5 ms·

"There is still no solution for getting Marshmallow out to the billion+ devices out there." I can't wait for this one to be solved

by ambirex 11y ago

devit 11y ago
Install CyanogenMod 12.2/13.0 when it comes out (probably in 1-3 months according to past performance)
- jasode 11y ago
  I think you've lost sight of the context of the comment you're responding to. A billion non-geek, non-HN, non-ArsTechnica device owners are not going to re-flash their phones with a custom ROM. Those consumers will have to get Android updates as a seamless upgrade from their phone carrier, or not at all. In other words, the "I can't wait for this one to be solved" was not a personal plea for help but instead, a commentary on the old software the 1 billion consumers are stuck with.
  - bagels 11y ago
    Google should really just take over the software side of the Android phones. The current model is a failure. This could provide us with: No more (at least non-google) bloatware No more needless recreated basic features (AT&T messaging, navigation, Samsung Messaging, etc.) Can actually update the OS for security problems
    - wyldfire 11y ago
      Too late. This would fracture Android's identity. As the networks currently pay a subsidy they're effectively Android's customers, at least in part. They like the bloatware. The device manufacturers are able to embed their brand's identity into the device. They're members of OHA and they like "needless recreated basic features."
      - josteink 11y ago
        > As the networks currently pay a subsidy they're effectively Android's customers, at least in part The networks have nothing to say in this in 90% of the world. They're not phone-vendor's customers. They merely want the latest data-gulping phones on their network so they can charge their real customers (people like you and me, which are also the phone-vendor's customers) money for consuming bandwidth. I get that things are messed up in the US, but don't generalize this to the rest of the world. Most networks and cellphone operators around the world sell generic phones, with unmodified software, unlockable bootloaders and carrier-provided SIM cards. And for those phones, which you will find in big parts of the world, having Google responsible for software-updates would work just fine.
  - devit 11y ago
    Well, the solution to that would be for Google to require device manufacturers to make it possible for Google itself or other parties to release software for devices. That means forcing the manufacturers to release the source of any component not behind a stable ABI, and release at least the binaries of any component behind them such as apps (with a suitable license). They have two ways of doing this: 1. Make it a condition for bundling Google Apps 2. Relicense Android with GPLv3 The phone manufacturers aren't really in a position to negotiate (can't lose apps), so they should go along. Once this is done, they can just have the Play Store offer or even require updates to the OS. Not sure what Google gains from not doing this, it seems they are just gifting users to Apple.
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      Because thw majority of the world uses Android. In many countries the choice is between Android and Windows Phone, not iOS. Specially in countries where people go with pre-paid and the average salary cannot afford the usual iOS contracts.
  - prodmerc 11y ago
    I really don't think most of those billion people care. If it works, it works. I still have a backup Droid with 2.3.4 that just keeps working. It doesn't need Marshmallow, nor JB, nor even ICS...
  - jsight 11y ago
    In my experience, many of those don't care if they get the absolute latest version. And I can't blame them as many of the "improved" versions tend to come with battery and performance impacts for older devices. I do wish the vendors would keep up with security fixes, though. That's the real problem with Android updating, IMO.
- th0ma5 11y ago
  Interesting tidbit, you'll probably lose the ability to use Android Pay. A lot of people are having problems due to the enhanced security model. On XDA, in the Nexus 5 General section, a thread was deleted that even had an Android engineer posting unofficially that the enhanced checks are at the behest of the card companies. The new system actually stores an encrypted version of all of your card details, and among other things they check are for root, custom builds, etc.
  - sigmar 11y ago
    http://forum.xda-developers.com/google-nexus-5/help/android-pay-custom-rom-t3199843 http://forum.xda-developers.com/google-nexus-5/help/android-... ^ That is the thread and it was closed, not deleted (a subtle but important distinction)
- AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
  I would love to install CM12/13 on my Verizon HTC One M7. But guess who decided to lock the bootloader?
  - edwhitesell 11y ago
    http://www.htcdev.com/bootloader http://www.htcdev.com/bootloader It's been a while since I've unlocked an HTC for someone else, but I've never had issues with mine.
    - AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
      http://forum.xda-developers.com/verizon-htc-one/help/frequently-questions-t2875695 http://forum.xda-developers.com/verizon-htc-one/help/frequen... Even though Verizon has blocked HTCdev access to unlock our bootloaders... The only option to unlock on these carrier-locked devices is a software exploit that a group of hackers charge $25 to run on your phone.
wstrange 11y ago
Nexus 5,6,7 and 9 will get Marshmallow. This meets my expectations for what is reasonable, but I understand others will have a different opinion.
- r00fus 11y ago
  What about security updates for recent vulnerabilities like Stagefright? - are Google and the manufacturers going to resolve those? I sure hope you don't mind bringing what is essentially a vulnerability vector into whatever wifi networks you connect to... Not changing my policy to deny wifi access to Android (or Win10) devices visiting my house.
  - mappu 11y ago
    I assume your rationale in blocking Android / Windows 10 devices is to only allow secure devices on your network. But if all the other devices are secure, then what is the harm in allowing an insecure device onto the network? I suppose they could become host an exit node or seed an illegal torrent or something, but you (personally) have indemnity as an impartial carrier in that case, right? I'd also suggest looking into a segregated guest network.
IshKebab 11y ago
It really seems like they don't care and aren't working on it.
Raphmedia 11y ago
My android device cost me $100 three years ago and it's on a relatively recent version of Android. I'm not expecting Marshmallow to roll out to my device at all, and nobody that I know who use cheap android device does. Honestly, the features of the OS are not worth upgrading. The only thing that suffer is my gaming abilities. I can't play the most recent games on it... I guess. I don't game on my device. Average Android user don't care if they are not cutting edge. They would be using Apple product if they cared about that at all. The only exception are those users that purchase the high-end products. Those will gladly trade their phones to stay up to date, they are the ones in the statistics that keep up with the latest versions. The average user are using Android because it's "the cheap smartphone". I will move up the chain if main features start to break. So far, browsers, social media networks and all those things have been backward compatible. When they won't, I'll trade in my phone, pay $50 and get another low budget Android phone.
- bjg 11y ago
  I interpreted the statement as being more about the ability to get bug fixes and security patches on these devices than it is about getting access to new features. Right?

"There is still no solution for getting Marshmallow out to the billion+ devices out there." I can't wait for this one to be solved

by ambirex 11y ago

"There is still no solution for getting Marshmallow out to the billion+ devices out there." I can't wait for this one to be solved

devit 11y ago

Install CyanogenMod 12.2/13.0 when it comes out (probably in 1-3 months according to past performance)

jasode 11y ago
I think you've lost sight of the context of the comment you're responding to. A billion non-geek, non-HN, non-ArsTechnica device owners are not going to re-flash their phones with a custom ROM. Those consumers will have to get Android updates as a seamless upgrade from their phone carrier, or not at all. In other words, the "I can't wait for this one to be solved" was not a personal plea for help but instead, a commentary on the old software the 1 billion consumers are stuck with.
- bagels 11y ago
  Google should really just take over the software side of the Android phones. The current model is a failure. This could provide us with: No more (at least non-google) bloatware No more needless recreated basic features (AT&T messaging, navigation, Samsung Messaging, etc.) Can actually update the OS for security problems
  - wyldfire 11y ago
    Too late. This would fracture Android's identity. As the networks currently pay a subsidy they're effectively Android's customers, at least in part. They like the bloatware. The device manufacturers are able to embed their brand's identity into the device. They're members of OHA and they like "needless recreated basic features."
    - josteink 11y ago
      > As the networks currently pay a subsidy they're effectively Android's customers, at least in part The networks have nothing to say in this in 90% of the world. They're not phone-vendor's customers. They merely want the latest data-gulping phones on their network so they can charge their real customers (people like you and me, which are also the phone-vendor's customers) money for consuming bandwidth. I get that things are messed up in the US, but don't generalize this to the rest of the world. Most networks and cellphone operators around the world sell generic phones, with unmodified software, unlockable bootloaders and carrier-provided SIM cards. And for those phones, which you will find in big parts of the world, having Google responsible for software-updates would work just fine.
- devit 11y ago
  Well, the solution to that would be for Google to require device manufacturers to make it possible for Google itself or other parties to release software for devices. That means forcing the manufacturers to release the source of any component not behind a stable ABI, and release at least the binaries of any component behind them such as apps (with a suitable license). They have two ways of doing this: 1. Make it a condition for bundling Google Apps 2. Relicense Android with GPLv3 The phone manufacturers aren't really in a position to negotiate (can't lose apps), so they should go along. Once this is done, they can just have the Play Store offer or even require updates to the OS. Not sure what Google gains from not doing this, it seems they are just gifting users to Apple.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    Because thw majority of the world uses Android. In many countries the choice is between Android and Windows Phone, not iOS. Specially in countries where people go with pre-paid and the average salary cannot afford the usual iOS contracts.
- prodmerc 11y ago
  I really don't think most of those billion people care. If it works, it works. I still have a backup Droid with 2.3.4 that just keeps working. It doesn't need Marshmallow, nor JB, nor even ICS...
- jsight 11y ago
  In my experience, many of those don't care if they get the absolute latest version. And I can't blame them as many of the "improved" versions tend to come with battery and performance impacts for older devices. I do wish the vendors would keep up with security fixes, though. That's the real problem with Android updating, IMO.
th0ma5 11y ago
Interesting tidbit, you'll probably lose the ability to use Android Pay. A lot of people are having problems due to the enhanced security model. On XDA, in the Nexus 5 General section, a thread was deleted that even had an Android engineer posting unofficially that the enhanced checks are at the behest of the card companies. The new system actually stores an encrypted version of all of your card details, and among other things they check are for root, custom builds, etc.
- sigmar 11y ago
  http://forum.xda-developers.com/google-nexus-5/help/android-pay-custom-rom-t3199843 http://forum.xda-developers.com/google-nexus-5/help/android-... ^ That is the thread and it was closed, not deleted (a subtle but important distinction)
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
I would love to install CM12/13 on my Verizon HTC One M7. But guess who decided to lock the bootloader?
- edwhitesell 11y ago
  http://www.htcdev.com/bootloader http://www.htcdev.com/bootloader It's been a while since I've unlocked an HTC for someone else, but I've never had issues with mine.
  - AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
    http://forum.xda-developers.com/verizon-htc-one/help/frequently-questions-t2875695 http://forum.xda-developers.com/verizon-htc-one/help/frequen... Even though Verizon has blocked HTCdev access to unlock our bootloaders... The only option to unlock on these carrier-locked devices is a software exploit that a group of hackers charge $25 to run on your phone.

wstrange 11y ago

Nexus 5,6,7 and 9 will get Marshmallow. This meets my expectations for what is reasonable, but I understand others will have a different opinion.

r00fus 11y ago
What about security updates for recent vulnerabilities like Stagefright? - are Google and the manufacturers going to resolve those? I sure hope you don't mind bringing what is essentially a vulnerability vector into whatever wifi networks you connect to... Not changing my policy to deny wifi access to Android (or Win10) devices visiting my house.
- mappu 11y ago
  I assume your rationale in blocking Android / Windows 10 devices is to only allow secure devices on your network. But if all the other devices are secure, then what is the harm in allowing an insecure device onto the network? I suppose they could become host an exit node or seed an illegal torrent or something, but you (personally) have indemnity as an impartial carrier in that case, right? I'd also suggest looking into a segregated guest network.

IshKebab 11y ago

It really seems like they don't care and aren't working on it.

Raphmedia 11y ago

My android device cost me $100 three years ago and it's on a relatively recent version of Android. I'm not expecting Marshmallow to roll out to my device at all, and nobody that I know who use cheap android device does. Honestly, the features of the OS are not worth upgrading. The only thing that suffer is my gaming abilities. I can't play the most recent games on it... I guess. I don't game on my device. Average Android user don't care if they are not cutting edge. They would be using Apple product if they cared about that at all. The only exception are those users that purchase the high-end products. Those will gladly trade their phones to stay up to date, they are the ones in the statistics that keep up with the latest versions. The average user are using Android because it's "the cheap smartphone". I will move up the chain if main features start to break. So far, browsers, social media networks and all those things have been backward compatible. When they won't, I'll trade in my phone, pay $50 and get another low budget Android phone.

bjg 11y ago
I interpreted the statement as being more about the ability to get bug fixes and security patches on these devices than it is about getting access to new features. Right?