Commit to Android codebase suggests Google may strong-arm phone makers into using 'seamless' partitioned updates
- Reference: 1586352613
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/08/android_partitioned_update_commit/
- Source link:
A recent [1]commit to the Android Vendor Test Suite (VTS) shows that it will soon check A/B Partitions are enabled for devices running Android 11. If not, the tests will fail.
These changes are not yet in production, and Google could easily change its mind before the official launch of Android 11, which is expected to land in the coming months.
Partitioned – or "seamless" – updates work by copying the new version of Android to a separate partition on the device's internal storage. When the user reboots the phone, they boot into the partition containing the newer software version.
This technology is nothing new. Google introduced the feature with Android 7.0 Nougat, as part of its Project Treble initiative. However, Google failed to mandate that OEMs actually use it. Predictably, this has caused inconsistencies across the Android ecosystem.
Recovery and a pause in the day of the habitual mobile stroker
Some manufacturers, notably Google itself, use A/B Partitions to deliver updates, while others (like Samsung and OPPO) have their own approaches. Many of these rely on the phone entering recovery mode, preventing the user from using the device while the update is installing.
Partitioned updates solve that problem. They also make it easier to roll-back to a known working version of Android, should an install fail or otherwise become corrupted.
Android updates have long been a thorny subject for Google. Unlike iOS, there's no universal standard for how quickly and frequently updates are rolled out as it's primarily the purview of OEMs and carriers.
The end result? Only 12.45 per cent of Android phones use the latest-and-greatest operating system, Android 10, [2]according to Statcounter . Less than half use the last version, Android Pie. Astonishingly, over 9 per cent of Android phones use Version 6.0, which is no longer supported by Google.
To address the problem, Google has unbundled many system-level apps and services from the core operating system, allowing them to be updated through the Google Play Store rather than via an irregular device update.
This has technically made updates quicker and cheaper to deploy, although it's still largely up to the whims of the device manufacturer. Thrusting a standardised update system would help further, but without some serious arm-twisting from Google, it's likely this problem will remain. ®
Sponsored: [3]How to Build Your Digital Experience Portfolio
[1] https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/test/vts-testcase/kernel/+/1280636
[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/android-version-market-share/mobile-tablet/worldwide
[3] https://go.theregister.co.uk/tl/1936/-8578/how-to-build-your-digital-experience-portfolio?td=wptl1936
Re: And how long will Google maintain/update versions ?
I'm still using 5.1.1 on my phone. For decades I've wanted a pocket computer, and now I have one! (The keyboard ain't so great, but I can live with it.) It works. Why should I change anything? Of course I usually keep it in airplane mode, and only turn it on when I want to make a phone call, or am expecting one. It's a great pocket reader, though, holds music, and kinda works as a camera.
Still using Win7, too, and Office 2003. They work. Life can be perilous out on the bleeding edge of technology -- if I don't need it, why should I buy it?
If you want longer support then for now you need to buy a Pixel. Google support android versions for a number of years and Pixel devices for 3 years. It would be great if they could change the ecosystem so updates are provided like Windows update but I don't see that happening any time soon so you're at the mercy of the manufacturer.
It would be great if they could change the ecosystem so updates are provided like Windows update but I don't see that happening any time soon so you're at the mercy of the manufacturer.
Couple of points here:
1) Using the much reviled forced Windows update as a model does nothing for your argument. Can you say "1809"? I knew you could....
2) How does buying a Pixel not put you "at the mercy of the manufacturer" (Google)?
Shill.
Shill! Is that really necessary?
My point is simply if you want regular security updates then you need a Google device as they update each month.
As for the "Windows update style" updates I mean regular security updates which I'm sure we all agree is important. I'm not talking about being forced to eat OS updates like Windows update has become merely that all devices are secured from the OS vendor.
My past few Sony handsets, primarily after they adopted the Project Treble model, received updates every other months. Nearly like clockwork. It's easy for Google to maintain a monthly release cycle for Nexus/Pixel. They only have three/four variants at any given time, maybe ten/twelve across the entire support window. Other manufactures may have ten/twelve localizations or market versions per model.
Generally, even after two years, despite the OEM's best efforts, the updates from Google start to dry up and they're left hanging. Google doesn't appear to buy into the idea that people are (at least wanting to) keep handsets for longer. The Android hardware requirements are often tweaked just enough for newer versions to require hardware updates.
Aside: Of course, this requirement could be aimed squarely at Samsung, which has been the main hold out on going Project Treble. They also go a fair bit of kernel/low-level tweakin, cf. Dex/Knox, which Google may not appreciate.
The Quick, and the Dead
Technologically, this is a fine idea; having effectively two versions of the OS stashed away and picking one of the (ostensibly, the newest) versions at bootup. However, there are myriad problems with this, including (but not limited to) breaking existing installed apps (you know that a good number of those apps on your shiny are keyed to a particular OS). As the updates are "seamless", which from the article means that they can happen in the background without the phone being physically and visually put into stasis while the OS is updated, allows for all sorts of mischief and mayhem to be wrought on an unsuspecting user. ("Gee, my phone worked fine yesterday; how come when I turned it on today I'm getting all these popup adds for 'hot Russian chicks'?)
This idea needs rehearsal. I noticed, for example, that here was no discussion of the user being able to "back out" the latest update and go back to the last known good version. I understand that phone junkies get all bent out of shape if their shiny doesn't have all the latest doodads and geegaws. And I understand the disgust that users have for phone makers that don't (or won't) support their shiny for longer than 6 months, or do maintain their gadgets, but at a glacial pace. Nonetheless, I would be very suspicious of Google being able to unilaterally and surreptitiously update my phone...wouldn't you?
I mean, shit! We're talking Google here...
I think we need some vendor-agnostic hardware abstraction...
Then the OS can be upgraded without even consulting the hardware vendors - just like Microsoft does with Windows on PCs.
Yeah, I know, not quite entirely aligned with this article, but...
All the vendors would have to do is provide the "drivers" (for want of a better word) and perhaps a partition where they can add their bloatware (to be disabled instantly) and their home screen app.
I'm probably being naive here, but M$ managed it...
Re: I think we need some vendor-agnostic hardware abstraction...
Project Treble added exactly some of that.
It standardised and abstracted the hardware layer interface and allows the OS to be upgraded for longer and keep working with frozen-in-time binary blobs/drivers from the hardware vendors. Qualcomm has habit of declaring an SoC end-of-life barely 18 months after its initial general availability. This often made it impossible for handset manufacturers to ship updates past that point, even if they wanted to.
Updates
I think this is well-overdue in the Android spectrum and I applaud Google for at least putting their toe in the water.
It's just that it is Google - who I have an inherent trust issue with.
What's worse? Being sucked further into Google's maw or being left hanging in the wind (updates wise) by your manufacturer of choice?
Maybe my bias is blinding me more than I think...
Hardly surprising...
People have been [1]predicting this for years . After all, this way Google can ensure that everyone is dancing to their tune and not blocking the release of their latest products/version while singing their usual song about "ensuring a better/more secure experience for the end user"...
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/17/google_android_takeover/
Re: Hardly surprising...
Don't you mean...
ensuring a better slurping experience for google
Why else woud they do all this and spend oodles of money? They have to get someting in return for giving it all away for zilch
And how long will Google maintain/update versions ?
Hopefully more than the normal pathetic 'product lifetime' which is basically until 6 months after the next model is on the market.