Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android Oreo

android.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 658 posts

Re: Android Oreo

#551

Post by digi_owl »

fpgeek wrote: post #410
Tehnix wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before the iPhone, how prevalent were software updates to phones? I know of no one who ever got had an update. There is absolutely no reason for carriers to need to do anything at all, else it would not make sense that I can change the SIM card out and voila I’m on a new carrier. The manufacturer is the one doing the testing, and the carrier simply provides the infrastructure. I feel US perhaps has a different experi…

It's not just just Verizon. AT&T, in particular, has a habit of locking important features (VoLTE, Wi-Fi Calling) to phones running AT&T-branded and certified software. So unless the device you want is sold by AT&T and you get the AT&T-branded version, you're SoL. They even do IMEI blocking, so even if your device could otherwise work...

I have the impression that Nokia had trouble getting into the US market because they refused to let US carriers modify phone firmware to disable features.

In particular when Nokia tried to introduce SIP support.

Re: Android Oreo

#552

Post by petecox »

thanksgiving wrote: post #492
microtonal wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO what killed support on the older Nexus phones was /mostly/ the insufficient entry level storage. This is provably false. The Nexus 6 plenty of storage space (32GB or 64GB) and does not get Oreo. Google's Nexus policy is to provide security updates for 3 years (or 18 months after the device stops selling, whichever is longer): https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/01/google_eol_for_nexu... Also, the average Androi…

I thought the reason is Qualcomm not giving what it takes to support a newer firmware on their soc. I have a Nexus 5 on lineage and I'm on Linux kernel 3.4.0.

Yes but Lineage OS can indefinitely support a fair chunk of Android 7.x on an old kernel without official help from Qualcomm.

Google chooses not to with AOSP past a timeframe.

Re: Android Oreo

#553

Post by digi_owl »

kalleboo wrote: post #421
rubyn00bie wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any facts to back this up? Prior to the iPhone changing how phones were sold-- carriers meddled with everything so they could get their hands in media playback, app sales, feature upgrades etc. I don't think much has changed in this where anyone gives them an inch (which is nearly everyone but Apple). Note: I worked for T-Mobile for four years prior and a little after the originals iphone came out.

Where I lived it was common before the iPhone for people to go to electronics stores or carrier-agnostic "phone stores" to buy their phones. You could get an unmolested phone on subsidy/contract and everything. This was in Europe though, where cheap prepaid SIMs for young people and MVNOs were already very popular.

Indeed.

You would walk in, and find a wall of phones, alongside a list of carrier plans.

Then you could pretty much mix and match plan and phone to find some price you were comfortable with.

Come the iPhone's "worldwide" launch however Apple sat down and insisted that only one carrier would get the iPhone, and defined in detail the kinds of plans that said carrier could offer.

Re: Android Oreo

#554

Post by jiggunjer »

fulafel wrote: post #418
dcomp wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> VTS certified If it passed VTS it should be able to run AOSP. The new CTS will be an AOSP System image running their VTS passing "drivers". Even if your vendor doesn't push any updates. At least you should be able to run a number of newer versions of AOSP as long as Android doesn't deprecate those VTS drivers.

How in practice would you go about putting AOSP on a device without the vendor cooperating? Is there some kind of secure boot system that always accepts AOSP images?

I think the idea is that they cooperate once, and then Google promises to stop breaking the HAL interface for x years at the cost of increasing their development difficulty.

Re: Android Oreo

#555

Post by digi_owl »

kuschku wrote: post #370
madeofpalk wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember many years ago when a few carrier and chipset execs stood up on Google I/O stage and announced a new program to ensure Android devices get updated quicker. Nothing came out of that. The proof here will be when they ship. Thankfully, 'Google Play Services' and distributing more and more services through the Play Store is a step in the right direction.

> Thankfully, 'Google Play Services' and distributing more and more services through the Play Store is a step in the right direction. A move towards replacing an open OS with an entirely proprietary solution full of tracking by a single vendor is "a step in the right direction"? There's thousands of solutions for how you can update core OS components, none of them require what Google's doing to open source.

It should have been possible for Google to open up much of what they are pushing, but they don't. And i wonder if that has to do with the likes of Amazon and Xiaomi.

Re: Android Oreo

#556

Post by kuschku »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #525
kuschku wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still have a Google-branded version of the same product that provides additional, Google-only features. An open core business model was always what Android was like, but now the opem core is shrinking with every further commit.

All true, but what does that tell us about any solutions to slow or non-existant updates and fragmentation? What are some of the thousands of solutions? Or are you saying that there never was a problem in the first place?

The issue: apps that are only updated with the OS end up outdated.

The current solution: Move them out of AOSP, into Google's internal projects, distribute updates via the Play Store.

An alternative solution: Move them out of AOSP, onto GitHub, distribute updates via the Play Store.

Yes, Google had to decouple them from AOSP. But that’s no reason not to put the code anywhere else in the open. These issues are entirely orthogonal, and Google uses it as a way to force more people onto the proprietary ones.

Re: Android Oreo

#557

Post by taeric »

mavhc wrote: post #480
taeric wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... I didn't realize how annoyed I'd be on this when I bought my Nexus 6. Not getting the latest just seems lazy and makes me want a flip phone that has good audible support. All of the crap that is getting added is just obnoxious and does little to help me use my phone. Bonus points if anyone can tell me why enabling bluetooth will make it so my phone can't charge to 100% anymore.

What can it charge to instead?

It seems to change. For a couple of days, it couldn't charge and all. Even turned off, it would stay at 6% when plugged in. Cycled all of the radio devices on/off and it got to 25% but wouldn't go higher. Did one more cycle on/off of Bluetooth, and it went to full.

I'm blaming Bluetooth because it has been going to full charge fine for a few weeks and I turned Bluetooth back on to connect some headphones and the pattern repeated.

Re: Android Oreo

#558

Post by digi_owl »

jakub_g wrote: post #522
bichiliad wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd probably give most places the benefit of the doubt — companies will rarely make UX or UI changes just because. There's usually a problem they are aiming to solve, and the solution they choose is some sort of interaction. Is it always the right answer? That's up to the users.

Raymond Chen (core Windows engineer) once explained in his book that some UI changes are near-mandatory (at least for paid product) for most people to feel that the upgrade is/was worth it. Say the engineers have done massive internal performance and stability improvements, better filesystem and what not; but those things are almost invisible to regular users. Most users want something more tangible, otherwise they w…

And here i sit, using a WM that has not changed in ages...

Re: Android Oreo

#559

Post by fauigerzigerk »

kuschku wrote: post #556
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All true, but what does that tell us about any solutions to slow or non-existant updates and fragmentation? What are some of the thousands of solutions? Or are you saying that there never was a problem in the first place?

The issue: apps that are only updated with the OS end up outdated. The current solution: Move them out of AOSP, into Google's internal projects, distribute updates via the Play Store. An alternative solution: Move them out of AOSP, onto GitHub, distribute updates via the Play Store. Yes, Google had to decouple them from AOSP. But that’s no reason not to put the code anywhere else in the open. These issues are entirel…

Open sourcing Google's apps is not a solution to Android's core problems though. Not every part of the OS that needs to be updated can be moved into open sourced apps.

Also, open sourcing the apps takes away any leverage Google has to recoup the costs of developing Android.

Re: Android Oreo

#560

Post by digi_owl »

drampelt wrote: post #251
rdsubhas wrote: post #141

Not saying that everything else is bad, but one thing that strikes me is how much they have run out of interesting things now that they had to use fillers[1] like: Tooltips Support for tooltips (small popup windows with descriptive text) for views and menu items. Normally, this would be relegated to a git changelog in the support library. But this is on the global marketing landing page. I like to imagine a fictional…

I think a lot of major changes are in Google's apps, not Android itself. For example a big update to the Photos app would be part of a major OS update in iOS but just another regular app update on Android.

Bingo.

That is one of the big things that annoy me when i hear people talk about iOS updates.

Because when Apple announce their big updates, often the items they present will not be present on older devices for various "reasons".

Thus what most people got where perhaps some security updates and some spurious API changes so that all those apps have to be updated or stop working.

Apple, during Jobs both terms, were more marketing than anything. Watch them slowly slide back into 90s mediocrity outside of USA now that he is no longer around to apply his "reality distortion field".

Post reply on HN