Commit to Android codebase suggests Google may strong-arm phone makers into using 'seamless' partitioned updates Despite Google's better efforts, operating system updates on Android have long been a fragmented, disconnected mess. The launch of Android 11 will go some way to resolving that, with Google likely to force manufacturers to use the Virtual A/B partitioned updates system. A recent commit to the Android Vendor Test Suite (VTS) …
I'm still using 5.1.1 on my phone. For decades I've wanted a pocket computer, and now I have one! (The keyboard ain't so great, but I can live with it.) It works. Why should I change anything? Of course I usually keep it in airplane mode, and only turn it on when I want to make a phone call, or am expecting one. It's a great pocket reader, though, holds music, and kinda works as a camera.
Still using Win7, too, and Office 2003. They work. Life can be perilous out on the bleeding edge of technology -- if I don't need it, why should I buy it?
Life is perilous on the trailing edge, too. Your old Android version is vulnerable to a number of exploits, should anyone care enough to target you. And how about older SSL protocols being blocked by newer web-sites and apps that require data? Or newer app version dropping support for your old phone?
All that said, I keep a lot of old Android phones limping along, too. Can usually find some specific purpose for them... be it WiFi surveillance camera, digital music players for home or car, movie or game mini-tablets for kids on long trips, barcode scanners, etc. All with either no connectivity or minimal sensitive data, of course.
If you want longer support then for now you need to buy a Pixel. Google support android versions for a number of years and Pixel devices for 3 years. It would be great if they could change the ecosystem so updates are provided like Windows update but I don't see that happening any time soon so you're at the mercy of the manufacturer.
It would be great if they could change the ecosystem so updates are provided like Windows update but I don't see that happening any time soon so you're at the mercy of the manufacturer.
Couple of points here:
1) Using the much reviled forced Windows update as a model does nothing for your argument. Can you say "1809"? I knew you could....
2) How does buying a Pixel not put you "at the mercy of the manufacturer" (Google)?
Shill.
Shill! Is that really necessary?
My point is simply if you want regular security updates then you need a Google device as they update each month.
As for the "Windows update style" updates I mean regular security updates which I'm sure we all agree is important. I'm not talking about being forced to eat OS updates like Windows update has become merely that all devices are secured from the OS vendor.
My past few Sony handsets, primarily after they adopted the Project Treble model, received updates every other months. Nearly like clockwork. It's easy for Google to maintain a monthly release cycle for Nexus/Pixel. They only have three/four variants at any given time, maybe ten/twelve across the entire support window. Other manufactures may have ten/twelve localizations or market versions per model.
Generally, even after two years, despite the OEM's best efforts, the updates from Google start to dry up and they're left hanging. Google doesn't appear to buy into the idea that people are (at least wanting to) keep handsets for longer. The Android hardware requirements are often tweaked just enough for newer versions to require hardware updates.
Aside: Of course, this requirement could be aimed squarely at Samsung, which has been the main hold out on going Project Treble. They also go a fair bit of kernel/low-level tweakin, cf. Dex/Knox, which Google may not appreciate.
My point is simply if you want regular security updates then you need a Google device as they update each month.
An Android One device is also supposed to update each month for three years, and several of the "usual suspects" (Moto, Nokia, etc.) make them, at much more reasonable purchase prices than a Pixel.
Yep, with an Android One phone you too can have the joy of waking up to your phone telling you to reboot for an update, only to discover you're now running Android 10 and your phone's a bag of crap. Don't worry, 75% of the issues will be resolved if you wait about 3 months for the 'security' updates to fix non-security related issues.
Old Android phones remain more secure from attacks via web pages, because the browser is updated regularly. Android 4.4 (released Oct 2013) is still getting Chrome updates. Most other attacks are mitigated by needing to be physically near phone, are filtered by SMS infrastructure, or can be avoided by not installing crap apps.
Anyone on iOS 12 or less is stuck on an old and insecure version of Safari - the recent flaw that gives access to cameras also gives access to stored passwords... Roll the dice on every web page visited!
I generally recommend Nokia phones with Android One (designed by HMD) because they are relatively cheap but good, they get updates, and the Android version is clean (no manufacturer shit).
Technologically, this is a fine idea; having effectively two versions of the OS stashed away and picking one of the (ostensibly, the newest) versions at bootup. However, there are myriad problems with this, including (but not limited to) breaking existing installed apps (you know that a good number of those apps on your shiny are keyed to a particular OS). As the updates are "seamless", which from the article means that they can happen in the background without the phone being physically and visually put into stasis while the OS is updated, allows for all sorts of mischief and mayhem to be wrought on an unsuspecting user. ("Gee, my phone worked fine yesterday; how come when I turned it on today I'm getting all these popup adds for 'hot Russian chicks'?)
This idea needs rehearsal. I noticed, for example, that here was no discussion of the user being able to "back out" the latest update and go back to the last known good version. I understand that phone junkies get all bent out of shape if their shiny doesn't have all the latest doodads and geegaws. And I understand the disgust that users have for phone makers that don't (or won't) support their shiny for longer than 6 months, or do maintain their gadgets, but at a glacial pace. Nonetheless, I would be very suspicious of Google being able to unilaterally and surreptitiously update my phone...wouldn't you?
I mean, shit! We're talking Google here...
Then the OS can be upgraded without even consulting the hardware vendors - just like Microsoft does with Windows on PCs.
Yeah, I know, not quite entirely aligned with this article, but...
All the vendors would have to do is provide the "drivers" (for want of a better word) and perhaps a partition where they can add their bloatware (to be disabled instantly) and their home screen app.
I'm probably being naive here, but M$ managed it...
Project Treble added exactly some of that.
It standardised and abstracted the hardware layer interface and allows the OS to be upgraded for longer and keep working with frozen-in-time binary blobs/drivers from the hardware vendors. Qualcomm has habit of declaring an SoC end-of-life barely 18 months after its initial general availability. This often made it impossible for handset manufacturers to ship updates past that point, even if they wanted to.
I think this is well-overdue in the Android spectrum and I applaud Google for at least putting their toe in the water.
It's just that it is Google - who I have an inherent trust issue with.
What's worse? Being sucked further into Google's maw or being left hanging in the wind (updates wise) by your manufacturer of choice?
Maybe my bias is blinding me more than I think...
People have been predicting this for years. After all, this way Google can ensure that everyone is dancing to their tune and not blocking the release of their latest products/version while singing their usual song about "ensuring a better/more secure experience for the end user"...
Updated fine. I miss them. I now have an Android phone, and an Android table, and they're both crap. And they're both out of date. And there's nothing I can do about it unless I want to futz around for hours with unlocking them and installing some other flavor of Android. While I'm perfectly capable of that, I have better things to do with my time than waste it on computers in my un-paid hours. I'm getting old, dammit, and I want certain things to "just work." My phone is definitely one of those things, along with my tablet which I pretty much only own for watching movies on airplanes, but no longer does that (without a bit of useragent trickery in Dolphin) because it's stuck on Android 7.0 and GoGo Inflight now mandates 7.1.
Google/Android sucks. Windows Phone was 10x better, despite all its flaws and the total b0rkery of its Redmond overlords.
"Astonishingly, over 9 per cent of Android phones use Version 6.0, which is no longer supported by Google."
There are a few reasons this is inevitable.
First is that Google itself doesn't support older devices; why would anyone else ?
Second is accumulating slowdowns. I have a 5 year old tablet that gets noticably slower with every major version update. I'd go back to 5 if I could, just to get the snappy start up back.
That's less the OS and more the software that runs on top of it. Apps, especially popular ones, keep adding on more and more stuff until you pretty much need new hardware just to keep the apps running at any decent pace. Take my Note 4. I've been holding out for years because a headliner with a removable battery's a dying breed. But it's getting bad. My Firefox gets closed while my phone sleeps, and trying to use Navigation or Waze is an exercise in patience. Even here Navigation's getting clunky. And the OS on this thing (originally 5, now 6) hasn't been updated in years, so it's not that.
Times change, technology moves on, and it's probably time for me to find something new (but not a headliner, no way).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
