4 ms·

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 th

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".
        Oletros 9y ago
        Safetynet is not spyware > 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. What has to do that with the OP claim that Google puts spyware?
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Google Play Services meets all the definitions of spyware. It's built to collect data on your usage and track your location and report it to a third party for their own interests. It's nearly impossible to fully remove, and it has replaced critical parts of core applications so you can't remove it without crippling your own ability to use the device. I get that you're a fan, but it's impossible to define it any other way. And as always, remember that any data Google can collect, the government can collect through them. They have no legal ability to resist those requests. So, your precise location history at all times? Yeah, that's an open book.

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".
        Oletros 9y ago
        Safetynet is not spyware > 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. What has to do that with the OP claim that Google puts spyware?
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Google Play Services meets all the definitions of spyware. It's built to collect data on your usage and track your location and report it to a third party for their own interests. It's nearly impossible to fully remove, and it has replaced critical parts of core applications so you can't remove it without crippling your own ability to use the device. I get that you're a fan, but it's impossible to define it any other way. And as always, remember that any data Google can collect, the government can collect through them. They have no legal ability to resist those requests. So, your precise location history at all times? Yeah, that's an open book.