good thing it is the most customisable software, because if google will not help you, you can at least try to help yourself.
The average consumer doesn't want to debug device drivers. It's why the year of the Linux desktop never arrives, regardless of what the inhabitants of Slashdot think.
IMO Google has the right idea in mind by decoupling core services to allow Google Play Services to supply security and feature updates. Probably the way it should have been handled all along. The OEM's as a whole just don't take it as seriously, tho some like Sony and Motorola are better than others when it comes to updates, particularly prompt OS version updates. Sammy would not be one of those timely responders which is unfortunate as they've used aping of Apple to become the largest of them. For that reason alone I don't hold high hopes for their Tizen OS and reliability.
All one needs to do is take a look at how most OEMs handled phone software updates prior to Android and you can get a clear picture of the lack of in-house software expertise and/or willingness to provide legacy phone support these companies have. For the vast majority of those phones, to get a software update, you had to buy a new phone -- there simply was no way to update the software. This was their business model, and it was a profitable one, so where's the incentive for them to change?
That was the main reason why I was excited when the iPhone came out (that and proper support for data syncing with my Mac, which nobody else in the world seemed to know how to do or care about). Obviously Apple had plenty of experience rolling out software updates for their Macs, and also the in-house expertise to design software so that it can be modularly updated, distributed smoothly, and support a wide variety of devices over a long period of time. Most OEMs just don't have that level of software expertise, nor are they interested in paying for it when they can just get customers to buy new devices when they want updates (win-win for them).
And I agree with you that, given Samsung's track record for software, I don't hold high hopes for Tizen.
"So here's your two reason[s] why Android 5.0 has such a small market share: 1) Google is not rolling it out to their own devices; 2) Carriers have not yet (for the most part) rolled it out to the majority of customer devices."
No... here's the main reason Android devices rarely see an update; COST.
It's really that simple. OEM's don't make enough money selling these devices. They have no interest in supporting old devices by continuously updating the software - resulting in longer hardware upgrade cycles. Their business model is all about volume. If they can't keep customers coming back, they go under.
FWIW I don't think Google is correct in putting the full responsibility for WebView patches, no longer a part of Android anyway, on the OEM's. (Kudos at least for getting rid of non-Chromium Webview in Android) From what I've read Google doesn't believe issuing a patch which the OEM will then have to roll out to their devices is any better solution or more likely to happen than updating the Android OS itself. Of course updating to either KitKat or better yet Lollipop is the much better solution and covers a lot more improvements, but not taking the lead themselves on the old deprecated Webview is just poor PR on Google's part. It also unfairly puts some users in the middle of a tussle with OEM responsibilities.
Google has the power to force OEMs. They choose not to.
No they can't. Anyone including you, and I can grab a copy of Android right off Google's servers.
That's the vanilla version without any Google apps or the Play Store or Play Services though, right? Some might prefer that, but it's not the Android that the OEMs (the well known ones at least) are using.
Google may not have complete power, but they have some leverage.
That's the vanilla version without any Google apps or the Play Store or Play Services though, right? Some might prefer that, but it's not the Android that the OEMs (the well known ones at least) are using.
Google may not have complete power, but they have some leverage.
I was under the impression that wasn't the case. Doesn't Google restrict access to its own apps, GMail, GMaps, GNow etc, unless OEMs meet certain conditions? Minimum hardware requirements and such things?
And you know this how? The OEMs weren't forced to use it in the first place, so why would they be forced to issue updates?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
No they can't. Anyone including you, and I can grab a copy of Android right off Google's servers.
Stop lying.
Manufacturers (at least all the major ones) belong to the OHA. The OHA has strict rules on what you can and can't do with Android. You can't modify Android such that it breaks compatibility with Google Play Store Apps or any Google services. And you can't release a device with an Android fork (just ask Acer how that went when they tried with their Aliyun phone- Google stepped in and shut them down).
You're confusing AOSP with Android that OEMs use. They ARE NOT the same.
No they can't. Anyone including you, and I can grab a copy of Android right off Google's servers.
Sure anyone can, but there is an approval process if you want to market your device as an official Android device. This is what Crowley is referring to.
Here's a good example of when they've used that approval process to stop Motorola from shipping a phone which used a competing positioning service.
Manufacturers (at least all the major ones) belong to the OHA. The OHA has strict rules on what you can and can't do with Android. You can't modify Android such that it breaks compatibility with Google Play Store Apps or any Google services. And you can't release a device with an Android fork (just ask Acer how that went when they tried with their Aliyun phone- Google stepped in and shut them down).
You're confusing AOSP with Android that OEMs use. They ARE NOT the same.
Where did I say anything about modifying Android? Is everyone that's part of the OHA in any way, shape, or form forced to use Android? No they are not, so how would they then be forced to update it?
Where did I say anything about modifying Android? Is everyone that's part of the OHA in any way, shape, or form forced to use Android? No they are not, so how would they then be forced to update it?
The device compatibility approval process (as I just stated). The whole point of this discussion was about Android updates, so why would we think that you were talking about other OSes?
Comments
The average consumer doesn't want to debug device drivers. It's why the year of the Linux desktop never arrives, regardless of what the inhabitants of Slashdot think.
Go on a public relations campaign to claim it is not cornered.
IMO Google has the right idea in mind by decoupling core services to allow Google Play Services to supply security and feature updates. Probably the way it should have been handled all along. The OEM's as a whole just don't take it as seriously, tho some like Sony and Motorola are better than others when it comes to updates, particularly prompt OS version updates. Sammy would not be one of those timely responders which is unfortunate as they've used aping of Apple to become the largest of them. For that reason alone I don't hold high hopes for their Tizen OS and reliability.
All one needs to do is take a look at how most OEMs handled phone software updates prior to Android and you can get a clear picture of the lack of in-house software expertise and/or willingness to provide legacy phone support these companies have. For the vast majority of those phones, to get a software update, you had to buy a new phone -- there simply was no way to update the software. This was their business model, and it was a profitable one, so where's the incentive for them to change?
That was the main reason why I was excited when the iPhone came out (that and proper support for data syncing with my Mac, which nobody else in the world seemed to know how to do or care about). Obviously Apple had plenty of experience rolling out software updates for their Macs, and also the in-house expertise to design software so that it can be modularly updated, distributed smoothly, and support a wide variety of devices over a long period of time. Most OEMs just don't have that level of software expertise, nor are they interested in paying for it when they can just get customers to buy new devices when they want updates (win-win for them).
And I agree with you that, given Samsung's track record for software, I don't hold high hopes for Tizen.
"So here's your two reason[s] why Android 5.0 has such a small market share: 1) Google is not rolling it out to their own devices; 2) Carriers have not yet (for the most part) rolled it out to the majority of customer devices."
No... here's the main reason Android devices rarely see an update; COST.
It's really that simple. OEM's don't make enough money selling these devices. They have no interest in supporting old devices by continuously updating the software - resulting in longer hardware upgrade cycles. Their business model is all about volume. If they can't keep customers coming back, they go under.
Why is much of the article now crossed out?
Comment system strikethrough markup is in the original article; "So here's your two reason{open bracket}s{close bracket}...
Google has the power to force OEMs. They choose not to.
And you know this how? The OEMs weren't forced to use it in the first place, so why would they be forced to issue updates?
Google can say: "no updates, no Android".
No they can't. Anyone including you, and I can grab a copy of Android right off Google's servers.
Google may not have complete power, but they have some leverage.
Getting the native apps is even easier.
And you know this how? The OEMs weren't forced to use it in the first place, so why would they be forced to issue updates?
Quote:
No they can't. Anyone including you, and I can grab a copy of Android right off Google's servers.
Stop lying.
Manufacturers (at least all the major ones) belong to the OHA. The OHA has strict rules on what you can and can't do with Android. You can't modify Android such that it breaks compatibility with Google Play Store Apps or any Google services. And you can't release a device with an Android fork (just ask Acer how that went when they tried with their Aliyun phone- Google stepped in and shut them down).
You're confusing AOSP with Android that OEMs use. They ARE NOT the same.
There are quite a number of those who won't update cause of the mess iOS 7 or 8 is for older devices.
No they can't. Anyone including you, and I can grab a copy of Android right off Google's servers.
Sure anyone can, but there is an approval process if you want to market your device as an official Android device. This is what Crowley is referring to.
Here's a good example of when they've used that approval process to stop Motorola from shipping a phone which used a competing positioning service.
Where did I say anything about modifying Android? Is everyone that's part of the OHA in any way, shape, or form forced to use Android? No they are not, so how would they then be forced to update it?
Where did I say anything about modifying Android? Is everyone that's part of the OHA in any way, shape, or form forced to use Android? No they are not, so how would they then be forced to update it?
The device compatibility approval process (as I just stated). The whole point of this discussion was about Android updates, so why would we think that you were talking about other OSes?