13 ms·

Note that the original title is "Sign-in on Android devices running Android 2.3.7 or lower will not be allowed starting September 27". Android 3 was released Fe

Note that the original title is "Sign-in on Android devices running Android 2.3.7 or lower will not be allowed starting September 27". Android 3 was released February 22, 2011 -- I haven't seen any devices running Android that old in a while.

walrus01 5y ago
Four years ago, in some of the poorest developing nation markets on earth, the local currency equivalent of $60 Android phones for sale in local stores (random cheap Mediatek chipset and 3.5" screens), were running either Android 4.0 or 4.4
- vagrantJin 5y ago
  Can confirm this to be accurate. My own device is running 5.1.1
- baybal2 5y ago
  Yep, 4.X Android is still going strong, almost like Windows XP. It's because it's the last Android version Google released without turning it unusable without Gapps. It is simple to customise. Put any of the crazy CyanogenMod era skins on it, and then customise UI any way you want with your own brand look. And it is simple to code for, unlike overengineered APIs of later Android versions, with simple raw filesystem access being a particularly highly sought feature.
  - derefr 5y ago
    That's interesting. If there are use-cases for this old version of Android, is there a reason that the people who want to build such devices, haven't created a "living" descendant OS forking off from Android 4.x, with the old APIs but a modern kernel et al? Sort of like the living GTK2 that stuck around for so long after GTK3.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      You can add back the Gapps-free applications quite easily - clones of them are widely available in F-Droid, or as part of custom ROMs like LineageOS and formerly CyanogenMod.
      - derefr 5y ago
        Sure, but then why put Android 4.x on these newer devices, rather than putting F-Droid/LineageOS on them?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        baybal2 5y ago
        Post 4.X Android is almost a wholly different OS. It was the biggest API break, and a shift to much more over-engineered APIs. Companies doing things like POS terminals, eKiosks, signage, set-top boxes, Android TVs, etc are not interested in that, and this is a big part of why 4.X is so prolific.
        derefr 5y ago
        Then we're back to my original question: why is there no living descendant of the 4.x API, with modern security?
        baybal2 5y ago
        Good question. I know that some private CM forks of really old Android version is still kept alive by companies making things like POS terminals
- Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
  Not to mention the forced online education due to pandemic, I wouldn't be surprised if even Android 2.3.7 usage has up ticked due to that in poor countries as many children are dependent upon donated smartphones[1][2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27903630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27903630 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911090
toast0 5y ago
Android 3 wasn't generally available for phones; it was mostly tablets.
- Ologn 5y ago
  Yes. Officially, every version up to Android 2.3 was for phones. Samsung wanted to make a tablet and made one with 2.2 and 2.3, even though Android did not officially support tablets for those versions. Android 3.x was a version just for tablets (Honeycomb). Android 4 (Ice Cream Sandwich) merged the phone ability of the 2.x branch with the tablet ability of the 3.x branch - 4.0 was the first Android version which officially supported phone and tablet.
- blihp 5y ago
  IIRC, exclusively tablets. I seem to recall Google saying while they wouldn't prohibit phone use, they we're going to help manufacturers with it and that they'd have to wait for Android 4.
- fomine3 5y ago
  Honeycomb was even closed source except some GPL
lostmsu 5y ago
Yeah, why was the title editoralized by removing the affected versions? It is the most important part of the announcement, and was present in the original title.
dang 5y ago
Yes, the submitted title ("Old Android versions will no longer be able to log into Google account") broke the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." We've fixed it now. Thanks! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

walrus01 5y ago

Four years ago, in some of the poorest developing nation markets on earth, the local currency equivalent of $60 Android phones for sale in local stores (random cheap Mediatek chipset and 3.5" screens), were running either Android 4.0 or 4.4

vagrantJin 5y ago
Can confirm this to be accurate. My own device is running 5.1.1
baybal2 5y ago
Yep, 4.X Android is still going strong, almost like Windows XP. It's because it's the last Android version Google released without turning it unusable without Gapps. It is simple to customise. Put any of the crazy CyanogenMod era skins on it, and then customise UI any way you want with your own brand look. And it is simple to code for, unlike overengineered APIs of later Android versions, with simple raw filesystem access being a particularly highly sought feature.
- derefr 5y ago
  That's interesting. If there are use-cases for this old version of Android, is there a reason that the people who want to build such devices, haven't created a "living" descendant OS forking off from Android 4.x, with the old APIs but a modern kernel et al? Sort of like the living GTK2 that stuck around for so long after GTK3.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    You can add back the Gapps-free applications quite easily - clones of them are widely available in F-Droid, or as part of custom ROMs like LineageOS and formerly CyanogenMod.
    - derefr 5y ago
      Sure, but then why put Android 4.x on these newer devices, rather than putting F-Droid/LineageOS on them?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - baybal2 5y ago
        Post 4.X Android is almost a wholly different OS. It was the biggest API break, and a shift to much more over-engineered APIs. Companies doing things like POS terminals, eKiosks, signage, set-top boxes, Android TVs, etc are not interested in that, and this is a big part of why 4.X is so prolific.
        derefr 5y ago
        Then we're back to my original question: why is there no living descendant of the 4.x API, with modern security?
        baybal2 5y ago
        Good question. I know that some private CM forks of really old Android version is still kept alive by companies making things like POS terminals
Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
Not to mention the forced online education due to pandemic, I wouldn't be surprised if even Android 2.3.7 usage has up ticked due to that in poor countries as many children are dependent upon donated smartphones[1][2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27903630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27903630 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27911090

toast0 5y ago

Android 3 wasn't generally available for phones; it was mostly tablets.

Ologn 5y ago
Yes. Officially, every version up to Android 2.3 was for phones. Samsung wanted to make a tablet and made one with 2.2 and 2.3, even though Android did not officially support tablets for those versions. Android 3.x was a version just for tablets (Honeycomb). Android 4 (Ice Cream Sandwich) merged the phone ability of the 2.x branch with the tablet ability of the 3.x branch - 4.0 was the first Android version which officially supported phone and tablet.
blihp 5y ago
IIRC, exclusively tablets. I seem to recall Google saying while they wouldn't prohibit phone use, they we're going to help manufacturers with it and that they'd have to wait for Android 4.
fomine3 5y ago
Honeycomb was even closed source except some GPL

lostmsu 5y ago

Yeah, why was the title editoralized by removing the affected versions? It is the most important part of the announcement, and was present in the original title.

dang 5y ago

Yes, the submitted title ("Old Android versions will no longer be able to log into Google account") broke the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." We've fixed it now. Thanks! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html