I have never met anyone who bought an Android phone with the idea of keeping it for more than two years. That is an important detail.
Resale value isn't that important as all Android phones get discounted with age (many at a young age too), making it pretty much unnecessary to buy a second hand phone in the first place. You are guaranteed to find a new phone at your preferred price point. If you want to sell it on you can, but you would be selling into a market full of new phones at prices for all budgets. If you are selling a current phone it will have excellent resale value.
iOS updates are not always a blessing and Apple has got increasingly agressive in getting users to install major updates.
Case in point iOS 11 update for iPhone 6. You get an update notification. You say NO in the dialogue and get presented with a message asking you to input your passcode. If you read the small greyed out text at the bottom it says that the update will be installed during the early hours of the morning if a WiFi connection is present. Below that is an option to really say NO to the install. That is deliberate and underhand and there is no easy way back if your device is stealth updated.
Having used both systems it's inconvenient not to get the latest Android system update but I far prefer the combination of security updates and Google services. Not least because you can often downgrade installs on a per app basis and you get to decide which ones you actually want to install.
Not being on the latest and greatest isn't all that important for many and is sometimes impossible for iOS users.
My iPad Mini II is stuck on iOS 8 as I didn't want to upgrade the Mac it syncs to, to accommodate the minimum Tunes version that iOS9 required, so fragmentation exists on iOS devices too even if it isn't directly related to the device and iOS.
Well, since the iPad Mini II can use iTunes in iCloud, it isn't fragmentation of iOS so much as obsolescence of your Mac.
You must have a really old Mac not to be able to upgrade to OSX 10, which is what the current iTunes requires.
What year and model do you have?
Which is why I said:
"...so fragmentation exists on iOS devices too even if it isn't directly related to the device and iOS"
However, for me it is fragmentation.
27"iMac late 2009. 10.6.8.
Yes, it's old but Apple doesn't 'get' age.
It dropped Rosetta support in 10.7. slamming the door on my upgrade options.
Ironically. When I hit the iTunes dilemma, iTunes on Windows was supporting Windows way back to XP.
Lovely! With 200 billion dollars sitting in the bank, Rosetta couldn't be updated and iOS couldn't stretch back to cover an older iTunes.
Before you ask. I have more modern MBP's and Airs running later OS versions but they have iTunes libraries for other uses/users.
My Mini syncs with the iMac.
So your "fragmentation" is that you won't update to Mac OSX 10.10 because you want to run legacy programs using Rosetta?
Seriously, this is your complaint? It has nothing to do with iOS, and everything to do with your wanting to keep OSX 10.6 for Rosetta.
I have never met anyone who bought an Android phone with the idea of keeping it for more than two years. That is an important detail.
Resale value isn't that important as all Android phones get discounted with age (many at a young age too), making it pretty much unnecessary to buy a second hand phone in the first place. You are guaranteed to find a new phone at your preferred price point. If you want to sell it on you can, but you would be selling into a market full of new phones at prices for all budgets. If you are selling a current phone it will have excellent resale value.
iOS updates are not always a blessing and Apple has got increasingly agressive in getting users to install major updates.
Case in point iOS 11 update for iPhone 6. You get an update notification. You say NO in the dialogue and get presented with a message asking you to input your passcode. If you read the small greyed out text at the bottom it says that the update will be installed during the early hours of the morning if a WiFi connection is present. Below that is an option to really say NO to the install. That is deliberate and underhand and there is no easy way back if your device is stealth updated.
Having used both systems it's inconvenient not to get the latest Android system update but I far prefer the combination of security updates and Google services. Not least because you can often downgrade installs on a per app basis and you get to decide which ones you actually want to install.
Not being on the latest and greatest isn't all that important for many and is sometimes impossible for iOS users.
My iPad Mini II is stuck on iOS 8 as I didn't want to upgrade the Mac it syncs to, to accommodate the minimum Tunes version that iOS9 required, so fragmentation exists on iOS devices too even if it isn't directly related to the device and iOS.
Well, since the iPad Mini II can use iTunes in iCloud, it isn't fragmentation of iOS so much as obsolescence of your Mac.
You must have a really old Mac not to be able to upgrade to OSX 10, which is what the current iTunes requires.
What year and model do you have?
Which is why I said:
"...so fragmentation exists on iOS devices too even if it isn't directly related to the device and iOS"
However, for me it is fragmentation.
27"iMac late 2009. 10.6.8.
Yes, it's old but Apple doesn't 'get' age.
It dropped Rosetta support in 10.7. slamming the door on my upgrade options.
Ironically. When I hit the iTunes dilemma, iTunes on Windows was supporting Windows way back to XP.
Lovely! With 200 billion dollars sitting in the bank, Rosetta couldn't be updated and iOS couldn't stretch back to cover an older iTunes.
Before you ask. I have more modern MBP's and Airs running later OS versions but they have iTunes libraries for other uses/users.
My Mini syncs with the iMac.
So your "fragmentation" is that you won't update to Mac OSX 10.10 because you want to run legacy programs using Rosetta?
Seriously, this is your complaint? It has nothing to do with iOS, and everything to do with your wanting to keep OSX 10.6 for Rosetta.
Who does that other than you?
That machine is stuck on 10.6.8 because of Apple. Not because I want it to be on 10 6.8.
I happen to have 1000s of documents that require Rosetta. I don't have a problem with reality but the only way to deal with it is to stay on 10.6.8. I still have a Sawtooth with Tiger, too.
Let me repeat what I said. Apple had nearly 200BILLION sitting in the bank and couldn't find a way to squeeze more life out of Rosetta.
Don't you have thousands of documents you need to access from years ago? Haven't you ever been told which applications/formats you have to use for a job?
If iOS 9 had been compatible with the last version of iTunes for 10.6.8, I wouldn't have this problem. It really is as simple as that. And don't get me started on the utter mess that is iTunes. This is reality and whether you like it or not, it is also fragmentation. Apple didn't even support its own security utility from OS9!
The problem itself comes from Apple choosing a yearly upgrade cycle and seriously rearranging the furniture with each attempt.
When you create a file format from within a huge multinational you should accept a responsibility to support what you create going forward. If you cannot support it you should allow others to have access to the format details so that documents can be read using third party tools. Believe me, if I were CEO of Apple, Finder would be able to read every single Apple document format ever created, I would have emulators for old systems and it could all be done with just a miniscule fraction of that cash pile.
We are still in a digital infancy but that doesn't mean we shouldn't laying the infrastructure to keep documents alive well, well into the future. Thankfully we are at least now tackling the issue. Perhaps you have little or no need for true archiving but this area is one massive headache, especially in the fields of science and education.
Not only file format compatibility but also moving and storing data. The amount of data that CERN, for example, generates is mindboggling. It has to be managed and accessible. For CERN alone that is over 200 petabytes on tape and huge amounts of that data is sent all over the world requiring analysis, visualisation tools etc. I have first hand knowledge of this as I do contract work at data centres where some of the data is held and at supercomputing centres where visualisation work is carried out.
Well, for me, my data is just as important as cern's and I do what I can to keep access to it.
I have never met anyone who bought an Android phone with the idea of keeping it for more than two years. That is an important detail.
Resale value isn't that important as all Android phones get discounted with age (many at a young age too), making it pretty much unnecessary to buy a second hand phone in the first place. You are guaranteed to find a new phone at your preferred price point. If you want to sell it on you can, but you would be selling into a market full of new phones at prices for all budgets. If you are selling a current phone it will have excellent resale value.
iOS updates are not always a blessing and Apple has got increasingly agressive in getting users to install major updates.
Case in point iOS 11 update for iPhone 6. You get an update notification. You say NO in the dialogue and get presented with a message asking you to input your passcode. If you read the small greyed out text at the bottom it says that the update will be installed during the early hours of the morning if a WiFi connection is present. Below that is an option to really say NO to the install. That is deliberate and underhand and there is no easy way back if your device is stealth updated.
Having used both systems it's inconvenient not to get the latest Android system update but I far prefer the combination of security updates and Google services. Not least because you can often downgrade installs on a per app basis and you get to decide which ones you actually want to install.
Not being on the latest and greatest isn't all that important for many and is sometimes impossible for iOS users.
My iPad Mini II is stuck on iOS 8 as I didn't want to upgrade the Mac it syncs to, to accommodate the minimum Tunes version that iOS9 required, so fragmentation exists on iOS devices too even if it isn't directly related to the device and iOS.
Well, since the iPad Mini II can use iTunes in iCloud, it isn't fragmentation of iOS so much as obsolescence of your Mac.
You must have a really old Mac not to be able to upgrade to OSX 10, which is what the current iTunes requires.
What year and model do you have?
Which is why I said:
"...so fragmentation exists on iOS devices too even if it isn't directly related to the device and iOS"
However, for me it is fragmentation.
27"iMac late 2009. 10.6.8.
Yes, it's old but Apple doesn't 'get' age.
It dropped Rosetta support in 10.7. slamming the door on my upgrade options.
Ironically. When I hit the iTunes dilemma, iTunes on Windows was supporting Windows way back to XP.
Lovely! With 200 billion dollars sitting in the bank, Rosetta couldn't be updated and iOS couldn't stretch back to cover an older iTunes.
Before you ask. I have more modern MBP's and Airs running later OS versions but they have iTunes libraries for other uses/users.
My Mini syncs with the iMac.
So your "fragmentation" is that you won't update to Mac OSX 10.10 because you want to run legacy programs using Rosetta?
Seriously, this is your complaint? It has nothing to do with iOS, and everything to do with your wanting to keep OSX 10.6 for Rosetta.
Who does that other than you?
That machine is stuck on 10.6.8 because of Apple. Not because I want it to be on 10 6.8.
I happen to have 1000s of documents that require Rosetta. I don't have a problem with reality but the only way to deal with it is to stay on 10.6.8. I still have a Sawtooth with Tiger, too.
Let me repeat what I said. Apple had nearly 200BILLION sitting in the bank and couldn't find a way to squeeze more life out of Rosetta.
Don't you have thousands of documents you need to access from years ago? Haven't you ever been told which applications/formats you have to use for a job?
If iOS 9 had been compatible with the last version of iTunes for 10.6.8, I wouldn't have this problem. It really is as simple as that. And don't get me started on the utter mess that is iTunes. This is reality and whether you like it or not, it is also fragmentation. Apple didn't even support its own security utility from OS9!
The problem itself comes from Apple choosing a yearly upgrade cycle and seriously rearranging the furniture with each attempt.
When you create a file format from within a huge multinational you should accept a responsibility to support what you create going forward. If you cannot support it you should allow others to have access to the format details so that documents can be read using third party tools. Believe me, if I were CEO of Apple, Finder would be able to read every single Apple document format ever created, I would have emulators for old systems and it could all be done with just a miniscule fraction of that cash pile.
We are still in a digital infancy but that doesn't mean we shouldn't laying the infrastructure to keep documents alive well, well into the future. Thankfully we are at least now tackling the issue. Perhaps you have little or no need for true archiving but this area is one massive headache, especially in the fields of science and education.
Not only file format compatibility but also moving and storing data. The amount of data that CERN, for example, generates is mindboggling. It has to be managed and accessible. For CERN alone that is over 200 petabytes on tape and huge amounts of that data is sent all over the world requiring analysis, visualisation tools etc. I have first hand knowledge of this as I do contract work at data centres where some of the data is held and at supercomputing centres where visualisation work is carried out.
Well, for me, my data is just as important as cern's and I do what I can to keep access to it.
We've been hearing about Google potentially building its own chips, but how will it fund such a massive undertaking when it can barely sell 4.5m Pixel phones across two years, and can’t sell tablet despite a decade of trying?
Pull some magic answer out of your butt because there’s no rational answer in the real world.
Are you suggesting that Google's relative lack of success in hardware means they're short of cash? Because that seems a rather flawed line of argument.
Is Microsoft short of cash? Is it still making Zunes and Surface RT?
No? Why do you think that might be?
Is Google making Nexus Players? Why do you suppose not?
Despite the theory that "Google is our friend blowing stupid amounts of cash on horseshit going nowhere and will forever," it is actually a public company.
This article is dishonest by omission. It makes some fair points but the lack of honesty betrays the core point.
1) No mention of Project Treble. For those not aware, Project Treble is Google's development of a stable HAL between the vendor implementation (Qualcomm, Samsung/Exynos, Mediatek, Huawei/Kirin) and the system (Android). All devices launching on Android 8 or higher are required by Google to be able to boot a generic AOSP system image (GSI). Moving forward, this means that even if the chip maker obsoletes their drivers, it won't matter, because Android the OS will have a robust HAL that allows the new OS to talk to the old vendor implementation. As part of this, Google got the Linux Kernel LTS maintainer to agree to provide six (6) years of security patches to the kernel instead of the current two (2) year support. How can Google or any other manufacturer be expected to provide security updates to the Linux kernel when the Linux kernel maintainers themselves aren't? This is now fixed. Google couldn't provide long term security or update support in large part because of the Linux kernel, but now they can.
2) it's been discussed ad-nauseaum, but Apple OS updates and Google OS updates are very different. Google releases its core apps as store updates, not bundled with the OS, whereas Apple you need the new version to get the new core apps. While Android devices should run the latest software (see #1), an 'outdated' Android device is very different from an outdated iOS device.
Are these excuses? No, not at all, they are/were very real problems inside of the Google ecosystem. But for someone writing an article on Google device obsolescence and completely leave out all that Google has been doing (and succeeding at) over the last year to fix the problems?
Dishonest, very dishonest.
Google chose not to support Trebel on the Nexus phones and Pixel C referred to in this article last year. So it could have supported those users, but decided they weren't worth it.
If Google can't be bothered to implement Trebel, why will the Android licensees that already can't be bothered to ship updates go through this extra work to make sure people who previously gave them money will keep using an old phone that doesn't benefit said maker anymore?
If you're going to complain about dishonestly leaving out facts to create a misleading argument, take a look in the mirror.
Google's upcoming release of the next version of Android OS will abandon support for all Nexus-branded phones and its sole remaining tablet product, Pixel C, ending future updates for products that were sold two years ago.
Not entirely accurate as they will still receive monthly security updates. They'll also receive continue to receive updates to the Google core apps. They won't receive the Android P operating system tho as you properly pointed out. In fairness, and as the author likely knows, this is less impactful on an Android device than it would be on an iDevice not receiving an OS update as Google has increasingly separated new features announced with new OS versions as well as current security updates from needing a full OS update to receive them.
Of course it would still be better to receive the full OS, advantage Apple here to no surprise. The rumors of Google creating their own chips could certainly be due in part to Qualcomm and their reported lack of ongoing support for older processors.
It is entirely acccurate because software patches (if Google actually maintains them; it has a history of forgetting about hardware it sold that has serious security flaws) are not “future updates of products.”
Do you get paid to make excuses for Google, or are you just volunteering your time?
We've been hearing about Google potentially building its own chips, but how will it fund such a massive undertaking when it can barely sell 4.5m Pixel phones across two years, and can’t sell tablet despite a decade of trying?
Pull some magic answer out of your butt because there’s no rational answer in the real world.
I'm new here and was hoping for a better experience than what's taken over Macrumors and the other tech sites. Maybe there's bad blood I'm not aware of but wow! Daniel, why the snark and insults? Nothing Gatorguy said seemed to be inciteful. In my brief time here, I've found your articles in-depth and informative but sprinkled with a little too much attitude, cynicism and a touch of superiority. Why all the hate?
Anyone who has been here a long while know Gator's schtick, 100% shilling for Google. Pops up in a thread at the mere mention of Google for years and years, go into his history if you want a full recap.
The fact you mention MacRumor which has become a cessspool of pseudo Apple "lovers" is a bit of a joke really.
It is whining about Apple being a crap almost ALL THE TIME.
I wouldn't be surprised if nobody who actually likes Apple product goes there anymore cause moderation has basically let the trolls run wild.
There is almost nothing Apple or Mac like about that site, only 100% tolerance for Android trolls and reactionaries claiming to have bought Apple stuff in a past life or a decade ago and saying that now Apple is crap... Almost 100% clickbait titles.
Google's upcoming release of the next version of Android OS will abandon support for all Nexus-branded phones and its sole remaining tablet product, Pixel C, ending future updates for products that were sold two years ago.
Not entirely accurate as they will still receive monthly security updates. They'll also receive continue to receive updates to the Google core apps. They won't receive the Android P operating system tho as you properly pointed out. In fairness, and as the author likely knows, this is less impactful on an Android device than it would be on an iDevice not receiving an OS update as Google has increasingly separated new features announced with new OS versions as well as current security updates from needing a full OS update to receive them.
Of course it would still be better to receive the full OS, advantage Apple here to no surprise. The rumors of Google creating their own chips could certainly be due in part to Qualcomm and their reported lack of ongoing support for older processors.
It is entirely acccurate because software patches (if Google actually maintains them; it has a history of forgetting about hardware it sold that has serious security flaws) are not “future updates of products.”
Do you get paid to make excuses for Google, or are you just volunteering your time?
We've been hearing about Google potentially building its own chips, but how will it fund such a massive undertaking when it can barely sell 4.5m Pixel phones across two years, and can’t sell tablet despite a decade of trying?
Pull some magic answer out of your butt because there’s no rational answer in the real world.
I'm new here and was hoping for a better experience than what's taken over Macrumors and the other tech sites. Maybe there's bad blood I'm not aware of but wow! Daniel, why the snark and insults? Nothing Gatorguy said seemed to be inciteful. In my brief time here, I've found your articles in-depth and informative but sprinkled with a little too much attitude, cynicism and a touch of superiority. Why all the hate?
Have you read anything GatorGuy writes? It’s all inciteful and deceptive.
Google's upcoming release of the next version of Android OS will abandon support for all Nexus-branded phones and its sole remaining tablet product, Pixel C, ending future updates for products that were sold two years ago.
Not entirely accurate as they will still receive monthly security updates. They'll also receive continue to receive updates to the Google core apps. They won't receive the Android P operating system tho as you properly pointed out. In fairness, and as the author likely knows, this is less impactful on an Android device than it would be on an iDevice not receiving an OS update as Google has increasingly separated new features announced with new OS versions as well as current security updates from needing a full OS update to receive them.
Of course it would still be better to receive the full OS, advantage Apple here to no surprise. The rumors of Google creating their own chips could certainly be due in part to Qualcomm and their reported lack of ongoing support for older processors.
It is entirely acccurate because software patches (if Google actually maintains them; it has a history of forgetting about hardware it sold that has serious security flaws) are not “future updates of products.”
Do you get paid to make excuses for Google, or are you just volunteering your time?
We've been hearing about Google potentially building its own chips, but how will it fund such a massive undertaking when it can barely sell 4.5m Pixel phones across two years, and can’t sell tablet despite a decade of trying?
Pull some magic answer out of your butt because there’s no rational answer in the real world.
I'm new here and was hoping for a better experience than what's taken over Macrumors and the other tech sites. Maybe there's bad blood I'm not aware of but wow! Daniel, why the snark and insults? Nothing Gatorguy said seemed to be inciteful. In my brief time here, I've found your articles in-depth and informative but sprinkled with a little too much attitude, cynicism and a touch of superiority. Why all the hate?
Have you read anything GatorGuy writes? It’s all inciteful and deceptive.
Everything I write is deceptive and inciteful? Then an example should be really easy? Just one will do. Perhaps you meant insightful.
We've been hearing about Google potentially building its own chips, but how will it fund such a massive undertaking when it can barely sell 4.5m Pixel phones across two years, and can’t sell tablet despite a decade of trying?
Pull some magic answer out of your butt because there’s no rational answer in the real world.
Are you suggesting that Google's relative lack of success in hardware means they're short of cash? Because that seems a rather flawed line of argument.
Is Microsoft short of cash? Is it still making Zunes and Surface RT?
No? Why do you think that might be?
Is Google making Nexus Players? Why do you suppose not?
Despite the theory that "Google is our friend blowing stupid amounts of cash on horseshit going nowhere and will forever," it is actually a public company.
What has that got to do with whether Google can fund the design and/or fab of their own chips?
Obviously they can fund that, they are plenty cash and income rich.
Whether it’d be a wise investment is a completely different question.
This article is dishonest by omission. It makes some fair points but the lack of honesty betrays the core point.
1) No mention of Project Treble. For those not aware, Project Treble is Google's development of a stable HAL between the vendor implementation (Qualcomm, Samsung/Exynos, Mediatek, Huawei/Kirin) and the system (Android). All devices launching on Android 8 or higher are required by Google to be able to boot a generic AOSP system image (GSI). Moving forward, this means that even if the chip maker obsoletes their drivers, it won't matter, because Android the OS will have a robust HAL that allows the new OS to talk to the old vendor implementation. As part of this, Google got the Linux Kernel LTS maintainer to agree to provide six (6) years of security patches to the kernel instead of the current two (2) year support. How can Google or any other manufacturer be expected to provide security updates to the Linux kernel when the Linux kernel maintainers themselves aren't? This is now fixed. Google couldn't provide long term security or update support in large part because of the Linux kernel, but now they can.
2) it's been discussed ad-nauseaum, but Apple OS updates and Google OS updates are very different. Google releases its core apps as store updates, not bundled with the OS, whereas Apple you need the new version to get the new core apps. While Android devices should run the latest software (see #1), an 'outdated' Android device is very different from an outdated iOS device.
Are these excuses? No, not at all, they are/were very real problems inside of the Google ecosystem. But for someone writing an article on Google device obsolescence and completely leave out all that Google has been doing (and succeeding at) over the last year to fix the problems?
Dishonest, very dishonest.
Can you be sure a hardware abstraction layer will not reduce the efficiency of the stack? Look back at Android’s disk encryption, forever switched off by default due to Google recognizing its drag on system performance. iOS has been doing full disk encryption for how long, without even a setting to turn it off? These two OSes are fundamentally different in their performance and support for their customer bases, with Google now creating a hardware abstraction layer to deal with 10 years of hack development. Yeah, I’ll stick with iOS, thanks.
Where have you been? FDE has been mandatory on Android for the last 2.5 years, ever since version 6. It's really hard to have basic discussions with someone when you're 3 years behind on the actual facts. To that end, the Pixel 2 devices don't benchmark any more slowly than other devices running the same hardware and without the Treble HAL.
I'm not trying to convince anybody to switch. I'm telling you that your basic facts are wrong. We're not even at interpretation and commentary yet, we're at basic facts.
Google's upcoming release of the next version of Android OS will abandon support for all Nexus-branded phones and its sole remaining tablet product, Pixel C, ending future updates for products that were sold two years ago.
Not entirely accurate as they will still receive monthly security updates. They'll also receive continue to receive updates to the Google core apps. They won't receive the Android P operating system tho as you properly pointed out. In fairness, and as the author likely knows, this is less impactful on an Android device than it would be on an iDevice not receiving an OS update as Google has increasingly separated new features announced with new OS versions as well as current security updates from needing a full OS update to receive them.
Of course it would still be better to receive the full OS, advantage Apple here to no surprise. The rumors of Google creating their own chips could certainly be due in part to Qualcomm and their reported lack of ongoing support for older processors.
It is entirely acccurate because software patches (if Google actually maintains them; it has a history of forgetting about hardware it sold that has serious security flaws) are not “future updates of products.”
Do you get paid to make excuses for Google, or are you just volunteering your time?
We've been hearing about Google potentially building its own chips, but how will it fund such a massive undertaking when it can barely sell 4.5m Pixel phones across two years, and can’t sell tablet despite a decade of trying?
Pull some magic answer out of your butt because there’s no rational answer in the real world.
I'm new here and was hoping for a better experience than what's taken over Macrumors and the other tech sites. Maybe there's bad blood I'm not aware of but wow! Daniel, why the snark and insults? Nothing Gatorguy said seemed to be inciteful. In my brief time here, I've found your articles in-depth and informative but sprinkled with a little too much attitude, cynicism and a touch of superiority. Why all the hate?
Have you read anything GatorGuy writes? It’s all inciteful and deceptive.
Everything I write is deceptive and inciteful? Then an example should be really easy? Just one will do. Perhaps you meant insightful.
Comments
Seriously, this is your complaint? It has nothing to do with iOS, and everything to do with your wanting to keep OSX 10.6 for Rosetta.
Who does that other than you?
I happen to have 1000s of documents that require Rosetta. I don't have a problem with reality but the only way to deal with it is to stay on 10.6.8. I still have a Sawtooth with Tiger, too.
Let me repeat what I said. Apple had nearly 200 BILLION sitting in the bank and couldn't find a way to squeeze more life out of Rosetta.
Don't you have thousands of documents you need to access from years ago? Haven't you ever been told which applications/formats you have to use for a job?
If iOS 9 had been compatible with the last version of iTunes for 10.6.8, I wouldn't have this problem. It really is as simple as that. And don't get me started on the utter mess that is iTunes. This is reality and whether you like it or not, it is also fragmentation. Apple didn't even support its own security utility from OS9!
The problem itself comes from Apple choosing a yearly upgrade cycle and seriously rearranging the furniture with each attempt.
When you create a file format from within a huge multinational you should accept a responsibility to support what you create going forward. If you cannot support it you should allow others to have access to the format details so that documents can be read using third party tools. Believe me, if I were CEO of Apple, Finder would be able to read every single Apple document format ever created, I would have emulators for old systems and it could all be done with just a miniscule fraction of that cash pile.
We are still in a digital infancy but that doesn't mean we shouldn't laying the infrastructure to keep documents alive well, well into the future. Thankfully we are at least now tackling the issue. Perhaps you have little or no need for true archiving but this area is one massive headache, especially in the fields of science and education.
Not only file format compatibility but also moving and storing data. The amount of data that CERN, for example, generates is mindboggling. It has to be managed and accessible. For CERN alone that is over 200 petabytes on tape and huge amounts of that data is sent all over the world requiring analysis, visualisation tools etc. I have first hand knowledge of this as I do contract work at data centres where some of the data is held and at supercomputing centres where visualisation work is carried out.
Well, for me, my data is just as important as cern's and I do what I can to keep access to it.
No? Why do you think that might be?
Is Google making Nexus Players? Why do you suppose not?
If Google can't be bothered to implement Trebel, why will the Android licensees that already can't be bothered to ship updates go through this extra work to make sure people who previously gave them money will keep using an old phone that doesn't benefit said maker anymore?
Obviously they can fund that, they are plenty cash and income rich.
Whether it’d be a wise investment is a completely different question.
I'm not trying to convince anybody to switch. I'm telling you that your basic facts are wrong. We're not even at interpretation and commentary yet, we're at basic facts.