Android Won't Catch A Break Until Google Fixes The Update System

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Contributor

Lucian Armasu is a Contributing Writer for Tom's Hardware US. He covers software news and the issues surrounding privacy and security.

  • kawininjazx
    The big companies like LG and Samsung should be "Android Certified" which means they must meet certain updates, patches, etc. by a certain date. They must also push the phone carriers to catch up. My LG took months and months to get Lollipop. then it took a few months to get a patch where I could actually get email through WIFI.
    Reply
  • surphninja
    If Google (Alphabet?) doesn't show some leadership and demand it, this will never happen. The economics won't allow for it. Vendors are only interested in supporting their devices currently on sale, and are quite willing to let users on older models suffer the hackers.

    Really, I think what we really need is a law against planned obsolescence.
    Reply
  • ZolaIII
    Only secure system is open sourced one not because it won't have vulnerabilities to exploit but because they can be easily & quickly patched. It's much more because of OEM's then nature of Android it self that we have this problem. On the other hand Google's & not so capable fat bottom girls working there take their share in this situation. Google's shooting at only healthy feet because of their gread AOSP & being far from Linux kernel main line represents the biggest problem in whole story about share, fast distribution (based on market share) & security problems.
    Hopefully organization like Linaro will be able to help in catching to the Linux kernel mainline but that doesn't help with distribution.
    Reply
  • gangrel
    If Google can't get the security concerns under control, then IMO Android is at risk...in its entirety. I don't consider this an exaggeration. It won't happen *soon* but I think it will happen without dramatic action.

    I'm not sufficiently well versed to understand exactly how Android is organized. The model that should work for it, tho, is something along the lines of Linux...that there is a core, controlled by a relatively small group, and which can be updated and patched by that group, and NOT by the manufacturers/service providers.

    If they can't get to something like this, they'll just drive everyone to Apple. It's not that Apple is virus-free...but they can respond to exposed vulnerabilities much better. Businesses will do this fastest. And I'm by NO means an Apple fanboi...I do have 2 iPod Touches, but those also shw me that I don't want to go any deeper with them. And, of course, Apple ONLY wants to build expensive, perceived-as-ultra-premium devices, and there is NO reason to think that will ever change...it's been their motif from day one. And lack of competition would be very bad.
    Reply
  • op8

    Really, I think what we really need is a law against planned obsolescence.


    ...I don't think we have any chance of turning that around, but we can dream.
    Reply
  • gangrel
    What do you want? Do you want ARM to stop developing new cores? Or Qualcomm, Samsung, and MediaTek (?) to stop innovating on them? Let's never update screen resolutions, let's never improve mobile modems.

    Get a clue. This isn't planned obsolescence. It's the fundamental consequence of rapidly developing and evolving technology, in a wildly competitive market environment.

    And right or wrong...EVERY handset maker of midlevel and above units, MUST revamp their lineup at least once every 2 years, or they're going to effectively disappear. With better specs than their last gen. Would Android 2 be capable of driving everything on an S6 Edge adequately? I doubt it.
    Reply
  • Christopher1
    IReally, I think what we really need is a law against planned obsolescence.
    There is no planned obsolescence here. The technology is just evolving at such a fast rate that devices are outdated in 3-5 years, tops.
    That said, the vendors should be required to support their devices, including releasing firmware and OS updates for them, for at least 10 years.
    Reply
  • Alathorne
    My own personal answer is to buy phones that are carrier-independent such as Nexus and now Motorola's sales model. I see it as a 3-fold problem. Google must write the security patch, which goes to the device manufacturer, which then goes to the carrier and finally to the end user. By buying carrier-independent, you can at least cut out that third (and often lengthiest) step.
    Reply
  • alidan
    how hard is this.
    android is the base for everything
    3rd parties send their drivers to google to make sure crap works

    now android of any flavor can be installed and drivers are sure to work on any os version from now to X (major os revision that requires brand new driver certs)
    Reply
  • gangrel
    Alathorne: better still, refuse to buy the excessively skinned variants of Android. And don't *touch* a phone being offered, new, with an older Android version. I can't remember who, but I know I've seen some BRAND NEW phone models...maybe even NOT out yet, but to be released very soon...using Android 4.4. I made the comment a few days ago after Google announced their rapid-update policy: go pure Android, for update speed. So Nexus phones, or (at least for now) Motorola. I also expect Samsung will step up to bat, but I wonder on how many models. Samsung's got such a massive portfolio.

    alidan: that makes Google the bottleneck, but I think you're not far off. It should be possible to divorce the GUIs and app-level functionality, which is where the various skins should live, from the hardware-level stuff that might be subject to this kind of certification, and to all the control functionality that should be Google's purview. The issue probably is keeping Android totally open. It's also likely true that getting this kind of code separation is easier said than done.
    Reply