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.
That's not necessarily true. With the SGS 2 Samsung omitted many of Google's native apps in favor of their own, and Bing as the default search app. Many users scrambled to find ways to get those apps. Google responded by separating its native apps from the OS, and making them available in the Play Store.
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?
My point is that Google does not have the leverage to force any OEM into updating the OS, because Android was never forced upon them in the first place.
^ people are rarely forced into a contract, but once they're in a contract then they are obliged to abide by its conditions, or face consequences.
If OEMs belonging to the OHA have to abide by conditions set by Google then Google could have included the condition of timely application of updates to the OHA agreement. They could have done that at any point since the inception of the OHA, and that would be tantamount to forcing OEMs to provide updates (unless they want to go without Android). Google didn't do that.
^ people are rarely forced into a contract, but once they're in a contract then they are obliged to abide by its conditions, or face consequences.
If OEMs belonging to the OHA have to abide by conditions set by Google then Google could have included the condition of timely application of updates to the OHA agreement. They could have done that at any point since the inception of the OHA, and that would be tantamount to forcing OEMs to provide updates (unless they want to go without Android). Google didn't do that.
You're forgetting that many carriers are not part of the OHA, and can veto any update created by a OEM.
My point is that Google does not have the leverage to force any OEM into updating the OS, because Android was never forced upon them in the first place.
And the alternative is what? License an OS (thus increasing the cost of their handset) or create/support their own OS? Aside from Samsung and Sony, no OEMs would have the resources to do the latter and hope to succeed. So Google knows most OEMs are painted into a corner they've created by making Android free.
And the alternative is what? License an OS (thus increasing the cost of their handset) or create/support their own OS? Aside from Samsung and Sony, no OEMs would have the resources to do the latter and hope to succeed. So Google knows most OEMs are painted into a corner they've created by making Android free.
I'm not criticizing it, I'm only explaining it. It is what it is, and there is no alternative right now.
We have four Lollipop devices in use at my house, along with five iOS 8 devices. They all work wonderfully. One of the Lollipop devices is an old Nexus 4, and it works so well that I'd happily switch back to it for a few months if my Moto X went away for some reason. There are no problems with any of the iOS or Android devices we're using.
I'd like to back up Gatorguy's notes on the Moto X, BTW. It's really a great implementation. Here in Austin, we have a new law that you're not allowed to touch any handheld electronic device while you're driving. Right out the box, the Moto X is completely usable for text and voice without ever even looking at it, let alone touching it. Their minor additions (Moto Assist) to Android 5 are very well thought out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
"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.
Exactly. If there was a patch in Jelly Bean, it would be a joke even if they advertised it during the Super Bowl. It will never make it to a device, because all of the old devices that are still updated are on 4.4 or 5.0. Any Android older than that has been EOL'd from an update perspective, because of the cost to update these forked OS versions.
There is no practical loss from failing to update it. This just falls back on the known fragmentation situation.
I'm not criticizing it, I'm only explaining it. It is what it is, and there is no alternative right now.
And so we arrive back at the main point, which is that Google could force OEMs to provide updates if they wanted to because most OEMs have no alternative but Android.
There is no practical loss from failing to update it.
Sure there is: millions of people are walking around with phones that have well known security problems and no way to fix that aside from getting a new phone. This could lead to all sorts of fraud being committed against those people, and the subsequence expense of investigating and stopping that fraud. Real-world/practical loss.
Obviously there are people walking around with very old iPhones that have similar problems, but the number of such people is nowhere near as large.
And so we arrive back at the main point, which is that Google could force OEMs to provide updates if they wanted to because most OEMs have no alternative but Android.
Google couldn't even update its own phone the Galaxy Nexus. How can they then turn around, and force the OEMs into updating?
Sure there is: millions of people are walking around with phones that have well known security problems and no way to fix that aside from getting a new phone. This could lead to all sorts of fraud being committed against those people, and the subsequence expense of investigating and stopping that fraud. Real-world/practical loss.
Obviously there are people walking around with very old iPhones that have similar problems, but the number of such people is nowhere near as large.
That's true, but my point is that Google cannot update those phones alone. Ultimately, the telecoms and mfgrs need to do it, and they are not going to pay for it. Google dropping support for such an old OS is meaningless, because of the post-manufacturing costs of fragmentation.
Google couldn't even update its own phone the Galaxy Nexus. How can they then turn around, and force the OEMs into updating?
Sure, for major OS updates it's fine that some phones just simply don't get them (and Google doesn't force OEMs to provide them). However, major security bugfixes should be back ported and provided to the majority of Android users (and Google does force OEMs to provide them).
The lead sentence from that article starts "Apple on Monday pushed out an update addressing a "critical security issue" for OS X..." iOS may have issues but Apple does address them and get them out to EVERYONE in a timely manner. When will Android users get their updates???
There's no schadenfreude to be had here, this is a suck sandwich for Android peoples on Jelly Bean or earlier. Most if not all of the Android OEMs will predictably drag their feet or do nothing and hope people will quietly upgrade their handsets; that is, after all, the most simplistic yet profitable fix of all.
I've been saying this since day one. Handset makers have ZERO incentive to pour money and resources into porting the newest Android release on a 6-month+ old phone. Zero. They make money selling phones on razor-thin margins. They have no Apple-like ecosystem to keep their customers spending money. To spend money that might keep a user using an old handset longer makes zero financial sense to them.
But no... Idiotic Fandroids refused to believe that. "Hey.. just wipe boot loader and install new Android Crapola! Kewl!" Well, surprise surprise. The amount of Android junk phones filling up landfills I'm sure would bring a tear to one's eye. All those wasted resources going to build crap.
The lead sentence from that article starts "Apple on Monday pushed out an update addressing a "critical security issue" for OS X..." iOS may have issues but Apple does address them and get them out to EVERYONE in a timely manner. When will Android users get their updates???
That's not the point. The point I was making is that Daniel likes to cherry-pick which news stories he reports on to further his anti-Android agenda. He constantly reports on stories which portray Apple in the most positive light and conveniently glosses over, forgets or outright ignores those that don't.
The post I made is just another example of this. Daniel likes to rail against any and all Android security flaws but when Apple has security flaws of their own suddenly Daniel goes silent.
That's not the point. The point I was making is that Daniel likes to cherry-pick which news stories he reports on to further his anti-Android agenda. He constantly reports on stories which portray Apple in the most positive light and conveniently glosses over, forgets or outright ignores those that don't.
The post I made is just another example of this. Daniel likes to rail against any and all Android security flaws but when Apple has security flaws of their own suddenly Daniel goes silent.
And my point was, Apple will fix them and just about everybody gets the updates in a timely fashion. Not so with Android.
And remember, this is AppleInsider not AndroidInsider so yeah, bias may be towards Apple.
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.
That was the same thing that affected the Samsung Galaxy S GPS, which didn't work very well at all.
Last minute change that Samsung was unprepared for, the iron palm came down, I'd say fist but Google's marketing of Android relied on an "open" myth.
Comments
That's not necessarily true. With the SGS 2 Samsung omitted many of Google's native apps in favor of their own, and Bing as the default search app. Many users scrambled to find ways to get those apps. Google responded by separating its native apps from the OS, and making them available in the Play Store.
My point is that Google does not have the leverage to force any OEM into updating the OS, because Android was never forced upon them in the first place.
If OEMs belonging to the OHA have to abide by conditions set by Google then Google could have included the condition of timely application of updates to the OHA agreement. They could have done that at any point since the inception of the OHA, and that would be tantamount to forcing OEMs to provide updates (unless they want to go without Android). Google didn't do that.
You're forgetting that many carriers are not part of the OHA, and can veto any update created by a OEM.
My point is that Google does not have the leverage to force any OEM into updating the OS, because Android was never forced upon them in the first place.
And the alternative is what? License an OS (thus increasing the cost of their handset) or create/support their own OS? Aside from Samsung and Sony, no OEMs would have the resources to do the latter and hope to succeed. So Google knows most OEMs are painted into a corner they've created by making Android free.
I'm not criticizing it, I'm only explaining it. It is what it is, and there is no alternative right now.
We have four Lollipop devices in use at my house, along with five iOS 8 devices. They all work wonderfully. One of the Lollipop devices is an old Nexus 4, and it works so well that I'd happily switch back to it for a few months if my Moto X went away for some reason. There are no problems with any of the iOS or Android devices we're using.
I'd like to back up Gatorguy's notes on the Moto X, BTW. It's really a great implementation. Here in Austin, we have a new law that you're not allowed to touch any handheld electronic device while you're driving. Right out the box, the Moto X is completely usable for text and voice without ever even looking at it, let alone touching it. Their minor additions (Moto Assist) to Android 5 are very well thought out.
Quote:
"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.
Exactly. If there was a patch in Jelly Bean, it would be a joke even if they advertised it during the Super Bowl. It will never make it to a device, because all of the old devices that are still updated are on 4.4 or 5.0. Any Android older than that has been EOL'd from an update perspective, because of the cost to update these forked OS versions.
There is no practical loss from failing to update it. This just falls back on the known fragmentation situation.
I'm not criticizing it, I'm only explaining it. It is what it is, and there is no alternative right now.
And so we arrive back at the main point, which is that Google could force OEMs to provide updates if they wanted to because most OEMs have no alternative but Android.
There is no practical loss from failing to update it.
Sure there is: millions of people are walking around with phones that have well known security problems and no way to fix that aside from getting a new phone. This could lead to all sorts of fraud being committed against those people, and the subsequence expense of investigating and stopping that fraud. Real-world/practical loss.
Obviously there are people walking around with very old iPhones that have similar problems, but the number of such people is nowhere near as large.
Google couldn't even update its own phone the Galaxy Nexus. How can they then turn around, and force the OEMs into updating?
Sure there is: millions of people are walking around with phones that have well known security problems and no way to fix that aside from getting a new phone. This could lead to all sorts of fraud being committed against those people, and the subsequence expense of investigating and stopping that fraud. Real-world/practical loss.
Obviously there are people walking around with very old iPhones that have similar problems, but the number of such people is nowhere near as large.
That's true, but my point is that Google cannot update those phones alone. Ultimately, the telecoms and mfgrs need to do it, and they are not going to pay for it. Google dropping support for such an old OS is meaningless, because of the post-manufacturing costs of fragmentation.
Google couldn't even update its own phone the Galaxy Nexus. How can they then turn around, and force the OEMs into updating?
Sure, for major OS updates it's fine that some phones just simply don't get them (and Google doesn't force OEMs to provide them). However, major security bugfixes should be back ported and provided to the majority of Android users (and Google does force OEMs to provide them).
Is that sew?
Nothing wrong with being biased towards a given platform, however when Daniel constantly rails against a given platform's insecurities (Android) while conveniently ignoring his favorite platform's own issues (such as this: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/184021/apple-releases-critical-security-update-for-os-x-ntp-services-vulnerability) all while doing so under sockpuppet aliases it smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
The lead sentence from that article starts "Apple on Monday pushed out an update addressing a "critical security issue" for OS X..." iOS may have issues but Apple does address them and get them out to EVERYONE in a timely manner. When will Android users get their updates???
There's no schadenfreude to be had here, this is a suck sandwich for Android peoples on Jelly Bean or earlier. Most if not all of the Android OEMs will predictably drag their feet or do nothing and hope people will quietly upgrade their handsets; that is, after all, the most simplistic yet profitable fix of all.
I've been saying this since day one. Handset makers have ZERO incentive to pour money and resources into porting the newest Android release on a 6-month+ old phone. Zero. They make money selling phones on razor-thin margins. They have no Apple-like ecosystem to keep their customers spending money. To spend money that might keep a user using an old handset longer makes zero financial sense to them.
But no... Idiotic Fandroids refused to believe that. "Hey.. just wipe boot loader and install new Android Crapola! Kewl!" Well, surprise surprise. The amount of Android junk phones filling up landfills I'm sure would bring a tear to one's eye. All those wasted resources going to build crap.
The post I made is just another example of this. Daniel likes to rail against any and all Android security flaws but when Apple has security flaws of their own suddenly Daniel goes silent.
That's not the point. The point I was making is that Daniel likes to cherry-pick which news stories he reports on to further his anti-Android agenda. He constantly reports on stories which portray Apple in the most positive light and conveniently glosses over, forgets or outright ignores those that don't.
The post I made is just another example of this. Daniel likes to rail against any and all Android security flaws but when Apple has security flaws of their own suddenly Daniel goes silent.
And my point was, Apple will fix them and just about everybody gets the updates in a timely fashion. Not so with Android.
And remember, this is AppleInsider not AndroidInsider so yeah, bias may be towards Apple.
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.
That was the same thing that affected the Samsung Galaxy S GPS, which didn't work very well at all.
Last minute change that Samsung was unprepared for, the iron palm came down, I'd say fist but Google's marketing of Android relied on an "open" myth.
You're forgetting that many carriers are not part of the OHA, and can veto any update created by a OEM.
Do we know of any instances of this happening? If a carrier were to veto a security patch for a phone OS I imagine that would get some attention.