3 ms·

I used the title ("Google could have updated the Pixel 3 until Android 13, it just didn't want to") from the source article, but it really applies to all Androi

I used the title ("Google could have updated the Pixel 3 until Android 13, it just didn't want to") from the source article, but it really applies to all Android phone manufacturers. The key point in the article is this: > Qualcomm has confirmed to me that it is still able to deliver Qualcomm-specific software updates for the Snapdragon 845, and while kernel-level support will be an issue for the chipset beginning with Android 13, things right now under Android 12 are just fine. Snapdragon 845 is what powers most high end Android phones from 2018, and I don't know of any manufacturer that still delivers updates to those phones even though they're still perfectly usable. It is often reported that updates beyond a couple of years isn't possible because of Qualcomm, but they don't seem to be the issue in this case.

notreallyserio 5y ago
It does indeed apply to all vendors. However, it is especially embarrassing for Google to do so poorly with their own line of phones.
zucker42 5y ago
I don't think those software updates would come free. I think Qualcomm deserves half the blame here because they produce such horribly locked down products.
- sorenjan 5y ago
  Wasn't Treble supposed to decouple Android version updates from hardware drivers? It seems as if Google (and other manufacturers, but it's Google's OS) just like to point fingers and blame others to save some money.
addaon 5y ago
I don't know anything about phone vendor relationships with Qualcomm, but "able to deliver" does not necessarily mean "able to charge a reasonable price." If "able to deliver" means "has competent engineers familiar with the product, and are willing to put those engineers on the project in exchange for full costs plus profits" rather than "can e-mail you an up-to-date repository", it can be prohibitive. Especially with as few as ten million Pixel 3s sold [1], and a half-life of less than two years for cell phone usage, it's going to be hard to justify even a single engineer-year so late in the game for such a small audience. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/pixel-3-by-the-numbers-googles-flagship-phone-was-a-flop https://www.zdnet.com/article/pixel-3-by-the-numbers-googles...
- sorenjan 5y ago
  The half-life of less than two years is a chicken and egg problem. People buy new phones because their old ones doesn't get updates, and phone manufacturers doesn't update old phones because too few people use them. I don't understand how it could take a full time engineer one year to produce a software update for an already fully functional phone. Even if that was the case, $500k/year for ten million devices is 5 cents per phone. If companies can't be bothered to spend 5 cents to keep a fully functional phone from becoming e-waste for another year I think regulation is in order. For reference four of Google's execs recently got huge bonuses ($2M) for contributions to "Google’s performance against social and environmental goals for 2022." https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/4/22867419/google-execs-million-salaries-raise-sec https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/4/22867419/google-execs-mill...

notreallyserio 5y ago

It does indeed apply to all vendors. However, it is especially embarrassing for Google to do so poorly with their own line of phones.

zucker42 5y ago

I don't think those software updates would come free. I think Qualcomm deserves half the blame here because they produce such horribly locked down products.

sorenjan 5y ago
Wasn't Treble supposed to decouple Android version updates from hardware drivers? It seems as if Google (and other manufacturers, but it's Google's OS) just like to point fingers and blame others to save some money.

addaon 5y ago

I don't know anything about phone vendor relationships with Qualcomm, but "able to deliver" does not necessarily mean "able to charge a reasonable price." If "able to deliver" means "has competent engineers familiar with the product, and are willing to put those engineers on the project in exchange for full costs plus profits" rather than "can e-mail you an up-to-date repository", it can be prohibitive. Especially with as few as ten million Pixel 3s sold [1], and a half-life of less than two years for cell phone usage, it's going to be hard to justify even a single engineer-year so late in the game for such a small audience. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/pixel-3-by-the-numbers-googles-flagship-phone-was-a-flop https://www.zdnet.com/article/pixel-3-by-the-numbers-googles...

sorenjan 5y ago
The half-life of less than two years is a chicken and egg problem. People buy new phones because their old ones doesn't get updates, and phone manufacturers doesn't update old phones because too few people use them. I don't understand how it could take a full time engineer one year to produce a software update for an already fully functional phone. Even if that was the case, $500k/year for ten million devices is 5 cents per phone. If companies can't be bothered to spend 5 cents to keep a fully functional phone from becoming e-waste for another year I think regulation is in order. For reference four of Google's execs recently got huge bonuses ($2M) for contributions to "Google’s performance against social and environmental goals for 2022." https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/4/22867419/google-execs-million-salaries-raise-sec https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/4/22867419/google-execs-mill...