Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Android Google Software

Google Steps Up Pressure on Partners Tardy in Updating Android (bloomberg.com) 85

Posted by msmash from the android-fragmentation dept.
Google is actively tracking the time its partner OEMs take to release a new version of Android onto their devices. According to a Bloomberg report, the company is drawing up rankings that could shame some phone makers into better behavior. From the report: Google shared this list with Android partners earlier this year. It has discussed making it public to highlight proactive manufacturers and shame tardy vendors through omission from the list, two of the people said. [...] Google is making progress persuading phone makers and carriers to install security updates quicker "for the good of users," Android chief Hiroshi Lockheimer said. The same expedited process may then be used to send operating system updates to phones, he explained. The most challenging discussions are with carriers, which can be slow to approve updates because they test them thoroughly to avoid network disruption. The report adds that several OEMs are also stepping up their game to better comply with Google's new wishes. Motorola, for instance, is working on offering quarterly updates to its three years old devices.

For users with non-Nexus devices, it's really frustrating to wait for months, and in some cases, years, before their devices from Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei, HTC and other manufacturers get upgraded to a newer version of Android. Another challenge for Google is to push its partners to actively release updates to affordable and mid-range smartphones. Many OEMs mostly worry about serving those users who have the flagship and high-end models.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Steps Up Pressure on Partners Tardy in Updating Android More

Google Steps Up Pressure on Partners Tardy in Updating Android

Comments Filter:

  • Stop locking the fscking devices then (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Lock the device? Go and write your own OS, eco-system and create your own store. Google have this control, fscking use it. Apple have done so since day one, wisely so.

    • Apple only releases 1-2 SKUs a year of iPhone... while Google has no control of its operating system it hands to vendors who make the Android devices. Big difference there.

      BTW... GOOG lost voting rights at Alphabet, Inc. recently... those moved to the new GOOGL stock.

      • Microsoft also has no control over other manufacturers but I don't have to wait on my computer manufacturer to get security updates from MS.

        • Microsoft enforces their rules at the BIOS level... that's the reason why you can't build your own BIOS chip for Windows anymore.

          • I doubt that Microsoft is enforcing rules on Macs. I was able to install Windows 7 on an old Mac Mini without using Boot Camp.

            • Macs have only one source for BIOS: Apple... and Apple is part owned by Microsoft.

              How'd you get that to work without Boot Camp?

              • Microsoft sold their 2% stake in Apple years ago. Apple uses the standard EFI that everyone else uses.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface

                As far as Boot Camp, Boot Camp only does a few things.

                - For Macs that came out before It shipped, it upgrades the Mac EFI firmware to emulate BIOS, my old 2006 Core Duo Mini already had the updated firmware.

                - repartitions the hard drive to share between Mac OS and Windows. Apple dropped support for 32 but Macs with 10.6 so I didn't care ab

  • Unlocked bootloaders (Score:4, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @02:16PM (#52180901) Homepage Journal

    The carriers need to be careful - the FTC/FCC will probably order them to unlock bootloaders for any devices they refuse to update. They really won't want to do that. The FCC is regulatory-captured by the telcos, but the FTC isn't as much.

    (of course *I* want that to be an option - I paid for the damn phone)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gmack ( 197796 )

      (of course *I* want that to be an option - I paid for the damn phone)

      So vote with your wallet and only buy phones with unlocked bootloaders.. On the upside, they are usually cheaper and come with nice options like dual sim.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by piojo ( 995934 )

        So vote with your wallet and only buy phones with unlocked bootloaders.. On the upside, they are usually cheaper and come with nice options like dual sim.

        It's a rotten choice. There's no phone with great hardware AND an unlocked bootloader. (Great hardware means pluggable SD card and battery, and camera and other hardware that doesn't randomly screw up or stop working.)

        • So vote with your wallet and only buy phones with unlocked bootloaders.. On the upside, they are usually cheaper and come with nice options like dual sim.

          It's a rotten choice. There's no phone with great hardware AND an unlocked bootloader. (Great hardware means pluggable SD card and battery, and camera and other hardware that doesn't randomly screw up or stop working.)

          The Nexuses are the closest you will get. The hardware seems to be good these days and they are certainly not bootloader locked. I have a Lenovo for travel that's got all the ports and dual SIM. That was unlockable in the sense that all it took was a google search.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by piojo ( 995934 )

            The Nexuses are the closest you will get. The hardware seems to be good these days and they are certainly not bootloader locked. I have a Lenovo for travel that's got all the ports and dual SIM. That was unlockable in the sense that all it took was a google search.

            It's a bit immature, but I have a grudge against Google for the Nexus 4. On top of all its design shortcomings, mine had a slightly defective motherboard. I think it must have been "binned" bad but they sold it anyway.

            You mean the Lenovo has a SSD slot? I think you've just helped me choose my next phone. Is there any reason one might not want to choose Lenovo? Any way it fails to impress?

            • It's Android was full of bloatware that took some eradication. The back is hard moulded plastic, that's probably a good thing functionally. It's not as fast as the Nexus 5 for instance. So not a premium phone by any means, but dual SIM, a robust case, burner price and the right frequencies for China & Malaysia works for me when traveling.

              • The money shot is here [google.com]

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by piojo ( 995934 )

                  Thanks! I'll check out what Lenovo's flagship phones are next time I want to upgrade. (They seem to occupy the right spot, as a company that's big enough to do things right, but small enough that it can't just ignore what its customers want.)

                  Unlike Google, who couldn't seem to afford a QA department for their phones.

  • so where is the list (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    naming and shaming guys and girls, we need juice details

  • Nexus 7 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @02:19PM (#52180935)

    Google abandoned their own device.

  • Passive-Agressive much, Google? (Score:3)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @02:32PM (#52181069)

    The idea that such a list will somehow "shame tardy vendors" is laughable.

    VP #1: Chairman! Terrible news! We're not on Google's list!
    Chairman: Oh, no! I am ashamed! I must atone for this stain on my character by committing Seppuku!
    VP #2: No, Chairman! That will leave your family dishonored!
    Chairman: There is no other recourse - I must atone!

  • Networks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ashe Tyrael ( 697937 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @02:32PM (#52181073)

    To be honest, I've never had a problem with the device manufacturers, it's always been my network (carrier) that's been a pain up the ass with spending time adding their extra branding, crap apps, and the like. Even worse, mine has a blanket policy of "We'll tell you when there's new firmware, we aren;t going to give you any ETA's, status reports or anything. You have to wait until it appears (or not)

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by b0bby ( 201198 )

      That's why I make sure that any Android phones I get are from a manufacturer with a history of actually supporting them. And they're unlocked, so I'm not tied to a carrier.

    • Re:Networks (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DiSKiLLeR ( 17651 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @02:39PM (#52181135) Homepage Journal

      Hence why you tell other brands and carriers to fuck off.

      You either use an iPhone (I personally don't) or use a Nexus.

      I've been a Samsung fanboy for 5+ years now (had multiple Galaxy Note's and S devices) but now use a Nexus 6P and I love it.

      Fuck samsung. Fuck carriers.

      I don't know why Google doesn't just force updates like Apple does.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

        I don't know why Google doesn't just force updates like Apple does.

        Google already forces updates on just as many 3rd party manufacturers as Apple does on their 3rd party manufacturers.

      • Re:Networks (Score:4, Informative)

        by Shawn Willden ( 2914343 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @04:05PM (#52182115)

        I don't know why Google doesn't just force updates like Apple does.

        Google doesn't have the source code that was used to build the binaries on non-Nexus devices, and doesn't have the keys needed to sign those binaries so that the device will run them.

        • I don't know why Google doesn't just force updates like Apple does.

          Google doesn't have the source code that was used to build the binaries on non-Nexus devices, and doesn't have the keys needed to sign those binaries so that the device will run them.

          There's this new technology that was developed some time in the 1970s, whereby software is built in independent linkable blocks that can be independently compiled and updated. They certainly could drop a signing system into AOSP that enabled such updates and put up adverts accusing any vendor who disabled it of performing dick moves of the highest order. All these things are possible.

          • I don't know why Google doesn't just force updates like Apple does.

            Google doesn't have the source code that was used to build the binaries on non-Nexus devices, and doesn't have the keys needed to sign those binaries so that the device will run them.

            There's this new technology that was developed some time in the 1970s, whereby software is built in independent linkable blocks that can be independently compiled and updated. They certainly could drop a signing system into AOSP that enabled such updates and put up adverts accusing any vendor who disabled it of performing dick moves of the highest order. All these things are possible.

            Sure, if the only obstacles were technical. I'll grant that I only mentioned the technical obstacles in the interest of brevity, but the deeper issues underlying the technical ones are ones of relationships. Android is an ecosystem, not a product, and device manufacturers insist on a high degree of control over what they deliver to their customers. They are willing to accede to the compatibility requirements enforced by the compatibility test suite in order to get permission to install Google's apps and giv

            • I don't know why Google doesn't just force updates like Apple does.

              Google doesn't have the source code that was used to build the binaries on non-Nexus devices, and doesn't have the keys needed to sign those binaries so that the device will run them.

              There's this new technology that was developed some time in the 1970s, whereby software is built in independent linkable blocks that can be independently compiled and updated. They certainly could drop a signing system into AOSP that enabled such updates and put up adverts accusing any vendor who disabled it of performing dick moves of the highest order. All these things are possible.

              Sure, if the only obstacles were technical. I'll grant that I only mentioned the technical obstacles in the interest of brevity, but the deeper issues underlying the technical ones are ones of relationships. Android is an ecosystem, not a product, and device manufacturers insist on a high degree of control over what they deliver to their customers. They are willing to accede to the compatibility requirements enforced by the compatibility test suite in order to get permission to install Google's apps and give their devices access to the Play store, but Google's control has very definite limits.

              Yes. Openness doesn't prevent crap. On the plus side, I was able to fix the thermal sensor problem in the N4 by changing a few lines of code and recompiling Android (to filter out short term thermal sensor outliers) and then later with a sliver of cardboard once it was found to be the crappy connector between the body and the case back with the GPS antenna and the battery thermal sensor. The N5 was much better.

              • Yes. Openness doesn't prevent crap.

                Openness allows people and organization to do what they like, rather than what you like. This is why the slightly-less-open GPL is in many cases superior to fully-open licenses like Apache. Android chose not to go the GPL route, I suspect because of concerns that manufacturers wouldn't use it if they were forced to publish their "special sauce" (which isn't all that special, IMO, but they think so). Were those concerns misplaced? I doubt it, but no one knows.

                Given that Android is what it is, the only opti

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Trogre ( 513942 )

        Because sometimes those updates break things.

        Provide option to upgrade = good
        Force upgrade = bad

  • Some suggestions for Google. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by caitriona81 ( 1032126 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @02:32PM (#52181081) Journal

    - Stop certifying new devices unless they are on the most recent two releases as of the day the hardware first ships to customers. So, that would many any hardware that releases today would have to be running Lolipop or Marshmellow to ship with the Play Store.
    - Require unlocked bootloaders and full AOSP releases with all necessary driver sources for the hardware to get certification and Play Store for manufactures with poor update performance, so that third parties get a crack at updating devices when manufactures and carriers lag behind.
    - Restructure royalty payments so that app purchases on the play store pay carriers and handset manufactuers significantly more if they are on a current release, and significantly less the older the release is.
    - Give strong financial incentives to manufactures to partner with google to offer the option of direct-from-google "pure" firmware that customers can elect to install AFTER purchasing the device. with all the manufacturer and carrier customization offered to said users as apps in a special section of the play store.

    • Worth repeating: "Give strong financial incentives to manufactures to partner with google to offer the option of direct-from-google 'pure' firmware that customers can elect to install AFTER purchasing the device. with all the manufacturer and carrier customization offered to said users as apps in a special section of the play store."
    • Many MFA token apps don't like rooted/ASOP devices. Have to address this as well. If google tries to advocate hiding unrooted status from apps, then you might get friction between google and security app providers.

      • True, though, that's kindof a separate problem - with that said, I believe the difficulty in unlocking bootloaders and getting root *legitimately* causes more security problems in the long run, because it encourages hoarding of exploits. This effect is more evident with iOS, where you frequently see exploits hoarded until shortly after a major Apple product release, but it's actually more dangerous with Android because of how slow security updates roll out. We'd be better off if all devices had a straightfo

  • Google takes a bunch of data from my phone, why not also take the data about the OS version and security updates?

    .
    I've got an Android tablet that is running an ancient version of Android, and the vendor appears to have no intent to update it.

    Google has been far too lax with this very significant problem for far too long.

  • Google could help their case if they were more careful about software quality. Marshmallow simply blows, and I'm doing my best to avoid letting it install on any other devices.

  • I don't buy the "carrier testing" bullshit. (Score:3)

    by richy freeway ( 623503 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @03:19PM (#52181503)

    When has a Android update ever caused an issue with a carriers network?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's more than the network, but let's start with the network:

      Let's say a customized firmware has a preloaded app. That app has an API call. The app had to be ready 6-12 weeks before the carrier update (for testing and deployment). In the mean time, the app had a bug. Oops. The API repeatedly calls and fails until the app is force-quite and disabled in settings - usually not until after the customer calls support because their battery life sucks. An OTA update goes out. Within 72 hours, 50%+ of customers on

      • OK Interesting.

        But what about the many sim free phones that aren't tied to a carrier at all so may never be tested on that carriers network and certified as OK. I'm thinking along the lines of the Google Nexus range. I get new updates for my Nexus 5x all the time, the carriers don't get to test it before it goes live. I just crack on and use it.

        I'm in the UK btw, so things may be different over here. I have no idea.

      • That's an interesting scenerio. But if that were a real problem, then why isn't it a problem for IOS devices? Apple devices make up 40-50% of smart phone users of the major carriers in the US.

  • So Google has a list of vendors who provide timely OS releases and security updates. Question is, what is the ranking? I mean, a company like Samsung releases hundreds of new phones a year (in 2014, it's 3 phones a week), yet you only really expect updates on one of them (the flagship). So does Samsung get a poor ranking because of the 150 phones they released last year, only one gets security updates? Or out of those 150, only 50 shipped with the latest OS?

    I pick Samsung because they're the ones making ton

  • Hell my Samsung Rugby is still sitting at 4.4.2. Samsung has 0 interest in updating anything. It's like tech companies forgot that still have to maintain previous models and not just shake/jingle the shiny new keys at customers

  • This needs to be fundamentally fixed soon (Score:3)

    by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Wednesday May 25, 2016 @04:11PM (#52182181) Journal

    Disclaimer: I'm not a coder, I'm a user and a fixer at best.

    I switched from Apple to Android in 2010 for many reasons. In that time Android quickly improved to a point and then seemed, in my eyes to stagnate. Apple very very slowly improved and continued to improve and hasn't stopped...

    I am pretty frustrated that some of the older hardware I support, such as an iPad 3, iPhone 5s and 4s (!) are still being routinely updated by Apple, but Android based phones are being left in the dust.

    What can be done to fundamentally fix this? It didn't bother me 2 years ago when I was in an overpaid job, valued my money differently and I simply /knew/ I would be getting a new phone within 24 months at most, likely as short as 12.

    • What's stopping you from using third party Android builds. Many older phones have some advocate who has an alpha 6.x release. Sure it's probably not stable, but it is an option you have on many Android devices that you don't have with Apple devices.

      • Because as much as Apple bugs me (still) for the most part "it just works"
        Android, stock builds from Google or CM are ghastly. Camera issues, GPS issues, Bluetooth issues - it's a never ending nightmare. I guess there's not enough hobbyists, perhaps if there were 1/5th the choices of Android phones it might be better? As it stands, there's possibly several hundred current gen devices right now, in 12 months from now, those several hundred will be replaced by another several hundred. There's probabl

  • I think a great measure would be the percent (or number) of days in the year where there were no publicly-known unfixed vulnerabilities. Many phones still have Stagefright vulnerabilities - there were changes that fixed some Stagefright vulnerabilities, but NOT all of them, and thus the phones are still vulnerable.

  • My security patch level is November 2015 on my 2 year old Moto X.

  • Despite a long history of sucking, I'm forced to admit that Samsung & AT&T have gotten a lot better about updates. I've been a Samsung customer since the pre-Android BlackJack Windows ME phone, and started cell carriers with Cingular.

    My Samsung GS6 is currently on Android 5.1.1 ("security patch Feb 2016") and look, downloading a new update now.

    - Necron69

  • Sure, Google. Why isn't my old Samsung i9520 updated? Hmmm? It's a Google store product...and only about five years old.

  • I've had a Sony Z3C for just over a year now, and in that time they have released upgrades from 4.4 all the way to 6.01, and I just received another security update two days ago. I've only had one 'bad' update in that time -- the original 5.0 release cut the battery life way down, and they fixed that reasonable quickly.

    They don't get anywhere near the press of Samsung/HTC/LG, but I'd buy another one and have recommended them to others.

    My phone is direct from B&H, not from a carrier, which certainly hel

Slashdot Top Deals

"To take a significant step forward, you must make a series of finite improvements." -- Donald J. Atwood, General Motors

Close