Hacker News Reader

Comment by snomad | Hacker News Reader

Isn't that largely Google's stance with regard to Android? They blame the carriers and point to how slow they are, meanwhile tons of smart phones go without patching, which is no good for the general internet or users'

View on HN

No, there's a huge difference. The difference here is that the Manufacturers and the Carriers are gatekeepers to the customer's phones.

The manufacturer made customizations to Android for their phone. Android isn't a cleanly-separated stack where the manufacturer modifies only a certain part of the stack for their phone but Google could go and update another part without risk of breaking anything (is any software project?)

Then, the manufacturers sell the phones to carriers, who usually request extra customizations to (at best) add their logo, or replace default apps with the carrier's own version. This means that any updates to Android likely require updates to this customization.

But even if that customization was free (from a development perspective), Carriers still have maintenance/service contracts with the manufacturers such that any manufacturer's updates must go through the carrier's "quality control" procedure. You wouldn't want an update to make the, say, LTE radio misbehave and break the carrier's network would you? Oh no... (and you certainly wouldn't want to "forget" to replace the good default app with the Carrier's crappy one)

So there you go, a quick glimpse into the complex economic/contractual obligations that delays or blocks Android updates. FWIW, Google has been working both technically and contractually to untangle this mess, and is one reason for the existence of their "own" line of Nexus and now Pixel phones.

Google holds all the cards. They have to sign off, or the phones will lose access to the Play Store and Google services like Maps. Google only needs to play the cards it already holds.

It does play those cards, for instance to mandate full disk encryption. They're moving the standard forward, just not as fast as some may want.

The networks have to sign off too, or the phones won't get the OTA updates or be allowed to connect to the network.

The SoC / OEMs also have to sign off because they are the ones with access to the driver source code which needs to be updated and recompiled against a new release.

If Google plays hardball, these parties can always threaten Google with "We're leaving the OHA; we will be going with Amazon's Android fork and bundle Kindle and Prime apps." I'm sure Bezos will throw in Amazon Maps for free.

I'm constantly amazed by how some people think Google has this magical ability to update an OS that was built by another OEM. That's like asking Debian to update Ubuntu.

They set the terms for licensing Android, and have used leverage for other things they want or don't want.

Edit: Yes, really. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-lice...

So let's say they put in a rule that said all OEM's must update their devices every month or lose access to Google Play apps and services. What happens when the carriers start delaying or preventing the patches and updates from flowing to the devices? Does Google uphold the rule and revoke their access? Or do they start extending the time by 1 month? Or how about 2 months? Or what about 6 months? What's the point of adding a rule you can't enforce?

Easy, just apply the block to new devices -- the only thing the OEMs care about. They can easily write the contract to that effect.

In the case of the carrier preventing the transmission of patches or OS upgrades you would be punishing the OEM for a problem created by the carrier and out of the control of the OEM. Tangentially, If I was a carrier I would use this to my advantage when negotiating. If you thought carriers were bad now, just wait until they have the power to withhold Google Play services and apps to an OEM's future phones.

Google could selectively disable play services with a very scary warning. Simply, if you are on a very old version of Android, display an alert that tells the end user to complain at the carrier.

Carriers would just get more money: "Your phone is too old for Google. Here's a link to our special offers for new phones that play nice with Google"

Similar, but the system architecture is different.

The CA system is composed of alow-moving companies like Symantec dependent on, or more specifically, beholden to fast-moving companies like Google.

In the mobile space, the situation is inverted. Android can move quickly, but they have little to no leverage over the slow-moving carriers.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14208865

Reply on news.ycombinator.com