interaction whatsoever with carriers. If anyone was in a position to play the kind of hardball Apple did with carriers, it was HTC. But they weren't, because the Dream didn't have nearly the consumer impact that the iPhone did. It was only the runaway success of the iPod and the corresponding consumer cachet that allowed Apple to hold the line with the carriers... and remember that Apple almost didn't succeed. All of the carriers initially refused their terms, and AT&T only got on board with the condition that the iPhone be exclusive to AT&T's network for five years. HTC didn't have the clout to negotiate that sort of deal even if they'd been willing to try. And Google had absolutely no say at all.

    9. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 2

      One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.

      And this is one of the biggest reasons why Android sucks and iOS rocks.

      Ignoring the unsubstantiated opinion, it's also the reason why Android market share has dominated iOS for years now, and iOS continues to decline. Yes, most of those Android phones are cheap devices that barely qualify for the name "smartphone", while iOS still leads in the lucrative premium segment (though that lead is eroding), but that's exactly the point. The wide variety of Android devices available means there are Android phones for every niche.

      It's all very similar to the Windows vs MacOS story. In the last few years the combination of the iPhone tie-in and the fact that so much software has moved to the web browser, making it platform independent, but prior to that Windows trounced MacOS for the simple reason that you could buy whatever sort of Windows PC you wanted, and at a very aggressive price point, due to the many manufacturers of PC compatibles. A single manufacturer simply can't compete with an entire ecosystem. That doesn't mean a manufacturer can't carve out a very profitable niche for itself, which Apple has done incredibly well, but it will always be only a niche.

      Google wax apparently too stupid and short-sighted to look into the future a little bit, and see the all-too-predictable outcome of losing control over their "Brand". And make no mistake: Most people DO know that Android means Google.

      Meh. Google's brand is one of the strongest in the world, and Android is enhancing it, not dragging it down. Until recently most people did not know that Android was Google. Actually most people didn't know that Android was a thing at all; they just knew there was "Samsung", "LG", etc. That is why Google started the "Be together. Not the same." advertising campaign, to help people realize that Android existed and ran on all of those phones... and that it was from Google.

      I realize it's hard to break free of the RDF, but you should give it a shot.

    10. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by Maow · · Score: 1

      One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.

      And this is one of the biggest reasons why Android sucks and iOS rocks.

      Yeah, and "macs4all" is certainly not the pseudonym of a biased fanboi.

      That's not to say that there isn't a problem in the Android ecosphere, but fanbois suck worse than the worst software.

      Google wax apparently too stupid and short-sighted to look into the future a little bit,

      Or they were a bit naÏve and thought that Android phone manufacturers would behave like Linux distributions, that is to say some would push immediate updates (Arch) and others would go for rock-solid reliability (CentOS), or some such models.

      Naïve bordering on dumb perhaps, but Google ain't stupid.

      ... and see the all-too-predictable outcome of losing control over their "Brand". And make no mistake: Most people DO know that Android means Google.

      So, now that Android has a reputation as a festering shithole of Carrier-Infused Crapware, Fragmentation, and rampant Malware, how can Google's reputation and "brand" NOT suffer?

      I'd say that Google isn't suffering very much, Android is a bit, most people are utterly unaware of the issue, they just use their phones for whatever purposes they bought them for in complete oblivion.

      You might find that hard to believe, but for some people their mobile devices are just devices, not status symbols, not objects of intense desire, and not something they pleasure themselves with in private.

      Just phones that run some apps.

      Perhaps NOW we know the REAL reason why "Alphabet Soup Corporation" was created, eh? They are trying to gradually distance themselves from the (now-tainted) "Google" brand...

      Perhaps NOW we can hope the fanbois will STFU with their rabid fanboi-isms.

      Nah, too much to ask for.

    11. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      There is some power there, certainly, but the fact that Android is open source means that if Google pushes too hard the partners can simply set up their own app stores, stop calling their devices "Android", and do what they like. Some of the big players are totally capable of doing this.

      Capable technically a financially ... possibly, yes. Actually going to do that? My twenty bucks says "no way in hell!". Can you imagine a cell phone in the shop with a tag saying "cannot talk to Google Play nor Windows Store"? That would be like a desktop computer with a tag "cannot play games because it does not run Windows".

    12. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Google had no power, because Google didn't make phones at all, and had no interaction whatsoever with carriers.

      That's absolute horseshit.

      Google may not have had DIRECT influence with the carriers; but once Apple negotiated the deal with AT&T, they certainly had INDIRECT control, in that EVERY other Carrier OTHER THAN ATT was clamoring for one or more of the "me too" 'iPhones' that the Samsungs, HTCs and LGs of the world were developing. And WHO controlled the OS for all those iPhone-knockoffs?

      Google.

    13. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Google controlled *none* of those phones, and had no place at the table with the carriers.

    14. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 2

      There is some power there, certainly, but the fact that Android is open source means that if Google pushes too hard the partners can simply set up their own app stores, stop calling their devices "Android", and do what they like. Some of the big players are totally capable of doing this.

      Capable technically a financially ... possibly, yes. Actually going to do that? My twenty bucks says "no way in hell!". Can you imagine a cell phone in the shop with a tag saying "cannot talk to Google Play nor Windows Store"? That would be like a desktop computer with a tag "cannot play games because it does not run Windows".

      It's really not that inconceivable. Consider, for example, if the top two or three Android manufacturers decided to ally with Amazon, which already has an app store. And obviously there would be no tag saying "Cannot talk to Google Play store". There would be a tag saying "Can run hundreds of millions of apps from the Amazon app store"... and it would be true. App developers don't often bother with the Amazon store now, but if that was the way to reach all new Samsung devices, you can bet that they would.

    15. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Google controlled *none* of those phones, and had no place at the table with the carriers.

      To quote Pink Floyd: "Don't give me that do goody-good Bullll--shit."

      You OBVIOUSLY don't understand "Licensing", or are being willfully-ignorant. Take your pick.

      1. Google had FULL control over the *OS* in those phones (because they FULLY control the *License* under which the phone mfgs. could USE Google's OS, and they were free to place ANY terms in said License Agreement).

      2. Google could have *EASILY* Requested a "Place at the Table", again as a condition in the LICENSE Agreement.

      3. If you think that there aren't "Additional Terms" in those "OEM" License Agreements between Google and the phone manufacturers, over and above the standard Android License that you or I would be bound by, you are as ignorant as goat piss.

    16. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that it's only 30%. The well-known graphic from a few years ago comparing to iOS told a different story about phones abandoned by their carriers / manufacturers.

    17. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that Google had to choose between an open source license or having a say, and opted for open source?

      Yes, that is completely true.

      If you think that there aren't "Additional Terms" in those "OEM" License Agreements between Google and the phone manufacturers, over and above the standard Android License that you or I would be bound by, you are as ignorant as goat piss.

      There are no additional license agreements on Android. None. There is an additional license agreement, called the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement", or MADA, which OEMs who wish to use Google's proprietary, closed source apps and services on top of Android must sign. That agreement is what I referenced in my first post in this thread, which is renegotiatied periodically and gives Google some limited leverage with the OEMs. That didn't exist at all back when Apple was strong-arming the carriers.

    18. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      The wide variety of Android devices available means there are Android phones for every niche.

      Well, as someone who would like a useful and flexible device that provides privacy instead of privacy policies, I wouldn't say it's covered every niche yet.

    19. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      The wide variety of Android devices available means there are Android phones for every niche.

      Well, as someone who would like a useful and flexible device that provides privacy instead of privacy policies, I wouldn't say it's covered every niche yet.

      Blackphone?

      On the other hand, it is and will always be true that some niches are too small to generate commercial interest. Yours may be one such, depending on your definitions of "useful", "flexible" and "privacy".

    20. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      I can't disagree. For now I'm holding out for the Pyra.

      I can't remember off the top of my head why I haven't considered the Blackphone. Probably just that I hadn't heard anything more of it since before it was released. I'll have to give it another look.

    21. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      I can't disagree. For now I'm holding out for the Pyra.

      Interesting... I hadn't heard of that one. Looks like a cool toy, though not something I would get much use out of. Personally, I have no issue with the privacy around standard Android devices, but I suppose I do have an advantage of having greater visibility into the issues than most, and I find that visibility reassuring. Clearly your mileage does vary.

      I can't remember off the top of my head why I haven't considered the Blackphone. Probably just that I hadn't heard anything more of it since before it was released. I'll have to give it another look.

      I haven't really looked into it much either. It may suck.

      The other option is to get an unlockable device and customize it to fit your requirements, but that requires quite a bit of effort and skill, and probably requires you to give up some amount of utility, depending on what you like to do. There's also the problem that even the most open of devices have binary-only firmware at their core. This is the case even for Nexus devices, and even for Google Android engineers. There are big chunks of code that we have zero visibility into.

    22. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that Google had to choose between an open source license or having a say, and opted for open source?

      Yes, that is completely true.

      If you think that there aren't "Additional Terms" in those "OEM" License Agreements between Google and the phone manufacturers, over and above the standard Android License that you or I would be bound by, you are as ignorant as goat piss.

      There are no additional license agreements on Android. None. There is an additional license agreement, called the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement", or MADA, which OEMs who wish to use Google's proprietary, closed source apps and services on top of Android must sign. That agreement is what I referenced in my first post in this thread, which is renegotiatied periodically and gives Google some limited leverage with the OEMs. That didn't exist at all back when Apple was strong-arming the carriers.

      So, you are privvy to the OEM agreements between Google and the handset-mfgs?

      I think not.

      And Apple did not "strong-arm" anyone. They negotiated intelligently, and with the END-USER in mind. Hence, no Crapware on iPhones, WORLDWIDE, REGARDLESS OF CARRIER.

      Google COULD have had that, too; and COULD have it come "Renegotiation" time; but CHOOSES NOT TO.

      THAT is the world of Contracts. They can ALWAYS be CHANGED.

    23. Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      So, you are privvy to the OEM agreements between Google and the handset-mfgs?

      I regularly talk to the people who negotiate them. Could I actually read them? I expect so, though I have no interest in it, and definitely couldn't talk about the contents if I did.

      And Apple did not "strong-arm" anyone. They negotiated intelligently, and with the END-USER in mind. Hence, no Crapware on iPhones, WORLDWIDE, REGARDLESS OF CARRIER.

      Apple negotiated very effectively, yes, and I should probably have chosen a milder verb.

      Google COULD have had that, too; and COULD have it come "Renegotiation" time; but CHOOSES NOT TO.

      At this point we're just saying "Nuh uh!", "Uh huh!", and you can't back up your argument because you don't have the information for it, and I can't back up my argument because I'm constrained by confidentiality requirements. So I'll just stop responding here.

      Before I leave, though, I will point out one other concern that might make Google choose not to push the OEMs (and maybe carriers) even if it could: the anti-trust issues being raised in Europe. An advantage of Apple's small and declining market share is that it doesn't have to be concerned about that sort of thing.

  4. Galaxy Nexus by Elledan · · Score: 2

    My Galaxy Nexus with Android 4.3 says 'hi' :)

    A flagship device only a few years ago, it's not received patches or any form of updates for years now and is now too unsafe to even consider using as a smartphone any more.

    Meanwhile the iPhone 4S I also use is up to date on the latest iOS with no sign of support being dropped just yet, despite this phone being of a similar age as the Galaxy Nexus.

    The lesson I have learned out of owning a Google Android device is to never buy Android again. Apple and even Windows update their devices for as long as reasonably possible, while Android is a walking security risk, even on Nexus devices.

    --
    Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    1. Re:Galaxy Nexus by rupert.applin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, it wouldn't be so bad if you just had to get updates from Google and the manufacturer, but when you have to suffer the carriers wanting to put their crap into the OS as well - then you are really in trouble as they don't care a jot about 'old' devices, but would much rather sell you something new that spend money providing updates for what they have sold previously.

    2. Re:Galaxy Nexus by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I have a T-Mo Nexus 5, for 2 years now, and I think I've only received 5 or 6 OS patches in that time (last one just today).

    3. Re:Galaxy Nexus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's typical ADD Google in action. They lose interest in things and completely drop them for the new shiny that just distracted them.

      I'm in the same boat with a Galaxy Nexus, that I actually really liked, sitting on a shelf waiting to be repurposed.

    4. Re:Galaxy Nexus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's better than my T-Mo Galaxy S3, which had manufacturer support for 4.4, but T-Mo refused to distribute anything past 4.3 for.

      I'm still using that phone because "screw them". And it's still better than the iPhone I used to have. My next phone will be a Windows phone, and I'll be buying it unlocked. Because "screw them".

    5. Re:Galaxy Nexus by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      The case with the Galaxy Nexus is a bit special, as they had planned to support it longer until Texas Instruments, the supplier of the OMAP 4460 SoC used in the Galaxy Nexus, suddenly decided to get out of the mobile and tablet business and also stopped providing updated (binary) drivers for their SoC. Without updated drivers Google is limited in what it can fix; in particular, the old drivers won't work with newer versions of the kernel.

      Could Google have continued supporting the Galaxy Nexus anyway, backporting security fixes and other changes that didn't depend on an updated kernel? Sure. It would have been a lot of trouble which would have detracted from their other Android development efforts, however, so it's understandable that they chose to E.O.L. the Galaxy Nexus and focus on the rest of the Android ecosystem not based on obsoleted components. They also switched to a different SoC for the next Nexus device and updated their supplier policies to make this scenario less likely in the future.

      (What they did not do, unfortunately, was take the more principled stand of only using components with properly upstreamed open-source device drivers, which would have eliminated dependence on the manufacturers and carriers for updates once and for all.)

      Speaking as a Galaxy Nexus owner who was rather annoyed with the change at the time. I've since upgraded to a Nexus 5, but the older phone still works well enough several years after its official E.O.L. date (running the last CyanogenMod build for the Galaxy Nexus). It's a bit underpowered by modern standards, but I sometimes employ it for remote monitoring or other simple tasks when I don't want to tie up my main device.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    6. Re:Galaxy Nexus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile the iPhone 4S I also use is up to date on the latest iOS with no sign of support being dropped just yet, despite this phone being of a similar age as the Galaxy Nexus.

      If you count "support" being an OS that runs so poorly on it that the phone nearly becomes useless, sure. Apple "supports" old devices by increasingly making them more and more useless if you update the software on them, hoping to annoy you into blowing another $800 on their "latest and greatest" phone that adds no new features other than not being intentionally crippled by Apple.

    7. Re:Galaxy Nexus by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      The lesson I have learned out of owning a Google Android device is to never buy Android again. Apple and even Windows update their devices for as long as reasonably possible, while Android is a walking security risk, even on Nexus devices.

      Your lesson is overly-broad, because the Galaxy Nexus is an outlier in the Nexus line, and one that will not happen again. The SoC vendor, Texas Instruments, got out of the SoC business, canned the employees and apparently lost all of the source code. Google provides system images for Nexus devices, but OEMs and their suppliers provide all of the lower-level binaries, so this left Google pretty much unable to update anything but the surface level components of Android. OS upgrades always entail lower-level component upgrades as well.

      The Galaxy Nexus is the only Nexus device to have suffered this fate. All of the others have been updated for as long as Google felt it was reasonable to continue updating them. Further, Google has now formally committed to a defined support plan for every Nexus device -- something that AFAICT no other company has done. That statement includes Apple. If you buy a Nexus, device you know it will receive major OS upgrades for at least two years from the time the device was released or 18 months from the time it was removed from the Play Store, whichever is longer. Usually the latter is longer, since they stay on the Play store for about a year. Similarly, it will receive security patches for at least three years from release and 30 months from the time it was removed from the Play Store, whichever is longer. Those timelines are committed minimums, not maximums.

      To make those commitments possible, Google has obviously negotiated commitments from suppliers so a repeat of the Galaxy Nexus situation cannot occur.

      On the other side, you're comparing the Galaxy Nexus to the iPhone 4S which is an outlier in the opposite direction from Apple. No iOS device has been supported as long as the 4S has. And you're also ignoring the fact that iOS 8 rendered the 4S pretty close to unusable. I have one kicking around and it works and has iOS 9... but it's hasn't been something I'd want to use since iOS 8 was released (just 8 days after the 4S was discontinued; I feel sorry for the people who bought those last 4S units. I hope they were cheap).

    8. Re:Galaxy Nexus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Galaxy Nexus is the only Nexus device to have suffered this fate. All of the others have been updated for as long as Google felt it was reasonable to continue updating them.

      Interesting, since Apple products continue to be solidly supported for a minimum of 24 months. No iphone has gone out of production in less than 24 months, so your 18 month minimum needs to be upped by 6 months just to play ball. My iPad2 is still supported, it's over 5 years old. The 4 stopped being supported after 4 years. Considering that was the last single core phone, maybe that's a good thing? As for the 4S, yes, iOS 8 slowed it down initially, but by 8.2 or so it was running reasonably well, although not as fast as iOS 7.

      I mean, honestly, name 1 Google device that has seen even 24 month's support. If it exists, it's an outlier of at least an order of magnitude greater than any Apple product. I have used various android devices, and every time I comment to myself "what a disaster of an interface this is" along with several other thoughts. I also code for it, and the latest moves with Android Studio make me yearn for the old Eclipse based SDK. Android is not getting better, it's getting worse, becoming ever more unstable and difficult to support. I don't see that getting better until some leadership and vision come to the Android team, as merely chasing Apple and iOS is not a sustainable marketing model.

    9. Re:Galaxy Nexus by macs4all · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile the iPhone 4S I also use is up to date on the latest iOS with no sign of support being dropped just yet, despite this phone being of a similar age as the Galaxy Nexus.

      If you count "support" being an OS that runs so poorly on it that the phone nearly becomes useless, sure. Apple "supports" old devices by increasingly making them more and more useless if you update the software on them, hoping to annoy you into blowing another $800 on their "latest and greatest" phone that adds no new features other than not being intentionally crippled by Apple.

      You're talking in generalities. Apple just released an update to iOS 9 specifically designed to improve performance on older devices, clear back to the iPad 2. And the iPhone 4s has a more powerful SoC than the iPad 2 I am typing this on.

    10. Re:Galaxy Nexus by macs4all · · Score: 3, Informative

      No iOS device has been supported as long as the 4S has.

      My iPad 2, which is at least a year older than my iPhone 4s, would beg to differ with you.

      Both run iOS 9, and in fact, Apple's SUPPORT of these older devices included a recent Update to iOS 9 SPECIFICALLY targeted at improving performance on older devices, specifically the iPhone 4s and the iPad 2.

      So yeah, I'd call THAT "Support"!

      BTW, that's why I skipped iOS 8. It DID have performance issues on the iPad 2. But they fixed it with (IIRC) iOS 9.2.1

    11. Re:Galaxy Nexus by shawn2772 · · Score: 2

      My iPad 2, which is at least a year older than my iPhone 4s, would beg to differ with you.

      I stand corrected. The iPad2 is indeed a few months older than the iPhone4S. It doesn't change the fact that Elledan compared the worst outlier among Nexus devices to nearly the best outlier among Apple devices. Perhaps he wasn't intentionally cherry-picking devices to support his argument but that was the effect.

    12. Re:Galaxy Nexus by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A flagship device only a few years ago, it's not received patches or any form of updates for years now and is now too unsafe to even consider using as a smartphone any more.

      That is simply untrue. Your device continues to get updates via Google Play, which on Android 4.3 is capable of patching parts of the OS like libraries too. So your device is in fact getting security updates and is safe to use.

      In any case, Android takes a defence in depth approach. Even if one vulnerability exists, any malicious code will have to get through several before it can do much. That's why you don't see vast Android botnets, it's just not possible even when 30% of devices are not getting updates. All current malware in the wild relies on tricking the user into side-loading it, not exploits.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Galaxy Nexus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nexus S - introduced in Dec 2010, discontinued support in Nov 2012 - less than 2 years. Yes, 3rd parties released further updates, but Google discontinued support with 4.2.1.

      Nexus 4 was released in Nov 2012, discontinued in May 2015, so that meets the 24 month minimum.

      By comparison, the iPhone 4S was released in Oct 2011 and is still supported.

      As for the rest of the original post, lets switch to facts then: Android Studio moved to IntelliJ and Gradle. Gradle is known to be buggy and difficult to use. Take a look at the number of bugs under discussion there and their submission time. I don't see that as a healthy environment and community, but rather a product that is causing large numbers of issues. And, of course, swapping Eclipse for IntelliJ won't cause any hardship for any developers either. Both have their quirks and yes, I prefer Eclipse for a number of reasons but concede that it is largely a personal preference. However, IntelliJ does require more steps for certain operations, such as having to switch views to see package vs class members, or missing a simple selection based reformat and/or indent features (you should as a best practice only change what you're editing, not reformat the entire file - bad IntelliJ). There's a number of other small things missing, none essential, but all productivity enhancing. Moving to the more rapid "Agile" release process for Studio and libraries certainly isn't aiding in the stability realm, just by definition, especially when you're adding features on each release.

    14. Re:Galaxy Nexus by Elledan · · Score: 1

      The Android Browser is one of those components which Google has specifically said won't be getting security updates when a few big holes were uncovered recently. Unless this has changed I will continue to treat the Galaxy Nexus as a solidly EOLed and insecure device.

      Not that it matters that much, though, as the GNexus is far too slow for general usage anyway. For anyone complaining about the iPhone 4S slowing down with iOS updates, it's clear that they haven't tried to use a GNexus with 4.3 with a normal amount of apps installed.

      --
      Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
    15. Re: Galaxy Nexus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is there's no google devices to cherry pick. All of them fucking suck.

      What do you mean he's cherry picking? He chose the 2 oldest devices apple still supports. How is that cherry picking?

      Listen, it's obvious you work for them. You have put the Google blinders on. You have absorbed everything they told you. You repeat it because deep down you want it to be true. Face it, Google isn't what they used to be.

      Tldr: fuck Google and their update model. Apples is superior in every way.

    16. Re:Galaxy Nexus by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Nexus S - introduced in Dec 2010, discontinued support in Nov 2012 - less than 2 years.

      Indeed, you're right. 23 months, not 24. My mistake.

    17. Re: Galaxy Nexus by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Yes, Apple's update model is better than the Android ecosystem's. I'll readily grant that.

    18. Re:Galaxy Nexus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TBH, both the Nexus S and the Nexus 4 were supported for less than just the production run of any iPhone since at least the iPhone 3G, much less it's total support period. Perhaps there's a reason 75% of teens next phone will be an iPhone? But it is not just teens. The common complaint there is Android and its support model, or lack thereof.

  5. Are there any non-Nexus devices getting security by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    Are there any non-Nexus devices getting monthly security patches from Google?

  6. Google has the power to change this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're a phone or tablet manufacturer and want to preinstall Google Mobile Services (GMS; e.g., Google Play, GMail, Google Maps, etc...) on the device, your device has to pass testing and be certified in order to be licensed to distribute that software on the device. While Android is freely released, Google's software that adds a lot of value is licensed differently. Google has the power to require that any manufacturer wanting to distribute devices with GMS also commit to providing Android updates in order to be licensed for GMS. Furthermore, just like Apple does with the iPhone, they have the ability as part of licensing GMS to require device manufacturers to not allow carriers to install bloatware. They can dictate these terms through licensing GMS, should they so desire. That 30% of Android devices don't get regular patches is very much a function of the way Google has licensed Android and GMS. Google has the power to change this situation going forward.

    1. Re: Google has the power to change this by Ilgaz · · Score: 2

      If a black hat manages to crack the device, first target will be Google billing information and Google password. Once they are stolen, a huge, never heard of scandal will happen and people will blame Android or Google. Not the manufacturer of device.

      It is just like Windows got blamed once the vendor bundled AV expired and let all the crap in.

      Google doesn't have a clue about potential digital argameddon that is on the way.

  7. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    Samsung and others will just remove that Google updater. They fork Android and they don't want any update from Google.

  8. My LG E970 got ONE updae from AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And has been stuck at 4.1.2 for years. Unfortunately, it does everything I ask it to fairly well, so I have not been able to justify an upgrade, so I let my kids and ex-wife use the phone upgrades on my plan.

  9. Did I miss something... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    When did Google get into the scanning devices business? I thought scanning books would keep them busy for a while.

    1. Re:Did I miss something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the EULA - Google can do whatever they want with 'your' device

    2. Re:Did I miss something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are they supposed to monetize you if they don't scan your devices? Why do you hate America?

    3. Re:Did I miss something... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Read the EULA - Google can do whatever they want with 'your' device

      What EULA would that be? I don't own any Google devices.

    4. Re:Did I miss something... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate Trumpistan?

      FTFY

  10. Uh huh by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Thirty percent. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Uh huh by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

      Yah, that number seems just a tad low.

      "70.8% of all active Android devices are on a version that we support with patches," - perhaps, but what percentage of those patches are supported and distributed by the carriers? Maybe 30%... so maybe that's where that number came from.

    2. Re:Uh huh by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

      Re-reading my post, I rather should have have said that number (30%) seems a bit high. It might be 30% of the 70.8%.

  11. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Newer versions of Android (6.0+ I believe) should have the security patches come through on a monthly basis even on manufacturer versions of Android (e.g., Samsung, LG, HTC, etc.) In other words, they are working at it, but it will take a while until all users have devices with 6.0+.

  12. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they do that then Google should enforce the Android Trademark and stop them (Samsung etc) from using it.

  13. Re:Are there any non-Nexus devices getting securit by heezer7 · · Score: 2

    Motorolo does, but it lags. My Moto X Pure 2015 is on the Patch version from February. Not great, but at least still supported.

  14. Crappy Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When updates are filled with more and more intrusive advertising and/or take away options and features, what incentive do android users have but to not update?

  15. Re: Are there any non-Nexus devices getting securi by yithar7153 · · Score: 1

    I don't think there are that many. Like my Lenovo 5000-F doesn't get updates. That's why I've ordered a Nexus 7, so I can install Cyanogenmod. It's kind of upsetting that modding is the best solution for keeping up with security updates when either Google or manufacturers should be doing it.

  16. Upgrading & the 1st World by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

    My Tablet, which is my only 'mobile device', runs Android 4.1.1. I know security-wise I'd be better off upgrading, but my highest continued use of it is as a note taking and book reading device and it does those just fine. I don't get the need to 'upgrade' to a new device just because this one is long in the tooth. I have neither the desire nor monetary resources to do that right now.

    I'm positive their are also lots of places in the world outside the US, Europe, and Japan where a device that is more than two years old isn't considered an antique. Vendors, including Google, need to realize this and figure out some way to do long term support for at least five years if not more. Heck I know plenty of companies that run ten year old PCs (or older since I know a few places run DOS still in their machine shops), so five years isn't really asking much and has at least been about the cycle for PC... This need to constantly push 'new' is unsustainable for a large part of their user base.

    --
    we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    1. Re:Upgrading & the 1st World by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Vendors, including Google, need to realize this and figure out some way to do long term support for at least five years if not more.

      So easy to say, so hard to actually do. With the wide performance gulf between a 2011 device and a 2015 device, optimization would be hell.

      Toss in vendors fucking around with closed source drivers, locking you into specific kernels, and Google's own out-of-tree changes that make it virtually impossible to use upstream trees, and it becomes harder.

      On top of that, add that handset vendors crank out dozens of models in a single year and, as soon as that product is done, the team is moved rapidly to the next project and you're lucky to get support for things shipping 3 months from any given point.

      Heck I know plenty of companies that run ten year old PCs (or older since I know a few places run DOS still in their machine shops)

      And in that case you're on your own and should be. A PC from 2005/2006, or running DOS, is almost entirely unsupported now except by virtue of the 30+ year x86 legacy. You can't reasonably expect new drivers for nForce 4 chipsets or what not, let alone fixes.

      This need to constantly push 'new' is unsustainable for a large part of their user base.

      And at some point you have to assume responsibility for things beyond their warranty period if you wish to continue using them. Most of the time this isn't a problem, but things fall by the wayside and become too old to justify support for.

      Of course, this is why Free Software is so great, and why binary-only drivers are crap. All those Galaxy Nexus users wouldn't be up shit creek if not for TI shipping only binary blobs then exiting the business and taking their drivers with them.

    2. Re: Upgrading & the 1st World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a 10 year old dell laptop that runs the latest version of Ubuntu just as well as the day I bought it (preloaded with Ubuntu).

    3. Re:Upgrading & the 1st World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I decided to bet on Firefox OS. Nice specs for that, dual core, 512 MB RAM. 800x480 display is even high dpi for me. I'm now wishing it had 1GB RAM and a bit faster CPU but compared to mobile devices with 160x128 screen and no wifi it's not bad. The touch screen is fast lol.
      There are community builds of all the versions : 2.0, 2.1. 2.2 etc.
      Perfect! Except Mozilla permanently ended the OS for smartphones a couple weeks after I bought it. Loooool!
      I had seen it coming. Device still is on FF OS 1.3, as I would like for 2.5 to be at leasy in beta before formatting.
      Will format hoping for better web browsing stability.

  17. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 2

    I'm positive they don't want the costs of keeping an OS up to date. If they fork their own version for their devices, they then take on all the major security issues Google has been handling. Samsung isn't the only Android vendor though and if they fall off the Google bandwagon for their own fork of it they will have quite the uphill battle. It would also give other vendors a much better shot at gaining marketshare. I've heard good things about the HTC 10 for instance...

    --
    we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  18. Partly the problem is hardware by Henarchaga · · Score: 2

    I'm part of that 30% - my phone won't download a recent system update because there is insufficient dedicated system memory to (I assume) unpack and install the update. It's a fun combination problem - the version of 4.4.2 that I have won't let me move all downloaded apps to the SD card, which has 4x the available space as the internal memory. At least some of the software is bloat or crap from Virgin Mobile, and the other half of the problem is the very limited specs of the phone - an LG Tribute.

    1. Re:Partly the problem is hardware by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If you're on Virgin Mobile, pitch the LG Tribute and upgrade to a Moto E. They're $30 at WalMart and they run Android 5.1. I am not sure the price for them is as low direct from Virgin Mobile, but that's the going price right now at Wallys. Mine got a major update earlier this week.

  19. Google's massive telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, why isn't /. collectively freaking out about the gigantic quantities of telemetry involved that Google collects from each Android phone, like it usually does for everything else?

    1. Re:Google's massive telemetry by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Because I've been shouting about it forever already. I guess we gotta keep doing it!

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Google's massive telemetry by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0

      Because it's cool to hate Apple and nobody wants a Windows phone.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Google's massive telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why isn't /. collectively freaking out about the gigantic quantities of telemetry involved that Google collects from each Android phone, like it usually does for everything else?

      I think (why read TFA, it won't have any details anyways?) the data is collected from the market (sorry, Google play) rather than from the phone and it is "well known" that Google keeps a list of everything that ever has been installed by an account. Thus, nothing new.

  20. Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where do I apply for a rebate from google for using my mobile bandwidth?

  21. I don't do google upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google: "Here are updates and fixes to bugs, but you can't have them unless you accept our new EULA. We had 300 lawyers find new and exciting ways to screw you over, hope you like it."

    Me: "No thanks."

    It should be illegal for companies to bundle updates with new EULAs.

  22. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not even sure what version of Android constitutes "newer versions" and yet you're making unsubstantiated claims that there's some technical or business reason that allows/compels Samsung, LG, Sony etc to update their devices monthly? I'm going to call bullshit on that one.

  23. Bad newbie advice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is why telling clueless users that Android is more secure is doing them a disservice. The average user isn't going to have a secure Android device ever.

  24. because Google can't on mine by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    I don't have a mobile data plan (just text and voice), and use the WiFi VERY rarely, so they're not getting much, if anything, from mine.

    1. Re: because Google can't on mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do you use it for? The whole point of a smartphone is a portable net connected computer.

  25. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by Cramer · · Score: 2

    Google's own braindamage is the reason why so few devices are actively patched. 6.0+ uses a filesystem block based patching mechanism. If you so much as mount the system partition (rw), you NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER! get a single byte of patches.

    And I don't know that the hell they're blabbering about... 4.4.4 absolutely does NOT get patches. Demanding I install 5.0.1 is not a patch. (it will then demand I install 5.1 then 6.0.) And unlike the majority of vendor "hacked" androids, Google doesn't ask a damn thing before it downloads hundreds of megs of crap I don't want -- tell me there's an update/patch/whatever and WAIT FOR ME TO APPROVE THE DOWNLOAD .

  26. My phone was built by Google by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    It's a Moto X 2014.
    It say's it's software is up to date. It's a retail version so no carriers to get in the way. The Android security patch version is 1 Nov 2015. Hasn't been any update since 6.0.
    Thanks for selling Motorola to Lenovo, Google. I bought the phone not only because of the features, but because Google makes a point of keeping it's devices updated.

    The 2013 Moto G isn't getting Android 6 but the 2014 Moto G is. They have the same SoC and RAM, so it can't be a system performance reason.

  27. Re:Are there any non-Nexus devices getting securit by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    My Moto X 2014 is on the November patch version.

  28. Re:Are there any non-Nexus devices getting securit by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    does it lag as it is getting all updates late, or as is it getting one update per year?

  29. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    HTC is no better. They have their own skin and update channel.

  30. What's a patch? I've never heard of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. 2.2.1 on an old, still in service phone, 4.0.1 on another. All as delivered, no updates ever pushed out.

  31. Re:Are there any non-Nexus devices getting securit by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    My Moto E, which currently sells for $29 at WalMart (Virgin Mobile) got a major OS update this past week.

  32. Haven't had an update in almost 4 years by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Bought my HTC V One in July 2012 (birthday present to me). As of now, it's never gotten a single OS update that I know of. Haven't loaded any apps on it for 2 years because newer apps don't run, and older apps I was interested in got loaded 2+ years ago.

    / based on a sample size of 1, I'll never buy another HTC phone again
    // hardware sucks (power/volume buttons broke early and often)
    /// software is buggy as hell

  33. Sprint's fault! in my case. by jnork · · Score: 1

    Sprint hasn't updated my Galaxy S4 since 5.0.1.

    Freedompop has updated since Kitkat but they're complete incompetents; their upgrades fail every time.

    I've been playing with Cyanogenmod and AOSP on my Freedompop phone, and when I'm happy with a version of Marshmallow, I'll probably go ahead and do it to my stock Sprint phone as well. Since Sprint can't seem to pull their heads out. Not to mention all the crap they install; at least this way I won't have 20 apps that I never use taking up resources with no way to remove them.

    --
    Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
  34. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    That is exactly what Google is doing. They patch things like Stagefright through Google Play, even if the manufacturer doesn't release any OS updates themselves.

    The issue is that some devices are either too old (pre 4.0) to get patches that way or don't have suitable network connectivity (e.g. they are configured not to do updates over mobile, and never connect to wifi).

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  35. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    No Samsung do provide major updates. For their definition of major, and without any mention of timeliness.

  36. Re: Are there any non-Nexus devices getting securi by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    That's why I've ordered a Nexus 7, so I can install Cyanogenmod. It's kind of upsetting that modding is the best solution for keeping up with security updates when either Google or manufacturers should be doing it.

    I presume you mean a Nexus 7 2nd, since a Nexus 7 1st is a TEGRA 1 platform and if you were going to buy one of those, surely you would buy a TF300. The irony is, Google is actually pushing updates regularly for the Nexus 7 2nd, so you don't even need to run CM on it in order to keep up with security updates.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  37. Re: Are there any non-Nexus devices getting securi by yithar7153 · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's what I meant. And well, it is a Google Nexus. But what I said holds true for every device that has support for Cyanogenmod that isn't a Nexus lol. And also, I don't think Google will be supporting the Nexus 7 2nd forever.

  38. Re:Are there any non-Nexus devices getting securit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could probably count the number of device models that do on one hand with fingers to spare.

  39. Re:30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patche by allo · · Score: 1

    They cannot, if they want to ship the Appstore. They even have to place some apps on the homescreen, when they ship with google play. And they can either ship everything or nothing with the google appstore. So they need to comply or make an own thing like amazon.