4 ms·

Still running the latest iOS on my 6 year old first-gen SE. Why can't Android do the same?

palata 4y ago
It's easier for Apple to do because they make both the hardware and the OS. Say you are Sony and make an Android phone. You take some version of Android and port it to your hardware (with patches for your hardware e.g. in Linux, etc). Your Android system is now effectively a fork. Now say you want to get updates from upstream regularly. Every time, you may have conflicts with your patches, and you have to fix them. That's costly, so why would you do that for old phones people already paid years ago? Long story short, I believe it's easier for Apple to not break compatibility with old iPhones than for an Android OEM to stay up-to-date with upstream.
- ramesh31 4y ago
  I’m not sure this holds up, though. I could install Ubuntu latest on any random laptop from 2005 right now with zero issues. What exactly makes mobile special?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    PCs nearly-universally use standardized interfaces, phones go hard on cost cutting and everyone ships their own badly-done drivers that are never upstreamed running on custom hardware that wouldn't run a "standard" image if you had one. Or more succinctly, because phones won the race to the bottom.
  - asddubs 4y ago
    the drivers generally do not get upstreamed by the vendors
  - palata 4y ago
    My guess would be that the OEMs don't mainline their patches. At least from what I understood looking at PostmarketOS, they spend a lot of energy mainlining those devices they support. I guess it's different for laptops, somehow.
phh 4y ago
I run latest Android version on my 6 years old Pixel 1. The only reason it isn't provided by Google is that Google doesn't want to.
- _rdvw 4y ago
  Android 12 requires Linux 4.4 for proper networking and cgroup handling, which the Pixel 1 doesn't support. Skipping those requirements isn't a good idea. p.s. status on this? thanks https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations/issues/1965 https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations/issues/1...
- ramesh31 4y ago
  > The only reason it isn't provided by Google is that Google doesn't want to. This is basically what I was getting at.
- kelnos 4y ago
  More like Qualcomm doesn't want to spend the money to do it. Google can't update the binary drivers and firmware that Qualcomm gives them. And Google only has so much leverage in order to get Qualcomm to provide updates to older hardware. Sure, Google could release newer Android versions (assuming they'll run under whatever last kernel version Qualcomm provided support for, which isn't always the case), or at least release patches for flaws in Android itself, as long as they'd want to, but after the chipset support runs out, they can't update some drivers and firmware. I think it's not unreasonable to just declare those devices as insecure and move on. Google has managed to get support up to five years, but only on newer Pixel devices. I'm sure that wasn't an easy negotiation. Apple, in contrast, builds all the hardware and software in iPhones and iPads, so they can decide to support devices for as long as they wish.
  - phh 4y ago
    > I think it's not unreasonable to just declare those devices as insecure and move on. 1. The lockscreen bypass security flaw of last week is major compared to any flaw Qualcomm currently have. 2. Apple still updates devices hit with checkm8, so maybe security doesn't dictate everything for them. Not sure why it needs to for Google. 3. What does security has to do with getting Material You to my device? (to give just one example). Maybe the idea is that if a device is insecure, then it must get to the trash bin...? I hope not.
HereBeBeasties 4y ago
Actually support for 1st gen iPhone SE this ended on 12 Sept, along with iPhone 7, which they only discontinued 3 years ago. They only supported the 5C for two years after they sold the last device. https://endoflife.date/iphone https://endoflife.date/iphone

It's easier for Apple to do because they make both the hardware and the OS. Say you are Sony and make an Android phone. You take some version of Android and port it to your hardware (with patches for your hardware e.g. in Linux, etc). Your Android system is now effectively a fork. Now say you want to get updates from upstream regularly. Every time, you may have conflicts with your patches, and you have to fix them. That's costly, so why would you do that for old phones people already paid years ago? Long story short, I believe it's easier for Apple to not break compatibility with old iPhones than for an Android OEM to stay up-to-date with upstream.

ramesh31 4y ago
I’m not sure this holds up, though. I could install Ubuntu latest on any random laptop from 2005 right now with zero issues. What exactly makes mobile special?
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  PCs nearly-universally use standardized interfaces, phones go hard on cost cutting and everyone ships their own badly-done drivers that are never upstreamed running on custom hardware that wouldn't run a "standard" image if you had one. Or more succinctly, because phones won the race to the bottom.
- asddubs 4y ago
  the drivers generally do not get upstreamed by the vendors
- palata 4y ago
  My guess would be that the OEMs don't mainline their patches. At least from what I understood looking at PostmarketOS, they spend a lot of energy mainlining those devices they support. I guess it's different for laptops, somehow.

phh 4y ago

I run latest Android version on my 6 years old Pixel 1. The only reason it isn't provided by Google is that Google doesn't want to.

_rdvw 4y ago
Android 12 requires Linux 4.4 for proper networking and cgroup handling, which the Pixel 1 doesn't support. Skipping those requirements isn't a good idea. p.s. status on this? thanks https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations/issues/1965 https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations/issues/1...
ramesh31 4y ago
> The only reason it isn't provided by Google is that Google doesn't want to. This is basically what I was getting at.
kelnos 4y ago
More like Qualcomm doesn't want to spend the money to do it. Google can't update the binary drivers and firmware that Qualcomm gives them. And Google only has so much leverage in order to get Qualcomm to provide updates to older hardware. Sure, Google could release newer Android versions (assuming they'll run under whatever last kernel version Qualcomm provided support for, which isn't always the case), or at least release patches for flaws in Android itself, as long as they'd want to, but after the chipset support runs out, they can't update some drivers and firmware. I think it's not unreasonable to just declare those devices as insecure and move on. Google has managed to get support up to five years, but only on newer Pixel devices. I'm sure that wasn't an easy negotiation. Apple, in contrast, builds all the hardware and software in iPhones and iPads, so they can decide to support devices for as long as they wish.
- phh 4y ago
  > I think it's not unreasonable to just declare those devices as insecure and move on. 1. The lockscreen bypass security flaw of last week is major compared to any flaw Qualcomm currently have. 2. Apple still updates devices hit with checkm8, so maybe security doesn't dictate everything for them. Not sure why it needs to for Google. 3. What does security has to do with getting Material You to my device? (to give just one example). Maybe the idea is that if a device is insecure, then it must get to the trash bin...? I hope not.

HereBeBeasties 4y ago

Actually support for 1st gen iPhone SE this ended on 12 Sept, along with iPhone 7, which they only discontinued 3 years ago. They only supported the 5C for two years after they sold the last device. https://endoflife.date/iphone https://endoflife.date/iphone