Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:58PM   Printer-friendly

On the heels of Microsoft bashing Google's hands-off Android update policy at Ignite 2015, Lucian Armasu at Tom's Hardware has an editorial reaffirming Android's update woes:

Android 5.0 and Android 5.1 (Lollipop) [...] currently represent 9.0 percent and 0.7 percent of the Android market, respectively, for a combined total of 9.7 percent. That's definitely nothing to be proud about, because it could be years by the time the vast majority of users are on the Android 5+ platforms. By then, 10 percent of users could be on Android 8.0.

Because Android is open source and because so many (essentially) OEM-tweaked "forks" of it exist, a "clean" upgrade path is almost impossible. To have a clean standardized update system would mean all the OEMs would have to agree to abide strictly by Google's guidelines for what they can and cannot modify on the platform. However, as soon as Google tries to do something like that, the OEMs usually cry foul that Google is making Android more proprietary and restricting what they can do with it. Google may also not want to upset the OEMs too much by forcing a unified update system on them either, because of the fear that those OEMs could take their business elsewhere, as it were.

When we look at the matter practically, though, we see that some have already tried that (Samsung with Tizen), and it hasn't worked very well. The reality is that Android and iOS are so entrenched in the market right now that it's hard to believe a significant third platform could arise on mobile when it comes to apps. Even Microsoft, after spending billions upon billions trying to make Windows Phone popular, has essentially admitted failure on the app store front, and is now trying to make Android and iOS apps work with Windows instead.

Google also can't and shouldn't leave the responsibility to OEMs and carriers anymore, because so far they've proven themselves to be quite irresponsible from this point of view. At best, we see flagship smartphones being updated for a year and a half, and even that is less than the time most people keep their phones. Even worse, the highest volume phones (lower-end handsets) usually never get an update. If they do it's only one update, and it comes about a year after Google released that update to other phones, giving malicious attackers plenty of time to take advantage of those users.

This update "system," if you can call it that, ends up leaving the vast majority of Android users with security holes in their phones and without the ability to experience new features until they buy new phones (which is sadly a kind of planned obsolescence as well). This can't be an acceptable state of affairs for Google, and it shouldn't be. Google already has a great six-week update system for Chromebooks, and it's time to have Android catch up to that, as well.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 06 2015, @05:24PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 06 2015, @05:24PM (#179593) Journal

    Our marketplaces are so perverse.

    Not that I'm a free market fundamentalist in the first place, but this is the difference between capitalism and consumerism. In the former, people are agents making choices, in the latter, they're a resource to extract money from.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @08:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @08:48PM (#179669)

    It appears that your 1st category was meant to be "Competitive market" and your 2nd "Non-competitive market".

    If there was proper competition, buyers could find what they wanted.
    Megacorporations, "intellectual property", litigation, etc. really kill it for the little guy who actually wants to compete.
    The day Reagan decided to stop enforcing the Sherman Act, it was all over for competition in the USA.
    (No President since then has rejected Reganism and you see what we have now.)

    .
    Capitalism == Concentrations of wealth
    Capitalism == Disempowered employees (!A self-directed workforce)
    Capitalism == A board of directors (which the workers have no say in selecting)[1]

    N.B. Stalinism was State Capitalism; there was still a small board of directors that made the choices and the workers had no say in selecting that group.

    [1] ...and neither do most stockholders when 1 guy (or a tiny group) holds over 50 percent of the stock.

    -- gewg_