Slashdot Mirror
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.
From my experience, every update removes useful power user features.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
The summary says "If your phone isn't updated, it will start to feel old, so you're more likely to buy a new phone sooner". If you don't make your users happy by keeping them updated, Android isn't tied to one vendor, they can just as easily be driven to another handset vendor the next time. Better to have all your customers update 50% less often than to lose half of them to the company that cares about its customers.
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?
There's a salient point here, but it's not the one the author is trying to make.
Apple's strategy includes the fact that they make phones which will take the same updates as later phones - at least, to a point. Why aren't android phone makers doing this?
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.
If android were more portable, or if carriers made their implementations more portable, they could achieve this. So far, it seems the android phone makers' attitudes are to do only enough to sell the phones, and then move on to selling the next phone.
If Google had designed (? or something?) Android so that updating the base OS was something that could be pushed direct from Google instead of from each manufacturer's bollixed version of the system, there'd be no problem for any of us. Seeing as how Google{sheets, +, play, docs,} and other default apps get updated just fine, why not the OS as well -- without any interaction with the phone vendors?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
I should say, defining an ecosystem where users don't feel like they will be left behind makes them comfortable in your ecosystem and more likely to stay in it when they make their next upgrade, and less likely to defect to a competitor.
If my Samsung handset is stuck back in 2013, I might move over to another manufacturer when I upgrade. If I know I'm always going to be safe with Samsung, I'll stay there.
Yep.
Yes. I have a high-end preamp-processor, updatable over the net. Plenty of bugs. Did they ever fix them, much less add new features? No. Did they release a new model? Yes. I have a high-end camera. Updatable over the net. Plenty of bugs. Did they ever fix them, much less add new features? No. Did they release a new model? Yes. I have a high-end radio transceiver. Updatable over the net. Plenty of bugs. Did they ever fix them, much less add new features? No. Did they release a new model? Yes. And so on.
The whole "we can update your device" bit is a scam (and often, so is the "we can update your software" bit.) The only way a corporation is likely to actually update hardware responsibly is if legislation forces them to. And good luck trying to get THAT in place when corporations outright buy the decisions of the legislatures.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The summary on /. does not actually describe the proposed solution. Here it is, from TFA:
"[P]enalize partners by reducing or eliminating that [ad] revenue sharing if they don't push out updates. If an OEM exceeds the curve and stays up to date, increase the amount of revenue sharing."
I really can't imagine the vendors going for this. I doubt the amount of money involved would be sufficient.
The summary left out the "hurt" part. Maybe as a veiled attempt to encourage people to read the article? Here you go, no need, this is Slashdot.
"We've heard reports that Google shares ad revenue with its partners—if a customer buys a Verizon Samsung phone, performs a Google search, and clicks on an ad, Verizon and Samsung get a portion of that ad revenue. So, penalize partners by reducing or eliminating that revenue sharing if they don't push out updates. If an OEM exceeds the curve and stays up to date, increase the amount of revenue sharing. Threatening to shift the stock price of an OEM by affecting its bottom line is the nuclear option—and, folks, we're at the point where the nuclear option is all that's left."
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.
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?"
My Samsung handset is stuck in 2011, and the upgrade path for it ended in 2013. I'm not talking about a software path, but a hardware path: the QWERTY keyboard. It's the main reason I got a smartphone. Now there are none, so I'm going back to a feature phone soon (I'm also tired of paying for "4G" that Sprint never bothered to install in my area).
And before anyone tries to say on-screen keyboards have improved: that's not the point, they're still on the screen obscuring half of what I'm looking at, which is even worse because I do as little as possible on my phone in portrait mode.
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I'm an Apple user and currently do not own any Android devices, but the constant force-feeding of updates by Apple might make me jump ship to Android.
I had an iPad 2 that I bought in 2011. It was a great device, very snappy and a pleasure to use. It came with iOS 4. When it upgraded itself to iOS 5, it slowed down a little but was still usable. At this point an alarm went off in my head and I have refused all the pop-ups telling me to update to IOS 6 ever since.
Well lo and behold, in the fullness of time an ignorant member of my family tapped "YES" to the "Update to iOS 6" message. Running iOS 6, the iPad became a complete dog. Launching web browser took 3 seconds whereas it used to be well under a second in iOS 4. Not just the web browser either, doing just about *anything* with the ipad (even viewing photos stored locally) became a lag-fest.
Eventually I upgraded to iOS 7 in hopes that it might help (because Apple does not let you downgrade back to an older iOS version, ever). It did not help. At all. I ended up giving away the iPad because it was pretty much unusable.
But why should it be like that? The iPad's hardware was just as fast in 2015 as it was back in 2011. Aside from the ability to hold a battery charge, it should perform the same.
I would be happy with a setting somewhere that lets you turn off the "Update" pop-ups, but no, Apple does not let you do that. They want you on the latest bloated OS, and if your older hardware can't handle it, buy a new device.
But yet Apple does it all the time. So does Google if you bought a Nexus directly from them. Why can't the rest?
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
How is Cyanogen hostile to the Google ecosystem? It's not bundled in due to legal restrictions placed by Google, but it does absolutely nothing to block or inhibit use of it, and in fact nearly all of the guides on Cyanogen's own website includes the steps needed to load the Google ecosystem. Amazon, on the other hand, does make it difficult to add Google Apps, including restrictions on sideloading.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that at least part of the reason Cyanogenmod exists was to make a usable Android that didn't depend on Google Play Services. Also, Cyanogen Inc. (the company commercializing Cyanogenmod) has partnered with Microsoft to promote Microsoft services instead of Google's.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Agreed.
Work provided me with a iPhone 4S when they were new. It has received regular updates and I have had no reason to upgrade the phone as it is really my portable email/phone-call machine.
My last personal phone was a HTC, which I loved as a tool. . 3 years later and never an OS upgrade received. Time came to update my personal phone and HTC, as much as I loved it when new, did not get any of my money. If HTC had provided updates, I would still be a customer now.
. .