12 ms·

Too bad the OEMs don't keep up. Only 2% of devices have Android 7 (N). http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/android-distribution-news/ http://www.digitaltrends.c

Too bad the OEMs don't keep up. Only 2% of devices have Android 7 (N). http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/android-distribution-news/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/android-distribution-new...

hehheh 10y ago
I look at these previews as an example of things to come 3 years from now. I keep hoping that Google will figure out a solution to that (restrict access to Play Services, say). Until then, I guess I'll continue targeting API 16.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  That would just make them look for alternatives asap. The basic problem is that updates are an expense once the SKU starts shipping, while spending the same money on a new SKU is an investment. Apple get around this because they own the whole stack. Thus keeping a device going longer means more exposure to their stores. Never mind that even though they release a new iOS in name, major new features are left out for the version pushed to the older devices. Never mind that on Android APIs can be supplied by APKs, and thus we have Play Services. Frankly the only thing Google can do is adopt something akin to what they have on ChromeOS. Split the Android VM layer from the Linux layer, so that they can update the VM layer independently of the kernel and userland layer. Another issue is unless you are looking at white box rebrands, each OEM tailor the Android UI/UX. Unless Google makes it possible to isolate this tailoring from the core Android code, there will still be lag time between Google releasing a new version, and it hitting devices. And that is reliant on the tailored variant fits inside the storage space of the device.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - threeseed 10y ago
    > Never mind that even though they release a new iOS in name, major new features are left out for the version pushed to the older devices. This is simplistic and largely wrong. Only when there is a lack of appropriate hardware e.g. noise cancellation in the A5 chip or inadequate RAM has Apple decided not to port to those older devices. It's not a deliberate policy especially since they have been selling older devices alongside the newer ones. That said for developers it's been about 99% of features available on all devices.
    - saagarjha 10y ago
      Yes, Apple is much better about it; but there are instances where Apple has limited certain features to newer devices when there was no real reason for doing so. Most recently they blocked trivial features such as content blocking and Night Shift from 32 bit devices in their push for 64 bit adoption.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  That is the solution, the contract for accessing Play Services already has quite a few clauses, requiring updates would just be yet another requirement for accessing Play Services.
- endorphone 10y ago
  Until then, I guess I'll continue targeting API 16. I started targeting API 19 (4.4, KitKat) over a year ago and have never looked back. That encompasses the vast bulk of Android users (>85%) and encompasses almost all of the significant developer improvements. Even using the absolute latest fun such as multiple windows is an absolute breeze from the development side, regardless of many users not supporting it yet. As a side benefit, the devices that get excluded are often older, often abandoned devices. I previously tried desperately to support all of those older devices and the reward were a barrage of low ratings by people on poor performing old devices. Android has a planned obsolescence thing. I've gotten use to it.
  - Benjammer 10y ago
    The issue with bad ratings from users with shitty phones where it's actually a miracle you got it to work on their phone at all is such a real pain... "App crashes on open when using my 1989 car phone, 1 star"
  - gcb0 10y ago
    > 85% you are ignoring your own effect on that. The fact that every developer moved to API 19+ is why most users gave up and spent another $400~600 on a new unneeded phone. And thanks to that, no manufacturer will ever support the latest release on a month old phone, because they now know people will just buy a new one.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      The majority of users never spend $400~600 on a new phone. Most of people are on pre-pay and not everyone can afford those prices. Here in this side of the planet, you get KitKat devices around 50 €, then Lollipop start selling around 100 €. For Marshmallow, usually the prices start at 200 € and most devices are only available on a few shops or online. As for Nougat, I am yet to see any shop selling them. So no, most people that just want a phone, any Android phone, will get one of those KitKat/Lollipop devices with their pre-paid card.
    - endorphone 10y ago
      It's a virtuous circle for sure, however there are very decent sub-$200 devices now with Android 6.0+ (many set to receive 7 in the next couple of months). And on the contract side, many consumers are just accustomed to getting a new device every two years regardless, seeming "free", albeit baked into their service fee. At some point the market will settle as the pad market did, however right now the lack of pressure on vendors to support upgrades is also a reflection of a user base that is accustomed to constantly upgrading (better cameras, processors, storage, etc).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- UncleMeat 10y ago
  If you are still targeting 16, you should make sure that you are handling a bunch of pretty serious security changes made between 17-21. There are a lot of ways you can shoot yourself in the foot when using the old APIs.
  - on_and_off 10y ago
    I hope he means that he targets 25 but support 16 as a minimum. Targeting 16 is just incredibly stupid but I have seen some devs unable to read the documentation..
epoch1970 10y ago
It can't help that Google hasn't released a phone comparable in spirit to the Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 phones. We're talking about phones that have a practical size, reasonably good specs, and a $300-$400 price tag. The Nexus 6 and 6P were impractically sized for many users. Even the 5X was too large. The Pixel's sizing is perhaps more tolerable, but the price tag is much too high. People hanging on to a Nexus 5 are out of luck, since it isn't getting Android 7 and beyond. Those with a Nexus 4 are even worse off. While I'd like to use a newer version of Android, I've yet to find a suitable device on the market. Google filled this niche a few years ago, but their recent offerings are no longer suitable.
- ClassyJacket 10y ago
  Also the Pixel updates are still held back by phone companies. If they cared about updates or security they would update their phones directly like Apple.
  - teddyfrozevelt 10y ago
    Updates are all pushed at the same time when Verizon okays it. They don't want to be on the hook for any regulatory issues like E-911 problems so they test it. They also don't test security updates, only major updates.
  - brazzledazzle 10y ago
    I don't know if they have the direct leverage they need. They'd have to force the manufacturers to fight for it if/when their contract negotiations with carriers occur again.
  - soylentcola 10y ago
    I've not seen any updates held back by my carrier (unless, I guess, they don't send them out to anyone until all of the phone companies agree on them). As far as I've seen, I get my ~monthly security patches over the air from Google when the rolling updates hit my phone or I get impatient for an important one and just download it from Google myself.
- 10y ago

Too bad the OEMs don't keep up. Only 2% of devices have Android 7 (N). http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/android-distribution-news/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/android-distribution-new...

hehheh 10y ago

I look at these previews as an example of things to come 3 years from now. I keep hoping that Google will figure out a solution to that (restrict access to Play Services, say). Until then, I guess I'll continue targeting API 16.

digi_owl 10y ago
That would just make them look for alternatives asap. The basic problem is that updates are an expense once the SKU starts shipping, while spending the same money on a new SKU is an investment. Apple get around this because they own the whole stack. Thus keeping a device going longer means more exposure to their stores. Never mind that even though they release a new iOS in name, major new features are left out for the version pushed to the older devices. Never mind that on Android APIs can be supplied by APKs, and thus we have Play Services. Frankly the only thing Google can do is adopt something akin to what they have on ChromeOS. Split the Android VM layer from the Linux layer, so that they can update the VM layer independently of the kernel and userland layer. Another issue is unless you are looking at white box rebrands, each OEM tailor the Android UI/UX. Unless Google makes it possible to isolate this tailoring from the core Android code, there will still be lag time between Google releasing a new version, and it hitting devices. And that is reliant on the tailored variant fits inside the storage space of the device.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- threeseed 10y ago
  > Never mind that even though they release a new iOS in name, major new features are left out for the version pushed to the older devices. This is simplistic and largely wrong. Only when there is a lack of appropriate hardware e.g. noise cancellation in the A5 chip or inadequate RAM has Apple decided not to port to those older devices. It's not a deliberate policy especially since they have been selling older devices alongside the newer ones. That said for developers it's been about 99% of features available on all devices.
  - saagarjha 10y ago
    Yes, Apple is much better about it; but there are instances where Apple has limited certain features to newer devices when there was no real reason for doing so. Most recently they blocked trivial features such as content blocking and Night Shift from 32 bit devices in their push for 64 bit adoption.
pjmlp 10y ago
That is the solution, the contract for accessing Play Services already has quite a few clauses, requiring updates would just be yet another requirement for accessing Play Services.
endorphone 10y ago
Until then, I guess I'll continue targeting API 16. I started targeting API 19 (4.4, KitKat) over a year ago and have never looked back. That encompasses the vast bulk of Android users (>85%) and encompasses almost all of the significant developer improvements. Even using the absolute latest fun such as multiple windows is an absolute breeze from the development side, regardless of many users not supporting it yet. As a side benefit, the devices that get excluded are often older, often abandoned devices. I previously tried desperately to support all of those older devices and the reward were a barrage of low ratings by people on poor performing old devices. Android has a planned obsolescence thing. I've gotten use to it.
- Benjammer 10y ago
  The issue with bad ratings from users with shitty phones where it's actually a miracle you got it to work on their phone at all is such a real pain... "App crashes on open when using my 1989 car phone, 1 star"
- gcb0 10y ago
  > 85% you are ignoring your own effect on that. The fact that every developer moved to API 19+ is why most users gave up and spent another $400~600 on a new unneeded phone. And thanks to that, no manufacturer will ever support the latest release on a month old phone, because they now know people will just buy a new one.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    The majority of users never spend $400~600 on a new phone. Most of people are on pre-pay and not everyone can afford those prices. Here in this side of the planet, you get KitKat devices around 50 €, then Lollipop start selling around 100 €. For Marshmallow, usually the prices start at 200 € and most devices are only available on a few shops or online. As for Nougat, I am yet to see any shop selling them. So no, most people that just want a phone, any Android phone, will get one of those KitKat/Lollipop devices with their pre-paid card.
  - endorphone 10y ago
    It's a virtuous circle for sure, however there are very decent sub-$200 devices now with Android 6.0+ (many set to receive 7 in the next couple of months). And on the contract side, many consumers are just accustomed to getting a new device every two years regardless, seeming "free", albeit baked into their service fee. At some point the market will settle as the pad market did, however right now the lack of pressure on vendors to support upgrades is also a reflection of a user base that is accustomed to constantly upgrading (better cameras, processors, storage, etc).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
UncleMeat 10y ago
If you are still targeting 16, you should make sure that you are handling a bunch of pretty serious security changes made between 17-21. There are a lot of ways you can shoot yourself in the foot when using the old APIs.
- on_and_off 10y ago
  I hope he means that he targets 25 but support 16 as a minimum. Targeting 16 is just incredibly stupid but I have seen some devs unable to read the documentation..

epoch1970 10y ago

It can't help that Google hasn't released a phone comparable in spirit to the Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 phones. We're talking about phones that have a practical size, reasonably good specs, and a $300-$400 price tag. The Nexus 6 and 6P were impractically sized for many users. Even the 5X was too large. The Pixel's sizing is perhaps more tolerable, but the price tag is much too high. People hanging on to a Nexus 5 are out of luck, since it isn't getting Android 7 and beyond. Those with a Nexus 4 are even worse off. While I'd like to use a newer version of Android, I've yet to find a suitable device on the market. Google filled this niche a few years ago, but their recent offerings are no longer suitable.

ClassyJacket 10y ago
Also the Pixel updates are still held back by phone companies. If they cared about updates or security they would update their phones directly like Apple.
- teddyfrozevelt 10y ago
  Updates are all pushed at the same time when Verizon okays it. They don't want to be on the hook for any regulatory issues like E-911 problems so they test it. They also don't test security updates, only major updates.
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  I don't know if they have the direct leverage they need. They'd have to force the manufacturers to fight for it if/when their contract negotiations with carriers occur again.
- soylentcola 10y ago
  I've not seen any updates held back by my carrier (unless, I guess, they don't send them out to anyone until all of the phone companies agree on them). As far as I've seen, I get my ~monthly security patches over the air from Google when the rolling updates hit my phone or I get impatient for an important one and just download it from Google myself.
10y ago