3 ms·

> I think the real problem is Google Play Services. It's far, far too tightly integrated in a way that it just seems like Android was designed to be unusable wi

by pitkali 2mo ago

> I think the real problem is Google Play Services. It's far, far too tightly integrated in a way that it just seems like Android was designed to be unusable without. Wasn't the point of Play services to enable keeping OS "updated" regardless of the manufacturer schedule? Which is to say: they are tightly integrated because they were designed to be part of an operating system that Google can keep updated through Play Store even if the device OEM is slacking on porting upstream updates to the users.

inigyou 2mo ago
No, the point was to keep Android proprietary.
- horsawlarway 2mo ago
  I think it was one of those cases where "the road to hell was paved with good intentions". I'm old enough and was very pro-android in the early days when it first released. I absolutely remember the frustrations around having vendors just REFUSE to update the OS on devices. Even things that were brand spanking new often got left to rot, and the OS updates in those days were genuinely meaningful software updates - Lots of new capabilities. So I was actually ok with Google going down the route of moving critical software into an installable package that they controlled, that would provide a way to get new capabilities onto devices that manufacturers didn't give a shit about anymore. --- But the problem is that "Google" today sure as hell isn't the google that I liked back then (and even that google was starting to shift tone). And now this package is a backdoor that they can use like a beat-stick to force vendors to stay on their version of Android, and it functions to make "Android" (the distro that users actually use) functionally closed-source and non-permissive. --- I still strongly believe that the appropriate regulation for this situation (across both iOS and Android) is that the company that makes the OS should be prohibited from running any sort of app store, and app stores must be selectable at device initialization (ex - the Internet Explorer ruling, but for app stores).
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Why would you want a forced selection of app store? Just make it so you can execute executables. If the user wants an app store, they'll install one.
    - pjmlp 2mo ago
      Which is why, The Year of Desktop Linux is the fragmentation it is on, versus using Android, ChromeOS or WebOS.
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        Because a selection of app stores totally isn't fragmented. How will you get on that list, by the way?
        pjmlp 2mo ago
        PlayStore gets you on Android, ChromeOS. WebOS is anyway only relevant for TVs, and any PWA will do.
fg137 2mo ago
Somewhat, but only relevant when it comes to things like WebView but not other things. If there is a vulnerability elsewhere, your device on an older OS that the manufacturer has stopped supporting will not get any patches. Google may think it's important to keep WebView always up to date with Play services. I couldn't care less. I still have to buy a new phone to get all updates.

by pitkali 2mo ago

inigyou 2mo ago

No, the point was to keep Android proprietary.

horsawlarway 2mo ago
I think it was one of those cases where "the road to hell was paved with good intentions". I'm old enough and was very pro-android in the early days when it first released. I absolutely remember the frustrations around having vendors just REFUSE to update the OS on devices. Even things that were brand spanking new often got left to rot, and the OS updates in those days were genuinely meaningful software updates - Lots of new capabilities. So I was actually ok with Google going down the route of moving critical software into an installable package that they controlled, that would provide a way to get new capabilities onto devices that manufacturers didn't give a shit about anymore. --- But the problem is that "Google" today sure as hell isn't the google that I liked back then (and even that google was starting to shift tone). And now this package is a backdoor that they can use like a beat-stick to force vendors to stay on their version of Android, and it functions to make "Android" (the distro that users actually use) functionally closed-source and non-permissive. --- I still strongly believe that the appropriate regulation for this situation (across both iOS and Android) is that the company that makes the OS should be prohibited from running any sort of app store, and app stores must be selectable at device initialization (ex - the Internet Explorer ruling, but for app stores).
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Why would you want a forced selection of app store? Just make it so you can execute executables. If the user wants an app store, they'll install one.
  - pjmlp 2mo ago
    Which is why, The Year of Desktop Linux is the fragmentation it is on, versus using Android, ChromeOS or WebOS.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      Because a selection of app stores totally isn't fragmented. How will you get on that list, by the way?
      - pjmlp 2mo ago
        PlayStore gets you on Android, ChromeOS. WebOS is anyway only relevant for TVs, and any PWA will do.

fg137 2mo ago

Somewhat, but only relevant when it comes to things like WebView but not other things. If there is a vulnerability elsewhere, your device on an older OS that the manufacturer has stopped supporting will not get any patches. Google may think it's important to keep WebView always up to date with Play services. I couldn't care less. I still have to buy a new phone to get all updates.