5 ms·

> Android, the world's only major consumer operating system that can't be centrally updated by its creator. The only one out of... two?

chrismorgan 6y ago
Windows, macOS, iOS, plus various flavours of Linux if you want to count them.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  They can be updated by the creator, the updates don't have to be ran but they can say there is an update. With Android last I heard you had to wait for your manufactor to create the update, then for your telecoms provider to create an update and then you can see there is an update.
  - cmeacham98 6y ago
    Yes, that's the article's point. Android is the outlier here.
- arghwhat 6y ago
  KaiOS and Tizen also have a userbase wide enough to be considered major consumer OS's (even if primarily targeting markets such as India). The Switch OS could probably also be considered major at this point with the number of devices out in the wild. Same goes for LGs WebOS. VxWorks is also fairly big, although at least Canon changed over to something custom for their cameras. And that's just the consumer facing OSs. There's a lot of surprising ones, like Apples use of NetBSD for their Airport devices. OS diversity is high outside common desktops, and desktops are a vanishingly small portion of consumer computers.
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  iPadOS and watchOS deserve a mention.
DiabloD3 6y ago
I, too, found that an interesting phrase. The way I see it, there are three major consumer operating systems; four if you think iOS and OSX should be considered separately. Out of those three/four, only one tries to keep devices working and up to date as long as possible... iOS/OSX allows central updating, but drops phones older than 5 years, and desktop/laptops from 5-7 years depending on the product series; users cannot maintain the OS themselves and are forced to abandon the device. Android allows users to update the OS themselves against the wishes of the phone's OEM, but Google cannot force OEMs to continue supporting a phone within a reasonable timeframe (ie, no phone younger than 5 years should be dropped, yet is an unfortunately frequent occurrence with Android-hostile OEMs). Microsoft tries to keep Windows running on PCs an absurdly long time, but users choose to fight Microsoft on this even when its in their best interest (ex: people still willingly run 7, even though 10 performs better, with less crashes, more performance, and less security bugs). Alas, the dream of a Windows Phone is dead. Other than that, its most certainly an odd phrase in that article given what iOS does, since the user can still choose to go the third party Android ROM route if their OEM has truly abandoned them.
- progval 6y ago
  > but Google cannot force OEMs to continue supporting a phone within a reasonable timeframe Couldn't Google could pressure them to do it, by making this a legal requirement for a Google Play license for their devices?
  - DiabloD3 6y ago
    Could, in the literal sense? Yes. Could they do it without alienating their hardware partners? No. Does Android require the Google Play store or any other Google services or non-AOSP code? No. Many Android devices ship entirely without Google stuff, including no Google Play store. Could they do it even if they didn't care about alienating their hardware partners? Yes, if they also intend on being fined into the ground by the US and EU. Their hardware partners, the OEMs, is what makes Android suck for Android users. It doesn't have to suck: OnePlus doesn't, and Google's own Pixel series isn't bad either. Avoid Samsung like the plague, LG and HTC also have questionable practices wrt ROM sanity and long term support.

chrismorgan 6y ago

Windows, macOS, iOS, plus various flavours of Linux if you want to count them.

that_guy_iain 6y ago
They can be updated by the creator, the updates don't have to be ran but they can say there is an update. With Android last I heard you had to wait for your manufactor to create the update, then for your telecoms provider to create an update and then you can see there is an update.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  Yes, that's the article's point. Android is the outlier here.
arghwhat 6y ago
KaiOS and Tizen also have a userbase wide enough to be considered major consumer OS's (even if primarily targeting markets such as India). The Switch OS could probably also be considered major at this point with the number of devices out in the wild. Same goes for LGs WebOS. VxWorks is also fairly big, although at least Canon changed over to something custom for their cameras. And that's just the consumer facing OSs. There's a lot of surprising ones, like Apples use of NetBSD for their Airport devices. OS diversity is high outside common desktops, and desktops are a vanishingly small portion of consumer computers.
gogopuppygogo 6y ago
iPadOS and watchOS deserve a mention.

DiabloD3 6y ago

I, too, found that an interesting phrase. The way I see it, there are three major consumer operating systems; four if you think iOS and OSX should be considered separately. Out of those three/four, only one tries to keep devices working and up to date as long as possible... iOS/OSX allows central updating, but drops phones older than 5 years, and desktop/laptops from 5-7 years depending on the product series; users cannot maintain the OS themselves and are forced to abandon the device. Android allows users to update the OS themselves against the wishes of the phone's OEM, but Google cannot force OEMs to continue supporting a phone within a reasonable timeframe (ie, no phone younger than 5 years should be dropped, yet is an unfortunately frequent occurrence with Android-hostile OEMs). Microsoft tries to keep Windows running on PCs an absurdly long time, but users choose to fight Microsoft on this even when its in their best interest (ex: people still willingly run 7, even though 10 performs better, with less crashes, more performance, and less security bugs). Alas, the dream of a Windows Phone is dead. Other than that, its most certainly an odd phrase in that article given what iOS does, since the user can still choose to go the third party Android ROM route if their OEM has truly abandoned them.

progval 6y ago
> but Google cannot force OEMs to continue supporting a phone within a reasonable timeframe Couldn't Google could pressure them to do it, by making this a legal requirement for a Google Play license for their devices?
- DiabloD3 6y ago
  Could, in the literal sense? Yes. Could they do it without alienating their hardware partners? No. Does Android require the Google Play store or any other Google services or non-AOSP code? No. Many Android devices ship entirely without Google stuff, including no Google Play store. Could they do it even if they didn't care about alienating their hardware partners? Yes, if they also intend on being fined into the ground by the US and EU. Their hardware partners, the OEMs, is what makes Android suck for Android users. It doesn't have to suck: OnePlus doesn't, and Google's own Pixel series isn't bad either. Avoid Samsung like the plague, LG and HTC also have questionable practices wrt ROM sanity and long term support.