3 ms·

Drivers aren't the issue, though. There are only a few OEM-provided SoCs used in name-brand, major-carrier Android devices, and OEMs already tend to end up supp

by bri3d 15y ago

Drivers aren't the issue, though. There are only a few OEM-provided SoCs used in name-brand, major-carrier Android devices, and OEMs already tend to end up supporting a few future Android versions with drivers for each SoC. Most Android phone boards lean relatively close to their SoC's reference design, and while building board support for each device certainly isn't trivial, it's far from a difficult task (hence the speed with which CyanogenMod is ported to and maintained for a wide range of devices). The common bottleneck in Android devices isn't device drivers and board support - it's stupid manufacturer customizations which integrators don't want to spend the money to front-port to a new Android API. An obvious example is the Galaxy S ICS disaster - the Galaxy S hardware is entirely able to support ICS and will almost certainly be supported by CM, but Samsung simply don't want to frontport their integrator customizations to Android 4.0 for that device. Google could certainly introduce rules surrounding upgrades and integrator customizations which would alleviate the upgrade issue - CyanogenMod is proof of it. Sadly, that's not Google's goal, so the wide variety of Android versions in the wild will persist for the foreseeable future.

falling 15y ago
If Android were a true open source project instead of a sequence of huge code dumps it would be much much easier and less expensive for OEMs to track the changes and update their branches. Too bad it can't be, for a few non technical reasons.
masklinn 15y ago
> Drivers aren't the issue, though. Drivers are most definitely the major issue as far as ChrisLTD's suggestion goes. > Most Android phone boards lean relatively close to their SoC's reference design, and while building board support for each device certainly isn't trivial, it's far from a difficult task Nobody (least of all me) says it's a difficult task. But it's not a task Google can achieve, from Android, by bundling every single SoC driver under the sun. I'm not sure what you're trying to reply to, but it does not seem to be my comment. > The common bottleneck [...] Samsung [...] that device. This paragraph has nothing to do with this sub-thread (let alone my comment). > Google could certainly introduce rules surrounding upgrades and integrator customizations which would alleviate the upgrade issue They could introduce whatever rule they want, the question is: would anybody care? Google has no power over OEMs, short of making android "not open-source anymore".

by bri3d 15y ago

falling 15y ago

If Android were a true open source project instead of a sequence of huge code dumps it would be much much easier and less expensive for OEMs to track the changes and update their branches. Too bad it can't be, for a few non technical reasons.

masklinn 15y ago

> Drivers aren't the issue, though. Drivers are most definitely the major issue as far as ChrisLTD's suggestion goes. > Most Android phone boards lean relatively close to their SoC's reference design, and while building board support for each device certainly isn't trivial, it's far from a difficult task Nobody (least of all me) says it's a difficult task. But it's not a task Google can achieve, from Android, by bundling every single SoC driver under the sun. I'm not sure what you're trying to reply to, but it does not seem to be my comment. > The common bottleneck [...] Samsung [...] that device. This paragraph has nothing to do with this sub-thread (let alone my comment). > Google could certainly introduce rules surrounding upgrades and integrator customizations which would alleviate the upgrade issue They could introduce whatever rule they want, the question is: would anybody care? Google has no power over OEMs, short of making android "not open-source anymore".