4 ms·

I am not sure whether Google should develop a fix or not for these devices. Version 4.4 does not have this issue, so the obvious solution would be to update t

I am not sure whether Google should develop a fix or not for these devices. Version 4.4 does not have this issue, so the obvious solution would be to update the system. In the real world, android updates are not .. ubiquitous though, not to mention that after some time, all OEMs stop updating their terminals (that also includes security patches though ...). Google has solved webview/browser bugs in 5.0 by having auto-updates during the activation and a chromium based webview which is update through the webstore but there are surely bugs that can't be solved that way or through Play Services. The absence of 'forced' upgrades was probably a very good idea in order to popularize Android among OEMs but it seems to me that Google should start thinking about a way to make Android easy to update. In that context, I would not be against reduced customization possibilities. Especially since the need for OEMs to differentiate themselves often lead to UIs with very discutable choices compared to stock Android (cough Samsung cough). Most skins brought large improvements over stock in the 1.x 2.x era, nowadays it is far more debatable.

fidotron 12y ago
The problem is Google are abusing their position once the customization capability is removed. For example, they were done for using Google Street View cars to slurp WiFi information, so now they just use Android devices to do it for them. Manufacturers have to have this enabled by default if they want Gmail and the Play Store on the device. (EDIT: and even worse, if you agree to that for one device you have to agree to not release any Android devices which do not have those things, thus removing the ability for the market to decide). When people, rightly, complain about the Facebook app having permission to do way more than it should they seem to be oblivious to the fact Google are doing things which are far worse.
- Oletros 12y ago
  > For example, they were done for using Google Street View cars to slurp WiFi information, so now they just use Android devices to do it for them. What? Street View problems were not about slurping SSID, MAC and geolocaction from wifi's, but because of capturing snippets of broadcasted data. They still use Google Street cars to geolocate wifi's. > Manufacturers have to have this enabled by default if they want Gmail and the Play Store on the device. Source for that? > and even worse, if you agree to that for one device you have to agree to not release any Android devices which do not have those things, thus removing the ability for the market to decide Source for that?
  - fidotron 12y ago
    http://www.cnet.com/news/google-alibabas-os-is-an-incompatible-version-of-android/ http://www.cnet.com/news/google-alibabas-os-is-an-incompatib... For example. Try looking and you will find.
    - Oletros 12y ago
      > For example. Try looking and you will find. I'm still trying to grasp what has to do the Aliyun case where a member of the OHA was developing an incompatible Android version with pirated Google apps in its store with your claim that Google forces OEM's to have geolocation enabled by default.
      - fidotron 12y ago
        http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la... Here's another example of their shit. I know, it will never be enough.
        Oletros 12y ago
        http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/11/06/google-lawsuits-skyhooks-geolocation-tech-was-just-inferior-court-rules/ http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/11/06/google-lawsuits-sky... Ups, there was not bullying. And, by the way, your claim was that Google forces OEM's to have enabled slurping of wifi data. So, I don't know why you bring the Skyhook case. Perhaps you will bring the Oracle case next. Still waiting > I know, it will never be enough. Yes, it will never will be enough if you only bring unrelated thing, and wrong things, by the way
        fidotron 12y ago
        You need to take your blinkers off. The 750 pages of court submissions in that link on the Verge actually answer all your supposed confusions. Seriously. The whole "technical inferiority" angle is discussed as having been invented as a way for Motorola to break off the Skyhook deal. Skyhook pass the CTS in 2009 when Google aren't paying attention but then fail when it's strategically difficult. Basically "compatibility" is not technical at all, and entirely down to compatibility with Google strategic objectives. As Motorola quite rightly observe. "And indeed, Skyhook ran headlong into Motorola's dependence on Google: Motorola flat-out told Skyhook that Android devices are "approved essentially at Google's discretion," and that Moto couldn't afford to risk its relationship with Google." The key point behind the Skyhook case was that it impacted their ability to do the WiFi slurping, again, as discussed at length on that link.
Zigurd 12y ago
That is likely to be the actual importance of Ara: Not configurable hardware, because hardly anyone re-configures their hardware, but rather software that can be configured to a much wider range of hardware.

fidotron 12y ago

The problem is Google are abusing their position once the customization capability is removed. For example, they were done for using Google Street View cars to slurp WiFi information, so now they just use Android devices to do it for them. Manufacturers have to have this enabled by default if they want Gmail and the Play Store on the device. (EDIT: and even worse, if you agree to that for one device you have to agree to not release any Android devices which do not have those things, thus removing the ability for the market to decide). When people, rightly, complain about the Facebook app having permission to do way more than it should they seem to be oblivious to the fact Google are doing things which are far worse.

Oletros 12y ago
> For example, they were done for using Google Street View cars to slurp WiFi information, so now they just use Android devices to do it for them. What? Street View problems were not about slurping SSID, MAC and geolocaction from wifi's, but because of capturing snippets of broadcasted data. They still use Google Street cars to geolocate wifi's. > Manufacturers have to have this enabled by default if they want Gmail and the Play Store on the device. Source for that? > and even worse, if you agree to that for one device you have to agree to not release any Android devices which do not have those things, thus removing the ability for the market to decide Source for that?
- fidotron 12y ago
  http://www.cnet.com/news/google-alibabas-os-is-an-incompatible-version-of-android/ http://www.cnet.com/news/google-alibabas-os-is-an-incompatib... For example. Try looking and you will find.
  - Oletros 12y ago
    > For example. Try looking and you will find. I'm still trying to grasp what has to do the Aliyun case where a member of the OHA was developing an incompatible Android version with pirated Google apps in its store with your claim that Google forces OEM's to have geolocation enabled by default.
    - fidotron 12y ago
      http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la... Here's another example of their shit. I know, it will never be enough.
      - Oletros 12y ago
        http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/11/06/google-lawsuits-skyhooks-geolocation-tech-was-just-inferior-court-rules/ http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/11/06/google-lawsuits-sky... Ups, there was not bullying. And, by the way, your claim was that Google forces OEM's to have enabled slurping of wifi data. So, I don't know why you bring the Skyhook case. Perhaps you will bring the Oracle case next. Still waiting > I know, it will never be enough. Yes, it will never will be enough if you only bring unrelated thing, and wrong things, by the way
        fidotron 12y ago
        You need to take your blinkers off. The 750 pages of court submissions in that link on the Verge actually answer all your supposed confusions. Seriously. The whole "technical inferiority" angle is discussed as having been invented as a way for Motorola to break off the Skyhook deal. Skyhook pass the CTS in 2009 when Google aren't paying attention but then fail when it's strategically difficult. Basically "compatibility" is not technical at all, and entirely down to compatibility with Google strategic objectives. As Motorola quite rightly observe. "And indeed, Skyhook ran headlong into Motorola's dependence on Google: Motorola flat-out told Skyhook that Android devices are "approved essentially at Google's discretion," and that Moto couldn't afford to risk its relationship with Google." The key point behind the Skyhook case was that it impacted their ability to do the WiFi slurping, again, as discussed at length on that link.

Zigurd 12y ago

That is likely to be the actual importance of Ara: Not configurable hardware, because hardly anyone re-configures their hardware, but rather software that can be configured to a much wider range of hardware.