Slashdot Asks: Would You Pay For Android Updates? (theverge.com) 257
It's no secret that most Android OEMs could do better when it comes to seeding out updates for their existing devices. A report on Bloomberg earlier this week claimed that Google plans to publicly name and shame the OEMs who are too slow at updating their devices. An HTC executive who didn't want to be identified told Slashdot on Thursday that it is not the right way to approach the problem. But that's only one part of the problem. The other issue is that almost every Android OEM partner -- including Google itself -- only provides support to their devices for 18-24 months. Vlad Savov of The Verge in a column today urges Android OEMs to perhaps charge its users if that is what it takes for them to offer support to their devices for a longer period of time and in a timely manner. He writes: I've been one of the many people dissatisfied with the state of Android software updates, however I can't in good conscience direct my wrath at the people manufacturing the devices. Price and spec competition is so intense right now that there's literally no option to disengage: everyone's been sucked into the whirlpool of razor-thin profit margins, and nobody can afford the luxury of dedicating too many resources to after-sales care. The question that's been bugging me lately is, if we value Android updates as highly as we say we do, why don't we pay for them? The situation can't be fixed by manufacturers -- most of them are barely breaking even -- or by Google, which is doing its best to improve things but ultimately relies on carriers and device makers to get the job done. Carriers will most certainly not be the solution, given how they presently constitute most of the problem (just ask AT&T Galaxy S6 owners) -- so like it or not, the best chance for substantial change comes from us, the users. What I'm proposing is a simple crowdfunding operation. I'm skeptical about this, because I don't think it is in an OEM's best interest to serve its existing users for long -- how else they will convince customers to purchase their new devices? A newer software version is after all one of the ultimate selling points of a new phone. So I don't think an OEM will take up on such an offer. What do you folks think?
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Even when it means running with known security holes, widely exploited?
Exactly right (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize that the logiphobic are going to have a problem with what I'm about to write, so if you have an aversion to logic and reason just skip to the next post.
Hopefully the kids in Hockey helmets are gone now.
Upgrading does not fix security holes, it replaces them. I have been working in IT Security for over 30 years and I have never seen an update that magically fixes everything. I have seen plenty that fix a particular problem but expose another, and sometimes more than one. Risk mitigation is the n
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confused. Do you use rsh then because ssh just patches some holes and opens others?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused.
Yes, you are. I specifically asked people like you to skip to the next post.
ALL i hear is "blah blah blah.. me me.. i know this!"
for a so called security man you are quite a fucking moron. leaving vulnerabilities unpatched?
FUCK ever having you work anywhere i do!
Re: (Score:2)
Upgrading does not fix security holes, it replaces them.
You're right technically. Now let's add a risk review. We have replaced known and likely currently exploited security holes with unknown and likely not currently exploited holes.
Sign me up to the upgrade! Please replace all my security holes and do it as frequently as possible. Let's keep the bad guys guessing in a cat and mouse game. It certainly gives me far more of a chance than I have now.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with people like you is that you've become so jaded that you want everyone else to be as downtrodden and angry as you are.
Re:Exactly right (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoever has been paying you for 30 years should ask for their money back. You're a moron of the worst kind.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like my boss, who refuses to patch anything in a timely manner, because patches might cause problems. This kind of logic ignores the fact that unpatched systems also cause problems.
People like you do not know how to perform risk assessments properly. So, while it is possible that a patch may (and can) cause problems, there is also the risk that not patching may also cause problems. In our case, we have a system, and he never green lighted updates to a component after we updated the main system, be
Re: (Score:2)
You probably should have skipped the thread too. I never said anything close to what you are implying. How you converted my statements to be "never patch" is concerning. HINT: I never said any such thing, you internalized my comments to fit your personal dilemma with your boss.
Where is the onus, really? (Score:2)
Features are one thing. That's a perfectly valid way to sell a new device.
However, bugfixes during a product's normal lifetime are another thing entirely.
I am of the opinion that if you sell a piece of software, first, you should specify what it is you are selling it to do, and the environment within which you are claiming it will do these things. Which we can take, at least at the moment, as "the feature list." If the software does not do what you said it would do, or work in the environment you said it wo
Re: (Score:2)
No question about it. I sleep well, though. :)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're not going to give me free security updates to the device I bought from you, I'll take the money you're asking for those updates and consider it as a discount on the product I'll buy from your competitor to replace your insecure device.
Re: (Score:2)
after those 18-24 months of support, how about AOSP roms? or at least they should give us a way to create and install them easily (unlock bootloader and open drivers or update kernel with their blobs). but nooooo. let's outdate the OS, make the battery non-replaceable and make it lose capacity after 150 charges.
somebody think of the children! (and the pollution we leave behind for them to die in)
Vlad Savov is an idiot. (Score:5, Interesting)
-
"I've been one of the many people dissatisfied with the state of auto industry recalls, however I can't in good conscience direct my wrath at the people manufacturing the devices. Price and spec competition is so intense right now that there's literally no option to disengage: everyone's been sucked into the whirlpool of razor-thin profit margins, and nobody can afford the luxury of dedicating too many resources to after-sales care. The question that's been bugging me lately is, if we value airbag recalls as highly as we say we do, why don't we pay for them? The situation can't be fixed by manufacturers -- most of them are barely breaking even -- or by Takata, which is doing its best to improve things but ultimately relies on automakers to get the job done. Dealers will most certainly not be the solution, given how they presently constitute most of the problem -- so like it or not, the best chance for substantial change comes from us, the drivers. What I'm proposing is a simple crowdfunding operation."
Umm no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Microsoft can make an OS that doesn't require the manufacturer's blessing to install updates. Google needs to fix the OS, not the OEMS.
Re: (Score:3)
Even Microsoft can make an OS that doesn't require the manufacturer's blessing to install updates. Google needs to fix the OS, not the OEMS.
Disagree. I don't trust Google to reliably test every single Android device on the market and send out updates that don't brick any of them. The carriers and manufacturers need to be held criminally liable for (1) not patching devices that have been for sale for under two years and (2) withholding any security updates for marketing reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Microsoft can make an OS that doesn't require the manufacturer's blessing to install updates. Google needs to fix the OS, not the OEMS.
Disagree. I don't trust Google to reliably test every single Android device on the market and send out updates that don't brick any of them. The carriers and manufacturers need to be held criminally liable for (1) not patching devices that have been for sale for under two years and (2) withholding any security updates for marketing reasons.
While I agree with your sentiment, good luck proving number (2), and for (1), they'll claim "technical difficulties", "we're working on it".
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Google's OS so broken that it can't run on "compatible" hardware. I know that Microsoft sucks (TM), but it's a rare device that simply *won't work* when they send out a patch or upgrade. Even W10 - the pariah that it is here - installs perfectly fine on 8 year old hardware that was designed to run an OS 4 generations back.
you know what htc made before? (Score:2)
they were an oem manufacturer for various windows phone brands.
and got paid for firmware upgrades/users had to pay.
(though users could just copy the updates too...)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Microsoft can make an OS that doesn't require the manufacturer's blessing to install updates. Google needs to fix the OS, not the OEMS.
Disagree. An example: Windows Mobile 10 was "finalized" months ago, but manufacture BLU is still struggling to release a Windows 10 rom for their Win HD device. It's unfinished and buggy as hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Microsoft can make an OS that doesn't require the manufacturer's blessing to install updates. Google needs to fix the OS, not the OEMS.
Google (or Microsoft) makes the OS, but HTC (or Gigabite) makes the drivers for the hardware. No drivers, no update. Ask some Windows 10 "upgrade" victims about that. (And Arm hardware is even less standardized then PC hardware!)
FYI, you can download and install the latest Android any time. Just be ready to loose some functionality as the hardware has no drivers.
Re:Umm no. (Score:5, Informative)
Even Microsoft can make an OS that doesn't require the manufacturer's blessing to install updates. Google needs to fix the OS, not the OEMS.
(Google Android engineer here)
I wish that were possible. The fact is that the same thing that makes the Android ecosystem so powerful -- the fact that it *is* an ecosystem, based on open source code -- means that OEMs can heavily customize Android on their devices, and Google has little control over what they do. Google can't safely update devices running code to which it doesn't even have source, even if there weren't other technical and business obstacles. Google's only real lever is the Play store, which is what motivates OEMs to care about passing the compliance test suite, but even that can't be pushed too hard or OEMs will simply set up their own. Maybe in alliance with Amazon, who already has one.
IMO, though, users paying for updates is the wrong answer. The right answer is for OEMs to be pushed into publishing formal support policies, as Google has done for Nexus devices, and for users to consider those policies and be willing to pay a little more for devices with better support. I'm willing to pay a little more for a car with a better warranty, for example.
That said, if the market likes the idea of paid updates (which I doubt), that's cool. Maybe OEMs can give their code to third parties who sell "extended update policies" for users who wish to buy them. A one-time fee or subscription might be more palatable than paying for each update.
Re:Umm no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not buying it. Google already places restrictions on them if they want to include Google Play services. That is your leverage. Use it. Force them to submit drivers to AOSP or no Google Play Services.
Google made this bed. You don't get to then pass the buck and blame OEMs who already have to play by your rules. The Android ecosystem is a fucking disgrace to modern engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree this is a disgrace, and it is a failure of vision and direction from management. Google should decree that devices take updates as Google publishes them, or else it is not an "Android" phone, and they can't be sold using the Android trade marks and marketing materials.
The other way Google is failing in not securing their installed system base. I'm not talking about new versions. There should be 5 years minimum of security patches for major versions. There is no excuse for Nexus devices being ful
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you are talking about in terms of Nexus... I still get updates and have latest version on my Nexus4
Re: (Score:3)
means that OEMs can heavily customize Android on their devices, and Google has little control over what they do. Google can't safely update devices running code to which it doesn't even have source,
OEMs heavily customize Windows on their desktops too
No, they don't. They install some apps. They have no access to the source code and can't make deep changes.
Re: (Score:3)
Even Microsoft ...
Okay stop right there. Are you proposing that the vendor of the most popular mobile OS adopts a similar model to probably the most miserable failure in the entire history of mobile OSes?
I think you need your morning coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Microsoft ...
Okay stop right there. Are you proposing that the vendor of the most popular mobile OS adopts a similar model to probably the most miserable failure in the entire history of mobile OSes?
I think you need your morning coffee.
And yet that miserable failure did a better job of pushing out security and OS updates than Google ever has.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot easier when there are only about 5 models of phone that run your OS.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is cost and complexity (Score:4, Insightful)
QA takes money, and Android devices are sold with basically no margin. How are you going to pay for that team?
Answer: you aren't.
Apple's QA team has enough problems with its limited set of updates and devices, and Apple has a huge pile of money and presumably decent processes. Any android manufacturer would find it impossible to handle multiple update streams on multiple hardware platforms.
Re:The problem is cost and complexity (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the model that Apple has taken --- limited phone models --- is the solution, but that requires a much bigger bet by the device manufacturers. With fewer models to support, a manufacturer could devote more resources to keeping the phone updated. The risk being that a poor model would crater their whole business. I know not every model is perfect for every person......so I don't really know how that would work, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you pitching to Samsung the glorious idea of less sales and less money? Let us know how that goes.
Apple sells fewer phones but has higher profits. So it might be a matter of less sales, but more money.
Re: (Score:2)
A solution to the problem of how long it takes for updates to make it to end-users. If you have 15 models, each with different specs, you have to work through each model to make security updates. If you only have 3 or 4 models, that's bound to be easier meaning that updates should be released faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem Apple has is it's fixed release schedule which is tied to hardware releases. Every summer it announces a new version of iOS and Mac OS X along with new iPhones. The iPhones are fairly easily handled on a yearly schedule. However the software is a race to the finish every year which gives QA little time to do their work. The issue is that they are trying to cram in every new feature into the yearly release in addition to support for the new hardware features.
I think it would be better if Apple
Re: (Score:2)
The Android problem is low margins to get market share, and no incentive for the diverse manufacturers to upda
I'll pay for a Nexus (Score:3)
and get free updates. Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
and get free updates. Thanks
And I would pay more for a cheap China knockoff if they would guarantee 5 years of updates. I might pay double since they are so cheap! But I will not pay as I go. And I will NOT pay $600 for something that will be abandoned in 2 years.
Re:I'll pay for a Nexus (Score:5, Informative)
Only for a couple of years. Google has itself has abandoned eg. Nexus 7, which was sold two years ago. Only a fool will buy anything new again from a vendor, who has just pulled the plug from the model one has currently..
That is totally new to me, since I own a Nexus 5 (not a Nexus 5x, mind you, the original Nexus 5) and a Nexus 7 and both were updated a couple of weeks ago to Android 6.0.1, Security patch level May 2016.
I have noticed the updates for the Nexus 7 lag a bit behind the Nexus 5, but usually not much more than 10 days.
Make of that what you will.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, I have a 1st generation Moto X -- a model that's nearly three years old -- and I was recently updated to security patch level 2016-04-01. Sure, nobody's promising me an upgrade to Marshmallow. But I hardly feel abandoned after 18 months. And by next year it will probably be time to start looking at newer models, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is totally new to me, since I own a Nexus 5 (not a Nexus 5x, mind you, the original Nexus 5) and a Nexus 7 and both were updated a couple of weeks ago to Android 6.0.1, Security patch level May 2016.
Those devices won't get Android N (probably), but they should continue receiving security updates for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
I am still waiting on the announcement (one way or the other) that Android N will run on the N5. Comparing the specs, [phonearena.com] I don't think there's all that much separating it from the N5X. Same RAM. The N5X has 6 CPU cores to 4 for the N5, but a lower clock cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
An update policy that short would upset me in most industries. But the smartphone industry is moving so quickly right now it doesn't really bother me. I've been meaning to update to a newer phone anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
GP is thinking of the Nexus 7 2012 model. The one without the back-facing camera. That was the one that was stopped.
The Nexus 7 2013 model is still getting updates.
Lest we forget that there were two tablets called "Nexus 7." For some reason.
Long term updates aren't even the problem! (Score:5, Insightful)
"only provides support to their devices for 18-24 months"
The problem is, in that 18-24 month period manufacturers aren't even updating their devices. Let's solve that problem first before we start talking about paying for longer term updates. And no, paying for an update while a device is still well within it's support window is not something I would do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Long term updates aren't even the problem! (Score:3)
Every carrier worldwide - I think around 180 - "puts up with" Apple's demands with regards to updates, no bloatware, and reports are a guaranteed minimum number of phones they must sell.
CyanogenMod is free (Score:2)
Probably not (Score:2)
Honestly Google is already giving it away for free (more or less) So paid droid updates were always a bit of a non starter.
Absolutely! (Score:2)
With the provisos that (a) I get to choose the apps on my phone and (b) I get to choose between competing OS providers, (c) network providers have no say whatsoever in what's on my phone. Meet those criteria I'd be very happy to pay a reasonable amount per year -- say $30-50 -- to a software company to provide service and security updates to my phone.
It depends, but probably no (Score:3)
.
Then, and only then, would I be willing to pay a reasonable (for me, not the money-grabbing vendor) for Android updates.
I already do pay for upgrades - called "phones" (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlock the damn devices (Score:2)
And let us update them ourselves.
What's the manufacturers rationale for keeping control of this? QA? They're not willing to dedicate the QA resources it takes to give us these updates. Open it up, and let the community take care of it, if there's a big enough community who wants to. If there's not, we're still no worse off than today.
Cynical but probably true: they don't want to, and they don't even want those updates available. They want you to buy a new device. Gotta keep that treadmill rolling.
SubjectIsSubject (Score:2)
Which basically means it'll never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I would pay (a modest amount) for an unlocked boot loader. Otherwise, I vote with my dollars, locked boot loader is massive negative for me that has so far meant that samsung android devices are banned in my home. Right up there with missing sd slot.
Zero (Score:2)
Now if we are tal
A thought I just had (Score:2)
The only sensible solution right now is to buy a Nexus device; at least Google explicitly tells you how long your device will be su
Regulation? (Score:2)
I'm not a big fan of over-regulation but that might be the only fix. When deemed a sufficient social good, manufacturers are required to warrant and support certain products for a minimum time. Auto emission controls are one example.
Perhaps some congresscritter would find that the promotion of cyber security and reduction of e-waste would make requiring a 5-year support period on mobile devices a worthy regulation.
Of course they would end up calling it something like the Security of Cyberdevices and Reducti
Re: (Score:2)
Security issues, need a law to require updates (Score:3)
OS updates are security issue. Users cannot really apply updates to devices so manufacturers should be required by law to support and update devices for as long as the device exists.
Sure the manufacturer would really be better off selling you a new one. If they issued no updates you would have to buy a new device every month or three.
Look at car recalls, the same standard should be set for support of devices. If there is a system issue and a security update is needed the manufacture should be required to provide it no matter how old the device is. Shame on them for not making is safe/secure in the first place.
Also to avoid false fronts there should be a mandatory bond for 5 years of support should the "manufacturer" disappear. The bond price will be very low for real manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at car recalls, the same standard should be set for support of devices. If there is a system issue and a security update is needed the manufacture should be required to provide it no matter how old the device is.
That's not true of cars. Automakers are only required to provide recalls for 10 years. Sometimes they provide them for longer, especially with safety-critical issues, because it may be cheaper than dealing with a bunch of wrongful death suits, but they're legally obliged for only 10 years.
Shame on them for not making is safe/secure in the first place.
That's not realistic. There is no such thing as a modern computing system that is secure, and there never will be. With the exception of a very few research and aerospace, etc., systems, there never have been. Systems are
Re: (Score:2)
Recycling fee (Score:2)
Price of every device sold should include a fee to mitigate any environmental damage incurred in its manufacturing and cost of eventually recycling the components. Beyond that, I think it's up to each manufacturer to negotiate a contract with users. If I can buy an $250 device every 2 years or an $400 device every 4 years, I would probably go with the first option to enjoy latest gadget / unscratched exterior, but that's just me.
Charging a subset of users for an upgrade seems like the worst case scenario. F
I'm already paying for this (Score:3)
I would, probably (Score:2)
My current phone is an HTC ONE M8. The nonremovable battery is past its prime, so I'm not very worried abuot getting Android N.
Lesson Zero - removable battery. Must have.
Lesson One - Style is not more important than substance.
Lesson Two - RAM is king. More is better. More RAM is the enabler of future upgrades.
So my next phone will have more RAM, removable battery, and not be too ugly. And would I pay for the extra update to a then - current Android? Yes, if it included patches, and not too expensive. Subsc
Re: (Score:2)
A fixed battery is a form of programmed obsolescence and I don't want it.
Re: (Score:2)
How is the battery past its prime already? Quantify that. Is it, like, 10% worse, or 50% worse?
It took about 3 years before I noticed any meaningful degradation on my iPhone 4, and in its 4th and last year, it was still barely getting through the day. My iPhone 6 is only 6 months newer than your M8, and if there's any battery degradation at all, it's not noticeable to me.
See, the problem isn't removable vs. non-removable, it's well made phones vs. not-as-well-made phones. Why is HTC using such low-grade bat
What About the Carrier? (Score:2)
The main drag on updates isn't always the OEM though. Because Google doesn't exert the level of control that Apple does, the OEMs make the update, send it to the carrier who then fills it with bloatware and releases it at their leisure. I think it was a month in between when Samsung released Android 4.4 for my device and when AT&T finished bloating it and pushed it out.
Feck Android (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
And again, no. I'd freeze it where it is on all my devices first, and wait for the free fork. I'd also retaliate against Google in every way I could, such as de-selecting its search engine, dumping all of my google-specific apps. I wouldn't like it -- some of those are very useful. But Google is making very close to 4 billion dollars NET profit this year without charging for Android. Android gives them an absolutely critical edge in the mobile phone and tablet markets. It fully justifies its share of
FFS stop deploying device specific images!! (Score:2)
The solution is simple: fire the cooks. No more device specific images.
When you install Linux on a desktop or laptop from any manufacturer it for the most part just works. The same needs to be made true for mobile operating systems. This is no longer the late 90's.
Always crying about profit margins... (Score:2)
"everyone's been sucked into the whirlpool of razor-thin profit margins"
Bullshit. Phones are quite a profit generator. Companies like OnePlus have proven that. $600 and $700 phones produce at least $200 in revenue over the actual cost of the phone.
That said, it's not just the OEMs that are at fault here. As someone else mentioned, the carriers are quite a problem as well. Take my Verizon Galaxy S4. Verizon has no impetus to doing anything but a carrier unlock. It's got all their crap on it. They also requir
Re: (Score:2)
What? No. I can't speak to OnePlus, but basically everyone that isn't Apple or Samsung is losing their shirts.
http://www.phonearena.com/news... [phonearena.com]
Other companies performed so badly that Apple + Samsung account for 105% of the profits in mobile devices.
(Huawei has a business model that involves selling at cost and monetizing on services, so realistically, they shouldn't be considered in this equation.)
No, it's already paid for... (Score:2)
Now if Microsoft started making Windows ROMs for Android or Apple with iOS, I might consider paying just to try those out on Android hardware. Same would go for Linux distributions (or QNX or whatever) that came without OS level data mining / advertisin
Follow the money... (Score:2)
Follow the money: After a phone is sold, only carriers and the app store owners make any from the subscriber. Manufacturers get nothing. If the carriers were smart, they would structure their purchasing contracts to include a service contract with the manufacturers, e.g., 10% of the sale price for X years of support. Then the OEM could justify keeping a sustaining engineering team going, assuming the opportunity cost isn't too high.
Google and OEM own fault (Score:2)
This is a self induced problem. The way to tackle this problem is to write the system in the first place to be extremely specific about what is the core android system is and what is the oem system and also any changes to the the core are either handled by specfici config files or very specific Google approved modifications.
This way Google can update the core system and the OEM can update their system.
I have worked creating complex software systems where we create the core system but the end user can fully
Cheap bastard here (Score:2)
I don't pay for my desktop OS. I don't pay for my laptop OS. I don't pay for my phone OS. I don't pay any major carrier's price for my phone service - the resellers offer the same services, at about 80% discount.
No, I'm not about to pay for updates for my phone's OS. There are enough alternatives to avoid paying for either the OS or it's updates. Cyanogen mod hasn't started charging for access to it's servers, have they?
I might be willing to pay an extra dollar to my carrier, if they BLOCK all those up
Re: (Score:2)
I don't pay for my desktop OS. I don't pay for my laptop OS. I don't pay for my phone OS. I don't pay any major carrier's price for my phone service - the resellers offer the same services, at about 80% discount.
No, I'm not about to pay for updates for my phone's OS. There are enough alternatives to avoid paying for either the OS or it's updates. Cyanogen mod hasn't started charging for access to it's servers, have they?
I might be willing to pay an extra dollar to my carrier, if they BLOCK all those updates, advertising, malware, etc. Might be willing, I say.
So what you are really saying is that you are a total LEECH, proud of it.
Absolute nonsens (Score:2)
The stated reason that margins are too thin for OEMs is nonsense. I own a Blackview phone, from a Hong Kong manufacturer, and it updates nicely, one update a month on average, with a full update from 5.1 to 6.0 last week. So if Blackview can do it on its none-too-expensive phones, what's the other manufacturer's excuse?
Liability (Score:2)
If we make the manufactures liable if they sell any devices with a known *fixed* security flaw...
It's not just after market sales. Many Android phones come with vulnerabilities that have been fixed by Google in that stable Android series.
More profit? (Score:2)
Given the prices of some phones the margin they could have an higher margin on the software update or an higher return on investment. So why not?
Disappointed w/ Android updates vs iOS, would pay (Score:2)
I have to say that I am disappointed with how soon Android phones stop being supported by the latest OS versions. Doing a quick search, it appears that iPhone models are supported by new iOS versions for two or three years longer than Android models are supported by new Android versions.
My examples are the Nexus 4 (Google's own model), dropped by Android 6 in just under 3 years vs iPhone 4s, still going strong at nearly 5 years, supported by the latest iOS 9. This means that there is an even greater dispari
Sure, but with conditions! (QuidProQuo) (Score:2)
I get all the source code and a way to sign my own firmware.
Then I would gladly take the task uppon my own shoulders to carry the tough burden of updaten my Smartphone/OS and making it much easier for Samsung, and so on .. to just publish the initial release and then forget about the user. They would have no problems with me anymore.
But yes, I would pay a small fee for that kind of service!
Ohh what a fucking nice bastard I'm, sweet talking them into believing that my only intend would be to carry the burden
Google needs to fix this (Score:2)
The solution is the same solution as for PCs: Android hardware needs to support installation of third party firmware. This requires a functioning "BIOS" (containing hardware-specific drivers) like the original BIOS was intended to be. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
Unlock the bootloader for unsupported phones (Score:2)
Cyanogen not an acceptable solution (Score:2)
If you have to root your phone and apply a completely different version of OS just to stay updated, then the manufacturer has failed.
The average user should not be required to go to such an extreme just to extend the life of their phone and get security fixes.
I had to do this with my Galaxy S3 just to make it useable. Between the crapware they saddled it with, and their inability to provide regular updates to THEIR FLAGSHIP PHONE, solidified in my mind that I will never buy another Samsung Android device a
Wait chain (Score:2)
I would pay (Score:2)
I would pay on 2 conditions:
1) as near stock Android as possible i.e absolutely no extra bloatware and no features locked out by the carrier (such as hotspot)
2) its available within say a month of the official Google release (which should be easily possible if all you're doing is re-adding a few existing device drivers and not wasting time integrating other crapware).
Easy solution (Score:2)
The solution is simpler than that, OEM should be obligated to sell unlocked phones, and let the user install the vanilla Google Android version if he wants to.
No more awful customisation and uninstallable apps, and easy upgrades as soon as they're published by Google.
I already pay for Android updates (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
Not EVERYBODY has been Sucked Into the Whirlpool (Score:2)
everyone's been sucked into the whirlpool of razor-thin profit margins, and nobody can afford the luxury of dedicating too many resources to after-sales care.
Hmmm. I know of at least ONE Cellphone OEM [phonearena.com] that hasn't fallen for the deadly "Race To The Bottom"...
Funny. That also happens to be the same OEM who has a (deserved) reputation for not only supporting the vast majority of their mobile devices for longer than pretty much everyone else, but also rolling-out most Security Updates in a very timely manner.
I wonder if they're on to something...?
Re: (Score:2)
Right. If anybody can unlock the bootloader on my GS4, I'll pay them real money. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The best interest of OEMs is for existing users to have great experience with the product so that they buy the next one from the same vendor. But this does not apply to ultra cheap prepaid phones where entire goal is to sell you something once. And stupidity can certainly overcome someone's best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Same way we would pay to upgrade Desktop OS (Not Linux).
There's upgrades and updates.
With windows you pay (maybe, not for 7,8,x to 10, not for 8 to 8.1) for upgrades, but updates, from security updates to service packs, are free. Typically you get at least a year or two of mainstream support after last date of sale, and five years extended support (security updates are still provided free) beyond that. Same level of price and service on Android devices would be just fine thanks - can you tell me where I can find it?
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu *do* have their own Linux distro for phones.