Time for Google to change it's OEM and Carrier relationship?

[syspry]

I read something interesting the other day in regard to Android version update delays that went something like this:

Google sacrificed the ability to have a direct relationship with consumer handsets to facilitate updates for software and security ]to allow Android to gain market share through flexible deals with manufacturers. That was a specific choice by Google, and it should be called out on that if required.

Let’s not forget that Microsoft had the same situation with Windows, and while you might raise an eyebrow at a discussion that includes Microsoft and software updates, it also had to deal with a significant number of manufacturers, distributors, and an almost limitless volume of components put together in a grey box. Redmond manages to roll out timely software and security updates, so it is possible.

Genuine question here:
How can an Android OEM device be compared to a Windows machine in this way? For example, if you own a Windows laptop with hardware embedded software features from Asus for example, you still receive Windows updates directly from MS. So how to updates happen on your laptop that are Asus specific? Separately from Asus right? If that's the case, why then are Android updates not coming directly from Google and OEM hardware/software specific updates not separated from that procedure? On the same token, why aren't carriers completely removed from the update equation when carrier software can just be updated on its own aside from the OS update? Going back to the Windows example, I do not need to have my ISP approve a Windows version update on a laptop, so why must I on an Android device?

It seems to me that the above quoted summation is accurate that Google allowed these concessions to happen in the early days in order to speed up and bolster Android adoption and market share but in reality they aren't actually required at all. That being the case, why doesn't Google Android now in its maturity do something to change that model? I see no reason at all for Android updates to not come directly from Google while Samsung/HTC/LG or whomever to provide their own separate updates to features those OEM's have on their respective devices. Same goes for carriers. MS managed it for Windows machines.

 

[B. Diddy]

I don't pretend to know a lot about this in detail, but I think one of the main problems is that manufacturer/carrier modifications to the base Android code are too closely integrated for a separate Google system update to be feasible. Google has made strides in mitigating this issue by updating various Google services in their Google Play Services updates. Certain manufacturers (like HTC) are also helping by allowing their preinstalled apps (including crucial ones like the Camera or the Dialer) to be updated individually through the Play Store.

 

[ahaxton]

Ok, there are two different models at play here,so let's tackle each one.

Question 1: Why can't Google update Android independently of the hardware manufacturers. Microsoft could?

Because Microsoft did not allow the wide range of customizations to Windows that Google has with its hardware partners. Windows really does not have custom skins, custom UIs, etc that change the look, feel and capabilities the way Android has with its hardware partners (TouchWiz, Sense, whatever the LG software is called). The closest to this relationship that Android has is Motorola. Their customizations are so light, it takes them very little time to add their flavoring and push out the update. If Google were to restrict the customizations on, say, Samsung for example, they would just as likely dump Android and go with their own in-house Tizen, thus losing Google the biggest seller of Android hardware.

Question 2: Why can't Google update Android independently of the carriers. Microsoft doesn't check with ISPs?

There are a few things at work here. #1, ISPs don't sell 80% of the devices used on their network, the way carriers do. The carriers are thus on the hook for support, and so require heavy testing for devices used on their network. #2, cell service is a much more delicate and tightly controlled critter than "the internet." they control all the cell towers, switching equipment, etc, and keep in mind, a problem doesn't just mean the internet on their network goes down, but phone service as well. So they are VERY careful and have rigorous testing on any equipment that goes on that network. Even Apple has to go through this, they just keep it as part of the pre-release period between when a version is announced and when it is actually released months later.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Ok, there are two different models at play here,so let's tackle each one.

Question 1: Why can't Google update Android independently of the hardware manufacturers. Microsoft could?

Because Microsoft did not allow the wide range of customizations to Windows that Google has with its hardware partners. Windows really does not have custom skins, custom UIs, etc that change the look, feel and capabilities the way Android has with its hardware partners (TouchWiz, Sense, whatever the LG software is called). The closest to this relationship that Android has is Motorola. Their customizations are so light, it takes them very little time to add their flavoring and push out the update. If Google were to restrict the customizations on, say, Samsung for example, they would just as likely dump Android and go with their own in-house Tizen, thus losing Google the biggest seller of Android hardware.

Question 2: Why can't Google update Android independently of the carriers. Microsoft doesn't check with ISPs?

There are a few things at work here. #1, ISPs don't sell 80% of the devices used on their network, the way carriers do. The carriers are thus on the hook for support, and so require heavy testing for devices used on their network. #2, cell service is a much more delicate and tightly controlled critter than "the internet." they control all the cell towers, switching equipment, etc, and keep in mind, a problem doesn't just mean the internet on their network goes down, but phone service as well. So they are VERY careful and have rigorous testing on any equipment that goes on that network. Even Apple has to go through this, they just keep it as part of the pre-release period between when a version is announced and when it is actually released months later.

Microsoft isn't providing all updates to all users. Many customers are missing firmware updates because the carriers never provided them. The firmware updates are not in the Technical Preview.

Some devices have been abandoned by the carriers or OEMs and will never get official Windows 10 Mobile. The users of those devices will be stuck on Technical Preview or an outdated version of Windows Phone 8.1.

Sent from my rooted Nexus 7 (2013) using Tapatalk

 

[syspry]

Ok, there are two different models at play here,so let's tackle each one.

Question 1: Why can't Google update Android independently of the hardware manufacturers. Microsoft could?

Because Microsoft did not allow the wide range of customizations to Windows that Google has with its hardware partners. Windows really does not have custom skins, custom UIs, etc that change the look, feel and capabilities the way Android has with its hardware partners (TouchWiz, Sense, whatever the LG software is called). The closest to this relationship that Android has is Motorola. Their customizations are so light, it takes them very little time to add their flavoring and push out the update. If Google were to restrict the customizations on, say, Samsung for example, they would just as likely dump Android and go with their own in-house Tizen, thus losing Google the biggest seller of Android hardware.

Question 2: Why can't Google update Android independently of the carriers. Microsoft doesn't check with ISPs?

There are a few things at work here. #1, ISPs don't sell 80% of the devices used on their network, the way carriers do. The carriers are thus on the hook for support, and so require heavy testing for devices used on their network. #2, cell service is a much more delicate and tightly controlled critter than "the internet." they control all the cell towers, switching equipment, etc, and keep in mind, a problem doesn't just mean the internet on their network goes down, but phone service as well. So they are VERY careful and have rigorous testing on any equipment that goes on that network. Even Apple has to go through this, they just keep it as part of the pre-release period between when a version is announced and when it is actually released months later.

Spot on with your answer to question 2. For the first part though I was thinking of what it would take to remedy that. The only obvious answer I can come up with would be for google to rewrite the play services agreements with license partners to drop all forking of Android and to move their brand specific features into separately. updateable app form. That's obviously something they'll never agree to though. Too bad google wasn't in a position to set that up back when they first entered the mobile arena though.

 

[hallux]

Spot on with your answer to question 2. For the first part though I was thinking of what it would take to remedy that. The only obvious answer I can come up with would be for google to rewrite the play services agreements with license partners to drop all forking of Android and to move their brand specific features into separately. updateable app form. That's obviously something they'll never agree to though. Too bad google wasn't in a position to set that up back when they first entered the mobile arena though.

It's not just the apps though. Android also relies on drivers for the SOC and other components. The issue is that Android doesn't allow for driver updates like Windows does (though not so much on mobile platforms). Allowing driver updates separately from the OS and in a "willy-nilly" fashion is what has also contributed the the instability Windows has been bashed for in the past. By the manufacturers tightly controlling the building and testing of the OS updates for their devices, they can reduce the number of devices in the "wild" that are buggy or unstable.

Here is HTC's infographic on how the update process goes. You can see in there that they get drivers from the chipset manufacturer then develop their OS build. HTC Software Updates Process | HTC United States

 

[syspry]

It's not just the apps though. Android also relies on drivers for the SOC and other components. The issue is that Android doesn't allow for driver updates like Windows does (though not so much on mobile platforms). Allowing driver updates separately from the OS and in a "willy-nilly" fashion is what has also contributed the the instability Windows has been bashed for in the past. By the manufacturers tightly controlling the building and testing of the OS updates for their devices, they can reduce the number of devices in the "wild" that are buggy or unstable.

Here is HTC's infographic on how the update process goes. You can see in there that they get drivers from the chipset manufacturer then develop their OS build. HTC Software Updates Process | HTC United States

Also an interesting point, thanks!

 

[dpham00]

Microsoft control isn't necessarily a good thing. I had a few windows phones (high end ones) that didn't even get the next major Microsoft software upgrade, less than a year after release. The problem? Microsoft mandated the use of a low end chips, not capable of handling the new software. The manufacturer used better chips on their Android equivalents...


With all the high end Android that I have had, I have had at least a year and usually 18-24 months updates.

However back on the Android update issue... Android wouldn't have proliferated as quickly as it had, had Google not allowed manufacturers to modify the software. Google has to some extent taken some control, putting certain apps in the play store, so it can be updated that way. I don't really see Google pulling a Microsoft in this regard, because it was a core factor in why many manufacturers went with Google. If they did, Samsung would probably work hard to push tizen or whatever,causing google to lose a huge part of its base.

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note 5

 

[Laura Knotek]

Microsoft control isn't necessarily a good thing. I had a few windows phones (high end ones) that didn't even get the next major Microsoft software upgrade, less than a year after release. The problem? Microsoft mandated the use of a low end chips, not capable of handling the new software. The manufacturer used better chips on their Android equivalents...


With all the high end Android that I have had, I have had at least a year and usually 18-24 months updates.

However back on the Android update issue... Android wouldn't have proliferated as quickly as it had, had Google not allowed manufacturers to modify the software. Google has to some extent taken some control, putting certain apps in the play store, so it can be updated that way. I don't really see Google pulling a Microsoft in this regard, because it was a core factor in why many manufacturers went with Google. If they did, Samsung would probably work hard to push tizen or whatever,causing google to lose a huge part of its base.

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note 5

Then there were devices that Microsoft just killed completely like the Windows Phone 7.x line. I got the Lumia 900 on release date in April 2012. Microsoft released Windows Phone 8 devices only about 6 months later, but my 900 wasn't capable of getting the 8 update.

The same thing happened to the Surface RT devices. They're not getting Windows 10.

Sent from my rooted Nexus 7 (2013) using Tapatalk

 

[dpham00]

Then there were devices that Microsoft just killed completely like the Windows Phone 7.x line. I got the Lumia 900 on release date in April 2012. Microsoft released Windows Phone 8 devices only about 6 months later, but my 900 wasn't capable of getting the 8 update.

The same thing happened to the Surface RT devices. They're not getting Windows 10.

Sent from my rooted Nexus 7 (2013) using Tapatalk

I had the Titan ii, which cost twice as much as the 900 on contract when first released. Aside from poor manufacturer decisions, I know that many Android fans like pure Android, but this is not always the best way to go, imo. For example, Google got rid of microSD slot support a while back (and has since brought it back). Or the quick toggles in the notification bar which Samsung implemented before Google (and even today I still prefer Samsung implementation over my moto e 2nd gen. There are other things but point being, these are core items, if Google dictated as strongly as Microsoft did then some manufacturer customizations would not be possible.



Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note 5

 

[syspry]

Good points everyone. I sometimes wonder though, do you think perhaps Android devices would continue to sell roughly the same as they do now if OEM skins, forks or whatever term you prefer, were gone and they all ran Google's own Android like the Nexus, but also still contained their own brand's features such as Moto's Active Display, the Note's Spen features, etc? Or do you think their sales would decline? Rise?

 

[dpham00]

Good points everyone. I sometimes wonder though, do you think perhaps Android devices would continue to sell roughly the same as they do now if OEM skins, forks or whatever term you prefer, were gone and they all ran Google's own Android like the Nexus, but also still contained their own brand's features such as Moto's Active Display, the Note's Spen features, etc? Or do you think their sales would decline? Rise?

The manufacturers have an incentive to sell the device as their own on Android right now. If it becomes essentially stock Android across the board with minor additions, then this will be similar to the Samsung and htc windows phones... They will make them but they won't put their best effort nor will they heavily promote them.

Samsung wants to make all their phones feel similar regardless of how Google wants it. And they want a unique experience to differentiate themselves from others.

Samsung has really perfected the s pen,and has no real competitors now. I don't think that the additions required for the s pen could be done by adding on some software, it is probably done at core level. I don't think Samsung wants to give Google the information required fully integrate an s pen, because then other manufacturers can easily add a stylus since the software is there.

Personally I think that the whole on time update thing is overblown... Hardcore users care about it but the general public... Not so much.

As for the sales... It depends on marketing...they can market it essentially as Google phones, no longer Samsung, etc. and I think sales would be similar overall at the beginning , BUT,over time, Samsung would try hard to perfect tizen or whatever... And it would probably be a war between Google and Samsung.

Keep in mind what you are talking about is similar to gpe, and that was a failure.

It would certainly be a major risk on Google's part to force pure Android across the board with just minor modifications. Whether or not it will succeed in the long-term is hard to say.... But it won't be an easy battle. It is also possible that some people would just move to apple as a more stable brand... Should the fighting erupt.

I am sure Google has thought about bring a Microsoft or apple...and weighed the risks... My guess is that they don't see it as a worthwhile one to take.

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note 5

 

[dpham00]

Also let's remember that Google is an advertising /market research company first of all. They aren't really making money on Android. So forcing pure Android could jeopardize that part of their business.

Let's say they did it anyway and Samsung decided to use tizen... Will Google make apps for tizen? They could afford to avoid windows phone mainly because it has such a small market share... But Samsung has the largest market share, substantially larger than apple, who is number 2.

Besides app, there is a lot of data that Google collects from Android. They would lose all that.

Sent from my Verizon Samsung Galaxy Note 5

 

[Geodude074]

I read something interesting the other day in regard to Android version update delays that went something like this:


Genuine question here:
How can an Android OEM device be compared to a Windows machine in this way? For example, if you own a Windows laptop with hardware embedded software features from Asus for example, you still receive Windows updates directly from MS. So how to updates happen on your laptop that are Asus specific? Separately from Asus right? If that's the case, why then are Android updates not coming directly from Google and OEM hardware/software specific updates not separated from that procedure? On the same token, why aren't carriers completely removed from the update equation when carrier software can just be updated on its own aside from the OS update? Going back to the Windows example, I do not need to have my ISP approve a Windows version update on a laptop, so why must I on an Android device?

It seems to me that the above quoted summation is accurate that Google allowed these concessions to happen in the early days in order to speed up and bolster Android adoption and market share but in reality they aren't actually required at all. That being the case, why doesn't Google Android now in its maturity do something to change that model? I see no reason at all for Android updates to not come directly from Google while Samsung/HTC/LG or whomever to provide their own separate updates to features those OEM's have on their respective devices. Same goes for carriers. MS managed it for Windows machines.

Because Android is open source, anybody can take the Android source code, modify it to make it their own, then market it.

Windows on the other hand is not open source, nobody has the source code for Windows except Microsoft, no OEM can create their own version of Windows. They can make apps for it, but they can't modify the source code.

This means Microsoft can push timely updates to all Windows devices, since the OS is the same for all devices. But Google cannot push out updates to all Android devices, since not all Android devices are running the same version of Android.

This also explains why Nexus devices are updated quickly, because they run stock Android and therefor can be updated quickly.

 

[Crashdamage]

Because Android is open source, anybody can take the Android source code, modify it to make it their own, then market it.

Windows on the other hand is not open source, nobody has the source code for Windows except Microsoft, no OEM can create their own version of Windows. They can make apps for it, but they can't modify the source code.

This means Microsoft can push timely updates to all Windows devices, since the OS is the same for all devices. But Google cannot push out updates to all Android devices, since not all Android devices are running the same version of Android.

This also explains why Nexus devices are updated quickly, because they run stock Android and therefor can be updated quickly.

Geodude074 is exactly right. Not possible to force Android back to closed source even if they wanted to, which I doubt they do. After all, Android has taken over 80% of the worldwide market. I think it can be called a success. Anyway, once something is open source, it's open source forever. Can't put it back in a closed source bottle.

And I agree that Android has a somewhat more complicated problem regarding OS updates than Windows. Windows is actually not the same for all devices, but there only a few versions and I agree with the premise.

It would certainly be a major risk on Google's part to force pure Android across the board with just minor modifications. Whether or not it will succeed in the long-term is hard to say.... But it won't be an easy battle. It is also possible that some people would just move to apple as a more stable brand... Should the fighting erupt.

I am sure Google has thought about bring a Microsoft or apple...and weighed the risks... My guess is that they don't see it as a worthwhile one to take.

They can control the Google add-ons like Maps, Contacts, Play or Gmail, but the base Android OS is forever open source. And while Google's control over the add-ons is a powerful tool; it has limits.

Ahhh...but...you say...What about the nuclear option: Google could stop development. Tell everyone, If you don't play our way, we're taking our development engineers and equipment and going home. You're on their own to work on Android from now on.

They could. They won't. Just the public relations nightmare that would cause, the damage that would do to Google's reputation, is enough to keep them developing and innovating in Android and releasing the code back to the open source commuunity, as is required.