Google Can't Ignore the Android Update Problem Any Longer 434
An anonymous reader writes: An editorial at Tom's Hardware makes the case that Google's Android fragmentation problem has gotten too big to ignore any longer. Android 5.0 Lollipop and its successor 5.1 have seen very low adoption rates — 9.0% and 0.7% respectively. Almost 40% of users are still on KitKat. 6% lag far behind on Gingerbread and Froyo. The article points out that even Microsoft is now making efforts to both streamline Windows upgrades and adapt Android (and iOS) apps to run on Windows.
If Google doesn't adapt, "it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner. And if users want those platforms, OEMs will have no choice but to switch to them too, leaving Google with less and less Android adoption." The author also says OEMs and carriers can no longer be trusted to handle operating system updates, because they've proven themselves quite incapable of doing so in a reasonable manner.
If Google doesn't adapt, "it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner. And if users want those platforms, OEMs will have no choice but to switch to them too, leaving Google with less and less Android adoption." The author also says OEMs and carriers can no longer be trusted to handle operating system updates, because they've proven themselves quite incapable of doing so in a reasonable manner.
Some good data... (Score:5, Insightful)
But the doom-saying is inappropriate:
FTA: "Otherwise, it risks having users (slowly but surely) switch to more secure platforms that do give them updates in a timely manner."
Among the problems with this conclusion, the most egregious seems to be: Android is used in a way that Windows and IOS are not. People use it for lower-grade hardware that they are still manufacturing today. Go buy a $39 "unlocked" phone at your local Fry's (search for a brand like Blu). What will it be running? Android 2.3. Which is wonderful. They are calling this "fragmentation," but it's really people who could never spend the money for a $400 dollar phone finally getting access to one to what was a $400 phone 5 years ago. It can't run the latest O/S, but that's fine. The 2.x series phones (like my beloved Motorola Cliq) were really quite functional.
Dear Lucian (article author): Not everyone in the world is rich. That does not mean there is a "critical problem" that Google needs to address.
Yes. It would be great if Android kept major version trees alive and patched, like we do with the Linux kernel, and if all the manufacturers built their their complete phone stack from Puppet scripts, so they could get an Android update, rebuild against it, retest against real hardware and reissue the complete O/S for scant money in a few days.
They don't. If you want to make this happen it won't come from Google. It will come from us, the consumers walking into [insert generic carrier name] and asking which phone manufacturer got the greatest number of updates, after launch, for their top end phone. If the number is 3 refuse to buy from them.
When the stores know that is a selling point, they'll push back. Right now the people in that store and the manufacturer benefit most by selling you a new phone as soon as the old one is paid off. Until we change that evolutionary pressure, they will remain correctly adapted to our behaviour.
Re:Some good data... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not too sure that having the latest OS is the consumer's highest priority. For me it is getting a phone without bloatware. I want a phone that doesn't have dozens of apps that I can't delete and I'm not even sure what they do. If I want a Blockbuster app, I'll download it myself. Seriously, my last phone had a Blockbuster app that couldn't be deleted, despite Blockbuster being long dead. I now have an Amazon Cloud app that can't be deleted, and uses some of my data everyday despite the fact that I have never used the app.
Ask you carrier about bloatware and they will say that they are sorry, but they can't fix it.
Re:Some good data... (Score:4, Informative)
Force stop the app and it will be put into a state where it can't run services or receivers and will not use data.
Re:Some good data... (Score:4, Informative)
Mmmm. If you look at this graph, you can see that Lollipop is off to a faster start (steeper adoption curve) than any release since Froyo!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Some good data... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that doesn't strike me as a solution, but rather as an attitude that's part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Some good data... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agree having the latest OS is not the consumer's highest priority. After all, they bought that device with a particular OS version.
However, over time every OS has security vulnerabilities discovered. The support model for Android updates for said vulnerabilities, as currently done by either device makers or carriers, is broken, IMO.
Re: (Score:3)
However, over time every OS has security vulnerabilities discovered. The support model for Android updates for said vulnerabilities, as currently done by either device makers or carriers, is broken, IMO.
But I need those security vulnerabilities.
I need and demand root access on my phone, and a security vulnerability is the only way to get it. Newer Android releases don't have (yet) known vulnerabilities that will give an owner access to his own devices. I run a slightly-older version of Android 4 where I can use the Towelroot exploit to install su, but newer versions aren't vulnerable. Google ended up hiring the guy who wrote Towelroot to close their security problems, and he's done a fairly decent job.
So y
Re: (Score:3)
Achieving 99.99% bug-free is infinitely more expensive than just 99.98%.
Re: (Score:3)
That's incorrect. Play provides updates for apps, but not for the OS.
Re: (Score:3)
Only way to get rid of that is to root your phone and delete the .apks from /system/app. Otherwise stuck with them, which does suck.
Re: (Score:3)
And in mobile it isn't just Google and Android OEMs that are guilty of it, either. On the Apple front you get new bloatware delivered with every iOS update
While it is not possible to Delete certain Apps from an iPhone/iPad directly, you can evidently do it quite easily from iTunes [macworld.com]. And as a bonus, you can also use that method to keep discarded, unwanted Apps from trying to "Update", too.
Not the most elegant solution; but it keeps the unwashed from accidently deleting "base apps" by accident, while still allowing a PowerUser to "Delete the Un-Delete-able".
Re: (Score:3)
Ostensibly when you buy an iPhone/iPad, you expect it to have Apple apps as part of the deal, and you expect them to be supported (for varying definitions of "supported") by the manufacturer.
When you buy a Android phone, you expect the standard google apps and all that. But what you get is a ton of stuff added by Verizon or USCellular or their "marketing partners" that is a pain to remove (if it's possible) and often gets in between the user and the core functions of the device/OS, making support a crapsho
Re:Some good data... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not running the latest OS would be fine, if the old OS on that $39 device was getting security updates. The problem is that it's not getting them.
People that buy those devices are being put at risk. Have you looked at security vulnerabilities in Android 2.3 ?
Re:Some good data... (Score:5, Insightful)
still stuck on a nexus one with 2.2 os. no security updates AT ALL in years.
I'm not asking for gpu updates or new apps. I am asking that the google apps (gps, gmail, etc) WORK. they all crash and are not reliable on my N1. if I start out on a road trip, I have to be sure to reboot my phone so that gps won't crash. every day, several times a day, the touch screen locks up and buzzes at you (a day1 problem for n1 users which google has never even tried to fix).
the hardware is fine! it all still works. but its insecure as hell, apps don't often run right and I had to use another mail client to read my gmail mail (if that's not a slap in the face to google, I'm not sure what is. yes, gmail app on a google phone does not work and won't work from now on since its not supported anymore; nothing is 'supported' anymore on my phone).
why do I keep this phone? well, I now know google's story and this will be repeated again and again and again. if I buy something android it will fail in a year or two and I'll be abandoned again in short order after that. I'm already tired of the whack-a-mole mentality google has on their 'products'. they simply don't care. quality at google is a sorry joke. not sure when it all went to hell, but it surely has.
apple is not my cup of tea. windows, well, it USED to be the bad guy around town but now, I'm not sure its the worst thing out there anymore. but I'm not excited to spend any money on 'phones'. the whole subject matter is a sore area; all the players suck, the offerings are buggy and inconsistent, its more about money grabs than giving users good gear, and the spying - the spying by EVERYONE really gets me down.
back to fragmentation: its real, its makes google a laughing stock to those who know better and to say that you can't get kernel or ip-stack or security o/s updates because 'your gpu is too old' does not pass the smell test. it just is a bullshit excuse.
regular linux can be updated. phones are not regular linux. they all pretty much suck when you know how things COULD have been.
Re:Some good data... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spying is a top item and Apple does less of it. They have a simple model - give us a bunch of money and we'll give you this thing we made.
Re:Some good data... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Spying is a top item and Apple does less of it.
You know this because you have personal knowledge of how the spying is done at both organizations? Or it came to you in a dream?
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need personal knowledge, it's about business platforms. One is about selling hardware for a profit, one is about monetizing users. And the way most companies monetize users is data mining. Spying is their business model.
Re:Some good data... (Score:4, Informative)
A very quick Google search turns up plenty of reports of data being reported back to "the mothership" on iOS just as much or maybe more than Windows or Android.
Oh, Really?
Because, the holiest-of-holies, the EFF, awarded Apple 6 out of 6 "stars" [apple.com] for the "Who has your back?" Report.
Also, a quick Googling of the search term "apple ios data reports back" really only turned up articles on how Apple does not collect user data, save one lonely Slashdot article to the contrary, and another article about how the CIA is trying to break into iPhones (which doesn't sound like Apple is cooperating, either). But I guess everyone else is just in Tim Cook's back pocket, right?
And as far as your "It's a Public Company..." meme: Even Publicly-Traded Companies have Corporate Policies and Mission Statements, and violating them will make you a loser in a lawsuit; so, most Corporations don't make a habit of violating their own Policies and Mission Statements as a matter of course.
Re:Some good data... (Score:4)
I am asking that the google apps (gps, gmail, etc) WORK. they all crash and are not reliable on my N1.
Yeah ... that's actually just a Google apps problem. My phone was built in 2013, and I feel like I find every problem I have perfectly described in a Google Groups thread from 2010.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to forget it is open source. If a manufacturer wants to sell cheap phones with a old version of the software with a smaller overhead, then it is up to them to patch it, the patches are out there and really it doesn't take all that much effort, just a couple of skilled staff members as a part time effort. The Android system provides choice for everyone, manufacturers, application producers and customers. Choice inherently is fragmentation but seriously calling choice fragmentation is blatant PR=B$
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be clear, it's not even about $39 devices from dodgy Chinese manufacturers on ancient Android 2.3.
My official Google Galaxy Nexus stopped receiving updates in less than 18 months and was a $350 device and is stuck on an old vulnerable version of 4.
When even Google themselves can't be fucked to keep their first party devices secure, using some lame excuse about an unsupported chipset (even though 3rd parties like Cyanogen have had no problem updating it) then how can they expect anyone else to?
Make no
Re:Some good data... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My phone refuses to upgrade. It dies with an obscure error that google is no help with. So I'll stick with it until the next phone. Maybe in another 5 years or so.
Re: (Score:3)
People use it for lower-grade hardware that they are still manufacturing today. Go buy a $39 "unlocked" phone at your local Fry's (search for a brand like Blu). What will it be running? Android 2.3. Which is wonderful.
That is one end of the scale, yes it is good that you can get a cheap device running an old OS but you have to remember this is unsupported and quite insecure. If you're ok with that then that's fine but again, that's only one end of the scale.
They are calling this "fragmentation," but it's really people who could never spend the money for a $400 dollar phone finally getting access to one to what was a $400 phone 5 years ago.
Point is it is unsupported, if there were some kind of "Android LTS" release that could be a supported version that at least receives security updates it would accomplish that goal and resolve the biggest problem associated with the current situation.
It can't run the latest O/S, but that's fine.
Is it? Well reall
Re: (Score:2)
What stick would you suggest they use ?
They provide the OS in source form, then each device maker and carrier goes out, compile it and ship it for their hardware.
I don't see how Google can fix the upgrade mess with the existing devices.
Even if carriers and device makers were uptaking, recompiling, and shipping security updates for their old device/OS regularly, they are still dependent upon Google to provide support for the base Android OS.
Google has repeatedly disregarded customers by not backporting secur
Re: (Score:3)
I bought a Google Experience device, within days of the official release of that device.
It did not ship with the then most current version of Android.
It was not updated to what was the most current version of Android when the device was released, until after Google had released two more versions of Android.
IOW, there was no point in time when the current version of Android was available for the device. There was a period of perhaps as long as six months, when the version of Android it was running, was the s
Re:Some good data... (Score:5, Informative)
I'll admit I'm biased. But, at least be accurate with your complaints.
Is this Google's fault? (Score:2)
Technically 5.1 is out and there's supposed to be an update coming for my Moto G, but it hasn't arrived yet. Arguably this is Moto's fault more than Google's.
That said, from what I hear Android 5.0 wasn't all that stable, so it seems likely that a lot of manufacturers just skipped it in favour of waiting for 5.1.
Re:Is this Google's fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. This is the only sentence in TFS that matters:
The author also says OEMs and carriers can no longer be trusted to handle operating system updates, because they've proven themselves quite incapable of doing so in a reasonable manner.
This has nothing to do with Google. Maybe Google is at fault for not making updates mandatory, but that would have been a completely different set of issues.
Re: (Score:2)
How Google can make the updates mandatory, if they keep bumping up the H/W requirements with every release?
And in what universe a major OS overhaul still qualifies as an "update"?
Some vendors are pretty active in the Android development, but they simply can't expose themselves to the risks involved in supplanting a whole OS to just fix few bugs. Important bugs - yes. But the risk is the bricking of the whole device, of which Google would bear no brunt, while manufacturers are exposed 100%.
Google's sta
Re: (Score:2)
How Google can make the updates mandatory, if they keep bumping up the H/W requirements with every release?
They can make it possible if not outright easy to do updates that don't come from the phone manufacturer or the carrier. Ironically, one of the few things that I will say that Microsoft, to this point, has done right on their desktop computers. Whether or not this practice continues is another story.
And in what universe a major OS overhaul still qualifies as an "update"?
Some vendors are pretty active in the Android development, but they simply can't expose themselves to the risks involved in supplanting a whole OS to just fix few bugs. Important bugs - yes. But the risk is the bricking of the whole device, of which Google would bear no brunt, while manufacturers are exposed 100%.
Then make a point to push for a model where every major X. release gets X.Y minor updates and bug fixes. This doesn't mean that the latest and greatest from the app repositories have to work, but do security
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, one of the few things that I will say that Microsoft, to this point, has done right on their desktop computers.
Not really. They did OK with handling updates to their own software, but for anything 3rd-party, it's a complete and utter mess, with every application having its own update checker process running constantly looking for updates. There should have been some kind of update service (like Windows Update already is) but which 3rd-party applications can hook into easily and use to keep tha
Re:Is this Google's fault? Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with Google. Maybe Google is at fault for not making updates mandatory, but that would have been a completely different set of issues.
Actually, it does.
The Android partner model is to snapshot the tree, and then the OEM productizes the snapshot, adding hardware driver support, their own apps and UI changes, and then they do a deal with the carrier for badging and more apps -- like pointing by default to the OEM or carrier's app store, in order to monetize the device further.
This model exists to avoid disclosing information between OEMs and different carriers, since Google does not do the actual productization.
Because of this, pretty much every Android device, other than the ones which were Google-badged as "buy them from Samsung, resell them under the Google name", is a one-off with a one-off version of the OS. In order to update the OS, it'd be necessary to (effectively) re-do the port of the OS to the device for each new version.
On top of that, there's really not a lot of incentive for the carrier to have the versions of the OS an Android phone is running changing on them, since each new one requires recertification, and, depending on the degree of changes made to things like the baseband and changes in electronic noise due to changes in the software, FCC recertification, or whatever the local equivalent happens to be in your home country.
It's like building a whole new phone, except you're not getting paid for it, and theres no upsell to get you back under contract for the next 18 months.
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
This is only true as long as consumers don't prioritize upgrades at point of purchase. If we could get OEMs to begin making binding upgrade and update support commitments, and get consumers looking at and comparing devices on that basis, then OEMs would be motivated to provide updates.
Re:Is this Google's fault? Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, it's a lose for everyone involved, due to the way the Android/OEM/Carrier relationship is structured, and there's no product continuity upsell like you have with the various iPhone models.
This is only true as long as consumers don't prioritize upgrades at point of purchase. If we could get OEMs to begin making binding upgrade and update support commitments, and get consumers looking at and comparing devices on that basis, then OEMs would be motivated to provide updates.
They can prioritize all they want, but no one wants to pay for the carrier certification of thee modified SDRs, particularly when using a T-Zone on a Snapdragon chip in order to run the baseband, and the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
Also no carrier using a contract lock-in revenue model is going to provide an update that doesn't lock you into a new contract, and a version update won't do that unless there's a charge for the update, based on FAS (Federal Accounting Standard) rules, since without an exchange of consideration, there is no contract. This is why Apple charged for the WiFi software update on iPods, and non-cellular network iPads, but didn't charge for cellular connected iPads and iPhones. It had to do with realization of revenue over time, versus a one time sale, and adding features to the device via software.
You should also be aware that the image that's shipped by the OEM is often not even buildable by Google engineers; apart from the fact that the devices used during development are generally signature neutered, and it's impossible to cryptographically sign the image for the given device without it either being neutered like that, or signing code that they device manufacturer generally does not share due to it containing a signing key they don't want out there... they entirety of the board file is generally not committed back to the Google maintained Android source tree. Nor is it maintained going forward so that it's up to date, nor is the remainder of the OS productization standardized across all the OEMs. They are trying to differentiate their products, after all, and my Samsung device looking and feeling exactly like a non-Samsung device is not in Samsung's interest: it makes them into a commodity, which is a quick race to the bottom on margin.
Google has significant dictatorial powers when it comes to Chromebooks, which are not available to the Android folks, even if they had the ability to code sign, and could dictate a code cut, the Android in the tree is pretty raw, and never productized.
Finally, Android lacks a uniform app ecosystem; this is a more or less direct consequence of having allowed third party stores, without a strong compatibility for the apps across all devices.
Seriously, one of the smartest things that Apple did was keep the baseband processor separate from the application processor so that there was no telecom recertification required, unless they were explicitly hacking the baseband for some reason (e.g. the carrier lock they did by re-doing the SIM/IMEI handshake when doing a hand-off between cell towers in order to intentionally break SuperSIMs and similar techniques for hardware carrier unlocks).
Without the app ecosystem and the continuity of app and other content going forward on Android -- which it doesn't -- I don't see a means of enforcing carrier lock-in to support that economic model, particularly if you started supporting software updates.
Re: (Score:3)
They can prioritize all they want, but no one wants to pay for the carrier certification of thee modified SDRs, particularly when using a T-Zone on a Snapdragon chip in order to run the baseband, and the FCC demands that the SDR be certified as a unit (software + hardware). That's a carrier certifiiation per carrier, per country, per device, per version update.
Heh. That isn't the problem. Unfortunately, I can't explain in more detail, because my conversations with carriers are confidential.
Also no carrier using a contract lock-in revenue model is going to provide an update that doesn't lock you into a new contract
Also not the problem, and I also can't explain. I'll just point out that the carriers have so successfully branded Android as their own that many consumers see the failure to upgrade as the carriers' fault. The carriers aren't blind to this, or what it costs them.
You should also be aware that the image that's shipped by the OEM is often not even buildable by Google engineers
Why yes, Terry, as a Google Android engineer I'm quite aware of this :-)
Except you should replace "often" with "ne
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, Google probably caved to the carriers and gave them way too much control. So now we n
Re: (Score:2)
My first gen Moto G is on 5.0.2
Apparently it will get 5.1 soon. Not too bad for a reasonably cheap phone from 2013
Re: (Score:2)
My daughter's second gen Moto G is on 4.4.
Apparently an update to 5.0.1 was released for it this past weekend, but that's still really pathetic for a phone from 2014.
Re: (Score:2)
My HTC Desire 300 is on 4.1.2 and apparently, that is where it is going to stay. .
Re: (Score:3)
If that's not good enough for you, when you buy a new phone, don't buy anything from HTC.
Re:Is this Google's fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Technically 5.1 is out and there's supposed to be an update coming for my Moto G, but it hasn't arrived yet. Arguably this is Moto's fault more than Google's.
And that's a serious problem.
When there's a new version of iOS, I get it the day it's released.
When there's a new version of Windows, I get it the day it's released.
When there's a new version of Ubuntu, I get it the day it's released.
When there's a new version of Android, I get it when I buy a new phone.
Which OS has the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
>When there's a new version of iOS, I get it the day it's released.
I have an 1st gen iPad and an iPhone 4 that say otherwise.
Re:Is this Google's fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
But Apple does at least have a fairly dependable support schedule: The most recent 2 generations of devices in a line are supported, possibly with some loss of functionality. (Typically functionality that depends on new hardware.) Past that is occasionally supported, but don't count on it. (Admittedly this support schedule is not official - it's just what has happened in practice for the life of iOS.)
Your iPhone 4 just misses that cut (6 is the current, 5s one gen back, 5 is two), and your iPad is about 4 generations past that cut. Each did get updates regularly during it's product life cycle - it's just that you've continued to use them past that life cycle. That contrasts dramatically with Android OS phones which often ship with out of date versions of their software, and are usually never updated.
Re: (Score:2)
> When there's a new version of Windows, I get it the day it's released.
This is just unwise.
> When there's a new version of Ubuntu, I get it the day it's released.
This is really unecessary.
The idea of cramming a new OS on old hardware automatically and without any care for the process has always been stupid. This idea is primarily an artifact of a particular company that lowered everyone's expectations.
Shoving new IOS on an old router doesn't even automatically makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this Google's fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is Google's fault. My Nexus 7 2013 got 5.0 OTA three months after it's release. That's the *Google branded* device. And it was buggy.
5.1 came much faster - took a few weeks, and it's much better.
When iOS 8 was released, it was available on our iPad Air the next day.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
" it was available on our iPad Air the next day"
Nice! Can I get an illegal copy your U2 mp3s? Personally, my daughter had to offload MANY apps from her iPodpad to make room for that "next day update" which we installed some many months later, I suspect.
Re:Is this Google's fault? (Score:5, Informative)
This difference is a matter of when information is published, not anything to do with technology.
The reason you got iOS 8 the day after it was released is because Apple didn't announce the release until it was ready to push to your iPad. Google must release Android updates to the OEMs many months before they can get it delivered to devices. The only way Google could provide the same instant update experience is to finish and release it to OEMs then embargo the release information for months until the OEMs were ready to go. There's no way that embargo would hold. Way too many people and way too many companies.
Google could arrange for the instant-update experience with Nexus devices easily enough, but only at the expense of pissing off all the OEMs.
The lag between announcement and availability is an unavoidable result of Android being an ecosystem, rather than a product.
(I'm an Android engineer, but I'm not speaking for Google. The above is my own perception, not an official statement.)
Re:Is this Google's fault? (Score:4, Interesting)
True, but on the other hand many, if not most, OEMs never update their Android phones. A delay while OEMs work out details and stuff would be acceptable, if not ideal. But in practice the updates just don't exist unless you buy a new device - and then only if you buy a phone with a more recent version of the OS. (And a lot of phones are shipped with an out of date OS!)
It has gotten a bit better - especially for 'flagship' devices - but it's still not good. I thought the 'Google One' edition phones were a good push towards trying to solve the problem (if only by shaming the OEMs), but they've died off.
Re:Is this Google's fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but on the other hand many, if not most, OEMs never update their Android phones.
The major OEMs usually deliver one or two upgrades, and all of them do some number of updates for security fixes. But I'm quibbling, because while your statement isn't literally true it is essentially true. Devices stop getting upgrades and updates way too quickly, and none of the OEMs have any official policy stating even as much as they do, so you really have no idea (to be fair, Apple also has no official upgrade or update policy, though they do a better job).
And a lot of phones are shipped with an out of date OS!
Especially at the low end. There are a lot of very cheap phones being sold with Gingerbread, at least in terms of number of models. I don't think volume is actually very high.
I thought the 'Google One' edition phones were a good push towards trying to solve the problem (if only by shaming the OEMs), but they've died off.
The Android Ones phones are a push toward solving the problem in one market. They're low-end phones that are shipped with the most current OS and updated directly by Google. That project is still in its infancy, though, and may never come to the "first world". For the developed world, Nexus is the line Google uses to shame the OEMs, but the story has been less than stellar there, though better than most OEMs do. Nexus 4 and above have all gotten Lollipop but that only takes us back to 2012. I think Galaxy Nexus would probably also have gotten Lollipop, but the SoC vendor leaving the business made it impossible to upgrade it past Jelly Bean. The 2012 Nexus 7 got the upgrade, but runs so poorly with it that many people prefer to go back. And Google also has no official upgrade or update policy.
So, absolutely there's a problem. But it's not the lag between announcement and upgrade, it's the rapidity with which devices fall out of support and the lack of any committed support policies from OEMs that customers could use to ensure they won't have that problem (and to motivate OEMs to provide support for longer periods of time).
Re: (Score:3)
Technically 5.1 is out and there's supposed to be an update coming for my Moto G, but it hasn't arrived yet. Arguably this is Moto's fault more than Google's.
That said, from what I hear Android 5.0 wasn't all that stable, so it seems likely that a lot of manufacturers just skipped it in favour of waiting for 5.1.
Problem is that Android and Windows Phone are 2 cases where finger pointing goes on about whose responsibility it is to upgrade. Apple does it automatically, since they make both the phone/tablet and iOS, whereas Google and Microsoft make both only in some cases. Like the Moto G or Moto X for Google, or the Lumias for Microsoft. I had a Lumia Icon, which I could upgrade only by pretending to be a developer: Microsoft told me that Verizon was supposed to roll up the upgrade to 8.1, whereas Verizon t
Re: (Score:2)
Completely agree.
Nah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Nah. Your typical user doesn't give a shit as long as they can make phone calls and open Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Most users don't consider the security side, which means they're probably quite happy with KitKat and see no reason to upgrade--or they'll upgrade when they get a new phone which they can try before they buy.
While I agree that OEM supported upgrades for older phones are spotty at best, who would you have do it instead?
Re: (Score:2)
...until they get their personal data stolen because of a security flaw in the OS, which of course was long patched in later version of Android.
Updating would be nice if it wasn't mandatory (Score:2)
It's irritating as hell when my provider won't post new Android versions, but at this point I'm on a pretty old phone (I don't want to give out my slide-out keyboard) and I don't want to be forced to upgrade to something the hardware can't run as easily.
Re: (Score:2)
I like my Droid 4, too - but will probably move it to Cyanogenmod so it can run the latest version. (I have a cracked screen one and did this for wi-fi only settings to make sure I could do it without bricking the silly thing). It's annoying that Verizon isn't doing any updates for this phone. (a different problem is running out of space for installing/updating apps, but hey, I'm a geek I should be able to fix this, right? :) )
I had to wait WAY too long ... (Score:2)
I have to lay the blame with T-mo. I had no other easy option to get it.
Carrier lockdown sux (Score:5, Informative)
Relying on the carrier for updates is truly the worst thing about Android - then there's the premium-seeking apps compiled into the base rom that generate evil warnings of how the system may become unstable if they're uninstalled. WTF does my phone need with NFL whatever baked in and threatening to become unstable if I dare disable it?? At least with some OEM Windows computer this kind of crap can be uninstalled. I wouldn't mind them putting in default apps to try to upsell service if I could remove them.
And then there's carrier hardware support decisions baked into the rom. A Galaxy Note 2's radio chip isn't accessible when sold by Verizon because their rom has that disabled. They want you to use your data plan to stream radio; they don't even provide a streaming radio app but they want to at least try to get you to pay for more data allowance.
That's one reason the iPhone is so popular (Score:5, Interesting)
In a nutshell, this shows one reason why the iPhone (and iOS) are so popular.
I have an iPhone and I'm happy with it, but if Apple disappeared tomorrow, I could easily move to the Android ecosystem. The differences in usability between iOS and Android aren't that compelling.
But one thing I absolutely refuse to do is buy a phone where the manufacturer washes its hands of it, and forces me to either root the phone, or deal with the carrier to get updates. No. I'm done with that. I learned my lesson back when I owned Palm OS phones, and I'm not going back again.
Android fragmentation exists because manufacturers refuse to maintain their phones. Pushing that job onto the carriers is a recipe for customer dissatisfaction and security breaches. If Google wants to solve this problem, they need to force the manufacturers to accept responsibility for updating their own hardware.
Apple goes to the other extreme (Score:3)
They make you upgrade to the latest version, whether you want to or not, otherwise your software stops working. It is more obvious on the desktop of course. Every version they release, they remove at least one of the features I like, but in the end I have to upgrade otherwise a critical piece of software (e.g. Xcode) will not run. That would not be that bad (except releases like Yosemite which are that bad), but then they suddenly decide that your hardware cannot upgrade to the latest OS, without which your
Re: (Score:2)
In a nutshell, this shows one reason why the iPhone (and iOS) are so popular.
Not really. Nexus phones are updated too. And taken individually, without the other Android devices, they are outsold by the iPhones.
People buying iPhones are the same people who bought iPods even when they weren't "smart" and didn't require updates.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Balderdash. It isn't the carriers that create the updates, it is the manufacturers.
The carriers certainly hold up the updates for weeks or months on end for "testing" (read: making sure it do
Re: (Score:2)
>But one thing I absolutely refuse to do is buy a phone where the manufacturer washes its hands of it
I have an 1st gen iPad and an iPhone 4 that Apple doesn't give me security updates for. I moved to a Nexus 5.
Carriers cause the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to be more a carrier problem than a Google or manufacturer problem. Google has the base OS updates available quickly. The manufacturers have to handle the hardware-related stuff, making sure firmware blobs for their hardware are compatible and such, but that doesn't seem to be that hard a problem what with a lot of phones sharing common hardware. I've commonly seen LG and Samsung have updates available within a week or two. The big delay always seems to be my carrier not letting my phone update because they haven't finished doing all the modifications they do for locked built-in apps, custom apps (eg. LG uses a custom calendar app instead of plain Google Calendar), UI customization/branding and so on.
It seems remarkable similar to Internet access, where ISPs always want to sell you not just Internet access but a whole wrapped-up package that includes them controlling what content you get and how you get it so they can steer you to content they control or get paid for. And as with net neutrality, the cel-phone carriers are going to strongly resist being relegated to the role of mere sellers of a pipe without any control over the device and the "user experience" that goes with it and allows them to steer users towards stuff the carrier gets paid for.
Re:Carriers cause the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a carrier problem. Carriers are, to put it frankly, fucking evil. Look no further than their efforts to stop net neutrality and force their way in to being a middleman for contactless phone payments.
Apple's biggest innovation was prying the phone out of the hands of the carrier. When the iphone was introduced it was standard practice for a company to take a phone, disable it's features, then try to sell them back to you. So many of you kid's don't remember the bad old days of crippled phones. (Or you grew up on Europe where this nonsense never happened because of sane wireless regulation)
Look at an iphone. No un-removable carrier shitware or ripoff carrier app/media stores. You get updates the day they're released. You have an easy upgrade path to a new device. (Literally connect to wifi and log in with your apple ID. Everything comes back to your new device. Music, apps, ringtones, phonebook, settings, wallpaper, text history. Everything)
An apple device is an apple device, not an ATT device, not a Verizon device. You may not like Apple that much, but they're a whole other universe better than your carrier.
Re: Carriers cause the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it definitely is Google's problem. Firmware blobs have nothing to do with how Browser works, but holdups in one leave the other as a giant security hole. Every piece of code that is exposed to data from the internet needs to be updateable on the same timescale as zero-days. Google has the dead-worst architecture and distribution setup for keeping Android users safe. Apple seems to solve problems in about 2 weeks, unfortunately they seem to be moving towards bundling more into the OS blob rather than les
Nexus all the way (Score:5, Insightful)
This shit is why I wont buy anything other than a Nexus.
Also other manufacturers like to make a total mess of the android UI
Re:Nexus all the way (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nexus 9 *just* got 5.0.2, so even this argument is flawed. I would love to post something like: "Google needs to amend their contract with OEMs to say something like: upgrade your shit or else", but since even Google can't keep their shit updated, what hope is there?
-- Brian
Problem? (Score:2)
How is it a problem? How many apps won't run on 4.4?
Re: (Score:2)
My phone is on 4.1.2 (I just checked). I haven't run into a single application I couldn't run on it. Fragmentation just means a bunch more work for app developers to support multiple environments, but they should be used to it - after all, it's still massively superior to the literally millions of different potential environments a PC application could be run under...
That said, I have a device that runs Android 1.6.x. That is basically equivalent to not even running Android, and was even when I got it sever
Unpaid shill for BlackBerry.. (Score:5, Interesting)
For the life of me I do not understand all the BlackBerry hate on slashdot.
Re:Unpaid shill for BlackBerry.. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the life of me, I don't see the advantage of your Blackberry over my existing Android device.
Not Really (Score:2)
Of course they can ignore it. Google is a vendor providing a part to the phone manufacturers, just like the company that makes the plastic case. Consumers buy their phone from the manufacturer or the service provider, so they are responsible for the customer's experience, not Google.
This is not an expensive computer. Phones are relatively inexpensive, and people just end up buying a new one every year or two anyway if they want the latest doodads. If people are still using the old phone with old version
Re: (Score:2)
This is not an expensive computer. Phones are relatively inexpensive, and people just end up buying a new one every year or two anyway if they want the latest doodads.
I believe my Android phone would have been $7-800 if I'd had to pay for it. I paid less than that for my laptop.
That said, it did get 5.0.1 a few weeks ago. Before that it was stuck on an early version of 4.4.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, many smartphones are pretty expensive, you just don't see the actual cost because most US carriers are obfuscating the price into their plan subsidies.
The exception is T-mobile. You will see that last year's top tier smartphones like Galaxy S5 and LG G3 were in the $600 range, not cheap by any means if you are going to upgrade every year.
In comparison, you can buy a $600 laptop or desktop computer, and keep it many years, and get security updates for the OS you choose to install on it on it from t
Just downgraded (Score:4, Interesting)
I finally downgraded my 2012 Nexus 7 today back to KitKat. It was essentially unusable running Lollipop.
Unless Google can make their new versions perform well on older hardware, of course you're going to have a lot of people on the older OS versions. I'm not going to buy a new phone/tablet every time Google releases an update to their OS.
My experience (Score:2, Interesting)
I became fed-up with the constant nagging to upgrade from 4.4.4 on my N5 earlier today so did the update - however I immediately wanted to rage quit and go back as I lost the aitplane mode switch when I hold down the power button, but alas I can't go back. If Google starts forcing users to upgrade, it would be nice if they didn't take away popular features entirely (as I understand there is no way to get this option back despite the terrible battery life on my N5).
Re: (Score:3)
Features don't disappear entirely, they get moved. I understand people are used to things, but there is no reason why a function which enables or disables radios on the phone should be tied to power button instead of the pull-down settings where every other function that enables or disables radios (bluetooth, wifi etc) is located.
Simply double swipe down and the airplane mode button is in the very middle of the screen.
Google can actually start ignoring the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
But since Android 4.x, I can't think of a major OS feature that changed the way I use my phone and what I can do with it.
Smartphones do not improve at the same speed as 5 years ago. Buying a smartphone now, and being stuck on the same OS for 2-3 years before replacing it for a new one, isn't as bad as it once was.
Geeks will still prefer Nexus phones and updates, but for the average Joe, updates can be a nuisance as it can make their stuff no longer working.
I still think devices should be updated, at least for security reasons (even though most cell phones are behind giants NATs), but I understand that the average Joe doesn't see the benefit and therefore will continue to buy phones that will never be updated.
It's the manufacturers, not Google (Score:2)
I always upgrade my android devices as fast as the updates are available through normal channels. I don't root my devices and load custom ROMs. I'm too old for that. I just want my shit to work without spending hours messing around. But the manufacturers and carriers are not pushing updates in a timely manner, even on their flagship devices. My Nexus 10 tablet got upgraded to Lollipop last fall. My S5 phone didn't get upgraded until 2/4. My Tab S 10.5 didn't get upgraded to 5.0 until 3/23. By then,
Google's Android fragmentation problem? (Score:2)
Google on On Android Compatibility [blogspot.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
It would be like if there was DirectX 12, and game developers were willing to go back as far as DirectX 10, but most potential customers are still on DirectX 8 with a handful still on DirectX 7.
Why do I need to upgrade? (Score:2)
I rarely upgraded windows since I could run most of the same software that was 10-15 years old and only upgraded if the OS was EOL. I have no desire to have to upgrade the OS on my phone there' s that I would need to have to upgrade. If it still functions let the people use what they want. How about some LTS options like Linux.
I'd still be using Froyo (Score:2)
But I lost my cheap (but usable) Froyo phone. It started with Eclair, so really I got a lot more phone than I originally anticipated.
The hardware should be compatible (Score:3)
The main issue with cellphone firmwares is that they either have to have custom drivers or the vendor requires that the firmware be tweaked in someway... typically fucking things up for the user.
Going forward, I think android should be morel like a desktop operating system in that, the drivers are seperate and can be queried for update as needed. But the central OS works regardless. Yes, drivers get broken by updates. But allow people to do other things like roll back to an earlier version if you want. One of the more annoying things with the updates is that they will pester you until you say yes and then you can't go back.
Beyond that, look at limiting some of the shitty things venders do to lock phones down. Android is big enough at this point that if google puts their foot down no one will be able to say anything against them on it.
This will only change after a catastrophe (Score:2)
The only point I see this changing is if someone discovers a horrible, easy-to-abuse exploit in older versions of Android, and releases the mother of all DDoS attacks on the cellular network, prompting quick security updates.
Aside from something like that happening, I don't see the update problem going away.
"not my fault" (Score:2)
If Samsung was willing to send upgrades to my not-even-2-year-old devices, I'd be upgraded by now.
Google doesn't have to sell the upgrade features to the end users. Google has to sell the upgrade to the OEMs (especially Samsung) to make them be willing to make the upgrade available for "old" devices (given that, today, 'old' means 9 months or less). Samsung and ASUS are more willing to let these older devices rot, under the expectation that they'll buy something new and get the upgrade then, so what is the
People have been talking about this for years. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Android fragmentation boogeyman.
What nobody's ever explained to my satisfaction is why I should give a flying f*ck. As far as I can see "fragmentation" is simply the result of users and developers not all being forced to upgrade to the latest and greatest when the platform vendor demands it. This is actually a *good* thing.
It means I can find a $40 Android tablet running KitKat, which is perfectly fine for things I want to use a $40 tablet for. I'm out of the developer business now, but I still dabble to keep up with developments, and far as I can see the Google tools do a really nice job of allowing developers to target a range of platforms and still look up to date on the latest and greatest. So I don't have to shut out people who bought a smartphone last year if I want to use Material Design (which is cartoony for my taste but does a nice job setting out consistent UI guidelines).
If this is fragmentation hell, all I can say is come on in, the the lava is fine. Sure it would be *nice* if the adoption rate for the latest and greatest was higher, but as a long time user and developer I have to say that not being pushed over the upgrade cliff on the platform vendor's orders is nice too.
One word: Google Services Framework (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that's what it is called. I didn't read TFA but it sounds like they are claiming that Google is not doing anything about the problem. Not true. They have started putting things you might expect in the OS in a downloadable app. Then when it needs to be upgraded, they put a new version in the store and you get it. You do not need to wait for your carrier/manufacturer to provide an upgrade.
They are also unbundling stuff from the OS like the browser. Several years ago the browser was part of the OS and recently a security issue was uncovered in it. Google declined to fix it knowing the possibility that manufacturers and carriers would roll out an OS update. Today the browser is Chrome and it can be updated separately from the OS.
Both strategies allow Google to bring new features to older phones regardless of the lack of diligence on the part of the carriers.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
I mostly agree but I think they will continue... (Score:3)
What should happen is Google should get behind something new to replace android. Something with a license that forces more "open" hardware or drivers and then gets behind multiple "distribution groups".
There is simply not a single path. There are design philosophies. Some like SD card and removable storage others don't for example.
Let people buy their phones from whomever. Just make it trivial to support the phone hardware and change whatever "distribution" you choose to use. Make it impossible for the hardware manufacturers to lock down devices. Then support the 10 most popular/original with 2 million a year grants in exchange for feature development and store rights.
Android source is a cluster fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Conversely, if someone else built such system and it worked to keep all vendors updated, it wouldn't matter much that it failed to validate in Google's CTS. In that situation it would be relatively easy to migrate everyone away from Google Play -developers first, and users would follow- to an alternate app market supported by the maintainer of such successful system.
Now that I think of it
ARM 10 years ago (Score:3)
The situation with Android and Linux and the userland Android uses is essentially the same mess the Linux kernel suffered 10 years ago with ARM.
After years neglecting the problem, Linus finally decided something had to be done spend a lot of time merging, unifying and mainstreaming all the ARM shit. It was a great success, in part because ARM, Linaro and essentially everybody saw the benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 8 isn't as universally hated as Vista was but I haven't heard anyone with much in the way of nice things to say about it. As far as Android goes my wife's Note3 got updated the other day and she's been on a constant bitch ever since. A lot of people, my wife included, don't like changes that don't have some obvious improvement. Changing the way her phone works or looks just to be doing it makes her unhappy.
Re:Non-issue (Score:4, Insightful)
When was the last security update released for Windows 7 ?
Answer: last tuesday.
When was the last security update released for Android 2.2.3 ?
Re: (Score:3)
>There is nothing to note beyond 'welcome to the low end of the phone business'.
I'd love to know what the high end of the phone business is, since models that have an MSRP of US$1,000 are not getting updates in a timely manner, if they even get them.