Slashdot Mirror
Google Steps Up Pressure on Partners Tardy in Updating Android (bloomberg.com)
Google is actively tracking the time its partner OEMs take to release a new version of Android onto their devices. According to a Bloomberg report, the company is drawing up rankings that could shame some phone makers into better behavior. From the report: Google shared this list with Android partners earlier this year. It has discussed making it public to highlight proactive manufacturers and shame tardy vendors through omission from the list, two of the people said. [...] Google is making progress persuading phone makers and carriers to install security updates quicker "for the good of users," Android chief Hiroshi Lockheimer said. The same expedited process may then be used to send operating system updates to phones, he explained. The most challenging discussions are with carriers, which can be slow to approve updates because they test them thoroughly to avoid network disruption. The report adds that several OEMs are also stepping up their game to better comply with Google's new wishes. Motorola, for instance, is working on offering quarterly updates to its three years old devices.
For users with non-Nexus devices, it's really frustrating to wait for months, and in some cases, years, before their devices from Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei, HTC and other manufacturers get upgraded to a newer version of Android. Another challenge for Google is to push its partners to actively release updates to affordable and mid-range smartphones. Many OEMs mostly worry about serving those users who have the flagship and high-end models.
For users with non-Nexus devices, it's really frustrating to wait for months, and in some cases, years, before their devices from Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei, HTC and other manufacturers get upgraded to a newer version of Android. Another challenge for Google is to push its partners to actively release updates to affordable and mid-range smartphones. Many OEMs mostly worry about serving those users who have the flagship and high-end models.
Lock the device? Go and write your own OS, eco-system and create your own store. Google have this control, fscking use it. Apple have done so since day one, wisely so.
The carriers need to be careful - the FTC/FCC will probably order them to unlock bootloaders for any devices they refuse to update. They really won't want to do that. The FCC is regulatory-captured by the telcos, but the FTC isn't as much.
(of course *I* want that to be an option - I paid for the damn phone)
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
naming and shaming guys and girls, we need juice details
FIFYz!
Lockz themz motherfuckerz!
Google abandoned their own device.
I have an HTC One X that received 1 OTC update. And that was to do 1 thing... lock the bootloader after HTC shipped them with unlocked ones. I have had the phone for over 3 years and it has not gotten one security update. Not only that, since they have an encrypted boot loader, I can't update to a newer OS that has had security updates installed.
Allowing all the vendors to roll out their own OS obviously has the problems of limited or no updates. Google should have had the responsibility for rolling out updates themselves directly. While you maybe can't go backwards, can they move forward and tell vendors that they can't muck with their own hacked up version of the OS?
The idea that such a list will somehow "shame tardy vendors" is laughable.
VP #1: Chairman! Terrible news! We're not on Google's list!
Chairman: Oh, no! I am ashamed! I must atone for this stain on my character by committing Seppuku!
VP #2: No, Chairman! That will leave your family dishonored!
Chairman: There is no other recourse - I must atone!
#DeleteChrome
To be honest, I've never had a problem with the device manufacturers, it's always been my network (carrier) that's been a pain up the ass with spending time adding their extra branding, crap apps, and the like. Even worse, mine has a blanket policy of "We'll tell you when there's new firmware, we aren;t going to give you any ETA's, status reports or anything. You have to wait until it appears (or not)
"How fine you look when dressed in rage."
- Stop certifying new devices unless they are on the most recent two releases as of the day the hardware first ships to customers. So, that would many any hardware that releases today would have to be running Lolipop or Marshmellow to ship with the Play Store.
- Require unlocked bootloaders and full AOSP releases with all necessary driver sources for the hardware to get certification and Play Store for manufactures with poor update performance, so that third parties get a crack at updating devices when manufactures and carriers lag behind.
- Restructure royalty payments so that app purchases on the play store pay carriers and handset manufactuers significantly more if they are on a current release, and significantly less the older the release is.
- Give strong financial incentives to manufactures to partner with google to offer the option of direct-from-google "pure" firmware that customers can elect to install AFTER purchasing the device. with all the manufacturer and carrier customization offered to said users as apps in a special section of the play store.
.
I've got an Android tablet that is running an ancient version of Android, and the vendor appears to have no intent to update it.
Google has been far too lax with this very significant problem for far too long.
Google could help their case if they were more careful about software quality. Marshmallow simply blows, and I'm doing my best to avoid letting it install on any other devices.
When has a Android update ever caused an issue with a carriers network?
So Google has a list of vendors who provide timely OS releases and security updates. Question is, what is the ranking? I mean, a company like Samsung releases hundreds of new phones a year (in 2014, it's 3 phones a week), yet you only really expect updates on one of them (the flagship). So does Samsung get a poor ranking because of the 150 phones they released last year, only one gets security updates? Or out of those 150, only 50 shipped with the latest OS?
I pick Samsung because they're the ones making tons of money on Android, and who not only can ignore the listings, but can probably influence things so they don't have to maintain the hundreds of models they released...
Hell my Samsung Rugby is still sitting at 4.4.2. Samsung has 0 interest in updating anything. It's like tech companies forgot that still have to maintain previous models and not just shake/jingle the shiny new keys at customers
If they are going to do it then just do it. This is buying free publicity that "we care" when in fact they don't care. Within a month 90% of those who read this will have forgotten the details and actually believe that Google cares and Google is actually doing this? Don't believe me? Ask that question 30 days from today Slashdot.
Disclaimer: I'm not a coder, I'm a user and a fixer at best.
I switched from Apple to Android in 2010 for many reasons. In that time Android quickly improved to a point and then seemed, in my eyes to stagnate. Apple very very slowly improved and continued to improve and hasn't stopped...
I am pretty frustrated that some of the older hardware I support, such as an iPad 3, iPhone 5s and 4s (!) are still being routinely updated by Apple, but Android based phones are being left in the dust.
What can be done to fundamentally fix this? It didn't bother me 2 years ago when I was in an overpaid job, valued my money differently and I simply /knew/ I would be getting a new phone within 24 months at most, likely as short as 12.
Here's a thought...instead of allowing carriers and manufactures to add their retarded modifications to Android which is normally what takes them so long to do, force a consistent Android AOSP + Google services. Won't comply? Well Google doesn't allow you to use Google Applications. Good luck selling an Android device minus the Android app eco system. Samsung is the worst in this space, by far.
Make some new name for the next version of Android and only allow companies to use it if they agree to provide updates themselves forever or directly from Google. Then engage their marketing team to educate the public that anything not labeled Nextdroid is old, potentially buggy, insecure crap.
I think a great measure would be the percent (or number) of days in the year where there were no publicly-known unfixed vulnerabilities. Many phones still have Stagefright vulnerabilities - there were changes that fixed some Stagefright vulnerabilities, but NOT all of them, and thus the phones are still vulnerable.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
My security patch level is November 2015 on my 2 year old Moto X.
Despite a long history of sucking, I'm forced to admit that Samsung & AT&T have gotten a lot better about updates. I've been a Samsung customer since the pre-Android BlackJack Windows ME phone, and started cell carriers with Cingular.
My Samsung GS6 is currently on Android 5.1.1 ("security patch Feb 2016") and look, downloading a new update now.
- Necron69
Sure, Google. Why isn't my old Samsung i9520 updated? Hmmm? It's a Google store product...and only about five years old.
Google should be shamed for their utter lack of interest in fixing the thousands of existing bugs!
I've had a Sony Z3C for just over a year now, and in that time they have released upgrades from 4.4 all the way to 6.01, and I just received another security update two days ago. I've only had one 'bad' update in that time -- the original 5.0 release cut the battery life way down, and they fixed that reasonable quickly.
They don't get anywhere near the press of Samsung/HTC/LG, but I'd buy another one and have recommended them to others.
My phone is direct from B&H, not from a carrier, which certainly helps, but Sony has done the work to make the updates avaialble.