Google to snatch control of Android updates from mobe makers – analyst Google is on the verge of a takeover that will change the way Android development and updates are handled. This according to Richard Windsor, an analyst with Edison Investment Research, who believes the Mountain View ad giant is tiring of slow updates and will soon take control of firmware updates away from hardware vendors. …
This is the only way that Google can end the endemic fragmentation that continues to plague its devices as well as take back control of software distribution
To put it another way: "This is the only way that Google can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the galax... uh, software distribution"
Surely the 'delays' in releasing new versions of Android onto a vendor's older handsets, and then the eventual twilighting at 2 years (the length of your average contract), is a pretty transparent ploy to flog you newer handsets.
The original Nexus devices google put out, were to demonstrate that you could get a good device at a great price. This segment is now nicely filled by premium Chinese brands.
The current Nexus devices aren't cheap - 128Gig Nexus 6P is £579 partly due to the annoyance of not having a separate SD card, previously a deal-breaker for me (I've given up on expecting a removal battery). The main reason I was looking at it though, was because I can expect to get quick OS updates on it until the time the hardware is ready to die. Nexus is now a quite ironic name.
Re; about time... For people who want to keep up and have the latest version(s) this is good news.
But I can't help wonder if the updates will also become mandatory if Google handles everything. A bit like: "If you don't update then we reserve the right not to provide you with our services", which could create some pretty weird situations.
This is just the speculation of an analyst, worth almost nothing.
There are several problems with this. One, how is Google going to verify that the update won't brick phones? Apple gets it wrong occasionally and they have only a handful of different models - all of which they designed themselves. There are literally thousands (at least) hardware variations in the Android world. Google is going to release updates on consumers without testing on all the hardware variants? Good luck with that. Or expect OEMs to test it for them, when OEMs can't be bothered to do anything connected with updates now and Google won't compensate them for their trouble and would likely blame any incompatibilities on the OEM instead of their OS? Good luck with that, too.
Two, OEMs aren't going to stand still and let Google take away their remaining differentiation, or the ways in which they can install their own services to try to make a little something after the sale instead of letting Google grab every single penny of post-sale revenue. I could easily see Samsung, Xiaomi and others forking the last version of Android before that one and sticking with it. Or switching to another phone OS entirely that remains compatible with Android apps.
What is in it for the OEMs to go along with Google making every single OEM's UI look exactly identical to the rest? Yeah, it is great having regular updates but the lack of them doesn't seem to be hurting Android's market share at all. Customers (outside the Reg readers and others of similar technical level) aren't clamoring for that.
This is the place where Reg readers will downvote me and tell me that they'd kill for a good phone that came with a generic Android install with no OEM skins or bloatware. But you lot aren't the average consumers. The average person isn't asking for that, or else Nexus phones would have sold one heck of a lot better than they did.
Google may wish they could do this, but if they tried they'd have a revolt on their hands from consumers, and if Samsung forked Android 6.x or switched to some Linux variant that was compatible with 99% of Android apps customers wouldn't care. They'd still buy Galaxys and would wonder what the fuss is about when their Reg reading friends told them "that's not real Android, you are buying the wrong phone!"
Is this the teetering/tipping point at which Samsung starts to feel very chuffed at the efforts spent on Tizen? Their customers are already used to all the S-alternatives to the G-* apps. They could fairly quietly switch out the below-the-waterline parts of the stack with many of their customers not noticing/caring.
"The speculation of a non-technical journalist is worth nothing."
But worth as much as the speculation of any of us not directly involved with the development of Android.
I'm really shocked by the reactionary "it will be impossible" attitude of so many people. The mobile phone market is pretty commoditized and shaking down to a handful of chipsets. Yes, there will be problems. But none of them strike me as a deal breaker for a company with Google's pockets, particularly as Microsoft seem to have solved them for Windows phone. Mobile is harder than desktop, I grant. But we've coped on the desktop for decades.
If you say both sides are uninformed speculation, then you should rely on the source. Until Google says they are going to do this, you shouldn't assume it is coming. If they say they are, then we can assume they have found a way around the objections raised, and speculate on the reaction of OEMs to giving up all ability for software customization.
One way to get around this problem is to have an "early adopter" program, akin to the Windows X fast ring, where those, like me, who love to test the new and shiny releases of everything get notified of update code a week or three before general release. That way, the bad updates will only affect those who expect such things. Also, early adopters tend to be the ones who use for functionality, so even a smallish number of these makes for a great sniff test of a new release.
You mean a beta program?
Apple has run every iOS update through beta testing. That doesn't stop them occasionally having problems with the release version. And that's with a tiny amount of hardware variation compared to Android, and hardware designed by Apple.
No matter how much beta testing / early adopter stuff you do, you will find problems in release software. With the nearly infinite number of combinations of hardware in the Android world, those problems will be worse for Google than they are for Apple.
Hmm, interestingly enough I've switched from touchwiz to stock android to cyanogen and now onto a sony xperia z3 that I haven't even bothered to root because... well it's just lovely exactly how it is. Not sure that many agree but the sony line of phones have been nice, I'm planning to get a z5 just because the hardware feels solid, it's waterproof and feels very well put together and it's reassuringly quick. I try loads of phones, including the blackberry priv but i really like the sony xperia range precisely because of the customisation they've added over stock.
"already been reduced to virtual commodities"
I don't think that word means what they think it means. A commodity is intrinsically interchangeable from the same product offered by another supplier. Phone hardware vendors may have so little imagination that this applies to them, but phones need be no more interchangeable than cars, cameras or sex toys.
If phones today *were* commodities, Google would be able to push out a single set of updates that ran on every device.
> If phones today *were* commodities, Google would be able to push out a single set of updates that ran on every device.
Phones *are* commodities. They are interchangeable. I can take any phone and ring you and get the same result.
Updates are not interchangeable, they are not commodities. That doesn't affect the status of 'phones'.
> Richard, by your logic, the "phone" function of a phone is a commodity but ...
Your claim was about "phones".
> the ability to run arbitrary software (like, er, updates) is not
I would hope that updates are not 'arbitrary'.
> and so the "smart" part of the "smartphone" is not a commodity.
They have cameras, the results of which are interchangeable: I can take a photo, send it to you and you will see the same result. I can create a document, text or spreadsheet on one and it will work on another. Messaging is the same. Media is the same. While there may be some differences, the functionality of most smartphones is the same and they are interchangeable*.
Whether they have the same operating system, accessory list, or screen size is irrelevant to whether they can have basic functional interchangeability.
* possibly with the exception of 'bragging rights'.
Commodity products are mature products with very similar core functionality that are differentiated by minor features, styling, etc. One key is users can readily swap from on device to the other with limit issues. Smartphones are commodities as are tablets, PCs, and laptops.
Keeping the software on old mobiles up to date restricts sales of new models. Duh!
A partial excuse for the carriers is it takes time to infuse a new OS version with the requisite logos and 'cant be deleted' crapware they insist on value-adding.
Hey ho, Cyanogen ahoy.
That excuse went out the door with Stagefright. Now Google's under legal pressure to take control of updates in order to cover its kiester. With more coverage of exploits and increased risk of such a device divulging State secrets, Google will want to prevent a repeat performance lest something slip and put them legally on the hook for allowing it.
Does that also mean Google takes on certification of all those releases? Those base band stacks can't just be willy nilly deployed without passing certification. I always thought that was one of the big reasons Nexus devices were only available in very few markets: it was only certified for one or two territories.
"Those base band stacks can't just be willy nilly deployed without passing certification."
But how often do bugs turn up in the baseband stack? How often are features added to it? A situation where the baseband stack is frozen and everything else can be upgraded would be much better than where we are today.
Google will simply draw a line on the calendar, and mandate hardware compliance of all handsets beyond that. No reason that they can't stratify those hardware requirements to create budget, mid-range & premium baseline specs.
The big bunfight will be getting your components on the 'approved' list.
Why should Google have to check for compatibility issues? Most of the updates people want are addressing security cock-ups in user-land software (and *that*, running in the Dalvik VM). It isn't any harder for Google to issues patches for those than it is for Microsoft or your favourite Linux distro to issue a new version of some application.
I'm not sure they do. Apple successfully bullied the carriers into doing what was best for Apple, and Google certainly has enough money to do the same, all it needs is a compelling product. Perhaps they think that now Android is mature enough to be that product.
The landscape is changing. People are far less prepared to put up with carrier lock-in than they were even 5 years ago and it looks like Google thinks that they can start pushing both the carriers and the handset manufacturers on the playing field a little.
Locking a phone to a network servers no real purpose, other than to devalue the phone in comparison to an unlocked version.
When you by a phone, even a subsidised one, the phone is still yours to do with as you please. It doesn't belong to the network once you have it, so why should they be allowed to restrict your usage of your phone?
The network make their money from the contracts, and the contract is still in place irrespective of what you do with the phone.
i.e. if you decided to sell the phone that came with an 18 month contract as soon as you got it, you should be free to do that to anyone who is on any network, as the phone is yours. But you still have to pay for the contract, as that's what you signed up to. So the network still makes their money back. they shouldn't care if your using the phone they provided, using an alternate phone, or not use one at all, the contract still needs to be paid irrespective.
If you choose to leave your contract early, you have to buy it out. When you do, you get your unlock code.
Locking a phone into a network increases the value of that handset, as most networks understand that people tend to stay with the network they are on. This means you are more likely to carry on getting those 18 month contracts with them.
If people are truly wound up by locked handsets, then just buy them sim free and get a sim only deal.
Forget the latest Android gew-gaws; it'll be nice for your Average Non-Nexus owner to FINALLY receive security updates in a timely fashion. (vs. the current state of affairs, when the phones get updated anywhere from months later to never.)
That said, I wonder how Google is going to handle a new patch breaking some sort of unique thing on a handset's hardware?
I also wonder if they are simply going to start blocking mapping obsolete phones to Google Accounts? You can STILL get brand-new, never-activated phones that are running Gingerbread. (These are not expensive phones, to be sure; they are giveaways for new pre-paid users, but they still do exist.)
Sitting here getting ready to root and uplift a Samsung s3 Mini which is stuck on an old version on Android.
Can understand the desire to minimise security exploit vectors but I'm rooting it just to be able to remove the 14 layers of shite that get installed by Google and Samsung and which simply just do not get used - Newstand, Movies, Music, Samsung Chat etc. Make it possible to remove those without root and there isn't the same impetus to root in the first place. Yes I could disable them - but I want more that that - I want the storage space back.
Uplifting because Samsung as per so many others have lost this one in time. Sorry - but on a handset bought 15 months ago, I just don't accept that it should be abandoned after such a short period.
It would seem fair that there should be reasonably frequent updates for at least a couple of years after the model has ceased to be sold on the high street - and security updates for at least another 2 years beyond that.
Right - off to pick between some robust KitKat releases and some Lollipop releases that might be more fluid
Because major handset makers will have to bring in new OS options as they will have little to differentiate themselves.
Android will be just a standardised OS that is built to push Googles services, not phone makers products.
Why are you surprised you don't get Android updates, when you're used to (until recently) new Windows versions on new PCs. Phone manufacturers use new Android versions to push new handsets, why would they update old/obsolete models with newer software when it takes away sales of new phones?
Looking forward to more choice.
"Where's linux on the fondleslab when you need it?"
Wait a month:-
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/02/bq-m10-ubuntu-tablet-everything-you-need-to-know
Unless you meant phones, in which case right here, right now!
https://store.bq.com/gl/smartphones
Note the phones at each end are running Ubuntu
There'll be nothing left of the "base", and what will happen to the small manufacturers who currently do not fork out for certification. Whilst the GMS licence itself may be free, the cost is in the independent certification testing. With more of the "Android" functionality moved to GMS, it will force the small guys to get a GMS licence.
Probably best to wait for a proper announcement from Google
Moving core OS to Google's control is, on the balance of things, for the better given they can push updates out faster without the red tape. I'm pretty sure the handset makers will still find ways to customize the UI through Overlays (introduced in Lollipop, I think). If they use overlays, I would prefer if Google allowed us the option to disable them, though I understand this is going to be something of a give and take with the handset makers.
Frankly, this would take care of most of the reasons I root my phone these days. Now if they can just mandate the last one (allow for local Nandroid backups from stock in case of Murphy)...
PS. Any bets Android N will be slow in coming so as to push this new idea?
Well, SOMETHING needs to happen on the Android front, not just from a new features perspective (Which makes sense for Google to be keen on pushing), but from a security perspective too: There are so many manufacturer abandoned handsets out there, we've probably reached the tipping point where Android has lost it's "Heard Immunity" from having a high enough proportion of handsets up to date and secure, that the whole ecosystem benefits, even the phones that aren't up to date.
But if this is Google's end game, I can't see a quick and easy way of getting there: Yes, the carriers and manufactures have a vested interest in making handsets legacy as soon as the next year's model is out, but another big problem with getting updates out is the chipset makers not testing and releasing drivers that work with Android next. Google has the clout to make them, but that doesn't help the clusterfuck of Firmware and low level device issues.
Only reasonable way I can see this being fixed is for Google to Hypervisor and Abstract their way out of it: I can see Android Peppermint or Quesito ending up with a small bare metal host system that virtualises all the hardware and is the manufactures responsibility, with everything above that level in the guest system updatable by Google.
Heck, throw in a Microsoft OOBE style system so carriers can push their (needless) customisations onto people, and they may be able to fix the security mess without an open revolt from their hardware partners.
How does this play with OEMs that actually want to innovate on the hardware side? Today they build the new hardware, add their own drivers, APIs and applications on top. And then, if Google deems it shiny enough, Google announces their own version of it, often with different APIs and the OEM gets to abandon their efforts for "the standard". Would Google taking full control of the stack even allow such innovation? Sounds more like Google Silver program back in disguise.
"And the carriers will let Google have full control over the device."
What options do they have? The only games in town are Apple (not available), Microsoft's vanity project (not popular), or Android. We've reached the point where Google can do this.
And, as others have pointed out, there are still mechanisms that allow carriers to ruin the experience add value.
If Nokia hadn't sold out to Microsoft and killed Symbian, there might still be a viable alternative for manufacturers to switch to. Ironically, it probably would be easier for Win10 to get a foothold in the market if it was more fragmented between iOS, Android, and Symbian.
"Richard Windsor, an analyst with Edison Investment Research"
Well Mr Dick Windsor, where is your evidence that Google is going to execute this move, how and in what time frame or is this just sheer conjecture ? One day the Earth will be enveloped by an expanding Sun but that's a long way off.
Move along folks and nothing to see here apart from Gartneresque bullshit.
Quibble about a common error -- "locked" does not mean "not rooted" -- it just means the handset will only work with a given Telco's cell network (it's locked to that network). Google itself sells zillions of "unlocked" handsets (its Nexus phones) that work fine with Google Pay on whatever cell network the hardware will support.
This could be very good for everyone or absolutely dreadful.
On one hand: faster updates which are welcome , possibly stock android across most new phones ?.
On the other: the faster updates may not get enough testing and not be compatible on some phones but still come through as an update for them.
In the article they say google made a version of the play store that will only run on android thats not been rooted. This PI55ES me off. You buy a pc or laptop you get administrative controls and permissions. But you buy a fecking smartphone thats basically a computer you can make calls and texts with as well other computer functions that can fit into your hand or pockets and yet google takes away our right to have full controls over our smartphones. The smartphones should come with root enabled and still be allowed all the latest updates to apps and firmware and other features.
The fact that google practically steal our rights to have administrative and root controls on OUR android devices to me is nothing short of a crime
"They blocked Google PAY, which I can understand. You want to be sure security is controlled when it comes to pay services."
I've rooted my laptop and several hundred servers I look after, I've also admistratored many Windows systems. I've even mechaniced my cars and even *shock* *horror* chippied, plumbered and sparkied my house.
You think your phone is secure if you can't administer it?
"They blocked Google PAY, which I can understand. You want to be sure security is controlled when it comes to pay services"
I don't see how preventing rooting helps. We seem happy with banking on PCs.
Unless there's something insecure server side which would be compromised by a rooted phone then they gain nothing, and if there is something insecure then it'll get found out eventually. Client side a malicious app can be installed without rooting.
So the only possible protection is against something client side stealing a secret from the root-only accessible part of the client. I suppose they could be worried about someone tampering with cert trust or similar but that's about it.
root compromises the security of the OS, and therefore the security of the apps running on that OS. Just like running under an admin enabled account, with UAC turned off, can compromises the Windows OS.
Google, like most existing banks and other financial institutions, have decided that a rooted device is too risky to trust with financial apps, so they won't work. That's their choice, as it's their service and their app, not yours.
If you want to use Google Pay, or other banking apps, then remove root, simple.
"If the security of their service relies on the integrity of the customer's device, they ultimately have no useful security at all."
Then by your logic no device on earth has any useful security because, in the final analysis, you MUST use an endpoint of some sort to do business.
Meanwhile, Android is taking greater pains to verify its work environment. dm-verity, for example, is now enforced (from bootup) in Marshmallow and uses a Merkle Tree based on Google's signing key, meaning all official ROMs have to go through Google for verification going forward. Expect the standard to tighten for Android N, which I suspect will be some time coming if Google plans to incorporate this new update scheme into it.
Out of curiosity, what do people use root for these days? i.e. Why do people feel the need to root your phones?
Genuine question, not trolling.
I've been a user of Android since the original HTC Hero, which I rooted at the time, and did the same to several phones after that point.
But I haven't bothered rooting for a while now, as all the things I'd used root for previously, are possible now in a non rooted device.
For example, firewalls and granular app permissions, work without root these days.
So what other things do people feel they need to do on their phones, that requires root access?
For reference, I use Nexus devices these days, so don't have to deal with the cruft installed by the various manufacturers. So this likely also plays into the no root needed for me.
There are several key reasons:
- Removing crapware, especially crapware system apps that are baked into the ROM and therefore can't be uninstalled unless you're root. At the nuclear end, some remove crapware by installing slimmer ROMs in their place. This is being countered with more integrity checking, particularly with Marshmallow with dm-verity. Expect more functionality to be cut off (Android Pay is this already) if Android cannot verify a pristine system.
- Filtering the network at a baseline level, meaning not even the bundled apps can bomb you. That usually calls for hosts file editing (such as with AdAway), a system-level job that again violates system integrity.
- Backing up in case Murphy strikes. And not just apps, things like contacts and system settings for which there's no easy backup solution unless you're doing a Nandroid or using a root-class backup like Titanium Backup. Both require system-level access to do (the former because you need a custom recovery), and that breaks system integrity again, going to the first problem. If Google could provide a stock means to do this, that would remove a reason.
PS. Much as I would take a Nexus, lack of SD and lack of removable battery are both deal-breakers (especially the latter due to working life issues with batteries). I'm currently looking for a decent phone to use on a trip, but as of now the best bet seems to be a used Samsung S5 or perhaps an LG G3 (I'll tolerate their cruft for SD, a removeable battery, wireless charging, and NFC, unless someone else can point to one that's at least 720p and can do Marshmallow).
After getting burned by carriers and android handset makers far too many times, I was THIS close to moving to Apple. Carrier bloat in particular is a disgrace to the Android ecosystem and handsets, other than Nexus, are still loaded to the rim with uninstallable bloat, my Note 5 is my latest example.
I use android pay, so rooting isn't desirable so I'm stuck with apps that I simply can't remove that waste my storage space and run when I don't want them to (unless they can be disabled, which some of them are, admittedly) but more than a few are considered "required" and cannot even be disabled.
The criminal level of arrogance these companies display (carriers and handset makers) to dictate what my phone MUST have turns my stomach. So, in this case, I completely support Google setting the standard, so if I WANT a Samsung launcher/theme/etc, they can prove their worth and sell me on it's features/functionality. Same goes with Sony, LG, etc...
I'd also love to uninstall the Google bloatware that gets pushed to my phone. All those services they keep dreaming up, many not available in my region, but I must have the app. Or bits like Google+ and Hangouts (which always seems to hover in the background, doing who knows what even if I've never used it).
I always thought Hangouts was a bit odd, not one friend ever used it, and I thought it was horrible as an SMS client.
So on my Nexus 5, it's disable.
But that still doesn't stop it from using over 23MB of space, and crashing in the background occasionally. (How can a disabled app still crash!!).
This post has been deleted by its author
I cannot get over how many new phones still come out with KitKat, FFS it's 2016 manufacturers, I'm sick of looking at new phones for staff and having 11GB or less free on a brand new 16GB phone because of useless crap you lot install that cannot be removed unless the phone is rooted.
I was intending to get an Android phone, having decided I could do everything I needed without a Google account and if necessary eventually install Cyanogenmod. This changes everything. Will Cyanogenmod have a way around this now Google virtually owns them, or will they be sacrificed?
Now what? Carry on waiting for Jolla or Tizen or become an Apple fanboi?
Make the hardware providers responsible for handing out the updates, wait until they all get so out of sync that it causes huge issues and growing unrest among the end users, then sweep in with a cry of "we'll take over updates! Everything will be in sync!" and presto! You're seen as the heroes who sorted everything out, as opposed to the evil, scheming megalomaniacs who will not rest until they have total control over everyone's devices and data...
... I'll get me coat.
Marshmallow stinks, at least on a HTC 1m8 where the thing now defaults to brilliant white on the phone and keyboards. Try using that in the middle of the night when someone calls you, when you are on call. A phone call to HTC was met with "Not us gov'ner!" So I asked: "Can I roll it back then please ?" "Not possible!" came the curt reply. A custom keyboard solved some of it but it wasn't as friendly as the default one, now blindingly bright. A custom third party skin solved the brilliant white phone screen. But HTC didn't advise me of these possibilities. Don't the designers of these new OS versions, think things through nowadays, or are they really that obtuse ? They didn't use to be that's for sure.
Updates ? Judging by this Android "one way street" and the problems with Windows 10 I had on my Microsoft SP3, such as the vanishing "store" apps when run on a local account for too long, updates seem to be now something best avoided I think. If it ain't broke and all that!
Windows 8.1 always worked fine on the SP3, but I couldn't roll that back from W10 either after a hardware exchange. Back in the day when they had to pay to duplicate millions of OS discs they certainly took a lot more care.
This is a whole load of complete rubbish. First they can't "move" the entire OS onto the services layer, that is definitely something that shows that the guy who is essentially guessing the future, doesn't actually know how Android works. Second - the Nexus devices exist so that Google does have complete control over the updates situation. Third - leaving handset makers with no ability to modify Android in any way - will just significantly remove the number of manufacturers making Android hardware, which with the launch of Brillo is the very last thing Google can afford to do if they want more people to pick Android. Fourth - and this is the big one - the jump from Google wants more control and that's why they are preventing rooted devices from running Android Pay - really demonstrates the sort of lack of knowledge this guy has. Clearly - BANKS are behind the requirement that rooted devices cannot run Android Pay - because rooted devices somehow apparently threaten the integrity of the banking system.
This move by Google is an absolute necessity these days because so much of the newest malware is rooting phones and even able to persist thru factory resets. And it's not just the speed of security updates or adoption of the next Operating systems, but the fact that the OEM and carriers add more crapware each and every time. I think that the OEM and Carriers have gone too far in competing with Google in wanting ALL our usage information and more. Take Verizon super cookies for instance. And Sprints trying to skin the default browser,Chrome, to scoop up info "to better serve you ads" and apps and more crapware. It's gotten rediculus. HTC and blink directly competing with Google Now etc. etc. etc. With all the crapware comes more vulnerabilities because of weak security by the OEM and Carrier developers. So, I hope that Google plans to give us the ability to uninstall the crapware without having to root, otherwise, Google will lose out too.
I'm sure there's a huge gap in the market for vendors who can supply vanilla android (a la Nexus range), with no extra junk software added, that gets updates as soon as they are available for people who like bug fixes, but sell phone range with features that the Nexus range lacks e.g. SD card support (insert other choices here e.g. dual SIM, decent removeable battery etc).
You seem to be describing GPE, Google Play Edition devices.
This was basically standard OEM hardware, (e.g. Galaxy S4), but running stock Android with no tweaking by the manufacturers other than adding the required hardware drivers.
Samsung, HTC, Sony and Motorola all produced GPE devices.
Unfortunately it was badly run (as far as I know you could only buy them in the US) and not widely advertised. They stopped selling them in late 2014/early 2015.
The Android Silver program was supposedly going to replace these Play Editions, (and ultimately the Nexus devices themselves), but the guy running it in Google left, and there were rumours about an internal power struggle within Google, between the Silver and the Nexus programs, and resistance from the OEMs themselves.
So GPE vanished, Android Silver never appeared, and the Nexus devices carried on.
A smartphone is a computer. I wouldn't dream of buying a computer that could not get software updates (security patches and new features). The sooner Google takes control of Android updates for all Android devices from all manufacturers the better - it would be nice to be able to choose any phone rather than being restricted to the Nexus range as at present.
Whilst I see the sense behind this idea, I am very concerned that based on Googles past updating experience this is going to make a lot of devices unusable.
The Nexus 7 is a good example of this, it worked fine up to Android 4.4.4 but when Android 5 was added to it the tablets became pretty much useless as they were so slow.
This is my worry as well. I have a Nexus 7 2012 which I "upgraded" to 5.0, spent months trying to get it to work, then "downgraded" back to 4.4.4. KitKat still doesn't run all that well, but it's nowhere near as bad.
I now believe that there needs to be a regulatory mandate that proprietary software and hardware manufacturers and cell phone carriers must provide security updates to their OSes and core apps for the useful life of their devices. Five years from first public release at a minimum. Security updates that don't require users to "update" to newer, more bloated versions that won't run. Google should still be issuing security patches for any version of Android that has a significant number of users, and manufacturers and carriers should be legally required to assist them in getting the patches QAed and installed.
I think nearly everyone is in denial about the fact that end-user security is a significant component of national security. Software and hardware insecurity should be treated as just as important as physical security. Unpatched Android phones are becoming the new Windows XP, the weakest link in an already terribly weak security infrastructure.
Of course, we also need to get rid of the "security theater" aspect of physical security and ensure that it doesn't become the norm for information security as well.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
