Hey Google, Want To Fix Android Updates? Hit OEMs Where It Hurts (arstechnica.com)

Yesterday we talked about some of Nexus devices, including 2013's Nexus 5 not receiving an update, because it has been more than two years since the launch of the phone. But as you may know, this commitment to keeping the devices up to date is even worse when you look at what other Android OEMs are doing. ArsTechnica's Ron Amadeo has a solution: Google keeps missing the point when it comes to addressing Android's update situation. It keeps coming up with strategies to make updating "easier" for OEMs, but I don't think the problem is "ease of updating" -- it's creating any incentive for OEMs to update at all. Google seems to think that its partners will update phones because it's The Right Thing To Do by their customers and that handing out gold stars will send them scrambling to produce updates for their devices. I don't think that's ever going to happen. Google actually already tried the "shame" tactic and it didn't work. When Google-owned Motorola, Moto's update speed went through the roof. Motorola was achieving near-Nexus-like update speeds on many of its phones and was definitely putting other manufacturers to shame. But the increased update competition never really spurred other OEMs to start competing on update speeds. The bottom line is that Android partners only care about, well, the bottom line -- money. These companies already have your money, so updating a device that's already been sold is a needless expense. There's also a good argument to be made that updating a device hurts future sales. If your phone isn't updated, it will start to feel old, so you're more likely to buy a new phone sooner.

Comments

Does "not feeling old" mean minimalized?

[Godwin O'Hitler]

From my experience, every update removes useful power user features.

Re: Does "not feeling old" mean minimalized?

[swillden]

Root.

Unless you bought a device with an unlockable bootloader, any way that you can get root is a bug, not a feature. It may useful to you, but it would be equally useful to an attacker.

show me the money $$$$$$$$

[known_coward_69]

apple and samsung take home virtually all the profits in smartphone sales. most android phone makers take a loss on their sales or break even. android is designed for google to profit before anyone else. why would they spend money post-sale to improve the product when they aren't making any money from it?

Outrageously short service life for updates

[Optic7]

I still think that two years of updates is outrageous forced obsolescence that is prematurely adding electronic garbage to landfills. They should be forced to provide updates for 5 years. I'm seriously considering going back to an iPhone on my next phone upgrade, despite all the concerns I have about them too. They at least support their hardware for around 5 years.

Re:A news?

[LichtSpektren]

I just wonder how many customers do care about security updates at the very least -- I'm not saying about new OS releases for your two years old smartphone.

If you ask them, "do you care about security updates?" they might say no. But they're more likely to say yes if you ask "are you OK knowing that all of your messages and banking transactions from your phone can be snooped on by a third party because [Verizon/Lenovo/whomever] is trying to force you to buy phones more often?"

Re:There's a simpler answer to this

[Bert64]

Also make it a legal requirement that any phone sold on a long term contract receives security patches for the duration of the contract. Many phones are sold on 2 year contracts these days, but the updates stop long before the contract expires.

Re:Updates

[Bert64]

That would work too, if the phones were running the google version of android in the first place...
Most of them are running hacked up versions made by either the carriers or the handset vendors, if you replaced them with stock google code they simply wouldn't boot at all in most cases. The same is true with any other platform, it's just a far less common scenario.

Re:A news?

[mrchaotica]

It's a great tool to keep people in your ecosystem. Every time a person goes out and shops for a new phone, they look at all makes and models. If you have a system that defines an upgrade path for users, where they know they'll never be left behind on an antiquated OS, they're MORE likely to upgrade, not less likely.

Third-party Android device makers don't give a shit about Google's "ecosystem." In fact, many such as Amazon and Cyanogen (Inc.) are actively hostile to it.

Re:Solution: Buy legislators. All of them.

[Rob Y.]

True enough, but do you do your banking, internet searches and browsing, email, etc on your high-end preamp processor or printer? I didn't think so.

Smartphones are more and more becoming our primary computing devices and they're networked by definition. That makes them pretty dangerous devices to be casual about security updates on. The OEM's don't update them because nobody's pressuring them (enough) to do it. If Google simply advertised Nexus phones on the basis of their regular upgrade schedule, they might produce the kind of competition that would get the OEM's off their asses.

That said, the Android device market is a nasty space to operate in. Some OEM's have dozens of models. Whether they needed to produce them to compete in a highly competitive market - or whether they were just throwing stuff against the wall, the bottom line is that they can't practically keep them all up to date. Again, an informed public wouldn't buy them, but buy them they do. And the carriers are as much at fault for that as anyone...