Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Android Google Security IT

Google Scans 6B Apps, 400M Devices Each Day; Says 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches (googleblog.com) 105

Posted by msmash from the state-of-Android dept.
Reader Trailrunner7 writes: As part of the enhancements to Android security, Google scans more than 6 billion installed applications per day on users' devices. The company also scans more than 400 million devices each day, it announced on Tuesday. Google last year also began releasing monthly security updates for devices running modern versions of Android, which includes devices on version 4.4.4 (KitKat) and later. "70.8% of all active Android devices are on a version that we support with patches," the Android report says. However, that still leaves hundreds of millions of Android devices without regular updates. There were roughly 1.4 billion Android devices active in September, according to Google, so that would leave about 420 million Android devices without patches. In the Android ecosystem, carriers are also responsible for pushing security patches to users, so while Google pushes security updates each month, not all carriers and device manufacturers release them to all users regularly.In its report, Google also says that fewer than 0.15% of devices, that only get apps from Google Play, had potentially harmful apps installed on them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Scans 6B Apps, 400M Devices Each Day; Says 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches More

Google Scans 6B Apps, 400M Devices Each Day; Says 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches

Comments Filter:

  • 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @02:25PM (#51942403)

    Well, Google, you're in the best position to make that happen. Allow your update process to update stuff like the libraries which had the stagefright problem to get updated by yourselves and not require the manufacturers to do it, because you know better than we do how bad they are at it. And have a word with Samsung, who tell you they'll provide major updates to Android for 18 months and then simply refuse to to it.

    Or is this just a ploy to get people to buy from your increasingly bad value for money Nexus range?

    • Samsung and others will just remove that Google updater. They fork Android and they don't want any update from Google.

      • I'm positive they don't want the costs of keeping an OS up to date. If they fork their own version for their devices, they then take on all the major security issues Google has been handling. Samsung isn't the only Android vendor though and if they fall off the Google bandwagon for their own fork of it they will have quite the uphill battle. It would also give other vendors a much better shot at gaining marketshare. I've heard good things about the HTC 10 for instance...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by allo ( 1728082 )

        They cannot, if they want to ship the Appstore. They even have to place some apps on the homescreen, when they ship with google play. And they can either ship everything or nothing with the google appstore. So they need to comply or make an own thing like amazon.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Newer versions of Android (6.0+ I believe) should have the security patches come through on a monthly basis even on manufacturer versions of Android (e.g., Samsung, LG, HTC, etc.) In other words, they are working at it, but it will take a while until all users have devices with 6.0+.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cramer ( 69040 )

        Google's own braindamage is the reason why so few devices are actively patched. 6.0+ uses a filesystem block based patching mechanism. If you so much as mount the system partition (rw), you NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER! get a single byte of patches.

        And I don't know that the hell they're blabbering about... 4.4.4 absolutely does NOT get patches. Demanding I install 5.0.1 is not a patch. (it will then demand I install 5.1 then 6.0.) And unlike the majority of vendor "hacked" androids, Google doesn't ask a damn thi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      That is exactly what Google is doing. They patch things like Stagefright through Google Play, even if the manufacturer doesn't release any OS updates themselves.

      The issue is that some devices are either too old (pre 4.0) to get patches that way or don't have suitable network connectivity (e.g. they are configured not to do updates over mobile, and never connect to wifi).

    • No Samsung do provide major updates. For their definition of major, and without any mention of timeliness.

  • Do I really need to point out the fix? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @02:26PM (#51942417)
    >> Google Says 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches
    >> In the Android ecosystem, carriers are also responsible for pushing security patches to users, so while Google pushes security updates each month, not all carriers and device manufacturers release them to all users regularly.

    It sounds like the ball's in Google's court. "Want to be an 'Android' vendor? You agree to keep your devices updated with our security patches."

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No money in that. It's why cell providers are trying to avoid selling WinPhones, without forced obsolescence a big part of the cell provider income stream goes away. They don't want to relay patches at any speed, they want customers to sign new 2-year contracts every two years, get a new phone running a modern build, and recycle the old one for raw materials (especially if the only problem with the old one is an obsolete OS version).
      Remove Android's big advantage to the cell providers and watch them go ba

    • Re:Do I really need to point out the fix? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Shawn Willden ( 2914343 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @04:35PM (#51943223)

      >> Google Says 30% of Android Devices Don't Get Regular Patches >> In the Android ecosystem, carriers are also responsible for pushing security patches to users, so while Google pushes security updates each month, not all carriers and device manufacturers release them to all users regularly. It sounds like the ball's in Google's court. "Want to be an 'Android' vendor? You agree to keep your devices updated with our security patches."

      (I'm a member of Google's Android security team, but not an official spokesperson. Treat all of the following as informed personal opinion, not an official statement.)

      If only it were that easy. A lot of people overestimate the power that Google has to tell OEMs and carriers what to do. There is some power there, certainly, but the fact that Android is open source means that if Google pushes too hard the partners can simply set up their own app stores, stop calling their devices "Android", and do what they like. Some of the big players are totally capable of doing this. Also, the contractual arrangements aren't renegotiated at whim, there's a schedule (every other year, I think?) so Google can only change them on that schedule, and even then it's a negotiation, not an opportunity for Google to dictate terms.

      Still, Google does have considerable leverage, is using it, and this aspect of the ecosystem is getting much better. Rapidly, actually, on the time scales associated with designing and building hardware (as opposed to Internet time).

      One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.

      If you're planning on doing regular software updates for a substantial period of time, that's a ridiculous way to structure your product line and build processes, but most OEMs weren't planning on that. Now, most of the major (and many minor) players are, which means that going forward they're going to be working to simplify their offerings and streamline their development and update cycles to be able to turn updates around quickly and test them cost-effectively. They rarely have the bandwidth to go back and fix things up for older products, though, so to some extent the transition to a fully-patched Android ecosystem is going to involve waiting out the decline of older devices.

      And keep in mind that by the time a device hits the market it's already been in development for well over a year. So if OEMs got the message in 4Q2015 that they were going to need to do regular updates on future devices, it'll be 2Q2016 or so before they figure out what that means they need to change for new device planning, and then late 2017 before the new crop of devices launches, all set up for monthly update cycles. Carriers have their own retooling to do.

      This all means that the Android security team fully expects that we'll have to continue focusing on defense in depth rather than rapid patch deployment as our primary method of protecting user devices for the next few years. Luckily, the current set of techniques seems to be working astonishingly well. Much better than I would have thought.

      Once the ecosystem gets far enough down the regular-update path, mind you, it may well become reasonable for Google to mandate regular patching in the contractual relationships that provide OEMs with access to Google's apps, just as you'd like to see happen now. Given that hardly anyone is tooled up to do it right now, though, I don't think there's any way Google could impose that mandate.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Google played ball with the carries when Apple pretty much told them to fuck off. Apple devices are updated until they're considered quite obsolete. Android devices are stuck in an uncertain limbo.

        I'm not saying mistakes were made. Google simply filled a demand and they have a good product that serves billions.

        The lesson everyone should take away, though, is that carriers are the fucking problem.

        • Google played ball with the carries when Apple pretty much told them to fuck off. Apple devices are updated until they're considered quite obsolete. Android devices are stuck in an uncertain limbo.

          I'm not saying mistakes were made. Google simply filled a demand and they have a good product that serves billions.

          The lesson everyone should take away, though, is that carriers are the fucking problem.

          While I agree with your first point, the Carriers are the problem ONLY because Google wanted to suck them off sooooo bad it let them walk all over them. They apparently didn't realize they were actually in a HUGE position of power, being the only other viable alternative to IOS (which Apple wouldn't license to third parties under ANY circumstances). They COULD have nipped the crapware and update issues in the bud; but NOOOOOOOO...

          • Google had no power, because Google didn't make phones at all, and had no interaction whatsoever with carriers. If anyone was in a position to play the kind of hardball Apple did with carriers, it was HTC. But they weren't, because the Dream didn't have nearly the consumer impact that the iPhone did. It was only the runaway success of the iPod and the corresponding consumer cachet that allowed Apple to hold the line with the carriers... and remember that Apple almost didn't succeed. All of the carriers init

            • Google had no power, because Google didn't make phones at all, and had no interaction whatsoever with carriers.

              That's absolute horseshit.

              Google may not have had DIRECT influence with the carriers; but once Apple negotiated the deal with AT&T, they certainly had INDIRECT control, in that EVERY other Carrier OTHER THAN ATT was clamoring for one or more of the "me too" 'iPhones' that the Samsungs, HTCs and LGs of the world were developing. And WHO controlled the OS for all those iPhone-knockoffs?

              Google.

              • Google controlled *none* of those phones, and had no place at the table with the carriers.

                • Google controlled *none* of those phones, and had no place at the table with the carriers.

                  To quote Pink Floyd: "Don't give me that do goody-good Bullll--shit."

                  You OBVIOUSLY don't understand "Licensing", or are being willfully-ignorant. Take your pick.

                  1. Google had FULL control over the *OS* in those phones (because they FULLY control the *License* under which the phone mfgs. could USE Google's OS, and they were free to place ANY terms in said License Agreement).

                  2. Google could have *EASILY* Requested a "Place at the Table", again as a condition in the LICENSE Agreement.

                  3. If you think th

                  • So your argument is that Google had to choose between an open source license or having a say, and opted for open source?

                    Yes, that is completely true.

                    If you think that there aren't "Additional Terms" in those "OEM" License Agreements between Google and the phone manufacturers, over and above the standard Android License that you or I would be bound by, you are as ignorant as goat piss.

                    There are no additional license agreements on Android. None. There is an additional license agreement, called the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement", or MADA, which OEMs who wish to use Google's proprietary, closed source apps and services on top of Android must sign. That agreement is what I referenced in my first post in this thread, which is reneg

                    • So your argument is that Google had to choose between an open source license or having a say, and opted for open source?

                      Yes, that is completely true.

                      If you think that there aren't "Additional Terms" in those "OEM" License Agreements between Google and the phone manufacturers, over and above the standard Android License that you or I would be bound by, you are as ignorant as goat piss.

                      There are no additional license agreements on Android. None. There is an additional license agreement, called the "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement", or MADA, which OEMs who wish to use Google's proprietary, closed source apps and services on top of Android must sign. That agreement is what I referenced in my first post in this thread, which is renegotiatied periodically and gives Google some limited leverage with the OEMs. That didn't exist at all back when Apple was strong-arming the carriers.

                      So, you are privvy to the OEM agreements between Google and the handset-mfgs?

                      I think not.

                      And Apple did not "strong-arm" anyone. They negotiated intelligently, and with the END-USER in mind. Hence, no Crapware on iPhones, WORLDWIDE, REGARDLESS OF CARRIER.

                      Google COULD have had that, too; and COULD have it come "Renegotiation" time; but CHOOSES NOT TO.

                      THAT is the world of Contracts. They can ALWAYS be CHANGED.

                    • So, you are privvy to the OEM agreements between Google and the handset-mfgs?

                      I regularly talk to the people who negotiate them. Could I actually read them? I expect so, though I have no interest in it, and definitely couldn't talk about the contents if I did.

                      And Apple did not "strong-arm" anyone. They negotiated intelligently, and with the END-USER in mind. Hence, no Crapware on iPhones, WORLDWIDE, REGARDLESS OF CARRIER.

                      Apple negotiated very effectively, yes, and I should probably have chosen a milder verb.

                      Google COULD have had that, too; and COULD have it come "Renegotiation" time; but CHOOSES NOT TO.

                      At this point we're just saying "Nuh uh!", "Uh huh!", and you can't back up your argument because you don't have the information for it, and I can't back up my argument because I'm constrained by confidentiality requirements. So I'll just sto

      • One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.

        And this is one of the biggest reasons why Android sucks and iOS rocks.

        Google wax apparently too stupid and short-sighted to look into the future a little bit, and see the all-too-predictable outcome of losing control over their "Brand". And make no mistake: Most people DO know that Android means Google.

        So, now that Android has a reputation as a festering shithole of Carrier-Infused Crapware, Fragmentation, and rampant Malware, how can Google's reputation and "brand" NOT suffer?

        Perhaps NOW we know the

        • One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.

          And this is one of the biggest reasons why Android sucks and iOS rocks.

          Ignoring the unsubstantiated opinion, it's also the reason why Android market share has dominated iOS for years now, and iOS continues to decline. Yes, most of those Android phones are cheap devices that barely qualify for the name "smartphone", while iOS still leads in the lucrative premium segment (though that lead is eroding), but that's exactly the point. The wide variety of Android devices available means there are Android phones for every niche.

          It's all very similar to the Windows vs MacOS story. In

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by DeVilla ( 4563 )

            The wide variety of Android devices available means there are Android phones for every niche.

            Well, as someone who would like a useful and flexible device that provides privacy instead of privacy policies, I wouldn't say it's covered every niche yet.

            • The wide variety of Android devices available means there are Android phones for every niche.

              Well, as someone who would like a useful and flexible device that provides privacy instead of privacy policies, I wouldn't say it's covered every niche yet.

              Blackphone?

              On the other hand, it is and will always be true that some niches are too small to generate commercial interest. Yours may be one such, depending on your definitions of "useful", "flexible" and "privacy".

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by DeVilla ( 4563 )

                I can't disagree. For now I'm holding out for the Pyra.

                I can't remember off the top of my head why I haven't considered the Blackphone. Probably just that I hadn't heard anything more of it since before it was released. I'll have to give it another look.

                • I can't disagree. For now I'm holding out for the Pyra.

                  Interesting... I hadn't heard of that one. Looks like a cool toy, though not something I would get much use out of. Personally, I have no issue with the privacy around standard Android devices, but I suppose I do have an advantage of having greater visibility into the issues than most, and I find that visibility reassuring. Clearly your mileage does vary.

                  I can't remember off the top of my head why I haven't considered the Blackphone. Probably just that I hadn't heard anything more of it since before it was released. I'll have to give it another look.

                  I haven't really looked into it much either. It may suck.

                  The other option is to get an unlockable device and customize it to fit your requirements, but t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Maow ( 620678 )

          One of the big obstacles to regular updates is that many OEMs, especially the larger ones, have so many different devices to update. What looks to consumers like one product may actually be dozens of separate SKUs, for different regions or carriers, with slightly different hardware features, etc., and these different SKUs often run slightly different software. So it's not a matter of "the build", but rather dozens of builds for each "model", each of which has to be tested by the OEM, and then tested again by the carrier.

          And this is one of the biggest reasons why Android sucks and iOS rocks.

          Yeah, and "macs4all" is certainly not the pseudonym of a biased fanboi.

          That's not to say that there isn't a problem in the Android ecosphere, but fanbois suck worse than the worst software.

          Google wax apparently too stupid and short-sighted to look into the future a little bit,

          Or they were a bit naÏve and thought that Android phone manufacturers would behave like Linux distributions, that is to say some would push immediate updates (Arch) and others would go for rock-solid reliability (CentOS), or some such models.

          Naïve bordering on dumb perhaps, but Google ain't stupid.

          ... and see the all-too-predictable outcome of losing control over their "Brand". And make no mistake: Most people DO know that Android means Google.

          So, now that Android has a reputation as a festering shithole of Carrier-Infused Crapware, Fragmentation, and rampant Malware, how can Google's reputation and "brand" NOT suffer?

          I'd say that G

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rastos1 ( 601318 )

        There is some power there, certainly, but the fact that Android is open source means that if Google pushes too hard the partners can simply set up their own app stores, stop calling their devices "Android", and do what they like. Some of the big players are totally capable of doing this.

        Capable technically a financially ... possibly, yes. Actually going to do that? My twenty bucks says "no way in hell!". Can you imagine a cell phone in the shop with a tag saying "cannot talk to Google Play nor Windows Sto

        • There is some power there, certainly, but the fact that Android is open source means that if Google pushes too hard the partners can simply set up their own app stores, stop calling their devices "Android", and do what they like. Some of the big players are totally capable of doing this.

          Capable technically a financially ... possibly, yes. Actually going to do that? My twenty bucks says "no way in hell!". Can you imagine a cell phone in the shop with a tag saying "cannot talk to Google Play nor Windows Store"? That would be like a desktop computer with a tag "cannot play games because it does not run Windows".

          It's really not that inconceivable. Consider, for example, if the top two or three Android manufacturers decided to ally with Amazon, which already has an app store. And obviously there would be no tag saying "Cannot talk to Google Play store". There would be a tag saying "Can run hundreds of millions of apps from the Amazon app store"... and it would be true. App developers don't often bother with the Amazon store now, but if that was the way to reach all new Samsung devices, you can bet that they would.

    • I'm surprised that it's only 30%. The well-known graphic from a few years ago comparing to iOS told a different story about phones abandoned by their carriers / manufacturers.

  • Galaxy Nexus (Score:3)

    by Elledan ( 582730 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @02:28PM (#51942425) Homepage
    My Galaxy Nexus with Android 4.3 says 'hi' :)

    A flagship device only a few years ago, it's not received patches or any form of updates for years now and is now too unsafe to even consider using as a smartphone any more.

    Meanwhile the iPhone 4S I also use is up to date on the latest iOS with no sign of support being dropped just yet, despite this phone being of a similar age as the Galaxy Nexus.

    The lesson I have learned out of owning a Google Android device is to never buy Android again. Apple and even Windows update their devices for as long as reasonably possible, while Android is a walking security risk, even on Nexus devices.

    • Re:Galaxy Nexus (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rupert.applin ( 2568619 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @02:51PM (#51942599)
      Yep, it wouldn't be so bad if you just had to get updates from Google and the manufacturer, but when you have to suffer the carriers wanting to put their crap into the OS as well - then you are really in trouble as they don't care a jot about 'old' devices, but would much rather sell you something new that spend money providing updates for what they have sold previously.

    • I have a T-Mo Nexus 5, for 2 years now, and I think I've only received 5 or 6 OS patches in that time (last one just today).

    • The case with the Galaxy Nexus is a bit special, as they had planned to support it longer until Texas Instruments, the supplier of the OMAP 4460 SoC used in the Galaxy Nexus, suddenly decided to get out of the mobile and tablet business and also stopped providing updated (binary) drivers for their SoC. Without updated drivers Google is limited in what it can fix; in particular, the old drivers won't work with newer versions of the kernel.

      Could Google have continued supporting the Galaxy Nexus anyway, backpo

    • The lesson I have learned out of owning a Google Android device is to never buy Android again. Apple and even Windows update their devices for as long as reasonably possible, while Android is a walking security risk, even on Nexus devices.

      Your lesson is overly-broad, because the Galaxy Nexus is an outlier in the Nexus line, and one that will not happen again. The SoC vendor, Texas Instruments, got out of the SoC business, canned the employees and apparently lost all of the source code. Google provides system images for Nexus devices, but OEMs and their suppliers provide all of the lower-level binaries, so this left Google pretty much unable to update anything but the surface level components of Android. OS upgrades always entail lower-level

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The Galaxy Nexus is the only Nexus device to have suffered this fate. All of the others have been updated for as long as Google felt it was reasonable to continue updating them.

        Interesting, since Apple products continue to be solidly supported for a minimum of 24 months. No iphone has gone out of production in less than 24 months, so your 18 month minimum needs to be upped by 6 months just to play ball. My iPad2 is still supported, it's over 5 years old. The 4 stopped being supported after 4 years. Considering that was the last single core phone, maybe that's a good thing? As for the 4S, yes, iOS 8 slowed it down initially, but by 8.2 or so it was running reasonably well, although

      • Re:Galaxy Nexus (Score:4, Informative)

        by macs4all ( 973270 ) on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @07:01PM (#51944079)

        No iOS device has been supported as long as the 4S has.

        My iPad 2, which is at least a year older than my iPhone 4s, would beg to differ with you.

        Both run iOS 9, and in fact, Apple's SUPPORT of these older devices included a recent Update to iOS 9 SPECIFICALLY targeted at improving performance on older devices, specifically the iPhone 4s and the iPad 2.

        So yeah, I'd call THAT "Support"!

        BTW, that's why I skipped iOS 8. It DID have performance issues on the iPad 2. But they fixed it with (IIRC) iOS 9.2.1

        • My iPad 2, which is at least a year older than my iPhone 4s, would beg to differ with you.

          I stand corrected. The iPad2 is indeed a few months older than the iPhone4S. It doesn't change the fact that Elledan compared the worst outlier among Nexus devices to nearly the best outlier among Apple devices. Perhaps he wasn't intentionally cherry-picking devices to support his argument but that was the effect.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      A flagship device only a few years ago, it's not received patches or any form of updates for years now and is now too unsafe to even consider using as a smartphone any more.

      That is simply untrue. Your device continues to get updates via Google Play, which on Android 4.3 is capable of patching parts of the OS like libraries too. So your device is in fact getting security updates and is safe to use.

      In any case, Android takes a defence in depth approach. Even if one vulnerability exists, any malicious code will have to get through several before it can do much. That's why you don't see vast Android botnets, it's just not possible even when 30% of devices are not getting updates.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Elledan ( 582730 )
        The Android Browser is one of those components which Google has specifically said won't be getting security updates when a few big holes were uncovered recently. Unless this has changed I will continue to treat the Galaxy Nexus as a solidly EOLed and insecure device.

        Not that it matters that much, though, as the GNexus is far too slow for general usage anyway. For anyone complaining about the iPhone 4S slowing down with iOS updates, it's clear that they haven't tried to use a GNexus with 4.3 with a normal

  • Are there any non-Nexus devices getting monthly security patches from Google?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by heezer7 ( 708308 )
      Motorolo does, but it lags. My Moto X Pure 2015 is on the Patch version from February. Not great, but at least still supported.
    • I don't think there are that many. Like my Lenovo 5000-F doesn't get updates. That's why I've ordered a Nexus 7, so I can install Cyanogenmod. It's kind of upsetting that modding is the best solution for keeping up with security updates when either Google or manufacturers should be doing it.

      • That's why I've ordered a Nexus 7, so I can install Cyanogenmod. It's kind of upsetting that modding is the best solution for keeping up with security updates when either Google or manufacturers should be doing it.

        I presume you mean a Nexus 7 2nd, since a Nexus 7 1st is a TEGRA 1 platform and if you were going to buy one of those, surely you would buy a TF300. The irony is, Google is actually pushing updates regularly for the Nexus 7 2nd, so you don't even need to run CM on it in order to keep up with security updates.

        • Yes, that's what I meant. And well, it is a Google Nexus. But what I said holds true for every device that has support for Cyanogenmod that isn't a Nexus lol. And also, I don't think Google will be supporting the Nexus 7 2nd forever.
  • When did Google get into the scanning devices business? I thought scanning books would keep them busy for a while.

  • Uh huh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 )

    Thirty percent. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

    • Yah, that number seems just a tad low.

      "70.8% of all active Android devices are on a version that we support with patches," - perhaps, but what percentage of those patches are supported and distributed by the carriers? Maybe 30%... so maybe that's where that number came from.

      • Re-reading my post, I rather should have have said that number (30%) seems a bit high. It might be 30% of the 70.8%.

  • My Tablet, which is my only 'mobile device', runs Android 4.1.1. I know security-wise I'd be better off upgrading, but my highest continued use of it is as a note taking and book reading device and it does those just fine. I don't get the need to 'upgrade' to a new device just because this one is long in the tooth. I have neither the desire nor monetary resources to do that right now.

    I'm positive their are also lots of places in the world outside the US, Europe, and Japan where a device that is more than tw

    • Vendors, including Google, need to realize this and figure out some way to do long term support for at least five years if not more.

      So easy to say, so hard to actually do. With the wide performance gulf between a 2011 device and a 2015 device, optimization would be hell.

      Toss in vendors fucking around with closed source drivers, locking you into specific kernels, and Google's own out-of-tree changes that make it virtually impossible to use upstream trees, and it becomes harder.

      On top of that, add that handse

  • I'm part of that 30% - my phone won't download a recent system update because there is insufficient dedicated system memory to (I assume) unpack and install the update. It's a fun combination problem - the version of 4.4.2 that I have won't let me move all downloaded apps to the SD card, which has 4x the available space as the internal memory. At least some of the software is bloat or crap from Virgin Mobile, and the other half of the problem is the very limited specs of the phone - an LG Tribute.

    • If you're on Virgin Mobile, pitch the LG Tribute and upgrade to a Moto E. They're $30 at WalMart and they run Android 5.1. I am not sure the price for them is as low direct from Virgin Mobile, but that's the going price right now at Wallys. Mine got a major update earlier this week.

  • Google's massive telemetry (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So, why isn't /. collectively freaking out about the gigantic quantities of telemetry involved that Google collects from each Android phone, like it usually does for everything else?

  • Bandwidth (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Where do I apply for a rebate from google for using my mobile bandwidth?

  • It's a Moto X 2014.
    It say's it's software is up to date. It's a retail version so no carriers to get in the way. The Android security patch version is 1 Nov 2015. Hasn't been any update since 6.0.
    Thanks for selling Motorola to Lenovo, Google. I bought the phone not only because of the features, but because Google makes a point of keeping it's devices updated.

    The 2013 Moto G isn't getting Android 6 but the 2014 Moto G is. They have the same SoC and RAM, so it can't be a system performance reason.

  • Bought my HTC V One in July 2012 (birthday present to me). As of now, it's never gotten a single OS update that I know of. Haven't loaded any apps on it for 2 years because newer apps don't run, and older apps I was interested in got loaded 2+ years ago.

    / based on a sample size of 1, I'll never buy another HTC phone again
    // hardware sucks (power/volume buttons broke early and often)
    /// software is buggy as hell

  • Sprint hasn't updated my Galaxy S4 since 5.0.1.

    Freedompop has updated since Kitkat but they're complete incompetents; their upgrades fail every time.

    I've been playing with Cyanogenmod and AOSP on my Freedompop phone, and when I'm happy with a version of Marshmallow, I'll probably go ahead and do it to my stock Sprint phone as well. Since Sprint can't seem to pull their heads out. Not to mention all the crap they install; at least this way I won't have 20 apps that I never use taking up resources with no way

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close