7 ms·

On one hand, this is a truly incredible accomplishment for Google, and in so little time! On the other, it's sort of amazing this hadn't happened already - so,

On one hand, this is a truly incredible accomplishment for Google, and in so little time! On the other, it's sort of amazing this hadn't happened already - so, so many people in the developing world are entirely reliant on mobile, and mostly use low-end Android phones. I use a Moto G4 and the experience is shockingly good for a device that costs less than a bar tab. It's no wonder that low-end Android's are winning, based on my experience with it. It's not the same caliber of phone as a new iPhone or a Pixel, but the difference is not worth $800. And all of this is mostly open source, runs on Linux using Java, and can be developed on for free. This seems like a good timeline! (even if the API isn't that great)

digi_owl 10y ago
AOSP may be open, but on its own it is a skeleton of a OS. Most of the magic in Android today is housed in Play Services, one of two things Google can push an update for (the other being the Play store app) without any dialog or concent from the device user.
- gtirloni 10y ago
  I'd say the majority of end users are not particularly knowledgeable about Google Play Services and the Store app to make an informed decision on whether to accept or not an update.
  - JBiserkov 10y ago
    I think I agree... and that is a huge problem! The same can be said about Windows Update. Or any computing topic in particular! Which is an even bigger problem.
- rtkwe 10y ago
  That's kind of a demon of necessity though. Originally they did things more in the base OS but getting manufacturers to actually push updates was horrible. Now they can do bug, (minor) security and feature updates through a side channel that bypasses the carriers who don't want to update their older phones when people might go buy new ones instead.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Thing is though that is proprietary to Google, anyone wanting to use AOSP for their own has to clone the APIs. This makes a lie of the whole notion that Android is open source. Yes, the skeleton is open, but the guts are proprietary. And the skeleton on its own is useless.
    - beaner 10y ago
      What makes it useless?
      - WorldMaker 10y ago
        Look at the efforts that Amazon continues to invest in Fire, and CyanogenMod (the Company that Went Bankrupt as opposed to the jailbreak mod that still mostly exists) tried to invest in a Play Store/Play Services competitor, and Samsung is trying to invest in its efforts while also trying to be stealthy about it in its current Cold War with Google... Android (AOSP) forks are numerous, yet competing with Play Store/Play Services seems expensive and onerous. Nontechnical consumers don't see Amazon's Fire as Android, just an Android-like system that runs many Android apps. Nontechnical consumers thought the same about CyanogenMod (the Company)'s efforts. Samsung's Cold War seems so desperate, from the outside, because they are trying to walk that fine line between remaining a consumer Android and yet still distance themselves from Google's control.
        maverick_iceman 10y ago
        AOSP forks seem alive and well in China. But yes, in rest of the world non-Google Android is struggling.
        WorldMaker 10y ago
        I'm curious how many of the Chinese forks label themselves as "Android" and if the Chinese have a different mental model of what "Android" means. Without any first hand knowledge, I'd assume that the balance of things towards WeChat and away from Play Store/Play Services in China might mean that "Android" really does mean something different in Chinese markets? It's easier to sell an "Android" device if the benchmark is "runs WeChat" rather than "runs the apps I see advertised everywhere" (given the near ubiquity of Play Store emblems on American ads) and "runs the collection of apps I've bought over the last few years from the Play Store".
- s73ver 10y ago
  Or the device maker and network provider, both were the bottlenecks in pushing out updates.
- codys 10y ago
  > one of two things Google can push an update for [...] without any dialog or concent One of the two things Google _chooses_ to do this for. Nothing prevents them from doing the same thing for other pieces of software, except, perhaps, their own policy.
dustedrob 10y ago
Agree entirely! However, Google still has a lot of work to do to put some sort of order in the lower end of Android devices like reducing fragmentation, offering a more unified experience for users and making sure that new devices are not shipped with obsolete hardware and software. Android One, for example, is a great initiative that desperately needs to go global.
psy-q 10y ago
Don't forget that the proprietary Google Play Services are required by more and more apps and that Google is doing everything it can to push these services to the largest number of devices by weaving some sort of web of interdependency.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  I agree it isn't perfect, but services that phone home to google servers can't realistically be open source. Google is pushing them insofar as it is trying to make them better. I think it's still a far cry from the state of affairs on iOS or MacOS, and the fact that you can fork it if you are willing to replicate those apis is still reassuring.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > I agree it isn't perfect, but services that phone home to google servers can't realistically be open source. Yes, they can. Google makes a conscious choice not to make them open source. There's no fundamental law or anything saying that they can't. I think the better question is: Why do those services need to phone home? There are plenty of apps that should work just fine without doing that, but don't.
    - mattnewton 10y ago
      Why does location services need to phone home? Or the App Store? Or push notifications? I think most of these are obvious. I am not aware of any non-obvious ones, but if so they are more likely for crash reporting or usage metrics than for advertising.
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        Obviously some of them need to phone home, I'm talking about the ones that don't need to. And, just because it can't phone home doesn't mean it should stop working altogether.
pducks32 10y ago
What I'm most excited for based on my time in Liberia, is when these mobile first citizens wring all the juice out of mobile devices and are able to adopts tablets and then computers. The things they'll be able to do since their grew up on these tiny devices will be incredible.
mtgx 10y ago
It's not so surprising when you consider that those people in developing worlds visit way fewer pages than someone on a broadband connection on a computer would - in part because it's still a smartphone with a small screen (especially the low-budget ones), it's slow, but mainly because data is expensive.
lspears 10y ago
"the experience is shockingly good for a device that costs less than a bar tab" Glad to see someone else lives it up at the bar
- rkirkendall 10y ago
  See you at the Bungalow

digi_owl 10y ago

AOSP may be open, but on its own it is a skeleton of a OS. Most of the magic in Android today is housed in Play Services, one of two things Google can push an update for (the other being the Play store app) without any dialog or concent from the device user.

gtirloni 10y ago
I'd say the majority of end users are not particularly knowledgeable about Google Play Services and the Store app to make an informed decision on whether to accept or not an update.
- JBiserkov 10y ago
  I think I agree... and that is a huge problem! The same can be said about Windows Update. Or any computing topic in particular! Which is an even bigger problem.
rtkwe 10y ago
That's kind of a demon of necessity though. Originally they did things more in the base OS but getting manufacturers to actually push updates was horrible. Now they can do bug, (minor) security and feature updates through a side channel that bypasses the carriers who don't want to update their older phones when people might go buy new ones instead.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Thing is though that is proprietary to Google, anyone wanting to use AOSP for their own has to clone the APIs. This makes a lie of the whole notion that Android is open source. Yes, the skeleton is open, but the guts are proprietary. And the skeleton on its own is useless.
  - beaner 10y ago
    What makes it useless?
    - WorldMaker 10y ago
      Look at the efforts that Amazon continues to invest in Fire, and CyanogenMod (the Company that Went Bankrupt as opposed to the jailbreak mod that still mostly exists) tried to invest in a Play Store/Play Services competitor, and Samsung is trying to invest in its efforts while also trying to be stealthy about it in its current Cold War with Google... Android (AOSP) forks are numerous, yet competing with Play Store/Play Services seems expensive and onerous. Nontechnical consumers don't see Amazon's Fire as Android, just an Android-like system that runs many Android apps. Nontechnical consumers thought the same about CyanogenMod (the Company)'s efforts. Samsung's Cold War seems so desperate, from the outside, because they are trying to walk that fine line between remaining a consumer Android and yet still distance themselves from Google's control.
      - maverick_iceman 10y ago
        AOSP forks seem alive and well in China. But yes, in rest of the world non-Google Android is struggling.
        WorldMaker 10y ago
        I'm curious how many of the Chinese forks label themselves as "Android" and if the Chinese have a different mental model of what "Android" means. Without any first hand knowledge, I'd assume that the balance of things towards WeChat and away from Play Store/Play Services in China might mean that "Android" really does mean something different in Chinese markets? It's easier to sell an "Android" device if the benchmark is "runs WeChat" rather than "runs the apps I see advertised everywhere" (given the near ubiquity of Play Store emblems on American ads) and "runs the collection of apps I've bought over the last few years from the Play Store".
s73ver 10y ago
Or the device maker and network provider, both were the bottlenecks in pushing out updates.
codys 10y ago
> one of two things Google can push an update for [...] without any dialog or concent One of the two things Google _chooses_ to do this for. Nothing prevents them from doing the same thing for other pieces of software, except, perhaps, their own policy.

dustedrob 10y ago

Agree entirely! However, Google still has a lot of work to do to put some sort of order in the lower end of Android devices like reducing fragmentation, offering a more unified experience for users and making sure that new devices are not shipped with obsolete hardware and software. Android One, for example, is a great initiative that desperately needs to go global.

psy-q 10y ago

Don't forget that the proprietary Google Play Services are required by more and more apps and that Google is doing everything it can to push these services to the largest number of devices by weaving some sort of web of interdependency.

mattnewton 10y ago
I agree it isn't perfect, but services that phone home to google servers can't realistically be open source. Google is pushing them insofar as it is trying to make them better. I think it's still a far cry from the state of affairs on iOS or MacOS, and the fact that you can fork it if you are willing to replicate those apis is still reassuring.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > I agree it isn't perfect, but services that phone home to google servers can't realistically be open source. Yes, they can. Google makes a conscious choice not to make them open source. There's no fundamental law or anything saying that they can't. I think the better question is: Why do those services need to phone home? There are plenty of apps that should work just fine without doing that, but don't.
  - mattnewton 10y ago
    Why does location services need to phone home? Or the App Store? Or push notifications? I think most of these are obvious. I am not aware of any non-obvious ones, but if so they are more likely for crash reporting or usage metrics than for advertising.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      Obviously some of them need to phone home, I'm talking about the ones that don't need to. And, just because it can't phone home doesn't mean it should stop working altogether.

pducks32 10y ago

What I'm most excited for based on my time in Liberia, is when these mobile first citizens wring all the juice out of mobile devices and are able to adopts tablets and then computers. The things they'll be able to do since their grew up on these tiny devices will be incredible.

mtgx 10y ago

It's not so surprising when you consider that those people in developing worlds visit way fewer pages than someone on a broadband connection on a computer would - in part because it's still a smartphone with a small screen (especially the low-budget ones), it's slow, but mainly because data is expensive.

lspears 10y ago

"the experience is shockingly good for a device that costs less than a bar tab" Glad to see someone else lives it up at the bar

rkirkendall 10y ago
See you at the Bungalow