To solve Android’s update woes, Google should look to the PC

Op-ed: Android's update model should be more like Windows, less like iOS.

Read the whole story

 

[M-S-G]

It's funny bc MS just removed IE updates from WSUS and IE has it's own update service...

 

[precambrian]

Stone[/url]":36fzwd8v]There's another argument that fast updates aren't crucial, or even demanded by a large portion of android users. Those who chart it as a high-value feature will buy Nexus phones. The rest of us get by just fine on the OEM's, slow updates and all. After all, there aren't many apps that require a recent version of android (4.3, 4.4) to run.

But there's lots of malware that relies on old versions.

 

[Entegy]

Stone[/url]":3435miuu]There's another argument that fast updates aren't crucial, or even demanded by a large portion of android users. Those who chart it as a high-value feature will buy Nexus phones. The rest of us get by just fine on the OEM's, slow updates and all. After all, there aren't many apps that require a recent version of android (4.3, 4.4) to run.

It's not always about getting new features, it's also about security updates. Many don't know why Microsoft puts out updates for Windows once a month since it was only with Windows 8 that Microsoft starting putting out security and feature updates once a month. Before, it was just busy work security updates and they hated it, but it was for their own good. Android phones can be left unpatched forever from some of the recent flaws found in Android.

 

[Mitlov]

What about Windows updates that get pushed even though they're incompatible with OEM software? Samsung laptops had a major issue with the Windows 8.1 update at launch; the thread about the issue at NotebookReview was 79 pages long.

Neither delayed updates nor software incompatiblities are good. But if it's a zero-sum game when you have separate companies making the OS and the hardware (and I think it might be), there's an argument that delayed updates are a lesser evil than updates that arrive promptly but sometimes break your device.

 

[hecate.]

ken27238[/url]":1xe310tv]How about OS X's update model?

That's different since the company providing the updates is also the only company building the hardware.

 

[apoelin]

There's another argument that fast updates aren't crucial, or even demanded by a large portion of android users. Those who chart it as a high-value feature will buy Nexus phones. The rest of us get by just fine on the OEM's, slow updates and all. After all, there aren't many apps that require a recent version of android (4.3, 4.4) to run.

I disagree with you. Even if a user "doesn't know better", it doesn't mean that user should be held hostage to the OEMs laziness, and their need to sell new hardware. That user paid the same amount of money (if not more) as his friend who is using some other device, but his friend suddenly has more features on his phone. Those new features are a result of Google's hard work, and him not getting them is a result of his OEM's laziness. And the potential argument that the user should had gotten a Nexus device, is something I strongly disagree with as well.

Microsoft's solution on WP might actually be even better than desktop Windows. If you care enough, you can opt-in for the latest and greatest updates. If you don't, then you can wait around if and when your OEM decides to push out an update to you.

 

[redleader]

Windows RT and more recent Linux kernels have largely fixed this issue, adding enough abstraction between the operating system and the hardware that the OSes can run a wide range of ARM SoCs. ARM (the company) is also aware of the problem and has attempted to define a unified ARM platform specifically for use in server rooms.

This is a good start, but its not a solution in the near-term. Having unified platform support in linux for ARM is great, but you still have to support the rest of the SOC, and that means getting dozens of vendors to port huge amounts of hardware. Maybe someday (Android P or maybe T?), but not today.

Many core pieces of Android—the notification center and quick settings menu, the application switcher, the Settings screen's aesthetics and available options—are still changed via Android version updates and can't be changed, customized, or updated via application downloads. Google's first item of business should be to break these chunks of Android out into the Google Play store, too, while providing hooks for OEMs and third-parties to design their own versions. As we noted, companies are already beginning to update some of their own launchers and apps through Google Play—why not let them do the same with other parts of the UI? This way OEMs get their skins and "differentiation," and users get more choice and flexibility.

This is really the key. Google's idea of "firmware" includes things like "a web browser". A web browser is not firmware. Its an application. There is no reason to flash a ROM to change icons around in a webkit view. They have done a lot to sort out their update process, but they're still disorganized.

Ideally, firmware updates should be more like BIOS updates: performed rarely, and only to address critical security or compatibility issues with the underlying hardware, kernel, etc. Everything else, the things that do not touch the hardware directly (which is almost everything on a modern linux system) should not need a firmware update.

 

[microlith]

Perhaps if Android hadn't eschewed everything but the Linux kernel, it would have been able to offer modular updates ages ago. Common packaging systems, particularly RPM and its delta packages, would have let them offer piecemeal upgrades ages ago.

Now if only that weren't likely to be hampered by incompetent vendors and the carriers.

 

[dfjdejulio]

ken27238[/url]":1nvokhoz]How about OS X's update model?

OS X's update model in part depends on how very standardized Macintosh hardware is. All the "each SOC is different from the others and requires custom kernel work" stuff the article mentions is at odds with this. If Google could really standardize the hardware platform, that'd be good for updates, but potentially bad for OEMs that want to differentiate their devices.

 

[NickN]

Stone[/url]":2y0yrwhw]There's another argument that fast updates aren't crucial, or even demanded by a large portion of android users.

Clearly fast updates aren't demanded by a large portion of users. Whether or not they're crucial depends a lot on your definition of the word. For the most part, users who think they're crucial have self selected and gone to Nexus or iOS.

 

[fenris_uy]

mc2002tii[/url]":2139urym]The Windows model is ideal? It's only been four months since all the articles on the end of XP support filled with comments by people still running XP because there aren't drivers in 7/8 for their old hardware or they have business applications that rely on IE 6, or other various excuses.

People had 7 years to migrate their apps away from IE 6 (while still staying inside IE). How is the laziness of their consumers Windows fault?

 

[Entegy]

Mitlov[/url]":21ndgytd]What about Windows updates that get pushed even though they're incompatible with OEM software? Samsung laptops had a major issue with the Windows 8.1 update at launch; the thread about the issue at NotebookReview was 79 pages long.

Neither delayed updates nor software incompatiblities are good. But if it's a zero-sum game when you have separate companies making the OS and the hardware (and I think it might be), there's an argument that delayed updates are a lesser evil than updates that arrive promptly but sometimes break your device.

Microsoft's partners have even more early access to major upgrades than the public does. Samsung is 100% at fault for any incompatibilities at the launch of Windows 8.1. They had plenty of time to fix their software.

I know smaller updates can sometimes also break stuff and well, shit happens. Like you said, it's a zero sum game. We all have to work together and get stuff fixed.

 

[sirtheguy]

Something I never thought I'd see Ars say: Android needs to be more like Windows

 

[LJ]

So then everyone would be like, "how do I downgrade to Android 7?"

 

[Geral]

dfjdejulio[/url]":2latk6u0]

ken27238[/url]":2latk6u0]How about OS X's update model?

OS X's update model in part depends on how very standardized Macintosh hardware is. All the "each SOC is different from the others and requires custom kernel work" stuff the article mentions is at odds with this. If Google could really standardize the hardware platform, that'd be good for updates, but potentially bad for OEMs that want to differentiate their devices.

This contributes but if this was the only factor I would expect the implementation graphs between carriers to be statistically equal. Instead unlocked phones get updates faster than locked phones (looking at you Verizon).

I think a large part of this is simply lack of effort on the carriers part. They already have you on a two year contract. What's the hurry to update your phone?

Additionally, its even better they do not update your phone. When your two year contract is up they can show you all the shiny new features on Android version X you've been missing out on, all for the low price of $200 and another contract!

 

[Fukengruven]

The updates themselves are not the problem. Most of the delay in pushing out new updates can be attributed to the various manufacturers' and carriers' desire to muck with the update, neuter some features, slather ads all over others and update/plug-in their customizations. The Nexii are known for being fairly close to bare metal and get the entire feature set. Samsung's devices are fairly heavily tweaked and carriers like T-Mobile and Verizon screw with them further.

Standardizing the hardware will not solve this problem. Consumer choice will.

 

[peaceminded]

mc2002tii[/url]":1qqt8dty]The Windows model is ideal? It's only been four months since all the articles on the end of XP support filled with comments by people still running XP because there aren't drivers in 7/8 for their old hardware or they have business applications that rely on IE 6, or other various excuses.

Not ideal, but the best so far. Nothing is ideal. What more do you want Microsoft to do - they updated XP for 13 frigging years. That's more than spectacular for me. Some things are just not solveable - but for the things that can be solved - Microsoft's Windows on PC update model is as good as it can get.

For Android as Qualcomm becomes the new Intel, it would really be the only way to sort the updates mess - manufacturers ship customizations as apps and publish their kernel and driver updates to something like AHQL, the whole OS, frameworks, VM etc. will be updated by Google. This will work if Google extends minor updates for each OS iteration to a longer 5 year period. It will be way too risky and onerous to apply this model to major updates.

 

[Knasher]

How android supports updates is without a doubt the biggest failing of the entire platform. I have a relatively new phone, that the manufacturer supported for about 6 months before deciding it was end of life. Hardware wise it is more than enough for me, but software wise it is becoming increasingly outdated, and it wouldn't be the first time that I read a story about some venerability in android, and knew that my phone could never be updated to protect me from it. Thanks to the manufacturer locking the bootloader, alternative firmware isn't even an option.

Compare this to my router which I bought maybe 7 years ago and which is currently running the 3.10 kernel version. The next phone I buy will probably be an android, but only because I dislike how apple handles their phones, and beyond that android doesn't really have a competitor. The nicest thing I can say about android right now, is that it is the best of a bad bunch.

 

[TheFerenc]

ender2003[/url]":14rdckwn]Do we really want Android to take a page from MS's book when it comes to updates? Frequent updates that require complete reboots, updates that break core components or 3rd party apps, hung updates, etc.

Sorry, but there is no silver bullet here.

I've never done anything special with my machines, but I've never seen any of these issues. I know, the plural of anecdote isn't data except in the social sciences, but there you are.

In fact, the only updates I've ever had problems with were vendor supplied. Specifically, BIOS updates. Firmware, in phone parlance.

 

[Viewer]

But wouldn't it be great if you never had to think about this stuff at all? If you never had to read another multi-thousand word story about Android update speed, because it wasn't a problem anymore?

Most Android/iOS users have absolutely zero idea what OS version their smartphone or tablet is running. They don't watch the Apple keynotes, they don't realize that "Kit Kat" and "Jelly Bean" are technical code names, and they are already living in this utopia where they don't have to read yet another multi-thousand word story on smartphone OS updates

Most Android/iOS users don't even bother with the update process even when the update is available and nagging them.

The users that care about running the latest and greatest Android can get a Nexus device or a Google Play device or install one of the zillions of popular custom ROMs like CyanogenMod that give you access to customized variants of the latest and greatest Android. None of the Android enthusiast sites are bothered by this.

 

[vudaful]

I've always thought the biggest opponent to getting timely updates was the carrier. The carrier and the manufacturer always point fingers at each other when there's a delay.

 

[neodorian]

The way I always understood it (at least from following 3rd party ports before switching to Nexus devices) was that it wasn't too difficult for someone to build new versions for (x device) on release but without the proprietary drivers from hardware OEMs, it was much more difficult. It seems like they end up having to hack together their own from other devices with the same hardware or by attempting to build their own (hence the spotty performance of a lot of these unofficial ports).

With Windows on x86 it's not as big of an issue for drivers to be modular and made available by various hardware makers. You can just go buy a copy of Windows 8 or Windows 9, install it on your computer, and then install drivers. Companies like Intel and nVidia theoretically get early enough access that they'll have a compatible driver ready on release (although it seems an awful lot dropped the ball with Vista, leading to a large portion of the headaches with that update).

With something like Android, you don't have the overhead needed to handle modular drivers (or do we yet? I don't know). From what I picked up, that stuff needs to be baked into the final image so you can't just install KitKat or Lemon-whatever, then download driver updates for your cellular radio and camera. Even if the source for new versions of Android are published, you're stuck waiting for an official image even if you know how to build the thing from source.

Assuming I'm not completely off the mark with this, how would Android become more like Windows if they're still dependent on proprietary, third party drivers for much of what makes a device worth using? Does Google pressure OEMs to start porting their stuff earlier in exchange for something? Is it feasible to make stuff more modular so you're not waiting on one driver in order to update your whole OS?

As a non-developer (but still curious), how would this even work?

 

[rps13]

One thing not mentioned is that mobile OSs, especially Android, often do change big things when it comes to the underlying architecture of the OS. The move to GPU accelerated graphics rendering between Gingerbread (2.3.x) and Ice Cream Sandwich (4.x.x) was a huge issue (much like XP to Vista) not to mention that vendors are more willing to support Windows with drivers as they don't have to contribute GPLv2 compatible code that complies with the Android kernel (as shown by the Nexus 7 Jelly Bean factory image debacle).

 

[usmanismail]

Espeon[/url]":17u4pwab]

ken27238[/url]":17u4pwab]How about OS X's update model?

That's different since the company providing the updates is also the only company building the hardware.

Not true, I get updates for third party software through OSX's Update Manager (The App Store APP)

 

[Mitlov]

mc2002tii[/url]":1xx4kwdj]The Windows model is ideal? It's only been four months since all the articles on the end of XP support filled with comments by people still running XP because there aren't drivers in 7/8 for their old hardware or they have business applications that rely on IE 6, or other various excuses.

Hardly an egregious act to cut off support after that long. What smartphone or desktop OS continues to support people running thirteen-year-old software on seven-year-old hardware?

 

[Mitlov]

usmanismail[/url]":27djub7u]

Espeon[/url]":27djub7u]

ken27238[/url]":27djub7u]How about OS X's update model?

That's different since the company providing the updates is also the only company building the hardware.

Not true, I get updates for third party software through OSX's Update Manager (The App Store APP)

We're talking about how devices get operating system updates, not how you update Angry Birds or your word processor. The OSX model for operating system updates is built upon the assumption that one company controls both the OS and all devices that run it. That's great for timely updates but terrible for a competitive market with lots of choices for consumers.

 

[miken32]

Viewer[/url]":34qufoqr]
Most Android/iOS users have absolutely zero idea what OS version their smartphone or tablet is running…
Most Android/iOS users don't even bother with the update process even when the update is available and nagging them.

[citation needed]

 

[Wickwick]

The iOS update "charts" were totally gratuitous - but they made me laugh.

Though Windows RT unifies and abstracts the ARM architecture below, I believe only a couple of SoC families are supported.

 

[Angafirith]

redleader[/url]":1r5f14on]
This is really the key. Google's idea of "firmware" includes things like "a web browser". A web browser is not firmware. Its an application. There is no reason to flash a ROM to change icons around in a webkit view. They have done a lot to sort out their update process, but they're still disorganized.

Forgive me if I misunderstand what you're trying to say here, but this is no longer correct. These days, every major Android phone I'm aware of comes with Google Chrome, which gets its updates through the Google Play Store. My understanding is that the stock browser that used to be packaged with the firmware is no longer being updated. Most of the applications that used to be packaged with the firmware are distributed this way: Gmail, Google Maps, the Camera app, the stock keyboard, the launcher, the music app, etc.

You're right in saying that these things shouldn't be part of the firmware, and Google agrees with you.

 

[Travis Butler]

Mitlov[/url]":1emky8dw]What about Windows updates that get pushed even though they're incompatible with OEM software? Samsung laptops had a major issue with the Windows 8.1 update at launch; the thread about the issue at NotebookReview was 79 pages long.

Neither delayed updates nor software incompatiblities are good. But if it's a zero-sum game when you have separate companies making the OS and the hardware (and I think it might be), there's an argument that delayed updates are a lesser evil than updates that arrive promptly but sometimes break your device.

If it were just feature updates, that's one thing, and I'd agree. But security holes can have an impact well beyond the individual user, when they're exploited to steal and use things like address books and social network info. And while I'm not sure how close the potential for an Android botnet is, I'm not prepared to dismiss the idea out of hand.

Security updates are community business that affect everyone, and I think a good argument can be made that they shouldn't be optional.

 

[daneren2005]

It would be interesting to see how much of the framework it is even possible to update at this point. I definitely feel that all of the framework pieces which run as separate apk's should be started to by updated through the Play Store (ex: Media Store). But that is only a small part of the framework. I really don't think it is possible for them to break out the entire framework into something which can be updated easily without rewriting most of the stack.

 

[erf23]

The primary problem with Android updates isn't technical. There are tons of smart engineers at Google. The problem is that Google and OEMs are still frenemies. In the past, Google originally wanted OEMs to just make the phones and stay out of software, but OEMs have seen Apple and Google make dumptrucks of money from their platforms and want to be more than manufacturers.

Both Google and their OEMs are finally making attempts to work with eachother, instead of against eachother. Google's exit from hardware was essentially a peace offering. Programs like Android Silver are Google's proposal for how updates can be mutually beneficial.

Adding the ability to update individual components is risky business for this relationship. Technically, it might work, but if this is not handled delicately, OEMs might see this as an attempt by Google to make hardware a commodity.

 

[Houdani]

Both Android and WP have started to do the right thing by decoupling features from the OS. That way, all the features can be updated the same as any other app, and the OS only contains the low level drivers.

So, ostensibly, once you have a stable set of drivers for your particular device you will no longer care about OS update cycles. The big features will be delivered as individual apps that can be updated independent of the OS (and more importantly, independent of the carriers!).

In this scheme, the only need to update the "core" OS is to enable new hardware features that you can only get on next gen hardware.

 

[ender2003]

TheFerenc[/url]":4sqmnt9i]

ender2003[/url]":4sqmnt9i]Do we really want Android to take a page from MS's book when it comes to updates? Frequent updates that require complete reboots, updates that break core components or 3rd party apps, hung updates, etc.

Sorry, but there is no silver bullet here.

I've never done anything special with my machines, but I've never seen any of these issues. I know, the plural of anecdote isn't data except in the social sciences, but there you are.

In fact, the only updates I've ever had problems with were vendor supplied. Specifically, BIOS updates. Firmware, in phone parlance.

I have had several Windows updates break things on my workstations. Windows pushing driver updates for my video cards that caused me to lose video output, or even more strangely caused IE to completely break (a graphic driver update breaking a single program, and just a browser, was very odd to me). Security updates that caused my PC to think system files were malware. System updates that caused persistent BSODs until I reloaded to a restore point. These have happened on my home PC as well as at the company that I was working in IT for.

One of the problems that MS has to deal with is the same thing that is hurting the phone manufacturers. The wide array of hardware and possible software combinations that can cause some downright odd things to happen. They have no way to test it with every single permutation and so will always run into a few oddities that will affect a small number of their users. That may be a few thousand, but compared to the millions in the field, that is a small number. I was just saying that Windows Updates are not perfect but I don't see the ideal solution either.