Hacker News Reader

Comment by retrac | Hacker News Reader

Is this surprising to anyone? My present phone is a Motorola G5 Plus, low-mid range model released in early 2017 which I bought new at the time unlocked for under $200 USD. Motorola stopped updating it with Android 8.1, but it runs the latest version of LineageOS based on Android 11 just fine.

One of my tablets is an Amazon device which stopped getting updates to Amazon's proprietary Android 5-based OS. But it runs Android 10-derived LineageOS just fine. A relative was just going to throw it out because the software was out of date. The amount of e-waste produced due to this practice must be scandalous.

Purely in terms of specs and performance, most devices since about 2017 can run the latest software. Manufacturers rarely support the device for more than a year or two, though. This pattern of behaviour goes all the way back to the very first Android device. The HTC Dream was dropped after Android 1.6 but it can run later versions.

View on HN

I believe that "right to repair" for Android means that we should compel OEMs to unlock bootloaders of any devices that have exited support.

As Google faces antitrust action in many jurisdictions, I hope one of them grants us full control over the devices that we have purchased, especially when they are abandoned or otherwise the victims of neglect.

The bootloaders of the devices that Google sells in its own store are already unlocked. The only exception are Google phones that are bought from some mobile carriers such as Verizon.

The bootloaders aren't unlocked, they're just not carrier locked. Big difference.

Last I knew, Verizon insisted on locked Pixel bootloaders.

Assuming this remains the case, do not buy Pixels from Verizon.

Yes, and I have unlocked my 3a and wiped prior to Lineage.

I have several Android devices where this is not possible, and bringing this requirement to the rest of the Android ecosystem is our "right to repair."

Verizon is not the only exception. I purchased a Pixel 2 directly from Google, which I replaced under warranty due to a defective microphone.

Years later, I tried to install LineageOS and hit the "Flashing Unlock is not allowed" error. It turns out that Google ships warranty-refurbished Pixel 2s with permanently locked bootloaders. No solution, no apology, no indication that it won't happen again:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22pixel+2%22+%22flashing+un...

Then you were replaced with NOT the same product you brought in.

Should have opened a small claims lawsuit for the cost of the phone and sue them. It's easy to show the judge "I bought this phone and can use it with any carrier, and when warranty at Verizon was done with it, can no longer use it anywhere other than Verizon"

You simply materially did not get the same (or refurbished) product you brought in.

My point is that this has nothing to do with Verizon. I bought the Pixel 2 from Google and only used it on the Google Fi network. It's a bootloader lock, not a carrier lock.

Frankly - I think it needs to be broader in scope than just devices that have exited support.

This sort of lockdown is equivalent to selling someone a car, but not providing them the keys - Oh, you wanted to start your car? Just call us and we'll do it for you.

It would be utterly unacceptable to call that ownership for most other physical items, and we shouldn't allow companies to sell hardware with digital locks if the owner isn't provided a key.

I don't mind the lock (just like I want my car to have a lock) but I damn sure better have a key.

Apple's still supporting devices released in September 2015.

Apple also fully controls all the stack, unlike all of the other vendors.

Weird, I thought Google made the OS and was responsible for the hardware in the article we were talking about...

...and with Tensor they have the chip as well.

Apple made their own SoCs. Google didn't. The pixel 3 used qualcomm snapdragon.

This was Google's decision, though, right? They're a trillion dollar company after all, and they've even released chips before (TPU)

It was, and it is something they've shown they're working on. 6 and the coming 7 (believed) are running on white-labeled Samsung chips

Did you read FTA's title...?

Pixel 6 is a flagship phone from Google, it uses Google's own Tensor SoC, and runs Google's own Android OS. It was released in October 2021, and is guaranteed Android version updates until October 2024. Security updates until October 2026.

Three years of updates of Google's own software on their own hardware is ridiculous and inexcusable. It also shows that it was never about who made the SoC.

https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705#zippy=%...

>Three years of updates of Google's own software on their own hardware is ridiculous and inexcusable. It also shows that it was never about who made the SoC.

Are you talking about the pixel 3 or pixel 6? The pixel 6 (which uses their own SoC) is getting 5 years of security updates. That's much longer than what the pixel 3 is getting, which confirms my comment.

Pixel 6. Five years of security updates, but only three years of new Android versions. It's a silly and needlessly short time frame for updating their own software on their own hardware, and it's what drives most people to replace their otherwise fully functioning hardware.

So inform some people that a new theme is less important than security patches.

We don't really need to be told here; tell some "normies"!

But Samsung, Asus, Sony ... don't. Can you imagine the amount of backlash google would get if their own phone and only their own phone got special treatment for android updates? So it sounds "weird" at first, but not after thinking about the consequences.

I don’t understand this comment they already have a different update schedule.

> I don’t understand this comment

Feel free to think about it more.

> they already have a different update schedule.

irrelevant.

Google does not control Android updates for any phones besides theirs.

They work on the upstream Android project,

and then sometimes work with other manufacturers to get updates spliced into whatever custom shitshow version of Android a manufacturer has put together.

I have the same phone and I just use the stock OS and it works pretty well. I've swapped out the launcher, removed a ton of apps with adb (including almost all the Google ones), made the animations go at 2x speed and I'm pretty happy with how it's working. What did you upgrade for and does the Lineage build you're on have the Moto features from the stock ROM? (FM radio, gesture navigation with the fingerprint sensor, chop for flashlight, etc.)

No particular reason, I just prefer to run the same OS on each of my devices. The FM radio, cameras, accelerometers, GPS/GLONASS, etc. works, never tried the fingerprint sensor or gestures.

The fingerprint sensor navigation thing is really nice, if you have the Moto Actions app it's called One Button Nav. You tap the fingerprint sensor to go home, swipe left to right to open the app switcher thing, and swipe right to left to go back. It's honestly my favorite thing about this phone.

This behaviour goes back since mobile phones exist, back in the Series 30 days, there was the possibility to update the firmaware using the developer SDK (if at all) and even then there would be one update, tops.

I ordered a new phone to replace my pixel 1 from 2016 this past week. It was running fine with LineageOS but AT&T is forcing it off their network :/

I've read a few comments over at r/lineageos saying that phones still work. They're sending the message to anyone without a phone "approved" by them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com