8 ms·

How credible is this source? I don't understand half the decisions outlined in the article. > I also have to imagine the Android update problem (a symptom of

by maheart 10y ago

How credible is this source? I don't understand half the decisions outlined in the article. > I also have to imagine the Android update problem (a symptom of Linux’s modularity) I seriously doubt the Linux kernel is anything but a minor contributor to Android's update problem. Handset developers make their money by selling physical phones. In two years, your average consumer probably doesn't care if their device is still receiving software updates. They'll jump onto a new phone plan, with a fresh, cool new mobile, with a better screen, newer software (features!), and a refreshed battery. Maintaining existing software for customers costs handset manufacturers $$$, and disincentives consumers purchasing new phones (their cash cow). The money is probably better spent (from their POV) on new features, and a marketing budget.

felixge 10y ago
> In two years, your average consumer probably doesn't care if their device is still receiving software updates. They'll jump onto a new phone plan, with a fresh, cool new mobile, with a better screen, newer software (features!), and a refreshed battery. This might be true for the US, where 75% of subscribers are on post-paid (contracts). It's not true for the rest of the world. * Europe: < 50% post-paid * Rest of the world: < 22% post-paid I'd also argue that Android users will be more likely to be pre-paid than post-paid customers (compared to iPhone users) in all of these regions, but I have no data to back it up. Anyway, I agree that it's probably not very profitable, if at all, for android handset makers to support their devices for > 2 years. But I think many customers would benefit from it ... [1] http://www.globalrewardsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/GRS-Mobile-Top-up_Wireless-Market-Statistics-2015.pdf http://www.globalrewardsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/GRS-...
- ianai 10y ago
  I think the "post paid" connection leading to a 2 year lifecycle is suspect. There's a big after market repair industry in the US. Many people have a singular cell phone as their internet device - and it's often ancient by IT terms. 2+ year old hardware needs to be getting software/OS upgrades.
  - majewsky 10y ago
    I favor the proposal of requiring a prominent "Best Before" date for new devices, indicating how long the manufacturer will guarantee the availability of security updates.
    - ianai 10y ago
      That's an SLA and we should all b getting them.
- krzyk 10y ago
  But it is not something related to 2 year upgrade plan. In EU phones have 2 year warranty, after that period most people would like to upgrade it. And more over in parts of the world outside US, the best phones are not always available on contract, you need to buy them on your own (e.g. Nexus line was mostly like that, Pixels probably too). And more over cellular companies put a lot of bloat on the phones, some of them would make malware creators proud (e.g. an app that if you open it after 1 month trial period it will add a recurring cost to our cell bill).
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Also we usually use the mobile phones until they die or get stolen, which is way more than just 2 years.
sangnoir 10y ago
> I seriously doubt the Linux kernel is anything but a minor contributor to Android's update problem The Linux kernel is at the very heart of Android's update problem - not because of "modularity" but because it lacks a stable ABI. Because of this, Android requires handset makers and SoC manufacturers like Qualcomm to provide updated drivers; these parties are perversely disincentivized to do so as they would rather sell more of their latest model/chip. If the Linux kernel's ABI were stable, Google could bypass the manufacturers altogether when sending out updates. The Android ROM community struggles with this - you can update the userspace or overclock the kernel to your heart's content, but you will forever be stuck with whatever kernel version the OEM-supplied drivers support. Edit: added ROM paragraph
- paulfurtado 10y ago
  Just like RHEL/CentOS, couldn't Google maintain a stable kernel ABI throughout a given android major release such that manufacturers could write a driver once, and have it continue working for the lifetime of that major android release?
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    I'm sure they could. Although it seems they would much rather move away from the Linux kernel altogether. Who knows what sort of ABI stability timescales they are aiming for in the replacement kernel.
    - regularfry 10y ago
      The pertinent question is how Google think they're going to convince Qualcomm to write drivers for their new OS, and not just have exactly the same problem they have now. Qualcomm probably quite like the current arrangement where they get to deprecate everyone else's gear on their own schedule.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        With wall street's love for next-quarter accounting, I'm sure Qualcomm will consider the offer, even if it's a one-time bump. Qualcomm is dominating the SoC industry, in part due to how it uses its IP. Fortuitously, Qualcomm are being sued by the DoJ and Apple for anti-competitive practices in multiple jurisdictions and this might blow the SoC field wide open, depending on the rulings. If other chip makers can license Qualcomm's patents on a FRAND basis, Google could offer the deal to MediaTek if Qualcomm declines.
tajen 10y ago
> In two years, your average consumer probably doesn't care if their device is still receiving updates Well, that's exactly why I've bought an iPhone this time. Exactly €1000 lost for the Android ecosystem, just because I want encryption. I know, Android 6.0 has encryption by default, but 4.4 doesn't, and that's the point. The whole story displays a lack of professionalism, in my opinion.
lultimouomo 10y ago
Also, the customers that do care basically don't have much choice. With the Nexus line gone, you have to spend a lot of money for a Pixel to get a decent chance of having updates for a few years. For the past year I've been every now and then looking for a mid-level Android tablet and I've always given up, since they all ship already with an outdated version of Android and slim chances of even getting an update to the current one (let alone future versions)
e12e 10y ago
> Maintaining existing software for customers costs handset manufacturers $$$, and disincentives consumers purchasing new phones (their cash cow). Maybe Google should split play store/app ad income with manufacturers, adding some incentives (50/50 profit split for phones on latest Android, 20/80 for one trailing major version - and then nothing. Or something along those lines). That might have the added benefit (for Google) that manufacturers would have a stake in a healthy play ecosystem. It's the ability to impose a private tax on ads and software that's supposed to be the monetizing strategy for walled gardens, isn't it? If hw is commoditized - manufacturers need another leg to stand on.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  Unintended consequence #1: phones that are too slow to adequately run the latest version will be force-upgraded Windows-10-style even if it degrades the user experience.
  - e12e 10y ago
    Well, maybe be more lenient on trailing versions if, and only if there are timely security updates? I'm not sure the alternative is much better - lots of unpatched insecure phones in use?
discreteevent 10y ago
I think he is just making it up as he goes along. If you look at the fuschia docs or newsgroups all it says is that it they are working on this OS and intend to combine it with flutter to make a fast platform. Nobody says anywhere that it will replace android. It looks just like a lot of these other Google projects. They put people on it. If turns into a contender then they might use it but if in the meantime android introduces features that make it more competitive then maybe they will throw fuschia away. That's my understanding anyway. Also: "I have very strong reservations about Dart as the language of the primary platform API" and then later... "I am not a programmer"

by maheart 10y ago

felixge 10y ago

> In two years, your average consumer probably doesn't care if their device is still receiving software updates. They'll jump onto a new phone plan, with a fresh, cool new mobile, with a better screen, newer software (features!), and a refreshed battery. This might be true for the US, where 75% of subscribers are on post-paid (contracts). It's not true for the rest of the world. * Europe: < 50% post-paid * Rest of the world: < 22% post-paid I'd also argue that Android users will be more likely to be pre-paid than post-paid customers (compared to iPhone users) in all of these regions, but I have no data to back it up. Anyway, I agree that it's probably not very profitable, if at all, for android handset makers to support their devices for > 2 years. But I think many customers would benefit from it ... [1] http://www.globalrewardsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/GRS-Mobile-Top-up_Wireless-Market-Statistics-2015.pdf http://www.globalrewardsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/GRS-...

ianai 10y ago
I think the "post paid" connection leading to a 2 year lifecycle is suspect. There's a big after market repair industry in the US. Many people have a singular cell phone as their internet device - and it's often ancient by IT terms. 2+ year old hardware needs to be getting software/OS upgrades.
- majewsky 10y ago
  I favor the proposal of requiring a prominent "Best Before" date for new devices, indicating how long the manufacturer will guarantee the availability of security updates.
  - ianai 10y ago
    That's an SLA and we should all b getting them.
krzyk 10y ago
But it is not something related to 2 year upgrade plan. In EU phones have 2 year warranty, after that period most people would like to upgrade it. And more over in parts of the world outside US, the best phones are not always available on contract, you need to buy them on your own (e.g. Nexus line was mostly like that, Pixels probably too). And more over cellular companies put a lot of bloat on the phones, some of them would make malware creators proud (e.g. an app that if you open it after 1 month trial period it will add a recurring cost to our cell bill).
- pjmlp 10y ago
  Also we usually use the mobile phones until they die or get stolen, which is way more than just 2 years.

sangnoir 10y ago

> I seriously doubt the Linux kernel is anything but a minor contributor to Android's update problem The Linux kernel is at the very heart of Android's update problem - not because of "modularity" but because it lacks a stable ABI. Because of this, Android requires handset makers and SoC manufacturers like Qualcomm to provide updated drivers; these parties are perversely disincentivized to do so as they would rather sell more of their latest model/chip. If the Linux kernel's ABI were stable, Google could bypass the manufacturers altogether when sending out updates. The Android ROM community struggles with this - you can update the userspace or overclock the kernel to your heart's content, but you will forever be stuck with whatever kernel version the OEM-supplied drivers support. Edit: added ROM paragraph

paulfurtado 10y ago
Just like RHEL/CentOS, couldn't Google maintain a stable kernel ABI throughout a given android major release such that manufacturers could write a driver once, and have it continue working for the lifetime of that major android release?
- sangnoir 10y ago
  I'm sure they could. Although it seems they would much rather move away from the Linux kernel altogether. Who knows what sort of ABI stability timescales they are aiming for in the replacement kernel.
  - regularfry 10y ago
    The pertinent question is how Google think they're going to convince Qualcomm to write drivers for their new OS, and not just have exactly the same problem they have now. Qualcomm probably quite like the current arrangement where they get to deprecate everyone else's gear on their own schedule.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      With wall street's love for next-quarter accounting, I'm sure Qualcomm will consider the offer, even if it's a one-time bump. Qualcomm is dominating the SoC industry, in part due to how it uses its IP. Fortuitously, Qualcomm are being sued by the DoJ and Apple for anti-competitive practices in multiple jurisdictions and this might blow the SoC field wide open, depending on the rulings. If other chip makers can license Qualcomm's patents on a FRAND basis, Google could offer the deal to MediaTek if Qualcomm declines.

tajen 10y ago

> In two years, your average consumer probably doesn't care if their device is still receiving updates Well, that's exactly why I've bought an iPhone this time. Exactly €1000 lost for the Android ecosystem, just because I want encryption. I know, Android 6.0 has encryption by default, but 4.4 doesn't, and that's the point. The whole story displays a lack of professionalism, in my opinion.

lultimouomo 10y ago

Also, the customers that do care basically don't have much choice. With the Nexus line gone, you have to spend a lot of money for a Pixel to get a decent chance of having updates for a few years. For the past year I've been every now and then looking for a mid-level Android tablet and I've always given up, since they all ship already with an outdated version of Android and slim chances of even getting an update to the current one (let alone future versions)

e12e 10y ago

> Maintaining existing software for customers costs handset manufacturers $$$, and disincentives consumers purchasing new phones (their cash cow). Maybe Google should split play store/app ad income with manufacturers, adding some incentives (50/50 profit split for phones on latest Android, 20/80 for one trailing major version - and then nothing. Or something along those lines). That might have the added benefit (for Google) that manufacturers would have a stake in a healthy play ecosystem. It's the ability to impose a private tax on ads and software that's supposed to be the monetizing strategy for walled gardens, isn't it? If hw is commoditized - manufacturers need another leg to stand on.

sangnoir 10y ago
Unintended consequence #1: phones that are too slow to adequately run the latest version will be force-upgraded Windows-10-style even if it degrades the user experience.
- e12e 10y ago
  Well, maybe be more lenient on trailing versions if, and only if there are timely security updates? I'm not sure the alternative is much better - lots of unpatched insecure phones in use?

discreteevent 10y ago

I think he is just making it up as he goes along. If you look at the fuschia docs or newsgroups all it says is that it they are working on this OS and intend to combine it with flutter to make a fast platform. Nobody says anywhere that it will replace android. It looks just like a lot of these other Google projects. They put people on it. If turns into a contender then they might use it but if in the meantime android introduces features that make it more competitive then maybe they will throw fuschia away. That's my understanding anyway. Also: "I have very strong reservations about Dart as the language of the primary platform API" and then later... "I am not a programmer"