4 ms·

I understand the frustration in Google not solving this sooner, but from your comment it seems like they have solved it (with Android 9) and you still seem anno

by Andrex 7y ago

I understand the frustration in Google not solving this sooner, but from your comment it seems like they have solved it (with Android 9) and you still seem annoyed?

pjmlp 7y ago
My wallet is annoyed. And as I replied to another comment, that is only one example among many. I could write about Java 12 support, audio API, the constant changes in background processes, the multiple reboots on the UI framework, how NDK is handled and plenty others.
- izacus 7y ago
  So how would you "fix" the issue? E.g. how would you add Vulcan on devices that do not have GPUs capable of Vulkan requirements and no proper drivers?
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Have made it compulsory on Android 7, and like Microsoft has done multiple times, specify what the hardware requirements for any device should be. And since Android 1, have made OS updates a requirement of the Android licence contract for Google services.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      The first part of your solution conflicts with the second. You cannot both require new hardware for an OS version and require OS updates for old hardware.
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        It works for the PC market, as incredible as it may sound. Those minimum requirements aren't set in stone, and OEMs seem to comply with them, strangely.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > Those minimum requirements aren't set in stone is in direct disagreement with > Have made it compulsory on Android 7 which is my point.
    - kalleboo 7y ago
      And if they did that, instead you would have just bought a phone that was stuck on Android 6 > made OS updates a requirement of the Android licence contract Now you're being contradictory. You want to force manufacturers to always update to the new Android versions. But you ALSO want to make Android 7 require specific hardware features. How could these requirements work together?
      - pjmlp 7y ago
        The same way they have worked forever on the PC world. OS updates always work with fallbacks, and minimum hardware specifications get revised every few years. Google can ask Microsoft how to do it.
        kalleboo 7y ago
        That is something Google could do to actually solve things - make the OS binary compatible (rather than requiring device manufacturers to recompile) with driver blob plug-ins. It would require a change to the Linux driver ABI model but without know anything about Android I kind of assume they've already done that.
        pjmlp 7y ago
        That is the point of Project Treble, where drivers run as user space processes and use Android IPC to talk with the kernel. But, big but, the OEMs are free to decide when and how those updates are made available to users.

by Andrex 7y ago

I understand the frustration in Google not solving this sooner, but from your comment it seems like they have solved it (with Android 9) and you still seem annoyed?

pjmlp 7y ago

My wallet is annoyed. And as I replied to another comment, that is only one example among many. I could write about Java 12 support, audio API, the constant changes in background processes, the multiple reboots on the UI framework, how NDK is handled and plenty others.

izacus 7y ago
So how would you "fix" the issue? E.g. how would you add Vulcan on devices that do not have GPUs capable of Vulkan requirements and no proper drivers?
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Have made it compulsory on Android 7, and like Microsoft has done multiple times, specify what the hardware requirements for any device should be. And since Android 1, have made OS updates a requirement of the Android licence contract for Google services.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    The first part of your solution conflicts with the second. You cannot both require new hardware for an OS version and require OS updates for old hardware.
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      It works for the PC market, as incredible as it may sound. Those minimum requirements aren't set in stone, and OEMs seem to comply with them, strangely.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > Those minimum requirements aren't set in stone is in direct disagreement with > Have made it compulsory on Android 7 which is my point.
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    And if they did that, instead you would have just bought a phone that was stuck on Android 6 > made OS updates a requirement of the Android licence contract Now you're being contradictory. You want to force manufacturers to always update to the new Android versions. But you ALSO want to make Android 7 require specific hardware features. How could these requirements work together?
    - pjmlp 7y ago
      The same way they have worked forever on the PC world. OS updates always work with fallbacks, and minimum hardware specifications get revised every few years. Google can ask Microsoft how to do it.
      - kalleboo 7y ago
        That is something Google could do to actually solve things - make the OS binary compatible (rather than requiring device manufacturers to recompile) with driver blob plug-ins. It would require a change to the Linux driver ABI model but without know anything about Android I kind of assume they've already done that.
        pjmlp 7y ago
        That is the point of Project Treble, where drivers run as user space processes and use Android IPC to talk with the kernel. But, big but, the OEMs are free to decide when and how those updates are made available to users.