5 ms·

I'm an Android advocate, but I'm also a glass-half-empty-you're-going-to-die-of-thirst kinda guy at times. For example at times like this, when I read that 21%

I'm an Android advocate, but I'm also a glass-half-empty-you're-going-to-die-of-thirst kinda guy at times. For example at times like this, when I read that 21% have ICS, I want to shit all over Google's Android team for not having the sense to know this was going to be a problem. I mean ICS is still a release behind state of the art. I know Google has business PhDs, can't they lend them to the Android team for a bit. "Root and load your own rom" is not an acceptable answer for the user who has to be explained both what a rom is and what rooting is.

mdwrigh2 14y ago
What would you suggest as a solution? This isn't to suggest it isn't a problem, just that not all problems have viable solutions.
- jsz0 14y ago
  The solution is to take some control back from the carriers and OEMs but Google won't do that because it's Android's main selling point to carriers and OEMs.
- 27182818284 14y ago
  I don't think Google has used their might as a company well enough to convince the carriers it is their best interests to be more current with their phones' software or in general to do what is best for the customer in order to ensure they keep coming back. Or for example, does Google know that the Verizon store employees in the midwest will try to sell you an iPhone even when you explicitly walk in and say you want the Galaxy Nexus? To use a cliche, that's the situation on the ground.
- nodata 14y ago
  Google is waiting for consumer outrage before twisting the carriers' arms.
- taligent 14y ago
  Simple. Look at Linux. Look at Windows. You centralize updates of the core OS and build ABIs/APIs for all of the parts of the system that are needed to be extensible e.g. drivers, libraries, shells etc. This model is proven to work and work well. It just needs Google to show some leadership.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit. The Linux / Windows update situation that is most analogous to the carrier-gated smartphone updates is updating OSes inside large companies. It's the same update process - a third party has to certify your update and then the update is incrementally rolled out to a large number of computers. So how do corporations do with their Windows and Linux updates? Well, I'm using XP and RHEL 5 these days and I don't think my experience is at all atypical...
notatoad 14y ago
As pissed as I am about my phone not getting an ICS update, I can't really fault google too much for this. They made an open mobile OS, and released it to the world. What makes it attractive to the handset manufacturers and the carriers is that they don't have a software vendor trying to exert control over the product. You can make a direct comparison to windows phone: Microsoft has all kinds of restrictions for handset manufacturers and carriers about what they can do with it: device makers can't bundle shitty bloatware, tight hardware requirements, updates are controlled, etc. All things that produce a good experience for the end user. And look how the vendors reacted: the OEMs don't really want to build them, the carriers don't push them, the salespeople recommend android over it, and usage is minimal. Maybe if google took the same route and forced all the OEMs to upgrade to the latest firmware, those 21% of android phones that are on ICS would be android's total market share.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  > Maybe if google took the same route and forced all the OEMs to upgrade to the latest firmware, those 21% of android phones that are on ICS would be android's total market share. Judging from the Nexus phone sales, I'd say it'd be a lot lower than that.
- taligent 14y ago
  Of course this is Google's fault. Do you really think they are the first company who has had to deal with building a core platform that third parties can add on top of (carriers, OEMs) ? This isn't a complex problem to solve.
cageface 14y ago
I think the market will shake this out in the long run. Vendors that kneecap themselves with overzealous mods and fall behind in updates are going to get a bad reputation eventually. This has already happened to Samsung who in many ways is the flagship vendor. Also, as enviable as Apple's uptake of OS updates is, I don't think it's essential for the viability of a mobile platform. If people upgrade their phones on two-year cycles you can just ride that wave instead of trying to get people to update their software. Since both iOS and Android are pretty mature at this point major updates are less critical.
- jerlam 14y ago
  > Vendors that kneecap themselves with overzealous mods and fall behind in updates are going to get a bad reputation eventually. This has already happened to Samsung who in many ways is the flagship vendor. In what way exactly? Given that the Galaxy S3 is selling like hotcakes, it doesn't seem that having a bad reputation is bad for business.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Sadly, I don't see skinning hurting Samsung, especially since, judging by the volume of build leaks, the Galaxy S3 is very likely going to be both: 1. The first non-Nexus phone updated to Jelly Bean. 2. The first device using a non-Nexus chipset updated to Jelly Bean.
    - cageface 14y ago
      The thing is, Samsung is getting a lot of other things right, so even though a lot of people feel burned by their lack of updates it hasn't tipped the balance away from them yet. But I do read a lot of complaints from users claiming they plan to buy from somebody else the next time around. I think Samsung is really nailing distribution. Here in Vietnam I see their stuff in every single phone shop but have to look a lot harder to find HTC and I can't find the Asus tablets anywhere.
      - fpgeek 14y ago

mdwrigh2 14y ago

What would you suggest as a solution? This isn't to suggest it isn't a problem, just that not all problems have viable solutions.

jsz0 14y ago
The solution is to take some control back from the carriers and OEMs but Google won't do that because it's Android's main selling point to carriers and OEMs.
27182818284 14y ago
I don't think Google has used their might as a company well enough to convince the carriers it is their best interests to be more current with their phones' software or in general to do what is best for the customer in order to ensure they keep coming back. Or for example, does Google know that the Verizon store employees in the midwest will try to sell you an iPhone even when you explicitly walk in and say you want the Galaxy Nexus? To use a cliche, that's the situation on the ground.
nodata 14y ago
Google is waiting for consumer outrage before twisting the carriers' arms.
taligent 14y ago
Simple. Look at Linux. Look at Windows. You centralize updates of the core OS and build ABIs/APIs for all of the parts of the system that are needed to be extensible e.g. drivers, libraries, shells etc. This model is proven to work and work well. It just needs Google to show some leadership.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit. The Linux / Windows update situation that is most analogous to the carrier-gated smartphone updates is updating OSes inside large companies. It's the same update process - a third party has to certify your update and then the update is incrementally rolled out to a large number of computers. So how do corporations do with their Windows and Linux updates? Well, I'm using XP and RHEL 5 these days and I don't think my experience is at all atypical...

notatoad 14y ago

As pissed as I am about my phone not getting an ICS update, I can't really fault google too much for this. They made an open mobile OS, and released it to the world. What makes it attractive to the handset manufacturers and the carriers is that they don't have a software vendor trying to exert control over the product. You can make a direct comparison to windows phone: Microsoft has all kinds of restrictions for handset manufacturers and carriers about what they can do with it: device makers can't bundle shitty bloatware, tight hardware requirements, updates are controlled, etc. All things that produce a good experience for the end user. And look how the vendors reacted: the OEMs don't really want to build them, the carriers don't push them, the salespeople recommend android over it, and usage is minimal. Maybe if google took the same route and forced all the OEMs to upgrade to the latest firmware, those 21% of android phones that are on ICS would be android's total market share.

w1ntermute 14y ago
> Maybe if google took the same route and forced all the OEMs to upgrade to the latest firmware, those 21% of android phones that are on ICS would be android's total market share. Judging from the Nexus phone sales, I'd say it'd be a lot lower than that.
taligent 14y ago
Of course this is Google's fault. Do you really think they are the first company who has had to deal with building a core platform that third parties can add on top of (carriers, OEMs) ? This isn't a complex problem to solve.

cageface 14y ago

I think the market will shake this out in the long run. Vendors that kneecap themselves with overzealous mods and fall behind in updates are going to get a bad reputation eventually. This has already happened to Samsung who in many ways is the flagship vendor. Also, as enviable as Apple's uptake of OS updates is, I don't think it's essential for the viability of a mobile platform. If people upgrade their phones on two-year cycles you can just ride that wave instead of trying to get people to update their software. Since both iOS and Android are pretty mature at this point major updates are less critical.

jerlam 14y ago
> Vendors that kneecap themselves with overzealous mods and fall behind in updates are going to get a bad reputation eventually. This has already happened to Samsung who in many ways is the flagship vendor. In what way exactly? Given that the Galaxy S3 is selling like hotcakes, it doesn't seem that having a bad reputation is bad for business.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Sadly, I don't see skinning hurting Samsung, especially since, judging by the volume of build leaks, the Galaxy S3 is very likely going to be both: 1. The first non-Nexus phone updated to Jelly Bean. 2. The first device using a non-Nexus chipset updated to Jelly Bean.
  - cageface 14y ago
    The thing is, Samsung is getting a lot of other things right, so even though a lot of people feel burned by their lack of updates it hasn't tipped the balance away from them yet. But I do read a lot of complaints from users claiming they plan to buy from somebody else the next time around. I think Samsung is really nailing distribution. Here in Vietnam I see their stuff in every single phone shop but have to look a lot harder to find HTC and I can't find the Asus tablets anywhere.
    - fpgeek 14y ago