Low-Cost Android One Phones Coming To The US, Says Report (theverge.com)

The Android One platform is a program designed by Google to provide budget-friendly Android smartphones to developing markets. The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, competing services, and a lack of software and security updates -- the stuff that most low-end smartphones contain. According to a report from The Information, the program is about to make its way to the U.S. market. The Verge reports: Android One phones have historically been produced by companies you probably haven't heard of, like Micromax, Cherry, and QMobile. Originally Google had a direct hand in detailing what components would go into the phone, but apparently became more flexible over time and eventually expanded the program beyond India to parts of Africa, Spain, and Portugal. Android One may not have been the rousing worldwide success Google was hoping for, but it's still an important initiative for the company. Especially at the low end, there's a lot of incentive for manufacturers to pile on extra software in a bid to make those devices more profitable -- but that could cut against Google's efforts to make its own services more pervasive and popular. If Google really does put some real effort behind Android One, it could make its plans for Android a little clearer. Google itself has taken a stand that it wants to make its own hardware at the high-end of the smartphone market with the Pixel, and if The Information's report is accurate, it wants to ensure that its services are not cut out from the low end.

Comments

No bloatware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they finally remove all the Google datamining tools that slow down Android to a complete stop then?

Re:No bloatware?

[Salgak1]

. . . or all the carrier-specific crap. I have a ton of apps I simply cannot remove from my Sprint-network phone (and no, Sprint is not my provider, I use Ting. . .)

Price has other factors

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

If the phone isn't getting even security updates as they come out the OS version it runs, it's not a deal. Google needs to do two things to make it a real deal at any price:

1. Force the carriers to let you update it as they release patches.
2. Actually support the OS.

Having to replace a phone to get security updates is not a deal. It's just an environmentally-unsound model for moving cheap hardware.

Re:Price has other factors

[Anonymous Coward]

If the phone isn't getting even security updates as they come out the OS version it runs, it's not a deal. Google needs to do two things to make it a real deal at any price:

1. Force the carriers to let you update it as they release patches.
2. Actually support the OS.

Having to replace a phone to get security updates is not a deal. It's just an environmentally-unsound model for moving cheap hardware.

Given the prevalence of outdated, insecure hardware floating around, you forgot about the last part:

3. Find a consumer base who gives a shit about security enough to care.

Re:Price has other factors

[GrumpySteen]

Both of the linked articles say that it will get updates. The subscription walled article says that updates are guaranteed for at least two years from the sale date in the text that's visible even without a subscription.

But what the hell... we're living in the post truth world now. Being outraged by imaginary problems and not bothering to confirm anything before seems to be the new norm. You'll fit right in.

Re:Price has other factors

[squiggleslash]

I suspect that sentence was mangled between brain and keyboard, because a hallmark of cheap* phones is that they don't get updates, and the entire point of the sentence is to suggest that Android One devices are superior to regular cheap phones.

* Yeah, OK, let's be honest, almost all Android phones, cheap or not, don't get updated.

Re:Price has other factors

[drew_kime]

Being outraged by imaginary problems and not bothering to confirm anything before seems to be the new norm. You'll fit right in.

No, the problem was the summary: "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, competing services, and a lack of software and security updates"

Parallel construction grammar fail. That should have read, "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, no competing services, and won't lack software and security updates." The summary meant to negate all three parts.

Re:Price has other factors

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Parallel construction grammar fail. That should have read, "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, no competing services, and won't lack software and security updates."

Bingo. The original sentence should be taken out and shot.

What now?

[Opportunist]

No bloatware or Google trying to make its services more pervasive.

Hey, Google? 99% of the bloatware that litters our Android phones IS your services!

One type of phone not tried

[Anonymous Coward]

Has Google thought of exploring the neglected maket segment of phones that are NOT 5" PHABLETS AND ARE NOT SHIT ?
They also do not need to be thin, don't have to be made of fragile glass and we don't give a shit how tiny the bezel is.

Have they ? Have they considered it ?

I'd love it except I have a kid

[cerberusss]

My iPhone 6 Plus its battery died so while getting it repaired, I got a cheap Android phone (a second-hand LG Nexus 5). Since I took care to only buy/use apps that appear in both the App Store and Google Play, the shift was easy. I thought, when that expensive phone comes back I'll just sell it.

However, I didn't think it through because when it came to making pictures, I was a bit disappointed. Now shooting photos might not be the most important thing in the world for you, but I've got a three year old daughter and don't want to look at crappy shots later in life. So as soon as my iPhone comes back, I'll be happy to go back to an expensive phone again.

Re:I'd love it except I have a kid

[cerberusss]

No phone comes anywhere near even a mediocre real camera.

That's true but I'm pretty happy with the camera on my iPhone 6 Plus. It's optically stabilized and makes pretty good pics as long as there's enough light.

Re:I'd love it except I have a kid

[Ol Olsoc]

No phone comes anywhere near even a mediocre real camera.

That's true but I'm pretty happy with the camera on my iPhone 6 Plus. It's optically stabilized and makes pretty good pics as long as there's enough light.

While I have been pretty tough on smartphone cameras, and while it's true that they fall short in many ways compared to a DSLR, they are a marked improvement over the 110 cameras that used to be the mainstay of the regular consumers.

Re:I'd love it except I have a kid

[cerberusss]

Are you some kind of fucking moron?

That is a great question -- "am I some kind of fucking moron" and I'd say it entirely depends on what you mean by "fucking" and "moron", for instance If one would interpret these two terms in the best possible light, perhaps while laughing out loud as a compliment to a joke well made, with a slap on the back, at the pub, after a good evening of dozens of locally brewn pilsners, then by all accounts I'd be delighted to be called a fucking moron and I'd gladly take it with a prize for the longest fucking sentence.

Re:I'd love it except I have a kid

[tlhIngan]

I get what people mean when they suggest to use a "real camera" instead of a smartphone (hobby photographer here), but current smartphone cameras do a fine job for most day-to-day situations. Nothing keeps you from breaking out your DSLR or other camera for "that special shot", but you won't be lugging one around all day, and it won't be in your pant pocket when you need it, especially when out of the house.

Actually, there have been tests over the years, and the current crop of cameras in phones do a pretty good job. Yes, the DSLR runs circles around the phone, but if all you had was the phone, except in a few specialized situations (very low light where you need long exposures, for example) it does such a decent job it can be hard to tell the difference.

Yes, the best camera is the one you have on you. But even today's smartphones do a pretty bang-up job taking excellent quality photos. It's why the point and shoot camera has pretty much died - phones do such a nice job those cameras couldn't do much better.

How much for a phone without Google's services?

[iampiti]

Hey Google? How much would you charge for a phone without your services? They can be installed on purchase as long as I'm able to uninstall them.
I have no use for many of Google's apps which come preinstalled and can't be removed, and I'd be happy to get back the storage and battery they use (however little that may be).
I'd be nice if the phone came also with root enabled and was officially supported. I have no problem with not being able to use for payments or other things which require a "secure" or certified phone.
I have, in principle, no problem with the data-driven economy. It's, IMO, a legit option as long as there's also an option to only pay with your money (which, sadly, is becoming less and less common these days).

Re:How much for a phone without Google's services?

[swillden]

Hey Google? How much would you charge for a phone without your services? They can be installed on purchase as long as I'm able to uninstall them.

All devices Google sells come with an unlockable bootloader, so you can unlock and flash a different system that doesn't have the Google stuff. Be sure you re-lock after flashing, otherwise your device can be reflashed with malicious software by anyone who gets hold of it.

So, the price is the cost of buying the device from the Play store, plus a few minutes to unlock and reflash.

Re:Xenophobia

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I never knew slashdot users to be so xenophobic.

You haven't been paying attention or you browse at +2. Browse at 0 and it's a sea of hateful drek.

Slashdot didn't use to be this way but in the last couple of years the right-wing whackos and the bigots have found it to be a target-rich playground.

Mediatek and ADUPS

[emil]

All of that will not help you in the slightest if the chipset vendor baked in spyware. Mediatek is the master of the cheap chipset, and they have compromised the OS in both Russia and the US with dozens and dozens of OEM devices.

[BLU] phones were regularly sending bunches of personal information to servers in China: text messages, call logs, contact lists and so forth. After more investigation, it came to light that this was happening via a low-level piece of software called ADUPS.

When Google had previously updated its systems to check for ADUPS, MediaTek (they make the chipset in millions of low-end phones) simply modified their system software to evade Google's checks. Nice one MediaTek!