nectarbits
Lurker
I need to know which is the best and popular Android version for the smart phone. I think Android – 8.0 Oreo - is this best or other?
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Which is the latest Android version best for your smartphone?
- Thread starter nectarbits
- Start date
psionandy
Extreme Android User
Unless it isn't due to the hardware you are running
Nah, most low to mid-range phones after 3 years are still running the same Android version they arrived with. So apart from having filled your storage and weakened the battery there's no intrinsic reason they shouldn't work much as they always did.
Popular? Does that imply that there was a preference in the choice? or only which are most common? If the former, I doubt it's a consideration. Your average customer in a cell phone shop is going to buy whatever comes with the device and not be concerned about version. If it's about what's primarily "out there", as of the end of last year this generally shows the dispersion of Android versions.
Source
As for "best", that going to depend on the device, the user, the carrier and the primary purpose of the device.
Source
As for "best", that going to depend on the device, the user, the carrier and the primary purpose of the device.
I clear my Chrome history regularly but Im still on 8.0.0 on my LG G7 from Sprint US. You Europeans do not have this problem.
Oooh, oooh ... the semantics game. Can I play too? 
(the rest of this post is all in fun, play if you like 
)
Let's define "outdated", shall we? According to Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus, here is the short list of synonyms:
antiquated
archaic
dated
fossilized
kaput
moth-eaten
neolithic
obsolete
out-of-date*
outmoded
outworn
passé
prehistoric
rusty
Once we remove the obviously silly one's we are left with "dated", "obsolete", "outmoded" and "passé". (*out-of-date is simply redundant.)
Let's start with "dated". Is a 3 year old Android phone old? Sure, in terms of technology it is probably missing features in newer devices and assuming it's been in use the whole time, as @Hadron pointed out, the storage and battery are probably areas that need to be addressed. However, by adding the prefix "out" to dated we are implying that a 3-year-old device is beyond its usefulness. There are plenty of devices older than that that are still perfectly functional. My 5 year old Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 is a perfect example. While I have replaced the battery, i still use it almost daily even though I've added a much newer 2018 10 inch tablet to my technology assets. So I'd say "dated" yes, but "outdated" no.
Obsolete? No. obsolescence indicates that something is also no longer in use or no longer useful. (see above)
Outmoded. While an older device might not have certain features or protocols a newer phone or tablet might have, I would guess you'd have to go beyond 5 years or more to find a device whose functionality has been diminished by a "mode" no longer working or supported. For example, an old CRT television will still receive a signal and display a picture and audio. If the technology still functions as originally intended, then i would say it's not outmoded either.
Passé. Hmmm, here you'd have to look at it on a device by device basis. "Passé" has the implication of falling out of popular favor. A device that catered to a short-lived trend could certainly be passé after 3 years, but most phones by major manufacturers follow a more conservative design that can withstand some loss of public favor. A smart watch with a "flat tire" on the face I would consider passé since it was something that was a compromise to suit a purpose that has since been corrected by virtually all watch makers.
(the rest of this post is all in fun, play if you like )Let's define "outdated", shall we? According to Merriam-Webster's Thesaurus, here is the short list of synonyms:
antiquated
archaic
dated
fossilized
kaput
moth-eaten
neolithic
obsolete
out-of-date*
outmoded
outworn
passé
prehistoric
rusty
Once we remove the obviously silly one's we are left with "dated", "obsolete", "outmoded" and "passé". (*out-of-date is simply redundant.)
Let's start with "dated". Is a 3 year old Android phone old? Sure, in terms of technology it is probably missing features in newer devices and assuming it's been in use the whole time, as @Hadron pointed out, the storage and battery are probably areas that need to be addressed. However, by adding the prefix "out" to dated we are implying that a 3-year-old device is beyond its usefulness. There are plenty of devices older than that that are still perfectly functional. My 5 year old Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 is a perfect example. While I have replaced the battery, i still use it almost daily even though I've added a much newer 2018 10 inch tablet to my technology assets. So I'd say "dated" yes, but "outdated" no.
Obsolete? No. obsolescence indicates that something is also no longer in use or no longer useful. (see above)
Outmoded. While an older device might not have certain features or protocols a newer phone or tablet might have, I would guess you'd have to go beyond 5 years or more to find a device whose functionality has been diminished by a "mode" no longer working or supported. For example, an old CRT television will still receive a signal and display a picture and audio. If the technology still functions as originally intended, then i would say it's not outmoded either.
Passé. Hmmm, here you'd have to look at it on a device by device basis. "Passé" has the implication of falling out of popular favor. A device that catered to a short-lived trend could certainly be passé after 3 years, but most phones by major manufacturers follow a more conservative design that can withstand some loss of public favor. A smart watch with a "flat tire" on the face I would consider passé since it was something that was a compromise to suit a purpose that has since been corrected by virtually all watch makers.
What's that to do with "running over the speed limit" (the meaning of which I admit was unclear to me in the first place)?
My 5 year old Note 10.1 got a security update last month. It was the first in 3 years, but I'll credit Samsung for bothering.
But let's face it, with honourable exceptions most mid-range devices don't get updates after one year, and many low-end ones never get any at all. So if you base it on updates some are outdated the moment you buy them, even if they are released with the very latest. Conversely they may work perfectly well after 5 years, and if a device does what you need who cares whether by someone's reckoning it's outdated?
I currently use 2 android devices. One, as described above, is a tablet that hasn't received an OS update since 2015 and has received precisely 2 security updates since then. The other is a Pixel 2 which was last updated a week ago. Both do things the other can't, so as far as I'm concerned both are fine. But if you want an answer to the original question, on the Pixel 9 is better than 8.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
chanchan05
The Doctor
Would I rather have Google spying on me to give me targetted ads, or have some shady guy accessing my details through an unpatched security hole trying to get my details for things like credit card fraud/identity theft?
chanchan05,
* Google (started with CIA seed funds) and NSA tax dollar recipient. Spyware king.
* and an absolute apalling privacy record spanning at least the last decade. (from apps to keyboard to OS itself sending data back constantly and with a Spyware Store abaolutely infiltrated with hundreds of trackers, analytics, ads and spyware. My estimate: at least 99.99% infested apps)
* an increasingly proprietary dependence on their spyware being on your phone in order to run many apps
They (Google) will keep you 'safe'. After all there's nothing left to lose.
Make sure not to turn off those updates and remove all Google apps and system framework components like I did. That would be stupid. The sales pitch: your 'safety'. The reality: the latest exploits. Keep chasing your tail.
Better to fear the 'shady' guy wanting your credit card info, who will probaby end up being the store you chose to shop with itself...and their lax security practices.
24-hour spyware siphoning up everything from my location, my calendar, ny trip history, sniffing my email content, SMSs, phone call history, recording everything they want with countless closed-source spyware...yes sign me up for that 'safety'....
As long as nobody gets my credit card info. All praise State Mafia. Boos to shady guy who wants my credit card info. Lucky we have big State Mafia corporations and benevolent govs protecting us. Also make sure you do not seek open-source apps from f-droid.org. Those hippies are clueless.
* Google (started with CIA seed funds) and NSA tax dollar recipient. Spyware king.
* and an absolute apalling privacy record spanning at least the last decade. (from apps to keyboard to OS itself sending data back constantly and with a Spyware Store abaolutely infiltrated with hundreds of trackers, analytics, ads and spyware. My estimate: at least 99.99% infested apps)
* an increasingly proprietary dependence on their spyware being on your phone in order to run many apps
They (Google) will keep you 'safe'. After all there's nothing left to lose.
Make sure not to turn off those updates and remove all Google apps and system framework components like I did. That would be stupid. The sales pitch: your 'safety'. The reality: the latest exploits. Keep chasing your tail.
Better to fear the 'shady' guy wanting your credit card info, who will probaby end up being the store you chose to shop with itself...and their lax security practices.
24-hour spyware siphoning up everything from my location, my calendar, ny trip history, sniffing my email content, SMSs, phone call history, recording everything they want with countless closed-source spyware...yes sign me up for that 'safety'....
As long as nobody gets my credit card info. All praise State Mafia. Boos to shady guy who wants my credit card info. Lucky we have big State Mafia corporations and benevolent govs protecting us. Also make sure you do not seek open-source apps from f-droid.org. Those hippies are clueless.
chanchan05
The Doctor
If you don't want Google or anybody else tracking you that much, Nokia has a new banana phone for you. Couldn't care less if the CIA knows I spent my day at home watching Netflix or at work doing stuff I'm supposed to be doing.
Vlad Soare
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. Each new version breaks something, and Pie is no exception.
For instance, they've dropped the battery saving option for the location services in Pie. Now you cannot turn off the GPS anymore - it's either GPS, or no location at all.
Or another example: in Pie, connecting to bluetooth low energy devices requires the location services to be active. Turn off location, and your fitness bracelet will not be able to connect anymore. How stupid is that?
So I wouldn't call the latest version "best".
Last edited:
I have to ask, do you have any proof or can post any citations to backup that statement? Because AFAIK Google was originally seed funded by private VCs, like Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital, and not organs of the US Govt.
Last edited:
Mikedt,
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
One of many articles. CIA invests in many tech companies through its investment arm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true...nd-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/
CIA hs laong since infiltrated the media (Operation Mockingbird) and has its business in wars and murders all over the world. William Blum can tell you far more (ex CIA). They are a major criminal organisation (as are most gov departments around the world).
The apps people use daily are all infiltrated by State Mafia around the world. People should be shocked learning about their origins (if not what the programs are actually doing), but 99.99% don't care.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
One of many articles. CIA invests in many tech companies through its investment arm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true...nd-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/
CIA hs laong since infiltrated the media (Operation Mockingbird) and has its business in wars and murders all over the world. William Blum can tell you far more (ex CIA). They are a major criminal organisation (as are most gov departments around the world).
The apps people use daily are all infiltrated by State Mafia around the world. People should be shocked learning about their origins (if not what the programs are actually doing), but 99.99% don't care.
Every new version just gets more restricted and controlling, as its maker intended. 99.9% of tech enthusiasts want the latest and the sleeping masses want to be 'safe' with laetst so-called security (with bonus fresh new exploits from our State Intelligence business partners). Seeking security while not realising that their barn door has been wide open for ages. A fool's game...
So you're saying that 99.99% of Play store apps are infested? Paid and free apps?
This grand conspiracy amongst app developers, where do they get their orders/instructions on what to infest their apps with, and where to send their covertly-obtained user data? Is it a Google policy that apps must be infested in order to be accepted?
Do you mind my asking what source(s) you're using to come up with your 99.99% figure? You're making some very serious allegations; I assume you can back them up with facts.
Milo Willamson
Android Expert
I always wondered about this, thanks Hardon.
chanchan05
The Doctor
I was my choice to put up with whatever Google puts in their phones for my convenience. So I don't care really. I chose convenience over thinking too much about these kinds of things. If your choice is to forgo that, as I said, don't bother owning a smartphone or even having an internet presence. You're on the internet right now. Each post you're putting leaves a footprint. You're not untraceable.
viperdink
Android Expert
You got to much time on you hands or the greenage on you side of the planet Is some real killer.
If it works it works. The rest is just semantics. But what ever floats you boat. Personally i havn't found a reason to dump good cash down on that end all be all flagship. Guess i'm just stuck in the middle on lg phones .
But i do hope for that diamond but i keep polishing my stone till i get boared.
If it works it works. The rest is just semantics. But what ever floats you boat. Personally i havn't found a reason to dump good cash down on that end all be all flagship. Guess i'm just stuck in the middle on lg phones .
But i do hope for that diamond but i keep polishing my stone till i get boared.
Milo Willamson
Android Expert
Do not over use different chats and different fourms, you might end up losing yourself in the process. You are leaving another trace and sell your soul to the online world.
Vlad Soare
Well-Known Member
OK, I can understand that. All sorts of "safety" restrictions are embedded into each new version. Like forcing us to use the PIN instead of the fingerprint from time to time - I hate that, because it always happens at the worst possible moment.
But in this case it's not even a matter of security. Battery saving location didn't pose any risk. And having location services on doesn't make BLE devices more secure. It's simply daft.
Last edited:
AFAIK the only time I've come across BLE is on public rental bicycles, where you use your phone to identify and unlock them with Bluetooth, and these services do require precise GPS location for it to work.
Only other Bluetooth things I've used are headphones and speakers, and those do not need to know location at all.
Only other Bluetooth things I've used are headphones and speakers, and those do not need to know location at all.