Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slashdot Asks: Would You Pay For Android Updates? (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the pay-for-updates dept.

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?

10 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. No by Dins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering I actively try to avoid the free ones, probably not.

    1. Re:No by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even when it means running with known security holes, widely exploited?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  2. Umm no. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:Umm no. by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not buying it. Google already places restrictions on them if they want to include Google Play services. That is your leverage. Use it. Force them to submit drivers to AOSP or no Google Play Services.

      Google made this bed. You don't get to then pass the buck and blame OEMs who already have to play by your rules. The Android ecosystem is a fucking disgrace to modern engineering.

  3. The problem is cost and complexity by mveloso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The problem is cost and complexity by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the model that Apple has taken --- limited phone models --- is the solution, but that requires a much bigger bet by the device manufacturers. With fewer models to support, a manufacturer could devote more resources to keeping the phone updated. The risk being that a poor model would crater their whole business. I know not every model is perfect for every person......so I don't really know how that would work, either.

  4. Long term updates aren't even the problem! by wangmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  5. I already do pay for upgrades - called "phones" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I already do pay for upgrades - they're called "new phones" in Android-world.

  6. Exactly right by s.petry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Exactly right by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whoever has been paying you for 30 years should ask for their money back. You're a moron of the worst kind.