Don't you mean Android phone OEMs and carriers?
Google already updates their phones every month for three years which is long enough for a device most people replace or break within two years. Verizon isn't the only carrier of course.
Google already updates their phones every month for three years which is long enough for a device most people replace or break within two years. Verizon isn't the only carrier of course.
Feature updates? Sure those can go away as the manufacturer feels like it (though they should be required to be upfront about this).
You are comparing software security updates to products recalled for safety issues? Well phones are already subject to recalls for hardware/battery problems. Let me know when a phone kills or hurts someone due to lack of security updates.
iOS 9 supports the iPhone 4S and the iPad 2, which again is a five-year span (2011 to 2016).
I have devices that are that old; the iPad 3 I have just prompted me to update to the latest 9.3 update, and it's so slow running newer apps that I gave it to my toddler to play games on instead.
So I agree, three years is good, four years is better, but Apple is already at five years and has been for a while now.
Just like desktop computers they will reach a point where, for most people, they're 'good enough', even if they're really slow.
For some people, particularly the elderly, the young, and the poor, they'll use it until it literally stops working at all because they literally cannot afford otherwise.
Cell phones are a literal lifeline device, to the point that emergency calls (at least in the US, and probably in any civilized part of the planet) //WILL// always work; without unlocking the phone, without the phone being on a payment plan, as long as the device has the power to transmit that distress need.
It is not difficult to imagine how issues with the security portion of the layer could allow anything from a computer virus to DDoS local infrastructure (jamming), to targeting specific individuals (lock out their ability to call for help, bug and track movement), to picking out individuals that are alone and in vulnerable moments. Those are attacks I thought of just typing this comment and are not an exhaustive list.
This is why the security updates either must be performed by the companies in question through the actual use lifetime of the device: not just by it's first owner, but all the way through to it's last. Or failing that, they should be required to both release the sources and provide everything necessary in a legal sense for other entities in the community to perform the security updates they are unwilling to do. Carriers should also be liable for failing to (offer to) distribute said security updates to devices on their network (it is in the interest of everyone that they do this and do not charge for it).
What? Most phones sold today do NOT have replaceable batteries.
>For some people, particularly the elderly, the young, and the poor, they'll use it until it literally stops working at all because they literally cannot afford otherwise.
One can get a new Android phone from Amazon for $50 no contract. Landlines still exist and are almost available anywhere unlike cell coverage.
>Cell phones are a literal lifeline device...
I could live with a dumb phone as my PC is way more important. When are we going to make Microsoft start to provide security updates to XP again?
You must be like 20 years old... I hate to break it to you but no one needs a cell phone to survive.
>This is why the security updates either must be performed by the companies in question through the actual use lifetime of the device...
Well start writing Congress but personally I don't want my new phone to be another $50 more because the OEM is required to provide security updates for phones 5 or more years old.
Buying a new (crappy, what do you expect for 50 Dollars?) phone because your perfectly working one isn't supported anymore is NOT satisfying and not a solution.
Windows XP is actually a very nice example. According to Wikipedia it came out in 2001 and got constant (you can complain about the quality or bring up other complaints) updates until 2014. It's rather amusing that you bring up Windows XP as a _counter argument_ to decent updates. Most phone manufacturers have a hard time updating their devices for 1.5 to 2 years, let alone 13.
I feel that you're a bit lost. You want to save a bit of money ($50 is your example) when you purchase a new device because if it's becoming vulnerable due to a crappy manufacturer/vendor you can always .. get a different one for the same price?
Ignoring that this doesn't make sense, you're also hurting the 'herd immunity'. This argument of yours is comparable to anti-vaccines discussions. "I want .." vs. "The general public would benefit if this would be the case". I know what Kirk and Spock would decide, but you're entitled to have a different opinion, of course.
In my world too but most smartphones sold these days in fact do not have removable batteries by design. You don't know this?
>Buying a new (crappy, what do you expect for 50 Dollars?) phone because your perfectly working one isn't supported anymore is NOT satisfying and not a solution
That $50 phone is just as good or better than a phone sold 3 or 4 years ago.
>I feel that you're a bit lost. You want to save a bit of money
No dude... I buy a new phone every two years to have a faster one, better features (camera), and better security features (fingerprint reader). Lucky me, I can afford it. My secondary phone is a 2 1/2 year old Nexus 5 which still gets security updates and will for many more years via custom ROMs. Security updates were not the reason I bought a new phone.
Sorry, you don't really seem to be up on current smartphone technology to comment on this intelligently but philosophically I do agree with you.
I picked up one on ebay for $AU80 and the battery is still okay but the non-replaceable feature the only thing keeping me from using it indefinitely. Although the supported OS is Google abandonware, so this vulnerability may finally encourage me to upgrade to a custom ROM.
(And yes I'm currently a thrifty student and happy to accept hand-me-downs rather than spend $500 on new bling)
The Nexus 4 was a solid beautiful phone in it's time. It doesn't even officially support LTE and I can name 6 other specs were it comes up short compared to the Amazon Prime phones.
Google abandonware? Nexus devices get better official and unofficial support than any other Android OEM phones.
Microsoft distributes security updates regardless of what OEM their software is installed on. With Windows 10, this is true of mobile as well. My two year old Verizon phone runs the latest official version of Windows 10 Mobile, released direct from Microsoft, at the same time as everyone else.
Do you know how open source works? Google has no control over OEM phones or the carrier approval process. Period!
The only reason OEM Windows phones can be upgraded is that OEMs agree to that level of control by Microsoft. Have you ever noticed their are few Windows phone OEMs? LOL Google could try to assert this kind of control on OEMs but Samsung would bail as soon as possible for sure. They would fork AOSP or move to their own OS.
Samsung bails, Google and Android is screwed...
I don't know why you and others want to keep repeating yourself but that is not going to change anything. I have no idea what you said in your second sentence.
Furthermore, Samsung can't leave, Google has a backroom deal with them, it involves patents.
I suppose you can produce this document?
Common sense would dictate if Google could make OEMS provide updates they would already be doing that. Right?
Google gets to approve or veto every Android device every OEM sells. And that's just for starters. If you're an Android OEM that has access to the Play Store, Google has an incredible amount of control over your company.
These are the leaked 2011 MADA agreements, but the new ones are far more strict: https://oasis.sandstorm.io/shared/A9MKYwaMtKZ1p5xC5KQlknXDP4...
Thanks man... I hear they also keep martians at Roswell.
>Google gets to approve or veto every Android device every OEM sells.
100% Wrong... The only thing an OEM really needs to do is include certain Google apps and have them presented in a certain way to use Play services.
"Unless otherwise approved by Google in writing Company will preload all Google Applications approved in the applicable Territory or Territories on each device." under 3.4
AOSP passes the compatibility test and the second quote applies to devices with Google Services
"Company shall not Launch any Device incorporating the Google Applications until it has obtained Google's approval as set forth in (a), (b), and (c) below.", see section 4.3
OEMs can't release an open source only Android distribution. WRONG Google must approve any OEM Android phone. WRONG Samsung can't produce a forked version of AOSP. WRONG
Your only proof about any of this is quoting a clause about Google apps? LOL Yes, OEMs can only use Play services if they include certain Google apps and they need to be presented in a certain way. I already said that many comments ago. The agreement stops say Samsung from using Google Maps but naming the icon Dumbfuck Maps. Google only approves the implementation of their apps NOT the phone.
Dude, go home. You don't know what you are talking about.
You can ship a phone running AOSP without any further agreement with Google.
You cannot ship an "Android" phone. "Android" is a trademark of Google and you can only use it with permission. Moreover, you cannot ship a phone that includes the Play Store or Google apps, nor one compatible with the increasing array of apps that require Play Services, unless you make an agreement with Google.
If you take away the name and ecosystem, you've lost the vast majority of the value of Android. Users will see your phone as if it is running its own, incompatible operating system. Why would they buy this? Why not buy a Windows phone instead?
Case in point: Amazon tried making a phone based on AOSP -- the Fire phone. They made their own apps, their own app store, etc. It was a flop. They gave up. If Amazon can't make it work, why would anyone else expect they can?
So, to realistically sell an Android phone, you have to make an agreement with Google. And that's how they keep control.
Yes. AOSP is available as 'open source'. As a giant code drop, as far as I can tell. And the steering party for Android is .. that Ad company. Even 'Nexus devices' aren't able to boot using AOSP last time I checked (Nexus 7, the ~newer~ version), so that is really bullshit. It looks like "Have fun with our current state, and really - nothing will work on your devices anyway because you need a ton of binary blobs matching our kernel".
Android is about as close to open source in my world as .Net was via 'the reference source' a couple years ago. "Source available" vs. "Open Source".
My point is AOSP being open source means any OEM could base an OS on it and be fully open sourced.
I understand there is barriers to doing that like most mobile hardware is not open but that is NOT Google's fault.
For 18 months actually.
Although those security updates have been out for a year now, so technically Google doesn't update their phones for three years yet and we're yet to see this commitment happening. Based on their track record, my confidence level isn't exactly high.
In most countries people use pre-paid devices, which get used until they die.