3 ms·

It's also incredible that you still don't comprehend that Google cannot update an OS created by another OEM. When you allow an OEM to create their own OS only t

It's also incredible that you still don't comprehend that Google cannot update an OS created by another OEM. When you allow an OEM to create their own OS only they can update it. Your Windows comparison is also flawed because OEM's do not build the OS - they're given the binaries from Microsoft and cannot change them.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
This is, as with every time you've posted it, a complete fiction. Android doesn't become "not Google's OS" because of the shoddy distribution method in use, and Google still does dictate to OEMs what does and doesn't qualify for release, as Google still has effectively complete control of the ecosystem via the MADA/Play Store license.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  Your reply doesn't make sense and you have not answered how it's technically possible for Google to update an OS created by another OEM. Google does not have the source code for the OEM's changes so to expect Google to update their OS would be impossible. It's like asking Debian to update Ubuntu.
  - wmf 9y ago
    The solution is for there to be no OEM changes, just like Windows.
    - bitmapbrother 9y ago
      I agree.
    - kllrnohj 9y ago
      So the solution is for Android to be closed source? I'm not sure I agree with that.
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Android, as distributed, isn't really "open source" in the way you seem to be defining it already: It contains proprietary packages which contain spyware, and OEMs are beholden to Google's requirements with regards to what they can and can't do with the platform. And it is possible for something to be open source (i.e., the source code is public), and still only permitted in an unchanged fashion. As it is today, Google requires Android devices pass the CTS, or Compatibility Test Suite, in order to be eligible to have their proprietary apps, like the Google Play Store, on the device. In the future this will likely simply be another requirement to pass, that Google can push their own updates to the OS layer. The reality is, the idea that someone like Google can write code, and then be unable to push security fixes to it, is patently insane. In 2017, this is completely unacceptable. The idea that an OEM or carrier should be responsible for, or able to interfere with security updates to the OS developer's code is simply not okay. I am a big fan of open source software and customization, but the current situation, where 0.5% of Android devices run the latest version of the OS, is completely unacceptable, and any compromise or cost required to fix that is justified. There's a reasonable chance Android will lose some OEMs over the change, and that is fine. Google needs to focus on security over profit here, and accept that they might lose a little market share to do the right thing and protect their customers' safety.
        fulafel 9y ago
        This is all true, and it's weird that you are getting downvoted for saying it.
        Oletros 9y ago
        No, what he has said is not true, starting for the farcical claim about spyware and ending with the little fact that the OP was talking about Android and ocdtrekkie mixed the proprietary Google apps
        cyphar 9y ago
        > No, what he has said is not true, starting for the farcical claim about spyware Uhm, have you heard of SafetyNet? Even if you ignore the stuff Google is doing, we know for a fact that all cellphone basebands contain code to turn them into listening devices and have universal backdoors. Ever since Snowden blew the lid on this stuff you can't claim that any of this is "farcical".
pjmlp 9y ago
Of course you can, you just need to add required updates to the endless list of legal clauses required to access Goggle Play Services.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  How does your required updates idea work with the carriers? Are you going to add a legal clause for them too?
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    The courts are quite good sorting out those issues.
    - bitmapbrother 9y ago
      Are they? And what about courts in other countries? Are they also good at sorting out those issues?
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        Other companies seem to be able to handle international law.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

This is, as with every time you've posted it, a complete fiction. Android doesn't become "not Google's OS" because of the shoddy distribution method in use, and Google still does dictate to OEMs what does and doesn't qualify for release, as Google still has effectively complete control of the ecosystem via the MADA/Play Store license.

bitmapbrother 9y ago
Your reply doesn't make sense and you have not answered how it's technically possible for Google to update an OS created by another OEM. Google does not have the source code for the OEM's changes so to expect Google to update their OS would be impossible. It's like asking Debian to update Ubuntu.
- wmf 9y ago
  The solution is for there to be no OEM changes, just like Windows.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    I agree.
  - kllrnohj 9y ago
    So the solution is for Android to be closed source? I'm not sure I agree with that.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Android, as distributed, isn't really "open source" in the way you seem to be defining it already: It contains proprietary packages which contain spyware, and OEMs are beholden to Google's requirements with regards to what they can and can't do with the platform. And it is possible for something to be open source (i.e., the source code is public), and still only permitted in an unchanged fashion. As it is today, Google requires Android devices pass the CTS, or Compatibility Test Suite, in order to be eligible to have their proprietary apps, like the Google Play Store, on the device. In the future this will likely simply be another requirement to pass, that Google can push their own updates to the OS layer. The reality is, the idea that someone like Google can write code, and then be unable to push security fixes to it, is patently insane. In 2017, this is completely unacceptable. The idea that an OEM or carrier should be responsible for, or able to interfere with security updates to the OS developer's code is simply not okay. I am a big fan of open source software and customization, but the current situation, where 0.5% of Android devices run the latest version of the OS, is completely unacceptable, and any compromise or cost required to fix that is justified. There's a reasonable chance Android will lose some OEMs over the change, and that is fine. Google needs to focus on security over profit here, and accept that they might lose a little market share to do the right thing and protect their customers' safety.
      - fulafel 9y ago
        This is all true, and it's weird that you are getting downvoted for saying it.
        Oletros 9y ago
        No, what he has said is not true, starting for the farcical claim about spyware and ending with the little fact that the OP was talking about Android and ocdtrekkie mixed the proprietary Google apps
        cyphar 9y ago
        > No, what he has said is not true, starting for the farcical claim about spyware Uhm, have you heard of SafetyNet? Even if you ignore the stuff Google is doing, we know for a fact that all cellphone basebands contain code to turn them into listening devices and have universal backdoors. Ever since Snowden blew the lid on this stuff you can't claim that any of this is "farcical".

pjmlp 9y ago

Of course you can, you just need to add required updates to the endless list of legal clauses required to access Goggle Play Services.

bitmapbrother 9y ago
How does your required updates idea work with the carriers? Are you going to add a legal clause for them too?
- pjmlp 9y ago
  The courts are quite good sorting out those issues.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    Are they? And what about courts in other countries? Are they also good at sorting out those issues?
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Other companies seem to be able to handle international law.