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.
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
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?"
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!
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.