Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Announces Allo, Duo, Stable Android N Preview, Instant Apps

Posted by msmash on from the yummy-Google-updates dept.

Also at the conference, Google announced Allo, a new smart messaging app, and Duo, a high-definition video chat app for Android and iOS devices. TechCrunch reports: Why the decision to launch two separate apps? A couple of reasons, it seems. The first is to keep the experiences simple and lightweight; and the second: to do something a little different from the rest of the pack. Facebook, for example, has supercharged Messenger with smart bots, as well as voice and video calling and more on top of its basic text messaging service. Allo leverages Google's assistant bot to prompt interesting and relevant responses to texts. Duo is a one-to-one video chatting app with a number of interesting features including "Knock Knock" which lets you see the real-time video of the person calling you.
Google has also released the third preview of Android N. The company says that it is now safe enough to be used on your primary smartphone and tablet. The new update comes with a feature called "Seamless Updates" which will install system updates in the background.
The company also announced Instant Apps, a feature that will allow users to tap an Instant App URL, and run the app without installing it. Clicking on Instant App URL, Google says, only gleans the parts of the app that you need for a specific purpose. The feature will work on all phones running Android 4.2 or newer version, and will be available starting later this year.

108 comments

  1. Instant APPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is no LUDDITE FIRST POST this is a modern APPER APPING INSTANT APPP!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Instant APPS by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh shit, the troll is on-topic! Is this a sign of the End Times?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Instant APPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is certified to run on Appdroid N Preview, no doubt

    3. Re: Instant APPS by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      Only if the on-topic troll is modded insightful.

    4. Re: Instant APPS by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Happy to help you out with that.

    5. Re:Instant APPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      End times like Legion

  2. Barf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now what?

    1. Re:Barf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, you clean up your puke.

  3. Instant apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hello Flash!

    1. Re:Instant apps? by mattventura · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of browser Java applets. Not sure which one I despise more.

    2. Re:Instant apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like https://xkcd.com/1367/

    3. Re:Instant apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Apps that run instantly inside a web page. Sounds like a *web page* which, thanks to modern web APIs, can do some amazing things. Android has always been very app centric. I hate installing apps on my phone. Especially since 99% of them are just information containers -- something a browser does just fine.

      But for the longest time the Android team (whom I've worked with in the past) kept chanting the mantra of native apps. They made a mess of WebView (it still leaks memory) and whenever you mention something limited or buggy the answer is: use a native app.

      Why do I want all these piles of code sitting around on my phone, taking up space, rarely needing them. It's like the trainwreck Google forgot how the web works with Android and they are slowly discovering it again. What a world: Microsoft is more web friendly than Google.

  4. And from the What-Can-Possibly-Go-Wrong Dept.... by halfEvilTech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google is opening up the naming suggestions for Android N to the internet.

    hopefully no one submits Namely McNameFace

  5. MORE apps?! by schitso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alright, I'm a Google fanboy, so I typically give them the benefit of the doubt, but seriously? What happened to Hangouts being their unified messaging app??

    1. Re:MORE apps?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hangouts destiny as the unified message app faded with the submergence of the overall G+ unification platform.

    2. Re:MORE apps?! by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google jumped the shark a couple years ago. They are at peak Google right now but its fading as people are realizing just how intrusive and crappy their stuff is. Gmail and search are their two standout products, everything else is "meh" and often done better by others. Plus Google as a company seems to have ADHD as they simply can't focus on anything at all. It's so childish watching them flail around like they do playing with "cool" stuff and never marketing any of it, promoting any of it, selling any of it. As a company they just suck on so many levels its frightening.

    3. Re:MORE apps?! by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2

      My guess? Internal politics and fadishness rule the day behind the scenes.

      Part of the problem is the branding of Google and people looking to the company as being the premiere purveyor of the latest and greatest. That means they redesign the wheel every few years in order to keep that mystique going as the longer term stuff simmers until its ready.

    4. Re:MORE apps?! by msauve · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when a company has no adults to provide supervision.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re: MORE apps?! by WarJolt · · Score: 2

      Google has a hard time focusing on stable APIs. I love their Android api, their chrome api and app engine api. Their NDK is even usable. I hate the tools they build around these. Trying to chase their next drastic change to the dev environment or their new domain specific language you need to learn just to build your shit is maddening.

      Amazon is builds stuff to serve their customers development. Google builds stuff to fuel their own interests. Sometimes those things turn out to be useful, but then they go changing shit on you.

    6. Re:MORE apps?! by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      I largely agree, but add some more products to the "good" list: Android is good and has improved over time. YouTube, for all it's warts, is still the best of the video sharing sites (and a modern miracle when doing appliance repair). Waze is my favorite commuting app - the real-time traffic and rerouting works really well. Google Voice is getting long in the tooth, but still offers some killer features, very good international prices, and free US calling. Google's cloud/hosting/whatever is pretty good - I rented some time for some heavy computation and found it to be at least as nice as the AWS offerings. And finally, I actually like Keep.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:MORE apps?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Project Fi user. For a while they recommended that you use the messenger app for texting rather than hangouts because it lacked support for things like group messages and mms. That has recently changed, so I am using the hangouts messenger again.

    8. Re:MORE apps?! by msauve · · Score: 2

      "add some more products to the "good" list: Android... YouTube ... Waze"

      None of which were created by Google.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    9. Re:MORE apps?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Alright, I'm a Google fanboy, so I typically give them the benefit of the doubt, but seriously? What happened to Hangouts being their unified messaging app??

      According to a friend on the relevant team, too many users found it confusing, and couldn't tell whether they were sending SMS or Hangouts messages. I think the idea was to build a platform that would "just deliver the message, I don't care how", but there too many case in which people actually *did* care how it was delivered, but didn't feel like they knew what was going to happen.

      Bottom line: user studies showed that most people preferred separate apps for SMS and Hangouts messaging.

      I prefer the unified app myself, and I still have Hangouts set to be my SMS app. My kids all prefer separate apps, though. I think this is a power user vs average user difference, and Google focuses primarily on the average user.

    10. Re:MORE apps?! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      They didn't make Voice, either. On my list, only Keep and their hosting services were 100% Google. I think we can give them Android - it was not created there, but they got it in a fairly unpleasant state and have made it into a serious rival for iOS. It was only 2 years old when they bought it and it's had 11 years of intensive development since. While we're at it, Chrome and the ChromeOS aren't all bad.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:MORE apps?! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's important. I use Hangouts with Google Voice for VoIP calls, but sometimes I need to make regular actual-cellular-voice calls too (e.g. when I don't have data access or when Hangouts is screwing up). Last time I tried, I found it to be impossible because Hangouts kept stealing the Intent from the Dialer app! It was stuck in a cycle of "attempt to make regular cellular call with Dialer" -> "Hangouts intercepts Intent and tries to make call over VoIP instead" -> "Call fails because VoIP isn't possible right now" -> "try to disable Hangouts somehow" -> "repeat."

      Tell your friend to bring back proper SIP support (or whatever) to allow Google Voice to be used with regular VoIP software, and while he's at it, to bring back XMPP federation for Talk.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re: MORE apps?! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Don't worry - it's Google. The ridiculous tiny apps will have their couple of interesting features rolled into Hangouts after they're cancelled in eighteen months.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re: MORE apps?! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Power users use Signal anyway. If Google wants to federate with Moxie and Whatsapp, I'll switch to Hangouts.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:MORE apps?! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Not just Hangouts. There's the Messenger app from Google for SMS. The Messenger app that came on my phone for SMS. Google Voice.

      I open Hangouts it asks me if I want to use Hangouts for SMS, that turns off both Messengers, but not Voice.

      The Google messenger app doesn't seem to work when it's set as default. I still have to go through Google Voice. Half of the time SMS shows up in Hangouts as well.

      Meanwhile if I get an Amber alert the only way to dismiss them is to change my default app to the native Samsung SMS app, dismiss it, and then switch back to Hangouts.

    15. Re:MORE apps?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hangouts has broken itself beyond repair. The recent version even added a splash-screen to advertise Google, previous versions just launched immediately without artificial delays. And since now they want to force install two more new but useless messaging apps and one malware installation platform to us poor Nexus users, it seems that we need similar tools to prevent OS updates than Windows 10 has created. Shame on you Google, you really have broken the Android in the last two years.

    16. Re: MORE apps?! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Android got worse over time. It has become a fugly walled garden. The last good android version was 2.3.7

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    17. Re: MORE apps?! by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, they are very inconsistent with their inconsistencies. I think the core Android API is pretty good at remaining stable and backwards compatible, but the periphery APIs in like GCM or Payments are completely different every time I have to implement them, they change about once per year. It's very frustrating to have to learn this stuff again every time I do it.

    18. Re:MORE apps?! by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      "add some more products to the "good" list: Android... YouTube ... Waze"

        None of which were created by Google.

      So? They developed them far from where they originally started. Just because something didn't start in-house... after all the years those platforms have been around, the code will now be mostly Google-originated.

    19. Re:MORE apps?! by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Tell your friend to bring back proper SIP support (or whatever) to allow Google Voice to be used with regular VoIP software, and while he's at it, to bring back XMPP federation for Talk.

      This.
      It's fucking 2016. Chat clients have been around for ages, and they still don't talk to each other. Google took the best chance at an open protocol/platform (XMPP), had it initially open, then shut down federation. Seems like a move out of MS's wheelhouse.
      SIP clients and/or servers that don't talk to other SIP clients and/or servers are dumb too. Why do people keep using them?
      Two additional chat clients - gee, great. Two more distinct groups of users that can't talk to each other. Lemme know when they at least get libpurple support.

    20. Re:MORE apps?! by xvan · · Score: 1

      I was a gtalk under xmpp user. Resisted over a year after hangouts made it unusable:

      On google's defence, none of the other two massive xmpp chats (watsapp and facebook), opened their platforms.

      Yahoo messenger is dead, MSN messenger was dropped for Skype, and I don't live in the US to know if anybody keeps using AOL.
      If you add those Russian and Chinese chats, I think that's all the relevant last 2 generations of IM.

      Voice and video over xmpp was always a mess, corporative xmpp don't seem to federate so beside some jabbers hipsters nobody else cares about xmpp federation, and xmpp protocol never worked well form me on multiple devices.

      They managed to fuck it up with hangouts, but that's a separate issue, the same way the fucked the one WAVE to rule them all.

    21. Re:MORE apps?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      For a phone service its incredibly hard to beat the hangouts integration with FI. One central app for hangouts, sms, voicemail. It also helps that it completely integrates on any device, so that I can use my pc to send/receive txts/calls through my normal cell number. So because of hangouts I can now leave my phone somewhere in my house and as long as Im on my pc I can still use its basic functionality

    22. Re:MORE apps?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could have told them that. Unlimited SMS is not something common in my area of the world yet, so I just turned off my Hangouts-SMS integration, even though I use hangouts everyday for it's intended purpose: To deliver text over the internet tubes.

    23. Re:MORE apps?! by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Don't know about YouTube, but Waze hasn't changed that much since being purchased and the team is still lead by the creator of the App. Thus it's still not really a Google app, Google owns them but they run mostly independently.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    24. Re:MORE apps?! by dwillden · · Score: 1

      To Clarify, the app has continued to evolve since being bought but along the same development lines as before purchase, and to this date does not have a Google feel to it's layout and design.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    25. Re:MORE apps?! by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      I'll add Google Music, Maps, and the G:Drive / Google Docs suite. Still pissed that they shut down GReader, though.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    26. Re: MORE apps?! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Maybe I was spoiled by my previous iPhone, but I found Gingerbread to be lacking compared to iOS. My later phones have been much better. Faster and with more memory, sure - but the software is much more polished now. I don't really consider it a walled garden unless you need the Google services. That said, I do use Google's stuff so I'm sure there are frustrations that I'm missing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re:MORE apps?! by thoper · · Score: 1

      peak Google?? PEAK GOOGLE?!?! go check Google DeepMind, if they succeed they will be the most important company (and maybe last one) in human history...

  6. Did I miss something? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What's with this "bot" integration into messaging apps? Did I miss a meeting where this was all hashed out as a good thing?

    Not to be standing on my lawn for too long, but I haven't seen an answer as to why this is a feature I'd want to use. If I'm not there, I don't want anything answering for me. Especially that I'm not around. And doubly so to strangers. Did anyone discuss the security implications of having what amounts to a chat answering machine?

    What happened to having a simple interface and letting users decide how to proceed with the rest? Did marketing finally get in too deep into the design side of these places?

    1. Re:Did I miss something? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      The things is, you and I won't like this, but there are tons of hipsters and others that will love this feature. The next generation has no expectations or really understanding of privacy and why you would even want it.

      You try talking about why privacy should be important to them, and they will basically picture you living in a cabin in the woods with no access to the internet and limited access to the outside world.

    2. Re:Did I miss something? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1, Funny

      You try talking about why privacy should be important to them, and they will basically picture you living in a cabin in the woods with no access to the internet and limited access to the outside world.

      What, you told them where I live?

      You traitor!

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

      If I understood correctly, the bot is not replying automatically, instead it presents you AI-generated answers to common discussions. The idea seems to help people too lazy to type "That would be awesome!" when a girl sends them a "Wanna go on a date?" text. Now they can just click on the pre-typed text to be sent.

      Yes, I'll be in my basement, out of your lawn.

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

      Not to be standing on my lawn for too long, but I haven't seen an answer as to why this is a feature I'd want to use. If I'm not there, I don't want anything answering for me. Especially that I'm not around. And doubly so to strangers. Did anyone discuss the security implications of having what amounts to a chat answering machine?

      As far as I know, you're supposed to be the user at the other end of the connection. The bots are meant to be deployed by businesses for customers to interact with. Think of them as the IM equivalent to the automated phone systems that businesses have these days.

    5. Re:Did I miss something? by ADRA · · Score: 2

      The only valuable feature for the future or humanity:

      Text from Joe: Yo dude, what's up man, lets hang out.
      {system: no vibrate/ring/anything}
      Auto-Text: I'm in a frigging movie right now, don't disturb me because I don't want to annoy the hundred people behind me.

      --
      Bye!
    6. Re:Did I miss something? by jcfandino · · Score: 2

      The only valuable feature for the future or humanity:

      Text from Joe: Yo dude, what's up man, lets hang out. {system: no vibrate/ring/anything} Auto-Text: I'm in a frigging movie right now, don't disturb me because I don't want to annoy the hundred people behind me.

      What's the advantage over this?:

      Text from Joe: Yo dude, what's up man, lets hang out.

      {system: no vibrate/ring/anything}

      Me (2 hours later): I was in a frigging movie before, I didn't answered then because I didn't want to annoy the hundred people behind me.

  7. following, not leading.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allo: Slack competitor

    Duo: Bluejeans competitor

    "Seamless Updates" NO THANKS. That's the main reason phones overheat periodically without telling you why: they already "seamlessly" download the update image to the phone, thus kills the phone's battery or overheats. Having updates all the time likely will exacerbate the problem instead (overheating).

  8. That's a GREAT idea, I love starting over! by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A smart messaging app - thank goodness! I've been waiting for forever to get another messaging app. I mean sure, there's Google Hangouts. And Google Messenger. But I keep feeling like they could do a better job, and what better way to fix the half-assed messaging platforms they've done in the past than just kick them to the curb and start over from scratch. In fact, I'm already excited about the messaging platform that that's going to be super-awesome NEXT year when they abandon Allo because we all realize that, actually, it pretty much sucks.

    And let's hope they do better with Duo than than they did with Voice - because...oh, who am I kidding. Whatever the write after they abandon Dou in a half-finshed state is going to be super-cool, too!

    God, I'm just SO excited about all the new apps from Google!!

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:That's a GREAT idea, I love starting over! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone's been watching that gratuitous circle jerk they call Google I/O

  9. I just want to know... by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

    I just want to know if they are going to call it Android Nutella or what?

    Mmmm Nutella.....

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    1. Re:I just want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice UID. You free later?

  10. Already cancelled by rainwalker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just save yourself some disappointment and assume they've already been cancelled. You'd have to be a blinding idiot to start using any new Google app, especially a chat app. Like always, they'll get about 75% completed, then, like a small toddler, will get bored and wander off in search of the next shiny, while the app bitrots until someone finally notices and kills it.

  11. Hangouts? by multi+io · · Score: 2

    So they're not upgrading but replacing Hangouts with not one but two new apps. I'm sure there's a brilliant strategic move hidden in there somewhere that I just fail to see.

    1. Re:Hangouts? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Throw enough shit at the wall, and not only will some of it stick, but there is a non-zero probability that it might look like a piece of art.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  12. More Apps ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like the ideea, i would like to see more games too, like Smite Promotion Gems

  13. Stop already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no no no for the love of god fucking NO!

    I, a million percent, prefer desktop-looking websites on mobile, versus mobile-looking websites, and versus APPS.

    Fuck them both!

    But both aren't nearly as bad as mobile-looking websites on the desktop! Fuck them too.

    Captcha: erosion

  14. O RLY? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

    Google has also released the third preview of Android N. The company says that it is now safe enough to be used on your primary smartphone and tablet. The new update comes with a feature called "Seamless Updates" which will install system updates in the background.

    Oh yeah? Have they finally made it so these updates don't require the carrier's permission to install?

    --

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

    1. Re:O RLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It actually installs the update in the background in a different partition and at next bootup will load that partition with that version of the OS. As if you reboot your phone for anything else than os updates.

    2. Re:O RLY? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Google has also released the third preview of Android N. The company says that it is now safe enough to be used on your primary smartphone and tablet. The new update comes with a feature called "Seamless Updates" which will install system updates in the background.

      Oh yeah? Have they finally made it so these updates don't require the carrier's permission to install?

      No, Google doesn't have any control over that.

      What seamless updates does is use A/B boot partitions, so it can download an update and validate and install it in (say) the "B" partition. After it's all ready to go, you just have to reboot to activate it. It just looks like an ordinary reboot, no "optimizing apps" or anything. Incidentally, this also means that if the boot from "B" fails, the device can (and will) fall back to booting the working system on partition "A".

      All of this is closely modeled on, perhaps even derived from, the way ChromeOS handles updates.

      But in order for an update to be delivered it has to be built by the OEM and approved by the carrier. That's unavoidable as long as OEMs customize Android, including carrier-specific customization.

    3. Re:O RLY? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      No, Google doesn't have any control over that.

      Isn't Google holding the source code?

      --

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

    4. Re:O RLY? by wbr1 · · Score: 2
      This is not what you are thinking. One on nexus devices (the only ones with N preview) carrier or manufacturer permission is not needed. However an OTA OS update uses the devices recovery partition to install the update. If you have flashed a custom recovery like me then you cannot use OTA updates, you have to manually flash.

      So, hopefully this means less intrusive and easier updates to the OS. Once N is released to manufacturers and carriers, it is still up to them as to whether to push an update. Via either method.

      This is why I only buy nexus devices now. There are too many orphaned devices with functional, more than sufficient hardware.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    5. Re:O RLY? by shawn2772 · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, Google doesn't have any control over that.

      Isn't Google holding the source code?

      No, actually.

      Google develops the base system, but OEMs modify the source -- sometimes heavily -- before they build and ship it, and they do not give Google a copy of the source of the code they ship. In general, Google has no ability to build system images for non-Nexus/Pixel devices.

      In addition there are lots of firmware components that Google doesn't have any visibility into at all. For example, I work on the hardware-backed keystore, which requires a bit of firmware that runs in a trusted execution environment (e.g. ARM TrustZone). I defined the interface (the Hardware Abstraction Layer, or HAL) and I wrote the reference implementation of that HAL, which is actually used on a small number of devices that ship with the Google-provided TEE. But the vast majority of devices use an implementation of the HAL from another provider. Qualcomm, Trustonic, nVidia and Intel all write their own versions, and those are just the ones I know about. There may be others. I have no visibility into their code, and sometimes changes I make in the keystore system daemon or at the framework level are incompatible with their implementations. In an ideal world, the HAL should be so tightly-specified, and the compliance test suite so thorough, that I can have confidence that their implementations work exactly the same as the reference implementation. In reality, stuff is complicated, there are corner cases and subtle misunderstandings that no one foresaw. And don't forget about OEM changes.

      So, per-device testing of the final per-device build is absolutely essential to have any kind of stability. Which means that OEMs have to do it. And carriers often don't trust that OEMs have done it adequately, so they insist on doing their own testing as well.

      I should also point out that many of the other firmware components (bluetooth, wifi, camera, baseband, etc.) have dozens of implementations, not just a few like mine.

      All of this is both the greatest strength and, IMO, the greatest weakness of the Android ecosystem. It's a strength because there is power in diversity, ability to hit more market niches at more price points and meet more users' needs. It's a weakness because the diversity means there's a lot more work to be done to test and validate changes, and because designing for an open ecosystem is a lot harder than for a closed one. Sometimes I think I should go work for Apple because my life would be much easier.

      OTOH, if I worked for Apple, I'd probably be swarmed by lawyers for writing a post like this one, among other things I dislike about Apple's culture. Also, if I worked for Apple my work would have much less impact on the world.

    6. Re:O RLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Google doesn't have any control over that.

      Isn't Google holding the source code?

      Google publishes the Android Open Source Project (ASOP).

      A phone manufacturer (Samsung, LG, Sony, ...) takes that code and customizes it. They may add drivers for the chips in their phone, tweak the UI, add apps, etc. does not have these changes, so they do not have the ability to rebuild the image for a given phone.

      Most phones are sold through a carrier. The carrier certifies a system image for a phone, and only that image is allowed on their network. This makes sense from their perspective. In most countries a device using cellular bands needs to be certified by a government agency. That certification is only valid for the version of the software that the government tested. Certification takes time and money in each country.

      The best solution would be to move functionality from the software that is part of the certification (the base system image) into user space applications. This way updates would not invalidate the certification. However, this means no kernel patches, drivers for new hardware, updates to APIS that must make direct use of the GPU, etc.

    7. Re:O RLY? by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      No, Google doesn't have any control over that.

      Oh, they have control over it if they want it. They just choose to ignore the users' demands for a proper OS which can update itself to close off security exploits. Instead, they leave security in the hands of manufacturers and carriers, both of whom have a vested interest in not updating because a) it saves them money, and b) it forces users to upgrade to the next shiny new handset a bit earlier.

      The Seamless Updates feature is a beautiful example of how tone-deaf Google has become. Even if you're on one of the tiny handful of devices which get monthly security updates, updating was hardly a big pain point to begin with -- you lose access to your device for perhaps 15-25 minutes, once a month and at a time of your choosing. (In other words, you tell the thing to update right before you go to sleep, and don't even notice the downtime.)

      And for most users, you don't even get monthly updates -- you get perhaps one or two updates per year, if you're lucky. So updating was an even more miniscule concern. What Seamless Updates will actually do is cause a significantly greater pain point for users of the many Android phones out there with relatively minimal built-in memory, and quite possibly no MicroSD card slot either. Those users will now find themselves with even less available space on their devices, all to save them probably a lot less than three or four hours of downtime during the entire life of their phone or tablet.

      And absolutely nothing has been done to address the real issue: An over-reliance on manufacturers and carriers who hold up updates needlessly for months on end, or never even provide them at all.

      Nor does taking the carrier out of the equation buying unlocked devices necessarily help much, either. My unlocked Sony Xperia Z2 sat for 4.5 *months* between Sony releasing a Stagefright 2.0 fix in some markets, and bothering to release that same patch in my own market. No carriers involved at all: Sony sat with its thumb up its butt for more than six months after Google provided it with the code to fix what's among the biggest Android exploits to date, and 4.5 months after it had already implemented the fix. And Sony is hardly alone in this attitude: My understanding is that Samsung also take ages to provide updates, if they provide them at all, and the same was true of the HTC devices I owned before this Sony.

      Google really needs to get its act together and bring security updates entirely in-house.

    8. Re:O RLY? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Google really needs to get its act together and bring security updates entirely in-house.

      Impossible.

      Google doesn't even have source code for non-Nexus/Pixel devices. See my other post in this thread for more detail.

    9. Re:O RLY? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      OTOH, if I worked for Apple, I'd probably be swarmed by lawyers for writing a post like this one, among other things I dislike about Apple's culture. Also, if I worked for Apple my work would have much less impact on the world.

      Another reason to be glad I deal with iOS, and not Android: namely, you don't.

    10. Re: O RLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you spent more time working rather than shilling on /. Your work wouldn't get thrown away and reinvented every 18 months.

    11. Re: O RLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to talk about Nexus, why doesn't your benevolent gently giant of a company stop blocking miracast on my 6p instead of trying to force me to buy a piece of shit Chromecast? It's supported in the hardware and you went out of your way in the software to block it for what can only be competitive reasons. Seems monopolistic and predatory to me, but I'm sure you feel differently.

    12. Re:O RLY? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      OTOH, if I worked for Apple, I'd probably be swarmed by lawyers for writing a post like this one, among other things I dislike about Apple's culture. Also, if I worked for Apple my work would have much less impact on the world.

      Another reason to be glad I deal with iOS, and not Android: namely, you don't.

      I don't know what you thought to accomplish with that comment, but you did manage to show me what you are.

    13. Re:O RLY? by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Thanks for being willing to engage with the crowd here. I have two questions about the keynote announcements (as they pertain to Android):

      1. The system update doesn't require a password. Is this a security flaw? I'm assuming that your images are signed and that the handset verifies them, but this seems to me to be the exact vulnerability that the FBI tried to get Apple to exploit.

      2. Android Instant Apps: What is their permissions behavior? Sure, it sounds cool that I can write some application, and people can visit it by clicking a link, but this sounds a little like remote-exploit central. Can I write an app that does location tracking and sound recording and disguise it as a cat video player or a short-link creator? I'm wary of other people running code on my phone (and all phones back to Jelly Bean) that I did not choose to install. Sure, that happens on web pages, but that's a little bit different.

    14. Re:O RLY? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      So, I don't know the Instant Apps stuff that well. I haven't been involved with it. I'm sure that permissions must still be approved by the user. In the case of Marshmallow+ and the run-time permission model, this should work very nicely. I assume that on older devices it'll still have to ask all-or-nothing, up front (which users will, of course, click through without reading). I expect there are going to be tighter controls in the Play store on apps that support instant-run, but I don't know what that will entail.

      Regarding system update not requiring a password, you're correct, Android doesn't presently defend against the "signed firmware attack" (though some OEM devices might, dunno), as I've been calling it. It's an issue not just for the FBI, which in the Apple case had a legitimate and legal interest in looking into Farook's phone (though I'm not convinced that was really their goal), but any other party who might be able to get a copy of, or even brief access to, the firmware signing keys. This is not a threat model the industry had seriously considered until recently. Android hasn't addressed it. Doing it right is also quite tricky.

    15. Re:O RLY? by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not impossible. They're quite capable of updating all code which they authored, and pushing those updates themselves. They're also quite capable of changing their licensing terms such that all manufacturer cruft must be installed as user-removable apps, and the manufacturers are quite capable of complying.

      Would it take some work to institute this? Definitely. Would it be much better for end users? Without question. Will it ever happen? Unlikely in the next 3-5 years, I'd guess, and in part that's because of apologism and complacency from those who should know better, but aren't pushing them to make it happen.

    16. Re:O RLY? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not impossible. They're quite capable of updating all code which they authored, and pushing those updates themselves.

      I see that you have an extraordinarily high opinion of the capabilities of Google engineers. Although we do have some really outstanding people, I don't think we're quite that good. I mean, theoretically it should be possible to decompile the binaries, determine from the decompilation how the OEM's source differs from the original source, apply the necessary patches (resolving any merge conflicts) and recompile to generate new binaries. That's a really, really tall order, though. Especially with the native-code components. You know what the Halting Problem is, right? I strongly suspect we're in that sort of territory.

      They're also quite capable of changing their licensing terms such that all manufacturer cruft must be installed as user-removable apps, and the manufacturers are quite capable of complying.

      Now you've gone beyond the assumption of superhuman engineering ability to assuming some form of mind control. Oh, in the short term it would probably work, but It would almost certainly push the major players into forming a consortium of their own and abandoning the OHA. They'd lose the Google apps, but that's not a big challenge. Many of them already have replacements for most everything, and they could arrange licensing deals to replace the harder remaining bits (like Maps; I'm sure MS would love to license them a Bing Maps app). The biggest challenge is the Play store, but if the top three or four OEMs allied they could easily replace that as well, especially if they pulled Amazon in.

      Would it take some work to institute this? Definitely. Would it be much better for end users? Without question. Will it ever happen? Unlikely in the next 3-5 years, I'd guess, and in part that's because of apologism and complacency from those who should know better, but aren't pushing them to make it happen.

      I agree that it won't happen. I disagree that that's because of any sort of complacency. As a member of the Android security team, I'm not the slightest bit reluctant to say that we see the lack of updates as the largest single problem we have and we've been working for years to try to fix it... but it's a really, really hard problem.

      No, I think our better route is to continue applying soft pressure to the OEMs to get better at updates. We've had some luck with that, with several committing to monthly security releases at least for their flagship devices. I expect that to snowball, especially if consumers start using it as a factor in their purchase decisions.

  15. The only AI I want... by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 1

    Is a complete personal digital assistant, concierge, etc. If it can't do all the things with minimal input from me, what good is it. As it is I'm duplicating work like adding calendar entries from one site (that is account protected) to my own calendar, I should be able to have that done automatically for me once I'm logged in. I don't want a Virtual Personal Assistant, I want an AI Personal Assistant!

    --
    Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
  16. THAT'S MAH PROPERTAH!! by Thud457 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Bitch-ass brother added me to his linked-in profile, next thing you know, the FBI takes my cabin and gives it to the f'in "Newseum" .

    p.s. -- I warned you.
    04475-046
    Florence, CO

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  17. Already in Google Play by aglider · · Score: 1

    But it's just two or three omonims.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  18. Alphabet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now i know why they changed their name to Alphabet. "Alpha" for the stage of the software, before it's abandoned, and "bet" for betting their money to see if people start using it.

    For fucks sake Googly. Stick with something for a few god damn minutes before replacing it with something idiotic.

    And get the android updating and application rights fixed!

  19. For the Love of God... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Will someone PLEASE come up with an interoperable chat protocol, because I'm getting sick of every single person I need to communicate with wanting me to use yet another messaging app that no one else I know uses.

    1. Re:For the Love of God... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Informative

      We have that; it's called XMPP. Google Talk even used to support it, before the functionality was removed for "let's be evil" reasons.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:For the Love of God... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      I guess I should have been more specific "come up with an interoperable chat protocol that everyone actually uses".

    3. Re:For the Love of God... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obligatory XKCD.

      XMPP already exists. Coming up with something else would be actively harmful.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:For the Love of God... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      So how do we get more companies to implement XMPP?

    5. Re: For the Love of God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a thought. Maybe the reason why nobody of consequence uses xmpp is because it's not as great as you think. There are more interoperable implementations of SIMPLE/SIP based messaging but the floss crowd doesn't deem it's worthy because those are commercial implementations.

    6. Re:For the Love of God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until Apple opens iMessage, this is not possible.

    7. Re:For the Love of God... by nickersonm · · Score: 1

      Apparently both the new Allo and WhatsApp use Signal's protocol for end-to-end encryption.

    8. Re:For the Love of God... by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      And whatsapp even uses a protocol based on XMPP. Doesn't mean that its client software or servers are compatible with XMPP. They even have sent DMCA claims against projects that have reverse engineered the whatsapp protocol. They actively hate any third party clients.

    9. Re:For the Love of God... by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      http://www.zdnet.com/article/g...

      The Google representative said "XMPP was designed over a decade ago to provide a way for chat networks to interoperate, known as federation. Google Talk was the only major network to support federation, and after seven years, it’s evident that the rest of the industry is not moving to embrace this open system. If, at some point in the future, the industry shows interest, then we would then be open to discussions about developing an interface that's designed for modern needs."

      That doesn't sound like "let's be evil".

    10. Re:For the Love of God... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That doesn't sound like "let's be evil".

      No, it totally does: even if other "major" (whatever that means) networks refuse to participate, that doesn't give Google an excuse for failing to federate with the minor ones!

      Not being evil means actually not being evil, not claiming that being evil is okay just because everybody else is too.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:For the Love of God... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Or at least a software that can handle all like Trillian, Pidgin/Finch, etc.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  20. My carrier is Comcast by tepples · · Score: 1

    Have they finally made it so these updates don't require the carrier's permission to install?

    My tablet's Wi-Fi carrier is Comcast. Why would I need Comcast's permission to install a dist-upgrade? Even on phones, if someone buys a factory-unlocked phone, why would he need the carrier's permission to remove the SIM and install a dist-upgrade over Wi-Fi?

  21. The whole ass, and nothing but the ass by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I agree with what you say, but I think a shorter way to say it is that instead of fixing other half-assed messaging apps, they have given us another half ass to add to the total.

    (though with Duo I suppose big-picture it's a whole ass)

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. Do they feature end to end encryption? by BitterOak · · Score: 2

    I'd be curious to know how secure these apps are. I'm looking for a good messaging system and video chat system, but I don't want to move to something new unless I know my conversations are secured and chats aren't stored on some server somewhere. What kind of encryption do these apps feature?

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    1. Re:Do they feature end to end encryption? by jcfandino · · Score: 1

      Who cares about encryption if the client is not FLOSS or uses an open protocol?

    2. Re:Do they feature end to end encryption? by nickersonm · · Score: 1

      Signal is OSS, uses client-side end-to-end encryption, and features both messaging and video (formerly 'TextSecure' + 'RedPhone'). If the recipient doesn't have Signal, messaging goes out as a regular SMS/MMS (with 'unsecure' warning).

      The only information stored on the Signal servers, iirc, are hashes of the phone numbers and corresponding IPs to allow the clients to find eachother.

      Apparently they're responsible for the encryption of Google's Allo, too, as well as WhatsApp.

  23. Instant App? Like Java WebStart?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Java WebStart had the same idea and has been the root of a huge percentage of its client-side vulnerabilities ever since.

  24. You're missing the point by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    because you're not paying attention to trends. Allo isn't about messaging, it's about expert systems. You can "chat" with Allo and it will answer questions. Companies can write apps on top of Allo. So you ask Allo: What's my bank balance and it answers. Companies pay Google for the privilege of having it answer questions they would otherwise be paying folks in call centers to answer.

    Now, will they get people to bite? Maybe. One way to make this happen is just to pull all your support. Or make the waits really, really long and give a constant message when you're on hold telling you to use Allo. Oh, and that's what the instant apps are about. It means the handset providers can't extort money from Google to get Allo installed vs Facebooks equivalent.

    Basically this is more about automation and reducing headcount than anything else.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  25. Google - We want to redefine the N-word by rainer_d · · Score: 1

    Talk about NIH!

    :-)

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  26. Or Lord by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    /. really can't be this dense, can it? Have you never written any software for end users? Have you never had to support the installation of said software? You know what I have to do on my phone to install an app? Tap the "all apps" button, search for google play (my carrier puts about 50 apps on my phone), tap Google Play. Put in the _exact_ name of the app (unless it's one of the top 100). Hope the search finds it. tap it. tap install. Read a scary prompt about all the things this app can now do. Tap OK.

    Try doing that with someone in their 60s. That's the problem instant apps are trying to solve. Well that, and the carriers replacing google apps with their own. Look for my post on Allo and expert systems below for why that's a good thing for google.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. Knock Knock. Who's There? Your New Overcharges! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So anyone can start an unsolicited video feed to your device? Sounds like a bad idea for multiple reasons.

    I'm so glad they re-invented Java WebStart too. Now instead of installing apps, you can run your app in a browser. Applications to web pages to desktop widgets to web widgets to mobile apps to desktop apps to web page apps. Our industry isn't making any real progress because we're stuck in fad-based masturbation loops. Transitioning between systems because of their pros while ignoring why we left that system during the last cycle.

  28. Re:And from the What-Can-Possibly-Go-Wrong Dept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Botty McBotface

  29. Re:And from the What-Can-Possibly-Go-Wrong Dept... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given they recently released an API named Parsey McParseface, I suspect they expect it. Maybe their marketing department sees it as a solution to the iStuff branding juggernaut.

    --
    Posted from my Phoney McPhoneface

  30. More Apps ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, the waiting is over for Legion Beta invitation

  31. More Apps ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, apps for the Legion would be nice Beta invitation