Google increases RAM and Storage Requirements for Android 13

[AlTech]

Summary

 

Google has decided to increase the RAM and Storage Requirements for Android 13, by now requiring that all phones running the lightweight 'Go' version of the operating system, have at least 2GB of RAM and 16GB of Storage.

 

Since Android 11, Android Go Phones previously only needed 1GB of RAM although the original release of Android Go with Android 8.1.0 required just 512MB of RAM.

 

Google has stated they will block all phones that do not meet the new requirements from updating to Android 13 and will block new phones from running Android 13 if they don't meet the requirements. This is likely to affect mainly customers in areas wherr OEMs are working  to making devices that just meet the minimum spec to run Android so that they can sell the cheapest devices that they can.

 

ArsTechnica, the source for this story, has stated though that technically this there is a work around for OEMs that don't care about distributing Google Applications on their phobe and using the Android Trademark. This work around would be using AOSP code and removing any limitations within it.

 

Quotes

Quote

Google's latest blog post announced that the minimum amount of RAM for Android Go, the low-end version of Android, is now 2GB for Android 13, whereas previously, it was 1GB. Esper's Mishaal Rahman and Google Product Expert Jason Bayton also claim the minimum storage requirements have been bumped up to 16GB, though Google doesn't seem to have publicly documented this anywhere.

 

My thoughts

 Whilst this is much overdue it does put Google in a position of power over Android that arguably they shouldn't have. Also, what about people with 1GB RAM phones? This move would presumably accelerate those devices turning into e-waste.

 

Sources

 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/android-13-raises-minimum-system-requirement-to-2gb-of-ram-16gb-of-storage/

[BiotechBen]

Phones with 1 gb of RAM are quickly approaching e-waste in 2022. I had a phone with 512mb of ram in 2017 and it crashed every time it tried to load a complex webpage and could only have maybe 3-4 apps open without it becoming unusable. If phone manufacturers would like to continue making 1/2gb phones in 2022/2023, then they aren't gonna be able to run android 13. I had a phone with 4gb that on Android 10 had trouble staying under 3.5 gb. And now with a 6gb phone on 12, it rarely goes below 4.5

[OddOod]

This is a pro-consumer move TBH. They know they need a minimum amount of RAM to function remotely properly so they are ensuring that manufacturers aren't gonna try and be shitty and give end users a bad user experience. 

XDA will always find ways around these restrictions and I bet even they will tell you that doing it is a bad idea

[dizmo]

Good. Good.

[TetraSky]

To be fair, people with devices with such a low amount of RAM were probably not expecting to update their version of Android.

[PineyCreek]

13's kind of a minimalist update compared to prior version changes...finding this out actually makes me happy because it'll force manufacturers to increase their minimum standard.  It makes me sad on the other hand because those costs will likely be passed on to consumers and it makes it potentially more likely that people that cannot afford higher tier phones will continue to get outdated OSes.

 

I mean, we still haven't figured out with Android how to get timely updates through non-Google brand OEMs and then through various carriers who of course have to bundle and lock various crap applications in the updates.

[PineyCreek]

1 hour ago, OddOod said:

This is a pro-consumer move TBH. They know they need a minimum amount of RAM to function remotely properly so they are ensuring that manufacturers aren't gonna try and be shitty and give end users a bad user experience. 

XDA will always find ways around these restrictions and I bet even they will tell you that doing it is a bad idea

It's good to be optimistic and think the best of large telecom corporations and cell manufacturers.  Naive I think, but optimistic.  Then again, I'm a pessimist in this arena.  I do hope that manufacturers do provide greater quality with minimal cost passed to consumers, though if they do I think it will be done with them figuratively kicking and screaming as they're dragged towards progress.

[AlTech]

5 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

 

 

5 hours ago, PineyCreek said:

I mean, we still haven't figured out with Android how to get timely updates through brand OEMs and then through various carriers who of course have to bundle and lock various crap applications in the updates.

Ftfy.

 

Personally I think that even Google provides an unsatisfactory level of update support compared to iPhones. What we need is 4-5 years of major OS udpates and then 2 years of security updates afterwards.

[williamcll]

At least most phones can still run on android 8 without issues.

[NemesisPrime_691]

Misleading title tbh. This is for Android 13 Go edition which people will only be running on some really low-end devices. 

[sof006]

Nah I agree with Google in this regard, if the phone does not meet the requirements it shouldn't be running the OS. When I worked retail the amount of people that would complain that their phone was slow or unresponsive (Usually Android Go) was because the phone was so under powered.

[AlTech]

On 9/10/2022 at 7:17 AM, NemesisPrime_691 said:

Misleading title tbh. This is for Android 13 Go edition which people will only be running on some really low-end devices. 

Respectfully disgaree, Android Go's requirements are effectively a minimum requirement for Android devices in general.

 

If a device barely meets the requirements, it uses Android Go and if it comfortably meets the requirements then it uses standard Android.

 

As to this being only for really low end phones: Some of the devices that previously ran standard Android will now need to run Android Go. Older devices particularly running lineageOS are likely to be particularly affected by it unless the lineageOS project takes out the code that looks for these requirements.

[Doobeedoo]

That is good, because some are actual produced ewaste on their own.

Android not sure about storage but as far as memory requires more than iOS so makes sense to move on. No point have a phone exist that you can't use any app without massive lag and crash. If you need only for comms there are even features phones for that.

Now what Google needs to do for their phones is increase android update support, to 5y would be amazing. That would make them the longest supported Android brand and match Apple so phones can have more prolonged value.

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

That is good, because some are actual produced ewaste on their own.

Android not sure about storage

8GB of Storage is technically doable in my experience on older versions of Android but it's almost impossible to download apps and later update them in the future.

 

Even 16GB is quite painful on Android with 2-4GB of free space left. With 16GB a microSD card is super necessary for any apps that let you move them to the microSD. Unfortunately many apps don't cos it's up to the developer to choose to support it.

 

I wouldn't have minded if Google had increased this to requiring 32GB of Storage.

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

but as far as memory requires more than iOS so makes sense to move on.

Which is funny cos now IOS and Android have the same RAM requirement of 2GB (even as of IOS 16).

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

No point have a phone exist that you can't use any app without massive lag and crash. If you need only for comms there are even features phones for that.

Sure but msssaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal don't work on those.

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

Now what Google needs to do for their phones is increase android update support, to 5y would be amazing. That would make them the longest supported Android brand and match Apple so phones can have more prolonged value.

Sure. Though this would require Google to lobby Qualcomm and other SOC designers to provide drivers and firmware for more than the 2 years that they currently do.

[Doobeedoo]

5 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

8GB of Storage is technically doable in my experience on older versions of Android but it's almost impossible to download apps and later update them in the future.

 

Even 16GB is quite painful on Android with 2-4GB of free space left. With 16GB a microSD card is super necessary for any apps that let you move them to the microSD. Unfortunately many apps don't cos it's up to the developer to choose to support it.

 

I wouldn't have minded if Google had increased this to requiring 32GB of Storage.

Which is funny cos now IOS and Android have the same RAM requirement of 2GB (even as of IOS 16).

Sure but msssaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal don't work on those.

Sure. Though this would require Google to lobby Qualcomm and other SOC designers to provide drivers and firmware for more than the 2 years that they currently do.

Yeah no point for those super low that were bad even decade ago. I have S6 with 16GB storage and 3GB ram and I tried to see with 1GB left storage, can lag at times or restart apps. Yeah 32GB bare minimum really. 

 

So far it just looks iOS is better optimized memory wise. 

 

Oh no there are feature phones and alike that support those messaging apps. Maybe some are built on Android and are basic buttons phone but still exist.

 

I mean, I don't know exactly how it works with Google and Qualcomm with driver and firmware side, though we see Samsung offering 4y Android upgrades, even Google lags 1y there. I'm sure it can be done regardless of Qualcomm though. But yeah, at least Google is the one that can and should push that.

[wamred]

20 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Summary

 

Google has decided to increase the RAM and Storage Requirements for Android 13, by now requiring that all phones running the lightweight 'Go' version of the operating system, have at least 2GB of RAM and 16GB of Storage.

 

Since Android 11, Android Go Phones previously only needed 1GB of RAM although the original release of Android Go with Android 8.1.0 required just 512MB of RAM.

 

Google has stated they will block all phones that do not meet the new requirements from updating to Android 13 and will block new phones from running Android 13 if they don't meet the requirements. This is likely to affect mainly customers in areas wherr OEMs are working  to making devices that just meet the minimum spec to run Android so that they can sell the cheapest devices that they can.

 

ArsTechnica, the source for this story, has stated though that technically this there is a work around for OEMs that don't care about distributing Google Applications on their phobe and using the Android Trademark. This work around would be using AOSP code and removing any limitations within it.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

 Whilst this is much overdue it does put Google in a position of power over Android that arguably they shouldn't have. Also, what about people with 1GB RAM phones? This move would presumably accelerate those devices turning into e-waste.

 

Sources

 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/09/android-13-raises-minimum-system-requirement-to-2gb-of-ram-16gb-of-storage/

It seems like a weird move to me, but at the same time I don’t know that phones with such low Ram is even really usable. 

[Vishera]

Bloatware here i come!

 

I have a single core 256mb phone that runs on Android 6.

[NemesisPrime_691]

On 9/10/2022 at 4:23 PM, AluminiumTech said:

Respectfully diagaree, Android Go's requirements are effectively a minimum requirement for Android devices in general.

 

If a device barely meets the requirements, it uses Android Go and if it comfortably meets the requirements then it uses standard Android.

 

As to this being only for really low end phones: Some of the devices that previously ran standard Android will now need to run Android Go. Older devices particularly running lineageOS are likely to be particularly affected by it unless the lineageOS project takes out the code that looks for these requirements.

Hmm, now that I think about it, it makes sense. 

[Demonking]

I got tired of low RAM phones, to the point when I was able to afford it. I got a note 20 ultra. Now I never run into slow downs. I only wish it had 256gb of storage instead of 128gb.

[Sauron]

On 9/10/2022 at 1:18 AM, AluminiumTech said:

Whilst this is much overdue it does put Google in a position of power over Android that arguably they shouldn't have.

This is only for trademark android so it makes sense that Google would have some say over what it can run on. I don't like artificial limitations though, it should just be a commercial agreement with OEMs that they can't use the trademark if they don't meet these specs - outside of that if it works it works, and people with existing phones that don't meet these specs should at least be given the option to update anyway. In some cases a slow phone is preferable to an insecure phone.

 

It's also interesting how android now has higher baseline requirements than many desktop GNU/Linux operating systems (most of which won't stop you from trying a less capable system anyway). I do wonder if they couldn't just cut down some of the graphical flare to make it more usable on lower end hardware... although I imagine these requirements come in part from google apps rather than android itself.

[Arika]

On 9/10/2022 at 9:18 AM, AluminiumTech said:

Also, what about people with 1GB RAM phones? This move would presumably accelerate those devices turning into e-waste.

1GB is already e-waste.

[PineyCreek]

On 9/10/2022 at 1:19 AM, AluminiumTech said:

 

Ftfy.

 

Personally I think that even Google provides an unsatisfactory level of update support compared to iPhones. What we need is 4-5 years of major OS udpates and then 2 years of security updates afterwards.

That's a good thought, but since most phones have gone with an IP rating as a feature, they've also made batteries not-so-easy to change.  If the manufacturers use that logic (because no OEM acknowledges that people or 3rd party services can replace the batteries if they really want) then they probably wouldn't see any reason to offer support beyond the lifetime of the battery as so many people are quick to change their phones...I'm sure it's a growing concern like certain OEM computer hardware (i.e. can't fix anything on it without proprietary parts, so it's e-waste if it breaks and there's no spares available).

[LightingLin]

On 9/10/2022 at 1:34 AM, OddOod said:

This is a pro-consumer move TBH. They know they need a minimum amount of RAM to function remotely properly so they are ensuring that manufacturers aren't gonna try and be shitty and give end users a bad user experience. 

XDA will always find ways around these restrictions and I bet even they will tell you that doing it is a bad idea

Well the bad thing about is, that even they will give more ram and you buy the cheapest... It'll be still a crap anyway and e-waste too since it'll die after a year or so of using

[Kisai]

On 9/10/2022 at 6:34 AM, AluminiumTech said:

 

 

Even 16GB is quite painful on Android with 2-4GB of free space left. With 16GB a microSD card is super necessary for any apps that let you move them to the microSD. Unfortunately many apps don't cos it's up to the developer to choose to support it.

 

16GB is what I had on my 2012 iPad. This is literately a no-brainer requirement for a mobile device. As much as I think Android is a miserable operating system nobody should be using for anything calling itself a "smartphone", I think it does the platform a complete disservice to allow such low requirements.

 

Like load up the task manager right now, and view how much memory it takes to load a single tab in Google chrome, Microsoft or Opera chromium-based browsers. Opera requires 200MB of RAM just to sit there on an empty page. Microsoft Edge? 400MB.

 

This is why a complex web page will crash a mobile browser, the browser itself is already taking up so much memory by itself, that the behavior people have with web browsers doesn't mesh with how these substandard android devices are actually used.

 

If we're looking to prevent eWaste, then the minimum requirements for RAM and storage should be the same as the highest end device, because that ensures the device lasts more than 5 years. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

On 9/9/2022 at 4:34 PM, OddOod said:

This is a pro-consumer move TBH. They know they need a minimum amount of RAM to function remotely properly so they are ensuring that manufacturers aren't gonna try and be shitty and give end users a bad user experience. 

XDA will always find ways around these restrictions and I bet even they will tell you that doing it is a bad idea

Meanwhile on the Windows side... 

God that must be painful. Windows 10 was already arguably borderline unusable with those specs. I'm looking at you Microsoft with the cheek to call a Surface Pro with 4GB of RAM not that long ago as "Pro".

 

But again... you're right. It's not like these requirements have stopped people trying to shoehorn Windows 10 on like a Pentium III system with... interesting results.