5 ms·

What's frustrating is that People/Google keeps on blaming the OS nature of Android. What they forget is that to put Android on a phone, practically you need Go

What's frustrating is that People/Google keeps on blaming the OS nature of Android. What they forget is that to put Android on a phone, practically you need Google's permission. If Google cared, they could have made it part of the terms and conditions that it has to have security updates for five years. They obviously don't

bitmapbrother 10y ago
When has Google blamed the OS nature of Android? >What they forget is that to put Android on a phone, practically you need Google's permission. I think you're forgetting the hundreds of millions of users that use Android without any Google services. >If Google cared, they could have made it part of the terms and conditions that it has to have security updates for five years. Wouldn't it be nice if it was as simple as that? You seem to think Google has the ability to do whatever they want and have the OEM's fall in line one by one. >They obviously don't In that case they should probably stop investing millions into improving Android security every year and stop releasing security updates each month.
- dispose13432 10y ago
  >I think you're forgetting the hundreds of millions of users that use Android without any Google services. If only the problem was with those phones. Anything in the US except for Amazon is under Google's thumb >Wouldn't it be nice if it was as simple as that? You seem to think Google has the ability to do whatever they want and have the OEM's fall in line one by one. They put their foot down about other things, like branding, app choices. This should be more important. You don't want to port Android 7 to a three year old phone, fine. But to refuse to patch against stagefright?
  - bitmapbrother 10y ago
    >If only the problem was with those phones. Anything in the US except for Amazon is under Google's thumb So you've now qualified it to only phones in the US and devices not from Amazon? >They put their foot down about other things, like branding, app choices. This should be more important. It's a balancing act to keep everyone happy. When it comes to things like creating patches and paying for carrier certification these all cost money and shave off even more margin. Support the OEM's that provide timely OS updates and patches and disregard the rest.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Indeed. Google uses their (probably illegal[0]) contract to mandate that Google+ must be preinstalled on your phone, but not that your phone must get security updates for a reasonable period of time. [0]http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-lawsuit-europe/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-la...
- home_boi 10y ago
  The cost to manufacturers (and the cost passed on to Google) is most likely much higher for security updates than for including Google+/Google Apps
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Google eats none of the cost of supporting Google's buggy OS builds.
krick 10y ago
> They obviously don't All my disdain for Google aside, I wouldn't as well, in a sense you are implying. I develop a product, I care about its quality, I allow you to use its code on your devices. Should I care how badly will you fuck up your own proprietary version of the product I granted you to use? Not the slightest, IMO.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  The problem with this mentality is the idea that people using phones with their Google accounts with apps bought from the Google Play Store with email via (Google)mail which reports their location and other sensitive data to Google are not Google's customers and that Google has no responsibility to them.
  - MBCook 10y ago
    This is the Microsoft problem, right? People bought tons of computers with Windows and they were loaded to hell with crapware. It wasn't MS's fault any more than it was Intel's. They just sold a component to the company (Dell, HP, NoNameBrand, whatever) that put all the crud on the computer. But it was a WINDOWS computer so people blamed Microsoft and said "Why can't you fix this"? They're trying, but because their product was so central to what was being purchased, as well as so obvious and in your face, that people associated them and they got blame they didn't deserve. Same thing can (is?) happening to Android.
    - dispose13432 10y ago
      Well, it is. Once MS puts their foot down over not selling OS/2, they better include clauses that protect the customer.
      - MBCook 10y ago
        I think you may have misread my comment. I said it's "the Microsoft problem", not "Microsoft's problem". Either that or I simply don't understand your comment. Could you clarify?

bitmapbrother 10y ago

When has Google blamed the OS nature of Android? >What they forget is that to put Android on a phone, practically you need Google's permission. I think you're forgetting the hundreds of millions of users that use Android without any Google services. >If Google cared, they could have made it part of the terms and conditions that it has to have security updates for five years. Wouldn't it be nice if it was as simple as that? You seem to think Google has the ability to do whatever they want and have the OEM's fall in line one by one. >They obviously don't In that case they should probably stop investing millions into improving Android security every year and stop releasing security updates each month.

dispose13432 10y ago
>I think you're forgetting the hundreds of millions of users that use Android without any Google services. If only the problem was with those phones. Anything in the US except for Amazon is under Google's thumb >Wouldn't it be nice if it was as simple as that? You seem to think Google has the ability to do whatever they want and have the OEM's fall in line one by one. They put their foot down about other things, like branding, app choices. This should be more important. You don't want to port Android 7 to a three year old phone, fine. But to refuse to patch against stagefright?
- bitmapbrother 10y ago
  >If only the problem was with those phones. Anything in the US except for Amazon is under Google's thumb So you've now qualified it to only phones in the US and devices not from Amazon? >They put their foot down about other things, like branding, app choices. This should be more important. It's a balancing act to keep everyone happy. When it comes to things like creating patches and paying for carrier certification these all cost money and shave off even more margin. Support the OEM's that provide timely OS updates and patches and disregard the rest.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Indeed. Google uses their (probably illegal[0]) contract to mandate that Google+ must be preinstalled on your phone, but not that your phone must get security updates for a reasonable period of time. [0]http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-lawsuit-europe/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-la...

home_boi 10y ago
The cost to manufacturers (and the cost passed on to Google) is most likely much higher for security updates than for including Google+/Google Apps
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Google eats none of the cost of supporting Google's buggy OS builds.

krick 10y ago

> They obviously don't All my disdain for Google aside, I wouldn't as well, in a sense you are implying. I develop a product, I care about its quality, I allow you to use its code on your devices. Should I care how badly will you fuck up your own proprietary version of the product I granted you to use? Not the slightest, IMO.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
The problem with this mentality is the idea that people using phones with their Google accounts with apps bought from the Google Play Store with email via (Google)mail which reports their location and other sensitive data to Google are not Google's customers and that Google has no responsibility to them.
- MBCook 10y ago
  This is the Microsoft problem, right? People bought tons of computers with Windows and they were loaded to hell with crapware. It wasn't MS's fault any more than it was Intel's. They just sold a component to the company (Dell, HP, NoNameBrand, whatever) that put all the crud on the computer. But it was a WINDOWS computer so people blamed Microsoft and said "Why can't you fix this"? They're trying, but because their product was so central to what was being purchased, as well as so obvious and in your face, that people associated them and they got blame they didn't deserve. Same thing can (is?) happening to Android.
  - dispose13432 10y ago
    Well, it is. Once MS puts their foot down over not selling OS/2, they better include clauses that protect the customer.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      I think you may have misread my comment. I said it's "the Microsoft problem", not "Microsoft's problem". Either that or I simply don't understand your comment. Could you clarify?