Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Takes Another Shot At Making Android Great On Low-Budget Smartphones (phonedog.com)

Posted by msmash on from the going-forward dept.

At its developer conference, Google unveiled Android Go, a project wherein Google will offer a version of Android that runs swiftly on budget, low-specced smartphones. With the new strategy, Google hopes to further improve the low-budget smartphone ecosystem in developing markets. Android Go will be focused around building a version of Android for phones with less memory, with the System UI and kernel able to run with as little as 512MB of memory. Apps will be optimized for low bandwidth and memory, with a version of Play Store designed for those markets that will highlight these apps. From a report: Another feature of Android Go will be data management. Android Go will let you easily see your data usage, and thanks to carrier integration, it'll also let you top-up with more data right on your device.

55 comments

  1. Great more fragmentation. by hsmith · · Score: 0

    How about you make android as a whole work better on low end devices instead of creating yet another version to support? What a strange concept.

    1. Re:Great more fragmentation. by TWX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seems to me that the best approach would be to get a bunch of Galaxy S3 phones and other older phones, and use those as the development platforms for mainline Android. Once whatever new reference version is developed on those, then you start looking at newer/faster phones for possible changes needed for the newer chipsets.

      I don't know if it's still this way, but for a long time the business model was to based low-end stuff on yesteryear's high-end stuff, with the possibility of minor or moderate revisions. Intel's own 486 chip was produced until 2007 and eventually saw speeds of 150MHz, and clone producers like Cyrix also continued to produce 486-compatible chips long past their normal conventional PC application. I expect that CPUs and chipsets in older high-end smartphones continue to see mild revision and production for what become mid-grade and eventually low-end phones, after all, if these chips weren't still used then money spent developing them in the first place wasn't spent effectively.

      It's fine for the rich consumer to spend money on the eight core phone with 4GB RAM and 128GB storage, but developers should always focus on the single core model with 512MB RAM and 32MB storage. After all, that which runs acceptably on the low-end model should be screaming fast on the high-end one.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Great more fragmentation. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      How about you make android as a whole work better on low end devices instead of creating yet another version to support? What a strange concept.

      What a great idea. Pretty sure that's what it is, it's configurations options within the main Android project.

      "Android Go is a part of Android O and that it’ll be a part of every major Android release going forward."

    3. Re:Great more fragmentation. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      How about you make android as a whole work better on low end devices instead of creating yet another version to support? What a strange concept.

      One problem with supporting newer versions of any OS on older devices is the lack of storage. As operating systems gain features, they get bigger, so when you only have, for example, 2 GB of flash, making "Android as a whole work better" is a non-starter, because the whole 6+ GB of Android Nougat won't even fit.

      At some point, the only options are to either A. define a standard subset of its features that are available everywhere and make others optional or B. stop supporting the old devices entirely. And at least from my perspective as an iOS developer, it is a lot easier to support older devices with missing features on a current OS than on an ancient OS that is missing features *and* has different bugs to work around. YMMV.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Great more fragmentation. by swillden · · Score: 1

      developers should always focus on the single core model with 512MB RAM and 32MB storage. After all, that which runs acceptably on the low-end model should be screaming fast on the high-end one.

      I don't agree with this. Developers should put effort into all relevant markets, yes, but developing only for low-end devices means simply not doing anything that might require more horsepower than the bottom end has, and makes high-end devices mostly pointless. If the low-end can run the software fast enough, then there won't be any difference between midrange and high-end devices. Meanwhile, the competition that does focus on the high end will own that market because feature-light blisteringly fast devices will be uninteresting compared to devices that actually use the available horsepower to be prettier and more interesting.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Great more fragmentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Trying to make any operating system run in only 512,000KB of memory is bound to lead to terrible compromises.

      The old fogies on Slash dot can probably remember operating systems that ran fine on 10,000KB of memory and seemed to do at least as much as a phone would need to do. Clean it up, cut out the crap.

      There may be a few special applications that require lots of grunt, but do I really need that sort of power to run a phone?

      Parkinson's Law applies totally to software. It will bloat up to use whatever resources are available. Make the Android developers personally only use a 510,000KB phone and it will run fine.

      One issue, of course, is the web. No self respecting web page needs less than a gig to support all the Javascript that makes things flash and swirl.

    6. Re:Great more fragmentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the shitty quality of Android as an OS *and* software ecosystem, I'd rather they focus on something besides "prettier" and "shinier".

      A good phone OS should be optimized enough for a low-end platform to run it, but smart enough to enable newer, better features on better hardware. It is (or used to be) done in the Web world, too. It's called "graceful degradation" or "progressive enhancement", depending on which camp you think matters more (low- or high-end).

      There's nothing interesting to me about the Material "design language" or "design spec", whatever pretentious bullshit they're labelling. A more technical user like me will use a phone differently from someone who really enjoys apps or the shiny new interfaces. There isn't a single UI out there that's suitable for all, and the market will suffer in different ways, with different groups, until these pretentious "UX" people learn not all humans think the same way, or in the same patterns. What's intuitive and easy to one person is an impossible interface kludge to another.

      Why can't we get a phone OS that's both hackable *and* has good performance?

      That was rhetoric, but I know the answer: proprietary hardware. Can't hack what's protected by copyright.

      Motorola had the right idea with mods. A modern phone is a portable computer. Accessories that bring certain functions to the front is a fantastic idea for modding a general purpose computer.

      Now if only we could get a phone OS that's 100% community driven libre software with a phone that costs less than $500.

    7. Re:Great more fragmentation. by swillden · · Score: 1

      The old fogies on Slash dot can probably remember operating systems that ran fine on 10,000KB of memory and seemed to do at least as much as a phone would need to do.

      Said "old fogies" are mostly younger than I am, and they're wrong, unless you define what "a phone would need to do" as much less than what phones do today. I started programming on a machine with 1 KiB of RAM, upgraded to one with 16 KiB, then 256 KiB, and as recently as a few years ago I was writing code for a device with only 256 bytes of RAM (no, that's not a typo). Much of my work today is on devices with only 64 KiB of RAM. I know what can be done with small amounts of memory... and you can't manage all of the hardware in a modern smartphone and provide the services required to run all of the apps users want to run in 10 MB of RAM.

      Make the Android developers personally only use a 510,000KB phone and it will run fine.

      Sure. And it will do less than an iPhone, and do it more slowly (having RAM to cache data is critical to performance).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Great more fragmentation. by sd4f · · Score: 1

      It's kind of like IE, google won't do it because they don't need to; there's no serious competitive imperative to do so when people keep buying/using their stuff. If anything, people must like buggy, slow, unreliable and spying phone OS's!

    9. Re:Great more fragmentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Trying to make any operating system run in only 512,000KB of memory is bound to lead to terrible compromises.

      Even Windows can run in less than that but of course an operating system is completely useless without applications to run on it.

      The old fogies on Slash dot can probably remember operating systems that ran fine on 10,000KB of memory and seemed to do at least as much as a phone would need to do. Clean it up, cut out the crap.

      Yeah sure if you go back to the days of systems needing the OS to fit in 10MB of RAM you can cut out all the crap like hardware abstraction, wifi connectivity, cellular connectivity, GPU drivers, fast application switching, background updates, etc

      There is a rampant ignorance of the differences between computers from 30 years ago and computers of the modern era.

    10. Re:Great more fragmentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah it will never happen. There is no profit in selling low-end hardware. The profit is in doing exactly three things
      1. Selling high end hardware for 400% over BOM (Bill of Materials)
      2. Selling low end hardware as high end or brand name hardware at 200% BOM
      3. Selling services at 10,000% over COPS (Cost of providing services)

      The Android vendors are only good at #2. Samsung and Apple are good at #1, only Apple is good at #3, but Google oh so wants to be the star of 3 and let the hardware vendors stab each other for #2.

      You know what Steve Job's "I cracked it" moment likely was? Producing a TV that you miracast or similar from your phone. Forget these shitty chromecast dongles that only work with one service and still require a computer somewhere else to work. That works for all video and audio platforms, but does not work for games. There is too much latency on the encoding side for games to be "video broadcast" unless they are in the same room. Tight games like that on the NES/SNES era hardware are often so tight that people who never played on real hardware don't realize how shitty the experience is on a software emulator.

    11. Re:Great more fragmentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem here is that developers don't want to develop the game for 32 different flavors of Android, they only want to develop for one model, therefor the choice is either develop for the most popular model and tell everyone else to jump off a bridge, or build for the shittiest model and have your game constantly reviewed as "crap" on Android because the iPhone version is better and more consistent.

      The lesson that everyone should have learned from the PC/Windows market is that hardware vendors produce shit hardware, just ignore them and produce games that run on the top two configurations (That would be nVidia GTX 1070/1080 on a i5 or i7) as the recommended requirements, and then throw out a "minimum requirements" that is about half that and allow the user to either play the game poorly but pretty, or fast but ugly if they play with the minimum requirements. There is not enough consistency across Android hardware to allow developers to optimize for one GPU let alone the dozen different models they might encounter, so it really does come down to telling people with shitty devices to don't even bother.

    12. Re:Great more fragmentation. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2
      To put 512MB of RAM in perspective, that was how much I upgraded my machine to after installing Windows 2000 (upgrading from Windows NT 4, where 32MB was a bit cramped, 64MB was nicer and 256MB was very comfortable). Both of the before and after systems:
      • Were fully preemptive multitasking 32-bit systems.
      • Had memory protection.
      • Had a TCP/IP stack and connected to the Internet, with web, email, and IM (and usenet!) apps all running happily.
      • Ran a GUI on a monitor with a resolution of 1600x1200.
      • Could happily run MS Office and StarOffice.
      • Ran half a dozen applications at the same time.
      • Ran 3D games.
      • Rarely needed to swap.

      I used to run GEM and Windows 3 (not at the same time) on a machine with 640KB of RAM, but that was definitely cramped. The main reason that 512MB is no longer enough is that the web has become a bloated monstrosity. Web pages are now on average larger than the original Doom, yet have a user experience no better than 10KB of text with light formatting.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Great more fragmentation. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Why on earth is Android 6GB?!? That's bigger than a clean install of macOS, including all of the standard apps. It sounds like the solution is to stop bundling so much crap and focus on a sensible base system that people can then install useful software on top of.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Great more fragmentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An alternative perspective would be that 512MB is how much RAM I have in the Android phone with which I'm submitting this comment. It's less than 18 months old and has Android 4.4.2. How much bloat have they added since then, and why do they not want to slim down the main branch?

    15. Re:Great more fragmentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Developers don't want to develop for iOS and Android, but they do anyway.

    16. Re:Great more fragmentation. by TWX · · Score: 1

      Yep. When I step back and look at what's really been achieved in end-user computing in the last twenty years I am not impressed. The wheel has been reinvented dozens of times but it's still a wheel.

      Anyone remember Hypercard on the early Macintoshes? It was a GUI-based markup-language tool that could do some graphics and video. Given how most people use their computers, we're really not a lot past Hypercard.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    17. Re:Great more fragmentation. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I think I was wrong about that number. After a little digging, I've concluded that the correct number for Nougat is probably closer to 4.5 GB. For comparison, the base installation size for iOS is about 4.3 GB, which is to say that the size difference is statistical noise. But the difference still doesn't change the fact that a user with a 16 GB device is in a world of hurt on either platform, nor the fact that a 2 GB device would be completely infeasible on either platform.

      Either way, even if I had been correct about that number, Sierra would still only be smaller because of a technicality. The Sierra installer is almost 5GB, and historically, the installed size of OS X was at least 2x the installer size, because the installer package is highly compressed. However, newer versions of OS X bend the rules through the use of transparent file compression on disk, making the OS installation take less space. Unfortunately, that sort of trickery is probably not practical on a cell phone with its severely limited CPU and even more severely limited battery capacity, which is why Sierra appears to take only slightly more disk space than iOS or Android when in actuality it is closer to 3x as big.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    18. Re: Great more fragmentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samsung says that they make more total profit on sales of feature phones globally. Other manufacturers aren't at their scale but they are probably similar.

    19. Re:Great more fragmentation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. When I step back and look at what's really been achieved in end-user computing in the last twenty years I am not impressed.

      And what is that? What is your understanding of what has been achieved in end-user computing in the last 20 years?

      The wheel has been reinvented dozens of times but it's still a wheel.

      And when people don't re-invent the wheel and instead re-use and augment existing code you call it "bloat".

      Given how most people use their computers, we're really not a lot past Hypercard.

      What exactly is it you are expecting?

  2. Awesome if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would be awesome if when older phones running android start getting slow due to the bloat of new features you could choose to install Android Go instead. Of course, that will never happen.

  3. Yeah, uh, about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 2015 Moto E LTE... Fully unlocked (carrier and bootloader) was $25 from Walmart over a year (maybe 2 years) ago and runs the latest Android Nougat just fine. I use this phone as a dashboard permanently mounted on my motorcycle to show speed, RPM, etc and it gets exposed to the elements (offroading). That is, if it gets damaged/stolen I don't care because it's not worth anything and could be replaced for a few bucks. How much more affordable can it be? It's *WAY* cheaper than available "conversion" kits that give a dashboard for offroad motorcycles plus it has *WAY* more features like GPS, wifi, bluetooth, apps, etc.

  4. Walled garden obsolescence woo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have an older device that was running perfectly fine with "Ice Cream Sandwich", I wiped it earlier this year and lost all the apps whose compatible versions are now unavailable from the Play store, I realize 6 years might seem like a long time in the mobile game but as a user I expected more.

    Yeah I can find a package hoarding site and dig around for older compatible versions of my apps, but if I were an average user less inclined to go out of my way this would make my head explode.

  5. Android GO? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already have a language named Go (golang). Their marketing department needs a slap upside the head for adding confusion to an already vast product array.

    1. Re:Android GO? Really? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Go... Away.....

      (frail attempt at a joke... )

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Android GO? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To which I have a copyright, you will be hearing from my lawyers shortly.

    3. Re:Android GO? Really? by Bongo · · Score: 1

      Go... Away.....

      (frail attempt at a joke... )

      Go on.

      I mean, Go on Go on Go on Go on Go on...

      Google: mrs doyle go on

    4. Re: Android GO? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google will GO down on you

  6. Race to the bottom. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Back in the mid 1990s Gateway 2000 made high quality desktops by the end of the decade they tried to compete with the cheaper manufacturers. Creating PC that after people own it, they don't go with gateway again.

    Back in the early 2000s Dell made high quality desktops by the middle of the decade they tried to compete with the cheaper manufacturers. Creating PC that after people own it, they don't go with Dell again.

    There is a big risk to have Android running on cheap devices. As people will associate the problems with the cheap device with the OS so when they figure they will want something nicer then they will no go with Android. Having a separate OS is smart because it can help the Premium devices to run with a premium OS.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Race to the bottom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS. Has never been premium for any device. OS manufacturers do as they want to turn a quick buck. Apple is the biggest bullshit "Premium" OS of all.

    2. Re:Race to the bottom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a big risk to have Android running on cheap devices.

      I don't know what privileged world you come from. but Android already runs on dirt cheap devices, including last time I scoured the tube, smartphones that cost less than a Raspberry Pi (don't know if that's because of price dumping, shoddy workmanship or both). All those cheap clones running sometimes unlicensed copies of Windows haven't really affected sales of high end Windows laptops. What did affect Windows sales, even if temporarily, were bad versions of Windows like Vista, which to be sure weren't installed on the cheap desktops that were for a long time a territory of WinXP, even Win 9x.

      Recaptcha is nearly Trump (tramps)

  7. Updates by SecState · · Score: 1

    Cool. But, any assurance that these phones will get frequent security updates? Budget-constrained consumers also deserve security.

  8. fix high end too please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish they would take a shot at making Android great on the high end too :( don't get me wrong I prefer Android to Apple, but by god the interface is shit, inconsistent and buggy combined with every fucking app demanding every fucking permission under the sun.

  9. We need it everywhere. by J.+T.+MacLeod · · Score: 2

    Judging by the horrific performance Android has on even high-end phones, I'd appreciate it if this showed up on all phones.

  10. Make me a small, thick phone then ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I DO NOT WANT A PHABLET.

    I want a small, solid, thick phone that is not shit, and that I can safely put in my BACK JEANS POCKET and expect it to survive.

    Why are manufacturers such sheep and so incpable of trying "NEW" FORM FACTORS ?!

    Well, OLD form factors, because the Palm Pre is WHAT WE WANT !

    Captcha: "Seethes" ( with outrage at the incompetence )

    1. Re: Make me a small, thick phone then ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brand new HTC hd2's are still available.
      Unlock it and run anything you like/want to.
      Tough as old boots,fits in pockets,does things that no other phone has come close to since it came out 10+ years ago..
      Still the best android phone yet..

    2. Re:Make me a small, thick phone then ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a small, solid, thick phone that is not shit, and that I can safely put in my BACK JEANS POCKET and expect it to survive.

      Why are manufacturers such sheep and so incpable of trying "NEW" FORM FACTORS ?!

      Plenty of manufacturers try different form factors, there are all manor of them available particularly in the chinese market but nobody really wants them so it isnt worth it for manufacturers to devote resources to them.

      Well, OLD form factors, because the Palm Pre is WHAT WE WANT !

      Wrong! Demonstrably that is *not* what people want.

  11. Name reuse by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    After the Go! and Go programming languages, the Go project. I know there is Go in Google, but come on, it is not that hard to find new names!

    1. Re:Name reuse by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Well, it's better than Ogle :-)

      --
      Eat the rich.
  12. Doing things the right way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't this be the usual approach to any software development? I never understood why developers tend to use more and more resources instead of improving their codes to do more with less resources. Maybe this can be the first step in this direction...

  13. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Apps will be optimized for low bandwidth ...

    No, budget phones are already shitty; and they want to make shittier versions? Didn't someone invent a $50 phone this year? It's not a cost issue, it's an 'overcharge the consumer' issue.

    1) Make the radio/speaker/touchscreen all operate at the same time. I hate my screen freezing during a call.
    2) Restore customisable contact lists: Individual ringtones appeared in 2005, yet smartphones don't support them.
    3) Set the ceaseless phone-home and reporting activity to wi-fi, not 'default to on' "smart switch" and "mobile data".

    1. Re: Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And gay. It's a very, very gay OS. You'll look oh so progressive, hip, and affluent toting one around in your man-purse. Apple iPhone - it eats a bag of dicks!

    2. Re:Simple by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      2) Restore customisable contact lists: Individual ringtones appeared in 2005, yet smartphones don't support them.

      You can assign a specific ringtone to an individual contact with Android, not sure what you mean.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  14. Didn't they already have that? by Etcetera · · Score: 1

    How about you just fork off one of the older branches of Android (2.x?), fix all the security holes you've refused to backport because Google is filled with engineers who look at reliability engineering entirely the wrong way, add the bare minimum features needed for future compatibility (TLS, etc) or that are no-brainer efficiency improvements, and then offer that as a stable branch.

    Or am I missing the point?

    #FeatureBloatSucks

    --
    Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
    1. Re:Didn't they already have that? by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      How do you know that Android Go isn't exactly what you just said, a fork off the main Android branch removing some of the high-end stuff? Fixing up an old version is not a great idea, it will come with whatever security holes existed then and now you have to patch it.

      It's much more sensible to strip down recent builds to their bare essentials then decide what needs to be added in, you get to keep all the security patches that way.

    2. Re: Didn't they already have that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought something about the Oracle case made them stop using the dalvik runtime.

  15. I suggest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I reckon many commenting on here would be suprised if they went and had a look on crediting for what folk are still doing with what was the original android developers device that EVERYONE used,even long after android phones existed..
    Go look at what folk are still doing with the HTC hd2,the best android device yet..
    And it wasn't even an android optimised device..
    You can still even play with the last decent mobile os the Microsoft did,good old winmo 6.5..
    And somebody has probably got Windows ten to crawl along on hd2's by now but xp (embeded) is fun and usable..
    Anyone looking to buy one,look for very old T-Mobile devices,twice the ram as wwe mods but you want an old one to avoid the bloody useless solder ball cpu in later units,old pin connectors far more reliable..
    Have fun playing folks !!

  16. no really, fuck android and google by cats-paw · · Score: 2

    Bloated, spyware, crapware infested OS with barely functional stock applications.

    I now completely understand why so many people buy iphones and why there's so much malware on android.

    we need an open cell phone OS now more than ever.

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
    1. Re:no really, fuck android and google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stock Android is surprisingly slim. What you have is the old OEM disease that continues to hound even Microsoft, companies installing software freebies of dubious merit just because these companies could, although sometimes I suspect it's pure malice in order to get back at the user underspending on their product.

    2. Re:no really, fuck android and google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oems get paid to install extra crap... i choose android so i can put alternate roms and swap out the battery when it is past life

    3. Re:no really, fuck android and google by Cipheron · · Score: 1

      Every Android device I've ever owned (3 different manufacturers) had completely different stock applications. Those aren't part of Android, it's meant to be modular and open. On an open platform you're going to get more variation in app quality, not less.

  17. Early Android phones had a similar spec by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Early Android phones had a similar spec, and ran without issue. It's cutting back on the bloat, or enhancements, however you want to classify it.

  18. sounds like a good work phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    low bandwidth, low memory low power CPU, still fine for basic email and document viewing tasks, add a beefy battery and you have a phone that does corporate email very well and lasts 5 days on a single charge...WIN

  19. Data Usage by gspeare · · Score: 1

    How about better monitoring of data usage for all phones? It's not just a concern for the low end of the market...