Should Google force manufacturers...

[Cootie]

Should Google start forcing manufacturers to update the devices to new Android versions for two years? Obviously it would only be for the phones that can handle the new features and the specs will be chosen by Google so manufacturers can't just say "LOL phone can't run it amiright?".

Version fragmentation is getting to be a big deal and Google says they want to lessen it. I think they should finish it now and make every manufacturer bring out the new software updates in a timely fashion for two years.

Bud = nipped.

 

[Castor Troy]

Ice Cream will do that. All phones releasing with ice cream will be updated in a timely manner.

Sent from my Droid

 

[Cootie]

Ice Cream will do that. All phones releasing with ice cream will be updated in a timely manner.

Sent from my Droid

Looking forward to that... in six months.

 

[jdbower]

I would say no. First, how will they enforce it? The code is free and open source, anyone can take it and implement it as they see fit. They can de-prioritize search results, but that smacks of extortion. About the only thing they can do is refuse support or maybe drop Marketplace access, but loss of the Market is worse than fragmentation and with Amazon's AppStore in the mix people will just gravitate there.

Second, the vast majority of the people out there have no idea what version of Android they're using or probably even that they're using Android at all. Those who do care will quickly be able to determine which manufacturers give good support and which models get the attention.

Third, this doesn't fix the perception of fragmentation. It's not reasonable to assume that Samsung and Moto and HTC will all release new versions on all their <2 year old phones the second Google releases code. Even if it takes a few months to port everything to a stable codebase you're already seeing leaks for the next generation OS by the time it's out.

Most importantly, if I were a manufacturer building a device and trying to choose an OS and I was being told I needed to be locked into a two year support commitment for a throwaway smartphone/tablet/printer/toaster I'd lean towards WP7 where Microsoft will do most of the work for me. Android is nice in that anyone can do whatever they want with it - but they need to supply their own coders. It takes far less effort to build a phone for WP7 since MS is handling a lot of that end for you - it's what you're paying for.

Google can provide guidelines but it's hard for them to enforce rules. I think those guidelines should suggest that a device that's no longer going to be updated by the manufacturer should be unlocked for community to decide if they want to upgrade.

What can you do as a consumer? Homework. Take a look at the history of the manufacturer you're interested in. Ask questions in forums like this one to see which phones get updated and how long it takes. And if you buy a low-end phone, expect low-end support.

 

[Tre Lawrence]

I would say no. First, how will they enforce it? The code is free and open source, anyone can take it and implement it as they see fit. They can de-prioritize search results, but that smacks of extortion. About the only thing they can do is refuse support or maybe drop Marketplace access, but loss of the Market is worse than fragmentation and with Amazon's AppStore in the mix people will just gravitate there.

Second, the vast majority of the people out there have no idea what version of Android they're using or probably even that they're using Android at all. Those who do care will quickly be able to determine which manufacturers give good support and which models get the attention.

Third, this doesn't fix the perception of fragmentation. It's not reasonable to assume that Samsung and Moto and HTC will all release new versions on all their <2 year old phones the second Google releases code. Even if it takes a few months to port everything to a stable codebase you're already seeing leaks for the next generation OS by the time it's out.

Most importantly, if I were a manufacturer building a device and trying to choose an OS and I was being told I needed to be locked into a two year support commitment for a throwaway smartphone/tablet/printer/toaster I'd lean towards WP7 where Microsoft will do most of the work for me. Android is nice in that anyone can do whatever they want with it - but they need to supply their own coders. It takes far less effort to build a phone for WP7 since MS is handling a lot of that end for you - it's what you're paying for.

Google can provide guidelines but it's hard for them to enforce rules. I think those guidelines should suggest that a device that's no longer going to be updated by the manufacturer should be unlocked for community to decide if they want to upgrade.

What can you do as a consumer? Homework. Take a look at the history of the manufacturer you're interested in. Ask questions in forums like this one to see which phones get updated and how long it takes. And if you buy a low-end phone, expect low-end support.

Interesting points...

 

[Cootie]

I would say no. First, how will they enforce it?

Don't manufacturers have to have permission to use Android with their phones? If so, just tell them they can't make any Android devices unless they agree. They would rather push updates than not get in on this goldmine.

 

[jdbower]

Don't manufacturers have to have permission to use Android with their phones? If so, just tell them they can't make any Android devices unless they agree. They would rather push updates than not get in on this goldmine.

Nope, it's released under Apache licensed open source. That means that you can take it and do with it as you please and it's up to you whether you release the source. The kernel and some other parts are GPL-infected, this means that you MUST release changes to the source so anyone else can use them (yes, Motorola can legally use kernel enhancements that were developed by HTC). If I wanted to I could take the current Android build and put it on a home-built alarm clock. I could even sell that device without Google knowing or even caring it was running Android. Actually, I think they would care - they'd probably love the idea!

If people needed permission the ROM developers would be in a very gray area since they're distributing it without a license at that point.

Some elements like Market access are controlled by Google (which is why cheap tablets like the HP Zeen or the Archos series don't have it). But to really control Android they'd need to close some of the core components so they can decide who can get them. This isn't necessarily a bad thing and doesn't mean Android can't be free, but it would further alienate the open-source community they've attracted.