Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Would You Pay For Android Updates? (theverge.com)
It's no secret that most Android OEMs could do better when it comes to seeding out updates for their existing devices. A report on Bloomberg earlier this week claimed that Google plans to publicly name and shame the OEMs who are too slow at updating their devices. An HTC executive who didn't want to be identified told Slashdot on Thursday that it is not the right way to approach the problem. But that's only one part of the problem. The other issue is that almost every Android OEM partner -- including Google itself -- only provides support to their devices for 18-24 months. Vlad Savov of The Verge in a column today urges Android OEMs to perhaps charge its users if that is what it takes for them to offer support to their devices for a longer period of time and in a timely manner. He writes: I've been one of the many people dissatisfied with the state of Android software updates, however I can't in good conscience direct my wrath at the people manufacturing the devices. Price and spec competition is so intense right now that there's literally no option to disengage: everyone's been sucked into the whirlpool of razor-thin profit margins, and nobody can afford the luxury of dedicating too many resources to after-sales care. The question that's been bugging me lately is, if we value Android updates as highly as we say we do, why don't we pay for them? The situation can't be fixed by manufacturers -- most of them are barely breaking even -- or by Google, which is doing its best to improve things but ultimately relies on carriers and device makers to get the job done. Carriers will most certainly not be the solution, given how they presently constitute most of the problem (just ask AT&T Galaxy S6 owners) -- so like it or not, the best chance for substantial change comes from us, the users. What I'm proposing is a simple crowdfunding operation. I'm skeptical about this, because I don't think it is in an OEM's best interest to serve its existing users for long -- how else they will convince customers to purchase their new devices? A newer software version is after all one of the ultimate selling points of a new phone. So I don't think an OEM will take up on such an offer. What do you folks think?
Considering I actively try to avoid the free ones, probably not.
I will not. better to write a clone of ubuntu .
Even Microsoft can make an OS that doesn't require the manufacturer's blessing to install updates. Google needs to fix the OS, not the OEMS.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
QA takes money, and Android devices are sold with basically no margin. How are you going to pay for that team?
Answer: you aren't.
Apple's QA team has enough problems with its limited set of updates and devices, and Apple has a huge pile of money and presumably decent processes. Any android manufacturer would find it impossible to handle multiple update streams on multiple hardware platforms.
and get free updates. Thanks
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I'd just switch to CMOD, $_other, at that point. And if my phone wasn't supported, I'd get a phone that was.
Next question.
"only provides support to their devices for 18-24 months"
The problem is, in that 18-24 month period manufacturers aren't even updating their devices. Let's solve that problem first before we start talking about paying for longer term updates. And no, paying for an update while a device is still well within it's support window is not something I would do.
so I wouldn't pay extra for extended security support. Besides, it's quite inhumane to ransom already-crafted security updates just to make a few extra pennies. Either don't update and clearly declare a device EOL, or update it.
Android OEM partners don't need to support the devices, they just need to unlock the damn things so we can do it ourselves. There are plenty of free choices out there already. People just can't load them on their phone. They should be forced to proved free support, or unlock the device... but we know that won't happen since the citizens don't run this country anymore.
Since I'm much more likely to just haul off and buy a new phone unless I bought one of those $600+ flagships. In that case I'm probably expecting free updates since I just spent $600 on a phone. Even if I'm not if I buy a high end flagship I can probably count on updates for free from Cyanogen.
Honestly Google is already giving it away for free (more or less) So paid droid updates were always a bit of a non starter.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
With the provisos that (a) I get to choose the apps on my phone and (b) I get to choose between competing OS providers, (c) network providers have no say whatsoever in what's on my phone. Meet those criteria I'd be very happy to pay a reasonable amount per year -- say $30-50 -- to a software company to provide service and security updates to my phone.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
.
Then, and only then, would I be willing to pay a reasonable (for me, not the money-grabbing vendor) for Android updates.
If you give that then you cant milk a dollar from every mdm license. Fyi samsung mdm license allows for example proper firewalls and bloat uninstall. Thats why the bloat uninstallers for 5 and 6 cost money. You cant make a feeware app for the same because you need the enterprise license per client to unlock selinux without tripping knox and warranty.
Same way we would pay to upgrade Desktop OS (Not Linux).
What incentive for OEM to go through the effort of upgrading android when it will just elongate people using the same device. It decrease people buying hardware upgrade. Unless there is incentive OEM will not budge.
Seems a bit 'prejudicial' to me.
Most carriers offer immediate updates for the iCrappyOS. Failing to do so for BB and Android seems to leave them open to lawsuits.
Rather than us paying them to get updates, how bout we make them pay us if they don't.,
Why would I get Android device in the first place?
I already do pay for upgrades - they're called "new phones" in Android-world.
And let us update them ourselves.
What's the manufacturers rationale for keeping control of this? QA? They're not willing to dedicate the QA resources it takes to give us these updates. Open it up, and let the community take care of it, if there's a big enough community who wants to. If there's not, we're still no worse off than today.
Cynical but probably true: they don't want to, and they don't even want those updates available. They want you to buy a new device. Gotta keep that treadmill rolling.
No. I would begrudgingly pay for an unlocked bootloader to then get free updates.
Which basically means it'll never happen.
Android is linux, so why the f*** doesn't Google just require vendors to provide a firmware shim for each device, where the shim fills in whatever code is missing from the base build of Anrdoid for the device's instruction set. With a scheme like that, you could apt-get update everything, so Google could keep everyone patched to top of branch by compiling each security update for every mobile CPU instruction set.
Manufacturers would be required to patch firmware bugs, and they'd lose their right to use the name Android if they go more than 30 days to patch a firware root exploit.
--
The real reason they don't do this is because the device manufacturers and carriers want to add their own unremovable crapware. I guess the real solution is CyanogenMod?
The problem used to be that an update was a full OS reload. I would not pay anything for that. I don't want them. I've had updates break Wifi, reduce my data speeds to half, take away root access, introduce pointless interface changes, gratuitously rearrange where settings and controls can be found, add unwanted applications and subscriptions to middle of the night alerts about missing kids hundreds of miles away, and more. Once I get things set up how I like, I turn off all update checks.
Now if we are talking security patches only, that's a different story. Google has been trying to move towards this model, in part by moving up some components to use the Google store.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
It's not so much a problem that OEMs and carriers don't make/withhold security patches, but rather the fact that a buy comparing different Android devices has no idea how long the OEM/carrier intends to support it. If it were made blatantly obvious that Lenovo was only going to release a single patch for my Moto E (2014), I certainly would never have bought it to begin with!
The only sensible solution right now is to buy a Nexus device; at least Google explicitly tells you how long your device will be supported. For everything else, you just have to guess.
"I don't think it is in an OEM's best interest to serve its existing users for long"
It's certainly not in the OEMs best interest, but it is very much in the interest of Google, the consumer and society as a whole. This is actually an interesting example of one of the ways in which capitalist / libertarian models break down.
If OEM firmware need to pay to get upgraded, I would change to cyanogenmod
they were an oem manufacturer for various windows phone brands.
and got paid for firmware upgrades/users had to pay.
(though users could just copy the updates too...)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The fact that you can't just type "do-release-upgrade" (or something like it) is one of the many ways that our handheld PCs totally suck compared to what we're otherwise used to. Can you even imagine a world where Dell (or your fiber/cable/DSL ISP) was expected to supply OS updates?
But also: can you imagine a world where Dell also happened to be The Problem preventing you from being able to get updates? Normally when you decide to upgrade your OS, the hardware manufacturer has no veto power in that. It's your machine, not theirs; that's what the "buying" thing was about.
But if the PC is small enough, suddenly everyone's expectations are different? IMHO that's fucking crazy.
Android should come with an OS-upgrade tool, and then it should be seen as weird and hostile (i.e. possible market death, or at least a conspicuous disadvantage) for manufacturers to ship phones where they have deleted it.
I'm not sure of the cost of the update but... looks like they have at least $1 million to spare since that doesn't include deferred compensation like stock options. Similar compensation for other companies in this area.
That's about 420x the average worker wage in the country btw.
And..
http://www.bizjournals.com/kan...
In just less than eight months, Claure earned $22 million, the paper reports. The data come from Securities and Exchange Commission filings that the Overland Park-based wireless carrier (NYSE: S) filed ahead of its August stockholders meeting.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I'm not a big fan of over-regulation but that might be the only fix. When deemed a sufficient social good, manufacturers are required to warrant and support certain products for a minimum time. Auto emission controls are one example.
Perhaps some congresscritter would find that the promotion of cyber security and reduction of e-waste would make requiring a 5-year support period on mobile devices a worthy regulation.
Of course they would end up calling it something like the Security of Cyberdevices and Reduction of Electronic Waste Universally, or SCREWU act of 2016.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Just because something is on the tubes does not mean you need to handle it differently. A software update is nothing else but what a recall in the car (or any other) industry is.
If my car has a malfunction, I get a recall, go to the garage and have it fixed. I do not need to pay for it (except in the time I spend going there).
If my canned food MIGHT have pieces of glass in it, I can replace it for free.
There are plenty of examples, so why would it be different just because it is a program or an app or whatever.
I would go the other way: If there is an app that gets an update and I decide that I do not want to use it anymore, as the software does not function as expected, do I get my money back in full?
e.g. a game has no need for access to my phone numbers and suddenly it needs that access for some reason (or network access or whatever) that means to me that the software was not functioning correctly and was broken (or they would have no need to add it later) so they sold me an apparently broken game and I should get my money back, right?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
OS updates are security issue. Users cannot really apply updates to devices so manufacturers should be required by law to support and update devices for as long as the device exists.
Sure the manufacturer would really be better off selling you a new one. If they issued no updates you would have to buy a new device every month or three.
Look at car recalls, the same standard should be set for support of devices. If there is a system issue and a security update is needed the manufacture should be required to provide it no matter how old the device is. Shame on them for not making is safe/secure in the first place.
Also to avoid false fronts there should be a mandatory bond for 5 years of support should the "manufacturer" disappear. The bond price will be very low for real manufacturers.
Price of every device sold should include a fee to mitigate any environmental damage incurred in its manufacturing and cost of eventually recycling the components. Beyond that, I think it's up to each manufacturer to negotiate a contract with users. If I can buy an $250 device every 2 years or an $400 device every 4 years, I would probably go with the first option to enjoy latest gadget / unscratched exterior, but that's just me.
Charging a subset of users for an upgrade seems like the worst case scenario. Full expense has to be incurred to develop the upgrade while money is only collected from a portion of customers. So prices would be high and both upgrades and non-upgrades will be unhappy with the vendor and shop elsewhere next time. But again, freedom of business model.
Do the telecommunications companies need yet another reason to add a fee onto my bill? Doesn't my paying for this phone line and data plan already cover the insignificant (at scale) cost of testing and releasing the android system updates when they are published? Or maybe the phone company lied to me when I bought this phone, took my money, paid bonuses and provided raises to the already wealthy and overpaid execs? Bait and switch seems to be the business model for telecommunications companies in the US. We are always sold one thing, then when it isn't delivered it's not because they didn't get tax breaks or charge an exorbitant fee for the service, but they kept the profits and now need to raise prices to deliver half of what was originally promised.
I made the conscious decision to get a nexus phone so that I would get the updates. When it isn't supported anymore, I'll upgrade. So I do pay for my updates. Apple works the same way - pay more up front, get updates for quite awhile. This is kind of a moot point. If you charged people for an update, would someone be able to sue you if you didn't give them the security updates for free? I bet someone in the US would try it and even if it was thrown out, that's still a lot of extra hassle. I know what to expect when I buy a cheapo phone - nothing.
My current phone is an HTC ONE M8. The nonremovable battery is past its prime, so I'm not very worried abuot getting Android N.
Lesson Zero - removable battery. Must have.
Lesson One - Style is not more important than substance.
Lesson Two - RAM is king. More is better. More RAM is the enabler of future upgrades.
So my next phone will have more RAM, removable battery, and not be too ugly. And would I pay for the extra update to a then - current Android? Yes, if it included patches, and not too expensive. Subscription? Let me tell you a story.
Amazon would sell me a variety of items cheaper if I agreed to a subscription to buy more of a consumable item. The most recent example is a replacement cartridge for my Brain Series 7 shaver. Recommended interval is 18 months. They would give me a price break on this? Like in 3 years I would agree to buy 2 more? Really? I see the cleaning cartridges as an opportunity, but actually those last me so long I'm not ready to get on the recommended-interval-treadmill.
Subscription is the future of consumer goods. Lock the consumer in. Sell on *your* schedule. Own the consumer.
But for a phone, it may be inevitable that they will push a subscription to go past the 'regular' upgrade cycle. Whatever that is.
Google, this is how you monetize Android. You're welcome.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
-
"I've been one of the many people dissatisfied with the state of auto industry recalls, however I can't in good conscience direct my wrath at the people manufacturing the devices. Price and spec competition is so intense right now that there's literally no option to disengage: everyone's been sucked into the whirlpool of razor-thin profit margins, and nobody can afford the luxury of dedicating too many resources to after-sales care. The question that's been bugging me lately is, if we value airbag recalls as highly as we say we do, why don't we pay for them? The situation can't be fixed by manufacturers -- most of them are barely breaking even -- or by Takata, which is doing its best to improve things but ultimately relies on automakers to get the job done. Dealers will most certainly not be the solution, given how they presently constitute most of the problem -- so like it or not, the best chance for substantial change comes from us, the drivers. What I'm proposing is a simple crowdfunding operation."
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
They can just keep the same model in production for a longer time, and stop with the gimmickry. My 5 year old Nexus still works fine, must be a manufacturing flaw...
No I won't pay for updates. That would be dumb. I'll just stop updating and use what I have until it breaks, making backups along the way. I'd wager most people would do the same.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The main drag on updates isn't always the OEM though. Because Google doesn't exert the level of control that Apple does, the OEMs make the update, send it to the carrier who then fills it with bloatware and releases it at their leisure. I think it was a month in between when Samsung released Android 4.4 for my device and when AT&T finished bloating it and pushed it out.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
My feeling is that as long at the phone is being sold and is possibly under contract, that OEM, needs to cover the security updates. This does not include feature / enhancement updates.
Then once the phone is out of contract, the OEM need to provide a method to unlock the bootloader so other OS/Disto's can be loaded into the phone without bricking the phone. And by OEMs, I mean on carriers because they always add their own black software on to the phone and are the last gateway to getting an update.
So if a carrier sells a phone, they should to provide security updates (no necessarily feature / enhancements) for 2 years once they ENDED selling that phone model. A new phone new hardware revision / model of the same marketing name starts a new clock. I know carriers release multiple versions of the same phones because of firmware / hardware issues. The Samsung Galaxy S3 was a prefect example of this. It was sold for a long time and had multiple hardware models even on the same carrier.
No good deed goes unpunished.
Cost of getting a device that fits my requirements and isn't vulnerable to stagefright? 100€~.
If they give me an update in the 20€ range, I'd have saved money.
If an Android phone can cost me between $600 and $800 US dollars to purchase, why the hell would I pay for updates. I have a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 which I purchased when it was released and I'm absolutely mad at Samsung inability to get Marshmallow update out. They can blame the carriers for their predicament all the want but I personally blame Google and Samsung, they need to get their act together and provide more timely updates.
Also, If you're an Android phone manufacturer and your profit margins are so little that you can't make money on selling phones then maybe you should think about getting out of business.
I realize that the logiphobic are going to have a problem with what I'm about to write, so if you have an aversion to logic and reason just skip to the next post.
Hopefully the kids in Hockey helmets are gone now.
Upgrading does not fix security holes, it replaces them. I have been working in IT Security for over 30 years and I have never seen an update that magically fixes everything. I have seen plenty that fix a particular problem but expose another, and sometimes more than one. Risk mitigation is the name of the game, and not doing everything you are told can be quite productive.
If you never connect to public wifi you don't have the same risk footprint as someone who does. If you don't use your phones web browser why do you need it patched exactly? Believe it or not, plenty of people use their smartphone as a phone and ignore the smart. Good for them by the way.
Fear mongering works on the weak minded, but there are people who don't fit that description.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I'd rather they just unlock the bootloader and let us take care of it ourselves.
I pay extra for phones that I can install Sailfish OS on
And again, no. I'd freeze it where it is on all my devices first, and wait for the free fork. I'd also retaliate against Google in every way I could, such as de-selecting its search engine, dumping all of my google-specific apps. I wouldn't like it -- some of those are very useful. But Google is making very close to 4 billion dollars NET profit this year without charging for Android. Android gives them an absolutely critical edge in the mobile phone and tablet markets. It fully justifies its share of the 18 billion or so GROSS profits it makes (and spends, and spends, and spends) on sideline speculative investments like self-driving cars and AI.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
The solution is simple: fire the cooks. No more device specific images.
When you install Linux on a desktop or laptop from any manufacturer it for the most part just works. The same needs to be made true for mobile operating systems. This is no longer the late 90's.
"everyone's been sucked into the whirlpool of razor-thin profit margins"
Bullshit. Phones are quite a profit generator. Companies like OnePlus have proven that. $600 and $700 phones produce at least $200 in revenue over the actual cost of the phone.
That said, it's not just the OEMs that are at fault here. As someone else mentioned, the carriers are quite a problem as well. Take my Verizon Galaxy S4. Verizon has no impetus to doing anything but a carrier unlock. It's got all their crap on it. They also required Samsung to lock the bootloader, and even now that I am no longer a Verizon customer, they (Samsung) will not undo the lock. The phone is in great shape and perfectly viable but not worth selling, and not really usable because it's stuck with Verizon's shit on it. No more updates, no changing Android flavors, nothing. Pretty paper weight. That is what needs to change. When you leave a carrier, if you've paid for the phone, it needs to be unlocked in every possible way.
It's really simple: don't buy devices with stupid OEM-customized Android. There's really no reason for doing that.
Features are one thing. That's a perfectly valid way to sell a new device.
However, bugfixes during a product's normal lifetime are another thing entirely.
I am of the opinion that if you sell a piece of software, first, you should specify what it is you are selling it to do, and the environment within which you are claiming it will do these things. Which we can take, at least at the moment, as "the feature list." If the software does not do what you said it would do, or work in the environment you said it would the way you said it would, then I believe you have two, and only two, valid ethical choices:
o Fix it
o Refund the customer's payment
Similarly, if the software does something harmful that you failed to notify the buyer of before the sale, I believe you have two, and only two, valid ethical choices:
o Fix it
o Refund the customer's payment (and depending on your original claims, there may be liability as well.)
I think the mindset that software producers have been allowed to develop that they can leave a trail of broken and never-to-be fixed software behind them, while proceeding forward on the proceeds made from said broken products, has led to a serious downside: that we very rarely actually end up with working software. Instead, we get new software. It's... shiny. Those new features glow like a fancy new chrome bumper. But because it's not actually fixed, it's new, it often (very often, especially in the case of operating systems) causes other things to fail where they used to work just fine, because slipped in their with "new features" are often "yeah, we changed that, it's NEW!" Whereas, if, for instance, Apple had actually fixed the printing bugs for OS X 10.6.8, then those things that were working in that environment otherwise would then have had access to printing functionality as originally claimed by Apple, and stability, reliability and functionality would be optimized.
An example I am familiar with: If you stick with OS X 10.6.8 on some Mac Minis, then you suffer with a permanently broken printing system in some respects with some CPUs (core duo, IIRC), and if you also depend on 10.6.8 features/capabilities (such as PPC emulation, for instance) then 10.7 and beyond are not an option, therefore you are permanently broken.
This is just an Apple example. I know Microsoft left the Windows file dialog broken for multiple selection in various releases of Windows, never fixing the problem. To this day, if you select too many files in the most-fixed version of some Windows releases, you'll experience bugs. Another: in some versions of Windows, the font rotation API went clockwise, and in others, it went counter-clockwise. Instead of actually fixing it, Microsoft had us special-case the OS by version. I feel reasonably sure experienced Linux users could supply similar examples in the various commercial Linux distributions where to get a fix, you actually need a shiny new version of Linux, rather than the version you already have, actually fixed and still 100% compatible otherwise.
What I'm trying to get across here is that I think that we, as users, should do a more thorough job of holding developer's feet to the fire when they give us broken stuff. Speaking as a developer, I try to live this; if bugs are reported to me during the life of a commercial product, then that product's life does not end until those bugs are fixed. I've been doing this with my freeware, also. And -- at least for me -- I find it very satisfying to bring the product as close as possible to what I claimed / thought it was in the first place. I don't like bugs.
Apple's the company I am most familiar with as I've been using OS X for quite a while now. And I can tell you that my feelings about Apple's choices WRT bug fixes and leaving broken crap behind them are not in any way positive, respectful, or satisfied.
We can do better. I actively try to do better. And I don't have hundreds of billions of dollars in the bank to back me up, either.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Android is paid for by advertising and data mining. Further, Android is provided with virtually zero real support (e.g. direct support and ticketing, solutions not starting with full wipe, etc.). There is no reason I would pay for a product like that ever.
Now if Microsoft started making Windows ROMs for Android or Apple with iOS, I might consider paying just to try those out on Android hardware. Same would go for Linux distributions (or QNX or whatever) that came without OS level data mining / advertising, and came with real support.
If the primary method of paying for a product or service is trying to advertise to me or monetize my behavior, I will not pay for it. The same goes for television / cable content, music, and websites. I will pirate it or adblock it without guilt and without sitting through advertisements because I as a consumer already buy plenty of products from the companies paying for the content. I've already paid my share for the product.
Follow the money: After a phone is sold, only carriers and the app store owners make any from the subscriber. Manufacturers get nothing. If the carriers were smart, they would structure their purchasing contracts to include a service contract with the manufacturers, e.g., 10% of the sale price for X years of support. Then the OEM could justify keeping a sustaining engineering team going, assuming the opportunity cost isn't too high.
This is a self induced problem. The way to tackle this problem is to write the system in the first place to be extremely specific about what is the core android system is and what is the oem system and also any changes to the the core are either handled by specfici config files or very specific Google approved modifications.
This way Google can update the core system and the OEM can update their system.
I have worked creating complex software systems where we create the core system but the end user can fully customize business rules, user interface and custom additions without affecting the core system. The end user can the then upgrade the core without affecting the custom solution. So this is possible but of course you have to have very good documentation and practices to make this a reality.
I don't pay for my desktop OS. I don't pay for my laptop OS. I don't pay for my phone OS. I don't pay any major carrier's price for my phone service - the resellers offer the same services, at about 80% discount.
No, I'm not about to pay for updates for my phone's OS. There are enough alternatives to avoid paying for either the OS or it's updates. Cyanogen mod hasn't started charging for access to it's servers, have they?
I might be willing to pay an extra dollar to my carrier, if they BLOCK all those updates, advertising, malware, etc. Might be willing, I say.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The stated reason that margins are too thin for OEMs is nonsense. I own a Blackview phone, from a Hong Kong manufacturer, and it updates nicely, one update a month on average, with a full update from 5.1 to 6.0 last week. So if Blackview can do it on its none-too-expensive phones, what's the other manufacturer's excuse?
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
If we make the manufactures liable if they sell any devices with a known *fixed* security flaw...
It's not just after market sales. Many Android phones come with vulnerabilities that have been fixed by Google in that stable Android series.
Given the prices of some phones the margin they could have an higher margin on the software update or an higher return on investment. So why not?
I'm confused.
Yes, you are. I specifically asked people like you to skip to the next post.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I have to say that I am disappointed with how soon Android phones stop being supported by the latest OS versions. Doing a quick search, it appears that iPhone models are supported by new iOS versions for two or three years longer than Android models are supported by new Android versions.
My examples are the Nexus 4 (Google's own model), dropped by Android 6 in just under 3 years vs iPhone 4s, still going strong at nearly 5 years, supported by the latest iOS 9. This means that there is an even greater disparity between iphones and non-Google Android phones (going by the 18-24 months that folks are quoting). This is the one thing that may turn me back to iPhones, because it would make my hardware purchase be useful for longer, which is good for my wallet and good for the environment.
But look at the greater picture and compare to desktop/laptop computers, which are usually supported for at least 5 years of OS version upgrades (OS X), and in some cases (Windows, and Linux?), 10+ years. Smartphones should be supported for at least 5 years. After all, many smartphones cost more than many desktops and laptops. If they have to charge for the updates like some OS vendors do, so be it.
Why can't the google android license agreement (or whatever it is vendors sign to put android on their devices) simply stipulate that if they want to stop providing updates to a device, they must open source all the drivers for that device so that the community can continue to support it from AOSP--and not leave them with devices that are security-ticking-time-bombs for lack up patches. They could even get aggressive about the clause and put a timer in--say that any time a device doesn't get a patch within X weeks of the patch being released by google they forfeit their lockdown and must immediately publish their sources. Google could even escrow the sources.
Of course people would pay for updates. People are already paying for updates.
Troll carriers lock bootloaders. Users wanting to free their phones blow the locks with Sunshine.
Sunshine costs $25 per phone where it is used.
Is Sunshine ever used to downgrade an OS release? It likely happens, but not often. The net effect of Sunshine is an unauthorized OS upgrade, which improves user security.
I get all the source code and a way to sign my own firmware.
Then I would gladly take the task uppon my own shoulders to carry the tough burden of updaten my Smartphone/OS and making it much easier for Samsung, and so on .. to just publish the initial release and then forget about the user. They would have no problems with me anymore.
But yes, I would pay a small fee for that kind of service!
Ohh what a fucking nice bastard I'm, sweet talking them into believing that my only intend would be to carry the burden by myself .. but in secret I just don't want the privacy depleting free giveaways and a secure OS I control and nobody else ... .. Ohh What a fucking dumb James Bond villian I would be, spouting all my evil great plan at Bond and leaving him alone to die and not assuring his death by just shooting him in the head ..
There are LITERALLY SEVERAL options to disengage:
1) charge more for your every unit of the phone, and make it clear that people who buy this phone will get long-term support, including upgrades, for X years. Use the extra money to build the extra, premium features.
2) Sell "extended service" contracts that will help fund these updates - people who want long term support then get it, others don't have to pay for it.
What you're LITERALLY afraid of finding out is that people will decline to buy these pricier options because only a handful of nerds really give a shit whether they're running Android 8.7.1, "Edible Undies", or the old version, Android 5.6.3, "Chocolate Dildo".
But you keep on believing that everything in the world can LITERALLY be boiled down to a false dichotomy, champ. Your lack of vision is monumental, but unsurprising.
The solution is the same solution as for PCs: Android hardware needs to support installation of third party firmware. This requires a functioning "BIOS" (containing hardware-specific drivers) like the original BIOS was intended to be. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
No, I don't think it should be necessary to pay for updates after the manufacturer drops support. Back when I had an OG Droid, I updated the OS to a newer version using a bootloader unlocking hack and a community supported ROM (cyanogenmod). If a manufacturer doesn't want to release an OS update, they should unlock the phone so that the end-user can update it themselves if they wanted.
If you have to root your phone and apply a completely different version of OS just to stay updated, then the manufacturer has failed.
The average user should not be required to go to such an extreme just to extend the life of their phone and get security fixes.
I had to do this with my Galaxy S3 just to make it useable. Between the crapware they saddled it with, and their inability to provide regular updates to THEIR FLAGSHIP PHONE, solidified in my mind that I will never buy another Samsung Android device again, and I will do serious research before I ever buy ANY Samsung product again. In fact, I've basically written off almost the entire Android market because nobody else is any better.
In the Windows CE days, I learned the hard way that Dell cannot be trusted to provide updates, even when they tell you up front that they will provide them. I no longer buy anything based on a manufacturers promises that they feature I want will be delivered "soon".
Hell, even Google drops support for their older products frustratingly quickly, although it looks like they've finally pulled their head out of their butt with their most recent hardware. I believe Android 6 runs on hardware as old as 3 years ago.
Apple may be a bunch of control-freak wankers who charge a mint for their products, but it cannot be said that they don't support their devices. The iphone 4s is almost 5 years old now, and it's still receiving OS updates. I'm irritated by the half-assed way they've been managing their hardware lineup lately, especially their desktop computers, but In a world where even the most expensive tech is now considered disposable, knowing that a company is willing to support their hardware goes a very long way. Only the truly wealthy can drop one or two grand on the latest and greatest and still consider it "disposable".
First you have to wait for a new version of Android. Then you have to wait for the manufacturer to integrate their special bells, whistles and bloatware. Then you have to wait for your carrier to add their branding and bloatware. It takes time to add all that bloatware
ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile are you willing to pay for actual customer survey data on new "products" you plan to offer, or are you simply going to ask on /.
I would pay on 2 conditions:
1) as near stock Android as possible i.e absolutely no extra bloatware and no features locked out by the carrier (such as hotspot)
2) its available within say a month of the official Google release (which should be easily possible if all you're doing is re-adding a few existing device drivers and not wasting time integrating other crapware).
I did pay for quicker updates - by buying a Nexus device. There's already a choice for people who want quicker Android updates, and I'm super happy with my Nexus 6P.
If I need updates to begin with, there was something already wrong with the device. Make me pay for them? I'll start a lawsuit against you for selling broken stuff. In the long run, the lawsuit would be cheaper.
But everything is turning into services. Monthly payments for access and additional payment for patches? Hell no.
The solution is simpler than that, OEM should be obligated to sell unlocked phones, and let the user install the vanilla Google Android version if he wants to.
No more awful customisation and uninstallable apps, and easy upgrades as soon as they're published by Google.
Try it! Library of Babel
By buying Nexus branded devices instead of the OEM versions. Calculate the difference between the two prices, and you know what I pay!
the carriers should supply updates for as long as your service with them is.
now if you are not under a contract or brought your own device.... that could be kind oif grey.
now on a business side i could see it as yes, say you have a fleet of rugby pros.
They are running 4.1.2? but there are some things that a company would want like:
the otg doesnt work right, so you cant plug in a memory stick or mouse.
You are the guy who makes people install Apache because they need to patch for the vulnerability. You used to work for someone who went out of business right?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
iOS FTW
A moderate amount of money. I'd also pay for an official rooting method/toggle. i.e.: An official feature of Android, not depending on a exploit which will work only with certain software versions. Mainly for removing unused apps (some Google's).
OEM's that refuse to support their products with updates after the sale deserve to fail.
There is no excuse for poor customer service.
I would rather have a well-supported product that works, than a bleeding edge piece of crap that will not be supported in 3 months.
If this is ever going to be solved there's only one way (and it will never happen): When a product goes out of the vendor's support then the vendor must open source all elements required for the continued maintenence.
If a component manufacturer doesn't want to open source the necessary information for communal maintenence then they would be responsible for maintaining code on any component on demand.
Like I said, it will never happen. It really is the only way to keep older devices functional without creating extra demands on the manufacturing company (beyond that they make the source available, which is significantly less work than maintenence but undesirable as long as devices are still making money.)
A device designed to be replaced in just two years has less value than one that has say a five-year lifetime... A device with a two-year life is very hard to sell a year after it is released - it only has 12 more months of useful life after purchase.
everyone's been sucked into the whirlpool of razor-thin profit margins, and nobody can afford the luxury of dedicating too many resources to after-sales care.
Hmmm. I know of at least ONE Cellphone OEM that hasn't fallen for the deadly "Race To The Bottom"...
Funny. That also happens to be the same OEM who has a (deserved) reputation for not only supporting the vast majority of their mobile devices for longer than pretty much everyone else, but also rolling-out most Security Updates in a very timely manner.
I wonder if they're on to something...?
Software bugs are not bugs - they are defects. Would you pay to fix a manufacturing or design defect in a product you already bought?
Hell no. The manufacturer has an obligation to deliver a defect-free, feature complete product - that is what I paid for.
Android and other software should not get a pass on this simply because "software".
I'll pay for new features and new hardware if the value proposition is there - but I will not pay developers twice. Once to build the product and yet another time to fix the product they screwed up.
The obvious way to go is have Google offer a central repository of updates and drivers.
Currently OEM's each tailor Android in some way, but that's done in a stupid way in which they edit and release their own version of Android. It would be less work for them and better for consumers if the customisations were layered onto a single OS, and users could get updates for that OS without the OEM doing a thing.
I realise that this removed some control of the experience from the OEM, in particular when it come to ensuring that a device works well with an OS update, and I think that Google could give OEM's the ability to postpone an update for a limited time (a couple of months) to ensure stability, and an ability for users to roll back updates, but that's it. Once the time passes, the update will be available to all users, if they want it. OEM's could warn users if an update can cause problems, but installation will be out of their control.
Even if that's not implemented fully, at the very least Google should be able to provide security updates directly to users.
Remember back when I committed to paying Verizon a huge monthly fee for two full years? Android updates part of are what I though I /was/ paying for. Those worthless jerks need to give me my fricking money back!
As Linus bitched about a few years ago, the state of ARM/Linux is truly a sad thing. Mostly because of lack of hardware and software standards. Meaning that every device is basically running a custom kernel with a bunch of custom drivers. The push to use DT is cleaning up some of this, but its happening at a glacial pace. Partially because by itself, DT doesn't fundamentally solve the problem of hacked up drivers that differ from device to device that need DT properties to switch behaviors. AKA someone has to write "unified" drivers without upsetting the apple card on any of the the dozens of buggy hardware devices.
So, if google updates android it takes massive effort by the manufactures to go through their backlog of products (could be thousands of variations) and port their non upstream changes into the latest versions of android.
Worse yet, because of the "hacker" mentality of get it working, ship it move on to the next thing, frequently the code bases are all forked for every single device, so there isn't even a unified code base to apply common changes at a number of these companies. At one point the rumor was that one of the large vendors actually had more out of kernel code than the size of the kernel+drivers running on your average x86 machine.
Let's be clear. Google created this situation. The ecosystem, the internal dynamics of the vendors operating in this space, Google set the basic rules for the whole thing. No Android phone would exist without Google and Google is by far the most influential player in that market.
Therefore this is Google's problem to solve. I really don't care how they solve it, but solve it they must.
I might even be OK with Google redefining Android devices to be appliances. They aren't computers, they are appliances. There are no upgrades once the device leaves the store, no matter what security flaws are identified. It's an appliance, forever frozen in time.
However Google must solve this problem. The existing situation is bad and it's damaging all around. People have expectations that their phones will get upgrades and with Android, for the most part that isn't happening. Google must solve this problem.
I wait for consumer protection laws to catch up for electronic devices and software.
We are at a point in time where you can buy access to a service with no commitment of the provider of that service to deliver said service.
A few real world examples:
Samsung sells Smart TV cameras for Skype, having the Skype logo up until and after Microsoft releases news that Skype will no longer be available on Samsung Smart TVs - Same cameras only work for Skype on Samsung Smart TVs and there is yet no alternative service. The date for which Samsung had agreement to provide access to Skype services was not defined to the customer and obviously not protected by contract.
Blackberry:
BB10 devices received a Facebook update that removed the ability to share images or receive Facebook updates after Facebook ended support for Blackberry. Again, the date for which Facebook had contractual obligations to provide support for Blackberry was undefined which means Blackberry was advertise and sell a smartphone to people under a contract which they get stuck in without being able to do the advertised.
There are thousands more.
If I sold home renovations, used a third party for bathrooms, then midway through providing renovations, my third party decided not to do bathrooms - I would be on the hook.
In the days of the cloud and digital electronics, it's the wild west with no such liability to the consumer. Now we are throwing away smart devices and used electronics where the software to run them has become obsolete by design and we seem to accept that.
Consumer protection laws better catch up.
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Mobile phone companies occupy leased space on the electromagnetic spectrum (which as today's big health science report indicates may really be carcinogenic, full study here http://biorxiv.org/content/bio... what a surprise). They displace those frequencies from being available for any other public use and then have the temerity to blow off pushing through android updates because they have to futz with the worthless crapware they add to the phones. It is ridiculous to talk of crowd funding. Maybe instead their frequencies should be taken away and given to local people to run data links instead, and force them to make all the crapware optional so that the update packs are far more generic and easier to build... in fact why can't the build process be automated CI testing style? You should be able to generate your own update packs by hitting some checkboxes on their website, end of story.
--hongpong.com
And my reason is different than most. The hardware builder should not even be in control of the OS at all. So why should I pay them for updates to it? I should be able to run the OS or OS variant of my choice on my hardware. There should be consumer protections that keep hardware builders from tieing you to their pre-installed OS. If the hardware inherently supports changing and updating the OS, then it should be flatly illegal for companies to cripple that feature set to create lock in. That would create competition in the marketplace. It would give you options if a OS bundles crapware or spyware or tracks you in ways you don't like.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
If I sign up for a 3 year contract I would fully expect to receive updates until that contract is finished. Providing 1.5-2 years of updates is unacceptable.
So, on one side Google complains the OEM does not release update, but on the other side does not release updates for the Nexus 10...
If you use ESXi as your Operating System you do wait for Dell or HP or whomever to release the brand specific Update package or risk losing support for some of the hardware. For example, PERC6 RAID card or NICs.
solution is so simple.
I'm not sure of the cost of the update but... looks like they have at least $1 million to spare since that doesn't include deferred compensation like stock options. Similar compensation for other companies in this area.
That's about 420x the average worker wage in the country btw.
And..
http://www.bizjournals.com/kan... [bizjournals.com]
In just less than eight months, Claure earned $22 million, the paper reports. The data come from Securities and Exchange Commission filings that the Overland Park-based wireless carrier (NYSE: S) filed ahead of its August stockholders meeting.
And that was just the top executive- not the top 25 executives (also available public information).
So now tell me why the industry can't afford to update the software on our devices again?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Linux distros manage to upgrade thousands of packages easily on a wide range of hardware. There is no reason that Android device manufacturers could not implement a similar approach to updates which would still allow device customisation but utilise a common base for many devices. Offering some apps in an Android store is a step in the right direction but it is not enough to address the core problem.
Individual packages (or apps) could easily be updated on Android, if manufacturers gave up the stupid idea of upgrading the entire firmware as a whole. Mobile devices have more in common with computers than dumb phones that might have been only sensibly upgraded through whole firmwares. Manufacturers are just making life difficult for themselves.
As more unpatched and exploited holes cause harm to users there will be more of a push for change. Expecting users to pay for the continued use of a broken and stupid system is not the answer.
If only there was some kind of abstraction layer so that the OS could be upgraded to add features, remove bugs, and fix exploits without involving the original manufacturer.
When I bought the phone.
"I'm skeptical about this, because I don't think it is in an OEM's best interest to serve its existing users for long"
...on PC hardware. You can install a modern OS on a computer from 20 years ago and expect it to work. The key is to force the adoption of standards and force companies to release hardware drivers separate from a particular Android instance, so users have choice of hardware and software that vary independently. Smartphones are a huge, huge step backwards in flexibility.
They should be held liable for damages from published vulnerabilities in their software. The software industry has enjoyed way too much profits from shoddy workmanship and reckless endangerment of our data (and in some cases, our lives).
Believe it or not, plenty of people use their smartphone as a phone and ignore the smart.
Then why are they spending money on a smartphone with its attendant cellular data plan rather than switching to a flip phone that uses a less expensive voice and text only plan and holds a charge longer?
I won't pay a cent to my device manufacturer but I would surely pay a subscription fee to a official, supported Cyanogen port.
Accepting the offer to upgrade my Nexus 7 (2012) from Android 4.4 "KitKat" to Android 5 "Lollipop" turned it from a smooth experience into a jank-fest whenever anything is going on in the background. Reportedly it has something to do with ASUS cheaping out on its flash memory. If Lollipop stresses the NAND much more often than KitKat did, an upgrade to Android 6 "Marshmallow" would probably make it even worse.
Then who pays for disposal of your e-waste? E-waste disposal is a cost associated with a new phone that is not associated with a software update to an old phone.
Back in the days when the next new model would feature groundbreaking changes in our digital intercation, I would throw away any older mobile to get the next new hot thing.
Now that new models don't introduce anything new of value (at least for the last couple of years) I would rather stick with my old model as long as it actually works.
The problem is that for no real reason all models become insanely slow about the time when the next new model is introduced. A few thousand images, mail or text messages should in no way slow down the interface as it obviously happens on all models I've ever owned regardless of vendor.
Sure I know that the vendors want us all to buy a new phone every 1.5 year, but from a broader point of view it would be in everybodys interest to keep phones updated with security updates and running as long as vital parts of the phone is working.
I would like to pay a flat yearly fee to keep my phone uptodate past the standard two year actual life span my phone sees today. With hundreds of millions owners of the same model, I feel the owners have the capacity to pay for any update they could possibly want.
As long as the vendors are allowed to hold back updates, discard optimizations and abandon OSes we will see tons of happy hardware trashed only for the benefit of the vendors. Take a read on broken windows...