5 ms·

Ah, the subtle art of submarining a spyware feature into an existing OS release. lol. I feel like this has to be the seventh or eighth time Google has implemen

Ah, the subtle art of submarining a spyware feature into an existing OS release. lol. I feel like this has to be the seventh or eighth time Google has implemented an entirely new mechanism around their inability to update their own operating system. Heck, most of Play Services originally happened as an attempt to hack around it. The problem is inevitably the one thing you decided you can't update this way always becomes the blocker for what you need to do.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
awill 4y ago
Rather than yet another workaround for not being able to update devices, I wish they would just solve the actual problem. For updates. Google should be able to do that without changing drivers/kernel. Similar to how Microsoft does it with Windows.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  Yeah, Google is absolutely unique at this point in building an OS they can't actually update, and placing the blame for it on hardware manufacturers instead. Nobody else has this problem. Including ARM-based platforms. The "blame and shame the manufacturers" strategy only gets you so far. Google can, effectively, dictate terms to Android OEMs: They have no competing OSes they can start shipping instead, Android is a complete monopoly. Google's not afraid to use this monopoly to do blatantly illegal things like requiring Google Search and Chrome... but they want us to believe they're incapable of requiring control of system updates? I suspect the problem is that when Windows updates break compatibility, the Windows team has to fix it, and when Android updates break compatibility, they'd much rather the OEM be on the hook for the time and money needed to fix it.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    > Nobody else has this problem. Including ARM-based platforms. So in fairness, other bottom-of-the-bin complete garbage platforms do also have this problem - there are loads of little embedded boards running around with barely enough hardware to run the hacked up out of tree kernel that they're using. Now to my knowledge, none of those are major platforms pretending to be a real system that people can build on and selling literally $1,000+ phones that still has the same horrible problems at the deepest layers. But it does happen in the cheap junk.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    I think you are making a fundamental misunderstanding. With Windows everyone is using Microsoft's operating system. With Android most OEMs are using their own Android distro.
  - izacus 4y ago
    > Yeah, Google is absolutely unique at this point in building an OS they can't actually update, and placing the blame for it on hardware manufacturers instead. Nobody else has this problem. Including ARM-based platforms. No, it absolutely isn't. Linus also can't push updates to your Linux computer but it has to wait for distributions to pick up the changes and distribute them. Same as Google has to wait for OEMs. Don't make stuff up. Google also got fined in both EU and India for forcing OEMs into doing things with Android, so the governments and law themselves do not allow them to force updates.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    If Google were to force every vendor to use their operating system, there'd be riots among manufacturers, and probably some antitrust lawsuits. Google's Android is not Samsung's Android, nor is it OnePlus' Android. They are all forks of the "original" AOSP Android and should be treated as such. Google requires some compatibility for inclusion of their Play services and has used AOSP to build in the core to achieve this, but it includes only very specific parts of the operating system. Google Play is an application package that's added to another operating system, and an optional one at that. Huawei is still selling phones without GPlay and people are still buying those, even outside China. There are phones for which your arrangement actually works: the Android One programme has Google set up everything but the drivers and associated libraries for vendors, who can then push updates to end users almost directly from Google. If you want to get quick updates from Google, vote with your wallet and buy an Android One phone. Most manufacturers prefer to have control over their own stack so they can add distinguishing features to their products, plus there are obviously fees for the OS involved, so the price may be higher for some Android One phones compared to the other products, but you do usually get the updates in the way you describe. At the end of the day, though, the average end user doesn't care about Android One. The option is still out there if you care.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Let the riots happen, after all they have shown how much success they have with their own forked variants, or stuff like Tizen.
    - ignoramous 4y ago
      > Google Play is an application package that's added to another operating system, and an optional one at that. Since Google rules the OHA (Open Handset Alliance) with an iron fist, there's no way on earth an OEM can brand its devices "Android" without Google's blessing (read: installing Google Apps in the /system partition which no user can get rid without unlocking the bootloader). And more and more of the open source parts of AOSP have been left to rot, in favour of "Pixel-only" apps. How many years has it been since JBQ quit AOSP in protest? And what has changed? > If you want to get quick updates from Google, vote with your wallet and buy an Android One phone. Those who voted with their wallets, got into a program which Google all but abandoned. Some OEMs like Nokia (HMD Global), Motorola (Lenovo), and ASUS continue to ship seemingly unbloated Androids (but not as part of Android One). But credit where due: GKI (Android Common Kernels), Treble, APEX, pKVM (microdroid), TEE OS will pay dividends in the coming decade, essentially superseding programs like Android One. [0] https://archive.is/2WjUU https://archive.is/2WjUU
- pjmlp 4y ago
  That workaround is called "Modular System Components": https://source.android.com/docs/core/ota/modular-system https://source.android.com/docs/core/ota/modular-system Of course, they could require by contract OEMs to provide updates, like they do for other Google based services.
  - kramerger 4y ago
    This has been in place for a few years and seems to work quite well. (Google does a lot of creepy stuff, but HN should also give them credit when they do great things)
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Quite a few years, means since Android 10, and they add to first introduce GSI[0] (after Treble changes) to actually make it work, as OEMs were free to ignore Treble anyway. [0] - https://source.android.com/docs/setup/create/gsi https://source.android.com/docs/setup/create/gsi
alex_suzuki 4y ago
Absolutely. Not to mention the dreadful existence of the „Support libraries“ in their myriad versions which are just blindly included into every project…
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Those support libraries are the reason half the apps on my device still function because I haven't gotten the latest incremental Android upgrade. I don't see the problem here. As a developer you can implement support for older versions yourself if you want to, all you need to do is write stubs for every API and platform feature to mske them work somewhat consistently on older platforms. I don't see why you'd waste the time if Google has already done so for your, but you can.
- izacus 4y ago
  Support libraries are no.1 cause of envy in iOS community because they make developers life significantly easier while still serving people running older devices. I've yet to see anyone belittle that like you did.
  - alex_suzuki 4y ago
    I am not belittling. I have used the Support libraries in every Android app I’ve ever worked on. I am just pointing out that like Play Services, and the post we are commenting on, the support libraries are symptoms of a root cause.
- lawgimenez 4y ago
  Support libraries are a blessing, our app last year still supports Marshmallow with no issues.
Hithredin 4y ago
It feels like Play Services is for Google to own valuable features privately over an open source OS. Not about version support.
- oblio 4y ago
  My guess is that it's used to attack in two directions: 1. Control on top of the Open Source OS. 2. Hollowing out the OS so that OEMs/carriers have reduced controls over updates/lifecycles, etc. 1 is bad, 2 is arguably good.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

awill 4y ago

Rather than yet another workaround for not being able to update devices, I wish they would just solve the actual problem. For updates. Google should be able to do that without changing drivers/kernel. Similar to how Microsoft does it with Windows.

ocdtrekkie 4y ago
Yeah, Google is absolutely unique at this point in building an OS they can't actually update, and placing the blame for it on hardware manufacturers instead. Nobody else has this problem. Including ARM-based platforms. The "blame and shame the manufacturers" strategy only gets you so far. Google can, effectively, dictate terms to Android OEMs: They have no competing OSes they can start shipping instead, Android is a complete monopoly. Google's not afraid to use this monopoly to do blatantly illegal things like requiring Google Search and Chrome... but they want us to believe they're incapable of requiring control of system updates? I suspect the problem is that when Windows updates break compatibility, the Windows team has to fix it, and when Android updates break compatibility, they'd much rather the OEM be on the hook for the time and money needed to fix it.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > Nobody else has this problem. Including ARM-based platforms. So in fairness, other bottom-of-the-bin complete garbage platforms do also have this problem - there are loads of little embedded boards running around with barely enough hardware to run the hacked up out of tree kernel that they're using. Now to my knowledge, none of those are major platforms pretending to be a real system that people can build on and selling literally $1,000+ phones that still has the same horrible problems at the deepest layers. But it does happen in the cheap junk.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- charcircuit 4y ago
  I think you are making a fundamental misunderstanding. With Windows everyone is using Microsoft's operating system. With Android most OEMs are using their own Android distro.
- izacus 4y ago
  > Yeah, Google is absolutely unique at this point in building an OS they can't actually update, and placing the blame for it on hardware manufacturers instead. Nobody else has this problem. Including ARM-based platforms. No, it absolutely isn't. Linus also can't push updates to your Linux computer but it has to wait for distributions to pick up the changes and distribute them. Same as Google has to wait for OEMs. Don't make stuff up. Google also got fined in both EU and India for forcing OEMs into doing things with Android, so the governments and law themselves do not allow them to force updates.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  If Google were to force every vendor to use their operating system, there'd be riots among manufacturers, and probably some antitrust lawsuits. Google's Android is not Samsung's Android, nor is it OnePlus' Android. They are all forks of the "original" AOSP Android and should be treated as such. Google requires some compatibility for inclusion of their Play services and has used AOSP to build in the core to achieve this, but it includes only very specific parts of the operating system. Google Play is an application package that's added to another operating system, and an optional one at that. Huawei is still selling phones without GPlay and people are still buying those, even outside China. There are phones for which your arrangement actually works: the Android One programme has Google set up everything but the drivers and associated libraries for vendors, who can then push updates to end users almost directly from Google. If you want to get quick updates from Google, vote with your wallet and buy an Android One phone. Most manufacturers prefer to have control over their own stack so they can add distinguishing features to their products, plus there are obviously fees for the OS involved, so the price may be higher for some Android One phones compared to the other products, but you do usually get the updates in the way you describe. At the end of the day, though, the average end user doesn't care about Android One. The option is still out there if you care.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Let the riots happen, after all they have shown how much success they have with their own forked variants, or stuff like Tizen.
  - ignoramous 4y ago
    > Google Play is an application package that's added to another operating system, and an optional one at that. Since Google rules the OHA (Open Handset Alliance) with an iron fist, there's no way on earth an OEM can brand its devices "Android" without Google's blessing (read: installing Google Apps in the /system partition which no user can get rid without unlocking the bootloader). And more and more of the open source parts of AOSP have been left to rot, in favour of "Pixel-only" apps. How many years has it been since JBQ quit AOSP in protest? And what has changed? > If you want to get quick updates from Google, vote with your wallet and buy an Android One phone. Those who voted with their wallets, got into a program which Google all but abandoned. Some OEMs like Nokia (HMD Global), Motorola (Lenovo), and ASUS continue to ship seemingly unbloated Androids (but not as part of Android One). But credit where due: GKI (Android Common Kernels), Treble, APEX, pKVM (microdroid), TEE OS will pay dividends in the coming decade, essentially superseding programs like Android One. [0] https://archive.is/2WjUU https://archive.is/2WjUU
pjmlp 4y ago
That workaround is called "Modular System Components": https://source.android.com/docs/core/ota/modular-system https://source.android.com/docs/core/ota/modular-system Of course, they could require by contract OEMs to provide updates, like they do for other Google based services.
- kramerger 4y ago
  This has been in place for a few years and seems to work quite well. (Google does a lot of creepy stuff, but HN should also give them credit when they do great things)
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Quite a few years, means since Android 10, and they add to first introduce GSI[0] (after Treble changes) to actually make it work, as OEMs were free to ignore Treble anyway. [0] - https://source.android.com/docs/setup/create/gsi https://source.android.com/docs/setup/create/gsi

alex_suzuki 4y ago

Absolutely. Not to mention the dreadful existence of the „Support libraries“ in their myriad versions which are just blindly included into every project…

jeroenhd 4y ago
Those support libraries are the reason half the apps on my device still function because I haven't gotten the latest incremental Android upgrade. I don't see the problem here. As a developer you can implement support for older versions yourself if you want to, all you need to do is write stubs for every API and platform feature to mske them work somewhat consistently on older platforms. I don't see why you'd waste the time if Google has already done so for your, but you can.
izacus 4y ago
Support libraries are no.1 cause of envy in iOS community because they make developers life significantly easier while still serving people running older devices. I've yet to see anyone belittle that like you did.
- alex_suzuki 4y ago
  I am not belittling. I have used the Support libraries in every Android app I’ve ever worked on. I am just pointing out that like Play Services, and the post we are commenting on, the support libraries are symptoms of a root cause.
lawgimenez 4y ago
Support libraries are a blessing, our app last year still supports Marshmallow with no issues.

Hithredin 4y ago

It feels like Play Services is for Google to own valuable features privately over an open source OS. Not about version support.

oblio 4y ago
My guess is that it's used to attack in two directions: 1. Control on top of the Open Source OS. 2. Hollowing out the OS so that OEMs/carriers have reduced controls over updates/lifecycles, etc. 1 is bad, 2 is arguably good.