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.
The latest version is not necessarily the best version. Just look at iOS11!
Say what you want about Apple, but when you don't buy their latest gadgets, you're stuck with older software.
I can't install the latest version of iOS on my iPhone 4. The latest version of macOS runs like crap on my mid-2010 Mac mini.
Stop making generalizations about Apple as if they're better than others. They're not, especially in the last few years.
#DeleteFacebook
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"?
Making phone calls is not the primary purpose for my cell phone at all. I probably make/receive about a dozen calls a month, but I use my phone heavily every day.
Consumers seem to be perfectly fine with an older version of the OS or they don't actually care at all.
Mobile phone OSes are approaching computer OS levels of interest. They are mature, feature rich, and quite frankly upgrades lack killer features which make them enticing. In the early days of mobile OSes we used to get excited for these due to lacking features and functionality in the existing OS. But really I have yet to see a feature that makes me want Oreo enough to care about not having it. Same goes for Nougat, I'm actually a few versions behind and just don't give a shit.
The important part is security, and security has been decoupled from OS versions since Android 4.4 meaning you can still be running a Kitkat system and be fully up to date with all security patches.
On what basis?
Play Services makes most of the APIs available to older versions of Android. Most OEM customizations of Android include security-only patches. On a sidebar on this topic, while carrier-damaging hacks typically involve tower-side security measures and can be implemented that way, data-siphoning security issues that would actually harm consumers are considered 'core functionality' of the OS.
This "fragmentation" battle cry makes no sense, since monolithic install bases are relatively new and almost exclusive to iOS. Windows hasn't had it, Linux hasn't had it, and OSX only recently started doing it (and only on 'blessed' hardware models).
Despite this, software developers managed to write and support software for nearly three decades before the notion of "everyone running the same OS" was a meaningful notion. To this day, millions of desktops run the near-decade-old Windows 7, which happily keeps their hardware running and their applications starting.
So, I pose the question: why is fragmentation such a terrible thing? How do consumers lose out by not running Android Oreo? How is this such a terrible fate that it requires Google to adopt Apple's iron fist on the mobile market? Because personally, if I had my druthers, I'd be running Jelly Bean, or maybe Kitkat, on my phone.
Really, shouldn't the argument be that phones should be able to run a bit more like PCs, with more standardized OS installs that would allow consumers to choose which version to run, without needing to do all kinds of rooting and warranty-voiding operations in the process? I sincerely do not understand the reason why so many are of the persuasion that the ideal environment for computing devices is a monoculture.