-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Google tightening control of Android
- Thread starter garp
- Start date
partridge
Android Enthusiast
There does need to be some kind of overall control or someone will eventually create their own Android spin off which will prove to be incompatable with other handsets.
The Market needs the dross removed, I don't care how many apps there are as long as they are good quality and worth a look.
Vanilla Android, for me, is a bit dull so if Google are going to restrict custom UI's they need to get HTC's design people to revamp its look and feel. Say what you like about Sense, but it has pushed Android into the pockets of millions of people because they care more about what their phone looks like than the OS on it.
The Market needs the dross removed, I don't care how many apps there are as long as they are good quality and worth a look.
Vanilla Android, for me, is a bit dull so if Google are going to restrict custom UI's they need to get HTC's design people to revamp its look and feel. Say what you like about Sense, but it has pushed Android into the pockets of millions of people because they care more about what their phone looks like than the OS on it.
Medion
Android Expert
Or they could offer their custom UI as a launcher on top of Android (like Launcher Pro) rather than integrated with Android. This gives the user choice, while not slowing down updates. The downside for the OEM is that their IP is easier to extract and run on another device.
doron
Member
I can see the problem from the manufacturers point of view though; they need to somehow differentiate their product apart from hardware.
As someone mentioned on the phandroid comment section, if Google were able to withhold support of some sort to companies who choose not to upgrade android versions to their phones even though they could run it form a hw standpoint then many of their problems would be addressed.
Perhaps I'm missing something?
Just to add, I think right now the only line of defense against companies like Samsung not giving a s**t about updating phones is people like us who sway our less tech inclined friends' purchasing decisions. It's nice to see Google try to enact some sort of quality control, but it seems to be going overboard if they want to limit custom UI's because manufacturers will try to fight back (Motorola developing own OS for example).
As someone mentioned on the phandroid comment section, if Google were able to withhold support of some sort to companies who choose not to upgrade android versions to their phones even though they could run it form a hw standpoint then many of their problems would be addressed.
Perhaps I'm missing something?
Just to add, I think right now the only line of defense against companies like Samsung not giving a s**t about updating phones is people like us who sway our less tech inclined friends' purchasing decisions. It's nice to see Google try to enact some sort of quality control, but it seems to be going overboard if they want to limit custom UI's because manufacturers will try to fight back (Motorola developing own OS for example).
I think Engadget went overboard on the UI side of that story.
Google's caring about what revision of Android people are running and what new phones are being sold with.
Google's caring about what revision of Android people are running and what new phones are being sold with.
True because with each new version they are increasing what can be done with the OS and fixing bugs and exploits to make the OS more secure, but part of the reason the OEM updates take so long is because the OEM want to infuse their custom UI to create their flavor of android. As many have complained OEM UI can suck, i.e. blur. If OEM had to send out phones with vanilla Android updates would come quicker, they could also offer the UI on the market so anyone could get HTC Sense for example. Say you have a moto phone then buy HTC sense off the market and love it you may be more inclined to purchase HTC hardware when you upgrade your phone. Also restricting OEM to using vanilla android could create a hardware war with each company trying to push out the most powerful hardware they can, seems like a good idea to me.
In HTC's case, as I recall, their stuff is optimized for their hardware.
As for their stuff (read: maker UIs) added-on delaying updates: Yeah - I'm not buying really buying it.
Would it be faster to just get Google updates? Sure. And who's going to be held responsible if phone calls stop because each phone really does need its very own kernel and very own device drivers?
And would it really drive a hardware war to higher perfection if the makers only concentrated on hardware and left eveyrthing to vanilla Android? Again no - who's going to write the stuff to start exploiting the at-least (what??) 10 different and capable processors out there - without which, all hardware would perform the same anyway?
So - I think this whole UI-slowing-down-updates is an urban myth. The Evo got its Froyo update 6 weeks after the code his the AOSP repository, and two other phones got it within a month of that - so while others with perfectly capable hardware are still awaiting Froyo 8 months later, I say the Evo and Droid X are proof that all it takes to field an update with a maker-embedded UI is corporate will and nothing more.
As for their stuff (read: maker UIs) added-on delaying updates: Yeah - I'm not buying really buying it.
Would it be faster to just get Google updates? Sure. And who's going to be held responsible if phone calls stop because each phone really does need its very own kernel and very own device drivers?
And would it really drive a hardware war to higher perfection if the makers only concentrated on hardware and left eveyrthing to vanilla Android? Again no - who's going to write the stuff to start exploiting the at-least (what??) 10 different and capable processors out there - without which, all hardware would perform the same anyway?
So - I think this whole UI-slowing-down-updates is an urban myth. The Evo got its Froyo update 6 weeks after the code his the AOSP repository, and two other phones got it within a month of that - so while others with perfectly capable hardware are still awaiting Froyo 8 months later, I say the Evo and Droid X are proof that all it takes to field an update with a maker-embedded UI is corporate will and nothing more.
The OEM would still need to create drivers and kernels. Sure the OEM can create and update their most current phone but look at phones like the milestone 1, it just recently got froyo months after the droid 1 got froyo, there are still other phones out that that are running eclair stock while they are more than capable to run froyo.
No no - we're not at all in disagreement on the problem here, and we're probably in agreement on its severity.
Were it to be proven that the UI could be sensibly divorced to solve the problem - where sensibly means cost-effective and technically feasible - fine. But if it's just the excuse to not put out updates because of corporate greed or sloth, then forcing by the issue by contractual means makes perfect sense to me.
What I worry about is even if they make all OEM release to be vanilla android what is forcing the carriers to push out the updates? From what I have read it also seem like some of the carrier changes are what google has an issue with as well i.e. bing or yahoo as default search provider. Also if they were make OEM use vanilla android would they also not allow carriers to change stock features as well such as sideloading and tethering? If they were to try to prevent carriers from making these changes to the OS I could see it possibly causing some carriers to stop selling Android phones.
I would also like to know if restriction of custom OEM UI would speed up updates or if it would just make for a more generic android experience on all phones before they made the change mandatory.
Quite the problem right there, now isn't it?
And - if we survey the Open Handset Alliance members, we find only _some_ carriers subscribing to the principles - Alliance Members | Open Handset Alliance
And the carriers have long claimed that updates must pass their QA - but as much as that seems like a good and necessary thing (I'm all for QA) each update on my carrier seems to carry yet another piece of bloatware.
Now - wouldn't it be interesting if Google could somehow mandate user-level apps no longer being tagged as system apps? Because that's the lie by which bloatware is only removable via rooting.
Software builds - if done even halfway right - are automated. You QA the build process, and each build thereafter tends to pass QA rather easily compared to by-hand builds. So, I'll restate - there's nothing in the UI layers or social networking layers that need take terribly long to integrate with a basic revision update - no more so, and most likely, much less so, than that required for kernels and drivers.
You've nailed the real issue I was alluding to - it's about the Benjamins and how return on investment is perceived.
We still have only industry finger-pointing and arm-waving along with our own guesses to explain the Froyo holdups on so many top-notch phones.
Sometimes removing the bloatware is not an option, on all the moto phones after the D1 if you rooted and removed system apps when an update was available for your phone you could not update, you instead had to revert to SBF and then upgrade, so I am stuck with a blockbuster app, city ID app, 3G mobile hotspot app, backup assistant, VZW navigation... that I can remove but when/if the update to GB comes I will not be able to upgrade without flashing the SBF. Not to mention the bootloader is locked so getting an upgrade via roms is not nearly as easy as it should be (IMO).
Perhaps if google could make some sort of clause that would force the OEM and carrier to make a vanilla version of android available along with the custom UI version and/or give root access to the user without having to void the warranty it would help fix some of my issues.
novox77
Leeeroy Jennnkinnns!
I would be quite happy if one of Google's latest enforcements was for carriers to not pollute /system with apps that can't be uninstalled.
Manufacturer's UI overlay is way more than just a launcher, so I don't think any manufacturer would settle for having just a custom launcher on top of vanilla Android. However, an overlay that can be enabled/disabled via a checkbox list would be very nice. For example:
-Alarm
-Dialer
-Launcher
-Lock screen
-Gallery
-Mail
-Music
etc etc
you pick what you want to enable. I know that with Sense, a lot of stuff is integrated, so you can't remove the lockscreen without affecting the dialer, alarm, and music player. So they'd need to decouple the dependencies, or hand off to vanilla android better.
Manufacturer's UI overlay is way more than just a launcher, so I don't think any manufacturer would settle for having just a custom launcher on top of vanilla Android. However, an overlay that can be enabled/disabled via a checkbox list would be very nice. For example:
-Alarm
-Dialer
-Launcher
-Lock screen
-Gallery
-Music
etc etc
you pick what you want to enable. I know that with Sense, a lot of stuff is integrated, so you can't remove the lockscreen without affecting the dialer, alarm, and music player. So they'd need to decouple the dependencies, or hand off to vanilla android better.
Crashdamage
Android Expert
Google read the rules of open source before deciding to play the game. But now they wanna edit the rulebook to suit them better. Too bad...
I had a serious problem with coming back to Android for many reasons, one large one being that it's an OS controlled by a single company. Android is already too restrictive. That is, it's open - except for the parts that aren't. And now they want to tighten the screws a little, because they can. That may be good for Google but it's not good for freedom and innovation - or us users, because unrestricted freedom to innovate means progress and better choices.
I'll be tossing Android again if and when a more open, versatile alternative becomes available. Maybe MeeGo will still get there.
I had a serious problem with coming back to Android for many reasons, one large one being that it's an OS controlled by a single company. Android is already too restrictive. That is, it's open - except for the parts that aren't. And now they want to tighten the screws a little, because they can. That may be good for Google but it's not good for freedom and innovation - or us users, because unrestricted freedom to innovate means progress and better choices.
I'll be tossing Android again if and when a more open, versatile alternative becomes available. Maybe MeeGo will still get there.
I agree that open is a good thing, but as good as it can be for individual users, it can also severely restrict the user experience as well. Case in point, the Fascinate on Verizon. The open environment caused that phone to be riddled with bloatware that is 100% useless, default bing search (breaking several more useful Google alternatives), and no updates to newer versions of Android which have been available to nearly a year. The ball was definately dropped, and by who no-one knows. Without any restrictions, Samsung is not required to even attempt to update the phone, nor is Verizon. One blames the other, the user suffers. The lack of updates affects the quality of the phone by limiting the excellent hardware it has. Software can be changed by rooting, but that process can be daunting to the less experienced or adventurous, nor should it be a requirement. In the end, there needs to be a happy medium between openness and standardization which promotes uniquities, but preserves a quality experience for all.
Gmash
Extreme Android User
I guess it depends how far they go with this as to whether it will be a good thing or not. I think everybody would like less bloatware, faster updates, etc. At the same time, to have an open source system, you have to take the bad along with the good. There is still an open market economy at play. How many people will never buy another Samsung product (or consider buying their first) because of the lack of support they have shown in the past? Just like anything else, people will vote with their wallets. HTC came out of nowhere to be a dominant player because they make a good product and they support it. If Google goes too far with locking things down, it could backfire on them. I think most people bought an Android because they didn't want an iPhone.
I completely agree. As I stated, an open environment is a good thing, that I don't deny. However, there does need to be a limited amount of control over the quality of the product (software at least). The idea is not to lock down the OS, or limit skins etc, but to ensure that the software isn't so loaded and warped with junk that it becomes fiscally irresponsible for the carrier/manufacturer to attempt to update due to the deviations from the original blueprint. Samsung was only an example, but I agree that the wallet will determine the end results. Wouldn't it be nice to know in the end that you don't have to get royally f***ed by a phone manufacturer/carrier to know not to purchase their equipment again because there is some level of synchronicity. Open needs to be maintained, but there needs to be some level of guarantee as well. I don't want an iPhone ecosystem or anything near it (I like personalization), but it is a nice feeling to have some semblance of confidence in the future when purchasing a device.
Crashdamage
Android Expert
That has less than nothing to do with Android being 'open'. Android being open did not cause the 'phone to be riddled with bloatware' - Verizon did. Put the blame where it belongs regarding the decisions that are made with the choices available. The exact same thing would be true if the Facinate ran a closed system like WP7 or WebOS - whatever. Verizon could (and would) still make deals to include all kinds of crapware. In fact, by using a relatively open OS, Verizon is not required to pull such stunts (WP7 would require Bing for example) and could choose not to include any of that and offer vanilla Android. IOW, an open system always offers more choice, not less.
Which - as I said above - is totally the fault of Samsung and/or Verizon. Android being open is in no way stopping or restricting the availability of updates. If anything the opposite is true. The more open the OS is, the easier it should be for vendors to provide updates.
What you are really saying is that there should be a requirement to update in the Android license. That is not only unrealistic given the variety and complexity of Android hardware, but simply not the way open source works.
Android needs to be more open and unrestricted, not less, if we want it to be the best it can be.
You have to admit (ok, you don't have to do anything, but you know what I mean) - when carriers and makers dink and dork around not providing desirable updates, and locking users out of easy ways to do so, for those users, Android can get a tarnished name.
It's in Google's interests to take steps to protect the brand image.
Whether the steps they take are ultimately in everyone's interests will remain to be seen.
It's in Google's interests to take steps to protect the brand image.
Whether the steps they take are ultimately in everyone's interests will remain to be seen.
Crashdamage
Android Expert
You're getting it. Hold manufacturers and services providers responsible for what they do. If Samsung or whoever ticks you off because they can't or won't provide reasonable updates vote with your wallet and don't do business with them. Restrictions on open systems would be only a partial solution at best and the trade-off in lost freedom and innovation not worth it. Don't kill the messenger.