4 ms·

While your comment does apply to the large majority of Android users, there are some things worth keeping in mind: * It applies to non-Nexus/Pixel lines (befor

by r3bl 9y ago

While your comment does apply to the large majority of Android users, there are some things worth keeping in mind: * It applies to non-Nexus/Pixel lines (before you say that this is an invalid argument, most of the Windows devices sold are Lumia devices, so presumably, yours is too). * It applies to people who don't change phones every six months (the amount of people I've witnessed updating Galaxy phones every year is equal to the amount of people I've seen upgrading iPhones every year). * It applies to people not using a relatively recent Samsung (https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb) or LG (https://lgsecurity.lge.com/security_updates.html https://lgsecurity.lge.com/security_updates.html) phones. The only valid security argument is that Windows phones and iPhones have longer support than Google (two years for upgrades to newer versions + one additional year of security updates). That's it. The rest is to blame solely on companies that make Android phones. Google is the only one out of all three that actually gives everyone a chance of using their OS. Microsoft (from what I could find) is only giving Windows Mobile free to some mobile companies. Apple is not providing that option to anyone. If the rest of the companies didn't actually try really hard to stand out from the rest of the Android crowd by modifying vanilla Android, we would have a completely different situation. ...which is another reason why I blame OEMs, not Google.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Unlike the Lumia, Nexus/Pixel is a tiny percentage of the ecosystem, and not representative of the state of Android. And if you're looking to get away from Google as this thread is discussing, buying a $600 phone directly from them seems like moving in the wrong direction. Note that while I do carry a Lumia (the last one that works on Verizon), Microsoft gives equal direct support to phones made by other manufacturers, such as Acer, Alcatel, and HP, whom all receive the same updates at the exact same time. Another security argument for Windows Mobile is actually that while flaws are regularly found and patched in the code due to the shared codebase with Windows desktop, it has a significantly reduced attack surface compared to Windows 10 proper. Nobody invests resources into developing exploits for Windows 10 Mobile, so it's exceedingly unlikely for any to be out there. Security by obscurity is not something you should rely on (I rely on monthly patches), but it does help. Blaming OEMs for Android's update woes relies on some significant misconceptions. First and foremost, every OEM that ships Android devices with Google Play has to sign an agreement binding them to a truly incredible number of terms for how the platform operates and what is on the phone (this is known as the Google MADA). This spans everything from requiring Google's approval to release products to which apps must be preinstalled and set as default on each new device. If Google wished to control updates, they would. Bear in mind that many OEMs offer stock Android or as close to stock Android as possible: If Google was willing to handle updates directly for Android devices, at least a few OEMs would've opted in already. The reality is that creating and testing releases for Android devices is an expensive proposition that Google wants no part in. The way Android devices update was designed and developed by Google, and the position that Google is not responsible for it seems indefensible.

by r3bl 9y ago

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Unlike the Lumia, Nexus/Pixel is a tiny percentage of the ecosystem, and not representative of the state of Android. And if you're looking to get away from Google as this thread is discussing, buying a $600 phone directly from them seems like moving in the wrong direction. Note that while I do carry a Lumia (the last one that works on Verizon), Microsoft gives equal direct support to phones made by other manufacturers, such as Acer, Alcatel, and HP, whom all receive the same updates at the exact same time. Another security argument for Windows Mobile is actually that while flaws are regularly found and patched in the code due to the shared codebase with Windows desktop, it has a significantly reduced attack surface compared to Windows 10 proper. Nobody invests resources into developing exploits for Windows 10 Mobile, so it's exceedingly unlikely for any to be out there. Security by obscurity is not something you should rely on (I rely on monthly patches), but it does help. Blaming OEMs for Android's update woes relies on some significant misconceptions. First and foremost, every OEM that ships Android devices with Google Play has to sign an agreement binding them to a truly incredible number of terms for how the platform operates and what is on the phone (this is known as the Google MADA). This spans everything from requiring Google's approval to release products to which apps must be preinstalled and set as default on each new device. If Google wished to control updates, they would. Bear in mind that many OEMs offer stock Android or as close to stock Android as possible: If Google was willing to handle updates directly for Android devices, at least a few OEMs would've opted in already. The reality is that creating and testing releases for Android devices is an expensive proposition that Google wants no part in. The way Android devices update was designed and developed by Google, and the position that Google is not responsible for it seems indefensible.