Slashdot Mirror
Even New Phones Are No Longer Guaranteed To Have the Latest Version of Android (theverge.com)
Vlad Savov, writing for The Verge: The OnePlus 5T and Razer Phone
are two fundamentally different devices, which are nonetheless united by one unfortunate downside: both of them are going on sale this month without the latest version of Android on board. OnePlus will tell you that this issue is down to its extremely stringent testing process, while Razer offers a similar boilerplate about working as fast as possible to deliver Android Oreo. But we're now three months removed from Google's grand Oreo launch, timed to coincide with this summer's total eclipse, and all of these excuses are starting to ring hollow. Why do Android companies think they can ship new devices without the latest and best version of the operating system on board? The notorious fragmentation problem with Android has always been that not every device gets the latest update at the same time, and many devices get stuck on older software without ever seeing an update at all. What's changed now is that the "one version behind the newest and best" phenomenon is starting to infect brand new phones as well. The 5T and Razer Phone are just two examples; there's also Xiaomi, which just launched its Mi Mix 2 in Spain with 2016's Android Nougat as the operating system.
I'd say most Android phones sold in Canada are at least one major Android version behind the latest.
#DeleteFacebook
The latest version is not necessarily the best version. Just look at iOS11!
Google probably tightened the screws with Oreo and manufacturers are balking.
That's like a communist apple site!
We need laws that require at a minimum, five years of security updates from the time the phone is initially released. Better yet, require that the OS can be updated directly from the creator of the OS (Google). Also mandate that users must be allowed to remove any unwanted apps, to eliminate bloatware that can introduce its own security risks.
Say what you will about Apple and their devices, but I always have access to the latest version of macOS and iOS.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
A problem that google needs to work harder to resolve. I do not believe that google does not have the knowledge and the clout to resolve this issue.
the title should be,
Even New Phones Are No Longer Guaranteed To Have the Latest Version of operating software..
How many (considered new)Ifones off the shelve contain the latest software rev of their respected operating systems, prior to Power-on updates?
ya this is dumb, take a moment to pull your slimy head out of your lovely, rosey smelling ass and research the content you advertise..
Instead of surfacing your lacking time and time again..
because everyone's going for lowest price established product lines, the increased competition and decreasing yields seems to decrease investment in research and development .... with no market incentive to lurch forward, people are en masse not paying a premium for such a product as can be seen in the Pixel phone line, or maybe it's mismanagement like the Nexus line shows us.
Amazon's Fire Phone shipped two version out, and updated to the next only to still be two versions out, and then in around one year from release support was dropped. I have multiple year old iPhones, and they get updated on the day the OS releases. Apple supports them a long time. 4 to 5 years ... and sometimes security patches on the older OS version as well.
Donald? You ignorant slut!
Why do they ship them? Because they make a profit. Why are you pissed off that other people are willing to buy something that you aren't?
None of them do a very good job at their primary purpose, either. You know...making phone calls.
Why do you need a law to do that? Apple does it already. My iPhone 5 has had updates up until iOS 11, which is roughly five years.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
If that's a problem, don't buy one.
I would be ok with a phone that never get's upgraded to the "latest and greatest" OS, so long as the original OS was built into the phone in a way that makes me happy with the phone. There really weren't any significant must have features that any mobile OS has added in quite a while. And every App in the Play Store will run just fine on Nougat. Honestly, I would like Android to roll out an update system more like traditional Linux OS's where there is a large OS update that is highly reliable with real Long term support every few years and then smaller updates with shorter support cycles in between.
Even if it is news, does it really matter? Consumers seem to be perfectly fine with an older version of the OS or they don't actually care at all. If consumers don't care, then manufacturers don't have a lot of incentive to spend resources on something that won't improve sales.
It's not as though you're stuck with that option as is the case with iPhones. There are still Android variants that cater to the people who want the latest version and longer support for upgrades. That those devices tend not to sell as well suggests that most consumers don't care or have much higher priorities when it comes to making purchasing decisions.
Competition is good, but it doesn't guarantee that you get the latest stuff or high quality from every competitor.
That is why competition is good because it pushes at least some OEMs to do better.
do apple people have the option to, down grade software in the event a Major bug/flaw is discovered?
I know you can on an Android with out bricking the hardware..
I am asking this in relation to an article earlier that described all the Woe's of the lackLustre iOS11...
I know for a fact, you cant on an IOS device, as it hampers Apple's grip on abilities to maintain the profit making Juggernaught..
lame..
What version of Android a phone is running is pretty far down on my list of things that are important to me in a phone.
not a problem if older version is getting regular patches, reliability with security is the best, not "the bleeding edge".
That kind of thinking is not "infecting" anything, it's proper.
why did the summary use loaded words like "unfortunate"?
You don't need to do anything nearly so extreme as passing such a draconian law.
All we need is a law making it illegal to traffic in any code that is intended to work against the owner of whatever computer runs that code.
In this case, it would be whatever code prevents users from updating their phones themselves. And that's the real problem here: if you were allowed to update your phone yourself, then you wouldn't need (or even want) the manufacturer to update it.
Do that, and the number of ways that phones suck compared to desktops and servers, will be one less. You know how you update all your other computers? Your handheld should work the same way. And such a law would also address your bloatware concerns too.
I think people are mistakenly equating being on the latest release with being "up to date".
As long as the version you are on is still getting security updates you are on the latest version of your release line. This is all we need, and what we need to push vendors to support. If your hardware is good enough to support the latest release, you should be pushing your vendor for an update, but it's not wholly necessary.
The Windows Phones weren't being updated by the OEMs but by Microsoft and it showed. I feel that if Windows Phones had managed to get a decent market share that Google would have been forced to notice and impose something more under their control from OEMs instead of the mess we have now.
I'm not going to say this made Windows Phone great or anything. I didn't hate it, even preferred Bing maps GPS vs Google Maps but ended up going back to Android because of many apps that I couldn't find or weren't actively supported anymore on Windows Phone but those constant OS updates really surprised me when I was using it and on a budget phone from Acer no less.
Enjoy your day.
New phones were never "Guaranteed To Have the Latest Version of Android." In fact, it is actually rather common for new phones to ship with an older version of Android and understandably so: the manufacturers need time to get the new drivers from the chipset manufacturers, pack the new version of Android full of their crapware, run it through their QA, fix the bugs that are not considered features etc - and that takes time so a manufacturers own Android version lags at least a few months beyond Google's Android.
It is stupid and should be fixed, but that's how it is and how it basically always was.
Real life is overrated.
It won't surprise me if OEMs are a little slower to roll out Oreo than they have previous dessert releases, because Project Treble is an enormous change for them. With Treble, Google is drawing a hard line between the Android system and the underlying hardware. Because OEMs have in the past been accustomed to being able to change things at all levels of the stack -- as long as the compatibility test suite passes and associated non-functional requirements are met -- this change is requiring them to restructure their customizations.
Further, since the hardware API is now well-defined, Google is testing it. That couldn't be done before. It's a good thing for the ecosystem and for future compatibility, but it requires work. For example, I wrote a suite for the hardware API that I own and found that the Google Pixel couldn't pass it, because the implementation (from Qualcomm) on the Pixel didn't actually meet the specification in many small ways. Not ways that actually produced observably-incorrect functionality at the higher layers, but it was wrong. It took Qualcomm a couple of months to fix the problems and deliver a version that could pass the new test suite.
So, Oreo has created a lot of new work for component vendors and OEMs, and it's going to take them time to work through it.
In the long run, of course, this should be great for the ecosystem. It should actually allow a vanilla AOSP build to be be flashed onto any device (assuming locked bootloaders and verified boot don't stop you). And once everyone is accustomed to the new structure, it should actually make it much easier for OEMs to get new versions out faster, not only for updates, but on new devices as well.
In the short term, I'm not surprised to see OEMs choosing to launch with Nougat, where they don't have to meet Oreo's requirements. This isn't because they don't want to, but because they have product launch deadlines to hit. By next year's launches they'll have had time to get squared away and I expect things to start moving faster than in the past.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So you're saying that brand new phones are in the same SOL boat as devices that are two or more years old. Sad, but hardly surprising. Which is worst, that or Apple's constant barrage of oversized updates? (Hey, Apple: cut the bloat; dump the feckin' emojis. We're not a bunch of five-year-olds. Words are less ambiguous than stupid glyphs.)
There's nothing new here. This has always been the case. Probably more-so for tablets than phones.
Nobody wants to update the crap-ware they package with the device.
If you are lucky, you get the current version with the device. If you are luckier still, you will get ONE major update.
If there's a market need for devices that are supported for five years, Apple is filling that need.
Apparently there isn't such a need for Android devices with similar support. If there was, a company would be filling it. So far, it seems, the only company trying to fill this need, Cyanogen, has gone out of business.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
If you mean "different OSes" then say so. I use Android devices with Nougat, Marshmallow and Kitkat all the time and I don't have to change the way I use them. They're all the same. There are minor changes to appearance and the newer ones have some stuff I never use (multiple windows..on a 5 inch screen? great. Power saving - I charge them when I need to, in the evening, so it just means plugging something in every 2 days instead of every day). Which apps can I not use on Kitkat? They all seem to work for me.
Newsflash... This is how Open Source works. Debian, Fedora, thousands of other Linux distributions, and The various hardware from routers to phones use different versions. That's how it works. That's how it is supposed to work. Heterogeneity is a plus, not a weakness.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This has been what Samsung and other device manufacturers have done over the years.
They customized their version of Android with minimal benefits over stock Android, then force early obsolescence of previous generations of their phones (even when the the hardware is capable of running newer firmware and UI enhancements). The side effect is Samsung having relatively new devices (just not their latest) still exposed to vulnerabilities that have long been fixed in pure/stock Android (e.g. blueborne)
I stopped playing that game and switched to the Nexus 6p. Just decided to upgrade to the Pixel 2XL which has a promised 3 years of support.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you think there's some negative connotation attached to consumer, that's on you.
I'm not the only one who sees "consumer" as connoting one who views works of authorship created by others and does not create works. From the GNU project's list of loaded words:
I guess describing users of Apple iOS and Android as "consumers" is correlated with the unsuitability of a flat sheet of glass for creating works longer than a paragraph.
If you want a phone with updates, do the free market thing and buy an iPhone.
What do I do if I need a phone with both updates and apps distributed as free software? The App Store model will never accommodate a counterpart to F-Droid.
If they use a chip that doesn't support the newest the phone devs can do nothing.
Without source code for the kernel and with the chip maker abandoning chips left and right we are lucky to get any updates.
They are different companies, that's the basic problem. Google over here with the OS, phone maker over there with the device.
Release cadences and roadmaps are subject to all kinds of practical constraints and pressures, from labor and labor turnover to revenue/financials to other partnerships to strategic mission and vision.
Even when the two organizations know something of each others timelines, that doesn't mean it's practical to synchronize them without significant work and significant negatives. I don't think you can avoid this problem so long as the hardware is made over here and the OS is made over there by two completely separate organizations, often that have two completely separate parent umbrellas with their own roadmaps and priorities.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
... you just noticed something everyone else has been complaining about for years.
In case you haven't noticed most Android OEMs (e.g.: Lenovo) are still shipping brand new devices with Android 6.x Marshmallow, not even Android 7.0 Nougat (let alone 7.1).
I've read that the newest iPhones ship with iOS 11 and have some major problems requiring a continuing stream of updates or promised updates Perhaps Apple should have shipped their newest phones with the latest version of iOS 10 with most of the bugs work out since its release. Then again, maybe some of the problems with iOS 11 have to do with hardware problems and the phones would have the same or worse problems if using iOS 10.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
The only phones ever to be guaranteed to ship the latest version of android were Nexus/Pixels. Which do, in fact, ship the latest version of android. So, uh, how exactly is this newsworthy?
If only they would give us a lumpy sheet of glass.
There was supposed to be a touch screen that would extrude temporary lumps when the virtual keyboard popped up, so that the user could feel whether his thumbs were correctly lined up over each key. (See video: Tactus Morphing Touchscreen Keyboard hands-on (2013, 2:54)) But it never ended up coming to market.
It seems like the author or The Verge are desperate for per-holidays ad-clicks. When they say "no longer guaranteed", we are led to think that there used to be a time when buying a new Android phone guaranteed having the latest Android release. However, as recently as last year, I believe Honor 6X was released in the late fall with Marshmallow, even though Nougat was released, when in August-September? At about the same time Lenovo and Huawei started shipping new tablets with Marshmallow.
So anyways, this is not news. Nobody ever guaranteed that you will get the latest Android release on a new phone, and I honestly can't blame the manufacturers. They need to do the development in terms of porting the ROM and testing it on the new hardware. If a device is released three months after the latest Android release, many OEMs simply do not have sufficient time to port and test the latest version.
A problem that Microsoft needs to work harder to resolve. I do not believe that Microsoft does not have the knowledge and the clout to resolve this issue.
Ban the OP.
This looser has never used an Android phone until recently. "msmash" was using a Windows phone, and like all Microsoft employees, is too stupid to realize that not everyone does things Microsoft's way. What a a low-iq idiot.
Ban the OP.
Other than any serious security patches, older versions of the Android OS work just as well as new ones. Not only that, most apps run perfectly fine on anything from Jelly Bean 4.3 onward. If you think you have to have the absolute latest OS, get a Google phone, or Apple phone. Heck, I bet most people have no idea what version of OS is on their android phones, or care, as long as their phone works as intended.
I have a zoom tablet. I can't get the drivers and such to get any more current than kitkat, and that's a maybe. Why TH don't they release the drivers so we can update them? So I asked a manufacturer if I bought his Nougat device if I could get the files I need to get Oreo. They keep saying no and there's probably never going to be oreo on it. I'm losing my patience with Android, especially after my perfectly good Moto got stagefright very early on and Verizon was like - well we can sell you a new one... that is also vulnerable. I still have the phone and it still has stagefright. I had to buy an LG and by then I knew what to do to stop stagefright.
I craaave you. Not if I catch the guy that sent it to me. Probably verizon I'm guessing.
So I bought an Ipad 4. That'll be up to date.
...is the fix for the WPA2 bug, and many other fixes right out of the box. If you've got yourself an older Android device, you're guaranteed not to have that bugfix and others.
I'm not sure how typical this is, but I use mine until it breaks. Then I run to the phone store (Verizon in my case) with no clue what I want and end up buying whatever they're pushing.
It's a bad strategy I know, but I don't spend a lot of time keeping up with the latest phones. I have my own prejudices too. I don't want an iPhone and I don't want Samsung so that makes my choices narrower. I ended up with an LG V20 this time. It's a nice phone. It has a removable battery and one of those old fashioned headphone jacks. It is also stuck at Android 7.0 and I know better than to expect an update.
It's more than adequate though.
Am I worried about security? Not really. If you had full access to my phone you'd get my contacts and a few uninteresting text messages. You could also post to Slashdot under my account and make me look like an asshole, but that's about it. You wouldn't be able to order anything from Amazon because I don't order shit from Amazon on my phone. Nor do I do any kind of banking on my phone.
I try not to think too much about whether I should have bought a different phone. I really just wanted to get the hell out of the store and get on with my life.