Pixel 8/8 Pro and Pixel Watch 2 now on Pre Order and impressions from MKBHD

[hishnash]

On 10/5/2023 at 4:24 AM, WolframaticAlpha said:

Anyways, I hope other iOS users will be a bit less insufferable regarding android update cycles from now.

will depend on if google actually follow through with this... it then right now everyone expects google to break that promise... jus tile the pixel upgrade programs ere you were supposed to get a new pixel every 2 years but they canceled it just 1 month before the first customers would have got thier upgrade (1 year and 11 months into the program).    

No one expects google to follow through with this. 

 

 

[hishnash]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

On Android Google can push out new OS features and drivers through the play store. On iOS, Apple can't even update the calculator app without pushing out an OS update.

They can ship updates like that that are seperate from the OS but it's more QA work, by pinning a given app/framwork version to an os version you do not need to do any permutation testing. You can just test the new OS version as it you don't need to test the new version of the app/framework with all possible older os versions not to mention extra permutations were you might have framework A at one of 3 versions with framework B at one of 2 versions running on 3 different kernel versions... you very quickly end up with 1000s of permutations to test.  

Pinning it all into one blob is just so much well work.

[hishnash]

7 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

7y OS support is a huge improvement. Amazing to see as it's the one thing they were behind. This made me shift their phone on first place for consideration now. 

would be impressive if they applied this today to 7 year old devices rather than make, what every one assumes, empty prommsiis for the future.   Role out todays OS updates on old phones and people would start to believe they might provide this for these new phone. 

[WolframaticAlpha]

3 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Bugs

I think a lot of it comes down to the differences between microkernel based xnu and the monolithic+modules system of the linux fork of Android, which might allow for more things to be shifted to the userland on Linux/android. From my own personal exp. Linux updates are typically applied without me rebooting. Though it might just be packaging differences on the osx side.

 

Though it's been years since I have studied theory of operating systems and I might be completely wrong. People like @hishnash might correct me.

12 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Samsung doesn't adopt the Apple's approach and put I don't know, last year's Exynos flagship on the top tier A5x model. Or even one from 2 years ago. It would still be light years better than crappy Exynos 1200 or 1300 series. Who wouldn't want Galaxy A54 with Exynos 2100 ? It would be a killer phone. And Samsung would still be using their own. But with Exynos 1380, it's more or less

Yeah the comparision of the A5x series to the pixel A series has felt always a bit strange to me, considering that the A series is much closer to the FEs than the A5x series from the standpoint of internals. 

 

I do think that samsung made a really great phone with the original FE, but once they started putting in Exynos stuff, their appeal is diminished quite a bit. For Exynos versions, you are paying essentially 20% more than pixel A series for nice to haves.

 

Though, I don't think that any phone even comes close to the A series on the basis of internals, apart from probably the iPhone SE(which sucks everywhere else). 7 years of SW updates+ good perf for the price + good camera etc + prices that drop to 350-450 freedombucks on sales makes it insanely good vfm imo. Now they only need to fix the heating issues...

 

 

[ewitte]

Generally, I stay back a generation due to cost.  I'm fine with my Pixel 6 pro most of the time (but I have to be careful about overheating).  The only downside is I'm starting to want more than 128GB. I see I can get a 512GB Pixel 7 pro for about $600 (256GB is only $50 less) minus what I can sell this for.  Very tempting.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

So when there's a security bug in the Android kernel on a 5year old Samsung device, then Google pushes a fix for that through the Play Store that fixes a bug in the kernel, and let me guess, you won't even have to restart your Samsung phone?

The answer to that question is "it depends".

For kernel-related things, chances are it won't work through a mainline module. For a lot of things, however, it can. Which things exactly mostly depend on which OS you are running. Each new version of Android has made more and more things updatable through the play store. Here is a list, although please note that this list is just for the mainline modules and do not include other things that could already be updated through the play store, such as GPU drivers.

 

But I don't want people getting stuck in the logic that this is some binary thing. My point is that updates for iOS are far more important than on Android because as I said, not even the stock apps can be updated outside of a full iOS update. Meanwhile even very low level things like the networking stack and ART runtime can be updated on Android.

 

People who compare iOS vs Android updates are comparing apples to oranges.

 

 

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

In all seriousness, how far does this go for non-Google phones?

There are minimum requirements for which modules must be included in any given Android phone. Which ones are required is dependent on the Android version, but with each new version, Google has added more and more. Not all of them are mandatory, so support varies from phone to phone.

As far as I know, only Bluetooth, UWB and Wi-Fi are optional in the previously linked list. The rest are mandatory.

 

Mishaal has a good article about it if you want some more info, as well as which components might be coming in future updates and as the article says, here is a list of some of the things Google has done recently, although the list is not complete.

 

 

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Bugs in Chromium?

Yes, Chromium is one of the components that can be updated through the play store, even though it's not part of project mainline.

This includes updates to the browser, and the webview function in Android.

 

 

4 hours ago, Dracarris said:

How far is it actually used, i.e., lets say there is a bug in a "core component" on a 5yr old Sony or whatever that could be fixed through the Play Store, does that actually happen/with what frequency/percentage of bugs?

This has only been a thing for the last 4 years so in the case of a 5year old phone, probably not that much. But for newer phones it happens quite a lot, and the newer the phone the more things gets delivered through the play store rather than system updates.

System updates are still important though because there are plenty of things that aren't mainline modules. My point is just that they aren't as important as for iOS. They are apples and oranges. That does not mean apples are better than oranges or vice versa, but it is important to keep these things in mind because we shouldn't treat one Android update as equal to one iOS update, or one year of support on Android as equal to one year of support on iOS. They are inherently different things.

[Doobeedoo]

3 hours ago, hishnash said:

would be impressive if they applied this today to 7 year old devices rather than make, what every one assumes, empty prommsiis for the future.   Role out todays OS updates on old phones and people would start to believe they might provide this for these new phone. 

Not really how it works though. No reason for them to retroactively start extending support for more reasons, it was never planned or promised. Also, hardware wise, older chips are not supported as long from chip manufacturers for newer OS over time.

Not sure why would it be empty promises though, can't think of anyone saying how long they will update and not deliver that. So this is quite huge.

[hishnash]

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

Not sure why would it be empty promises though, can't think of anyone saying how long they will update and not deliver that. So this is quite huge.

Google do not have a good track record of keeping promises, just look at the pixel upgrade program that the cancelled 1 year and 11 months after it started (1 month before the would have shipped out an upgraded Pixel to its first customers), or how google did not even tell game companies that were activity making games for stadia that it was canceled.   

Everyone expects google to not follow through on this.  They will have had some small print whiten the event saying features etc presented during the event may change at any time letting them get away with these things just like canceling the pixel upgrade program. 
 

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

Not really how it works though. No reason for them to retroactively start extending support for more reasons, it was never planned or promised. Also, hardware wise, older chips are not supported as long from chip manufacturers for newer OS over time.

Providing the OS support day one to other older pixels would be a sign that they are not just using this for marketing and are committed to doing the work.   These is nothing about this new chip that means in 7 years it will be better able to support the OS then than a 7 year old chip can support the OS today.    We are not talking about a small phone vendor that just has to take whatever is within the Android kernel and use it, this is google they write large parts of this and they are well able to ensure the chips on older pixels would run the os. 

If they cant ship the latest android (day one) on pixel phones going back 7 years then what makes you think in 7 years time they will be able to do this?  (yes expanding the number of devices you support costs money! and effort, that is why no-one believes Google will do this as they have no shown any effort in the past to do this and are not showing any effort today). 

[Doobeedoo]

19 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Google do not have a good track record of keeping promises, just look at the pixel upgrade program that the cancelled 1 year and 11 months after it started (1 month before the would have shipped out an upgraded Pixel to its first customers), or how google did not even tell game companies that were activity making games for stadia that it was canceled.   

Everyone expects google to not follow through on this.  They will have had some small print whiten the event saying features etc presented during the event may change at any time letting them get away with these things just like canceling the pixel upgrade program. 
 

Providing the OS support day one to other older pixels would be a sign that they are not just using this for marketing and are committed to doing the work.   These is nothing about this new chip that means in 7 years it will be better able to support the OS then than a 7 year old chip can support the OS today.    We are not talking about a small phone vendor that just has to take whatever is within the Android kernel and use it, this is google they write large parts of this and they are well able to ensure the chips on older pixels would run the os. 

If they cant ship the latest android (day one) on pixel phones going back 7 years then what makes you think in 7 years time they will be able to do this?  (yes expanding the number of devices you support costs money! and effort, that is why no-one believes Google will do this as they have no shown any effort in the past to do this and are not showing any effort today). 

Oh I'm not saying their other things they start and leave behind or not finish. Was merely saying about Android updates, that seems fine. I don't expect them to offer 7y OS support to older devices, doubt anyone does. They never said that anyway. As for chip support though Qualcomm also has a say how long they provide support to others for software. They won't support older devices over more than it was mentioned for them, they won't support retroactively for longer than said.

[RejZoR]

Software updates policy is just something they cannot backtrack from, because that would make them look so bad their whole Pixel shtick might fail. It was already talked about why just 3 years when they are the ones making the freaking Android OS. Saying they're giving 7 years and then doing it worse than Apple and Samsung again would backfire so monumentally I don't think they could recover from it.

[Dracarris]

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

System updates are still important though because there are plenty of things that aren't mainline modules. My point is just that they aren't as important as for iOS. They are apples and oranges. That does not mean apples are better than oranges or vice versa, but it is important to keep these things in mind because we shouldn't treat one Android update as equal to one iOS update, or one year of support on Android as equal to one year of support on iOS. They are inherently different things.

Thanks for your very informative answer. However, one point: If not all modules are Play Store updateable (kernel or core, doesn't really matter) and any such module sees a critical vulnerability, all of the sudden OS updates on Android have the exact same importance as on iOS again. All of the sudden the apples and the oranges don't look that different anymore.

What good does it do if Google patches sth like the webp exploit through PS if a kernel-related CVE for your Android variant pops up 5yr after you bought the phone and Sony/Samsung/whoever doesn't support that phone anymore? You can fix the webp exploit, but your phone as a whole will remain forever vulnerable.

 

The way I see it: As long as Google does not mandate that all phone vendors use the PS variant for all security related modules, this does not really lower the importance of OS updates (individual for each vendor/model/Android variant).

[williamcll]

Seems like Tensor is still struggling a bit 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Thanks for your very informative answer. However, one point: If not all modules are Play Store updateable (kernel or core, doesn't really matter) and any such module sees a critical vulnerability, all of the sudden OS updates on Android have the exact same importance as on iOS again. All of the sudden the apples and the oranges don't look that different anymore.

Security is a spectrum.

With iOS, updates are super important because it is the only way to patch anything, including the stock apps. Hell, updates are very important just to get new features as well.

On Android, the likelihood that you can patch a security vulnerability through something like a Play Store update is much greater (because it's 0% chance on iOS), and (some) new features can be added without system updates.

 

Yes, you are correct that in some cases a full system update is necessary and in those cases, the modularity doesn't matter, but those cases are rarer on Android than iOS. That is my point. The likelihood that you need a full system update is smaller. It still exists mind you, but we should not look at this in a binary way. Just because the risk exists does not mean Android and iOS are in the exact same situation and system updates are always equally important. 

[Dracarris]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Security is a spectrum.

Well yes, but on the other hand a phone can only be compromised/vulnerable as a whole or not.

 

Personally I wouldn't buy into an ecosystem where there is a non-negligible

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

likelihood

that a security issue cannot be fixed through Google/PS and I am in the hands of some non-committing/unreliable third-party vendor to fix it or not.

Security patches isn't exactly an area where I want to deal with likelihoods or chances for fixes.

 

The way I see it: Lets say 90% of bugs is fixable through Play Store. That does not affect/reduce the importance of OS updates Sony/Samsung/whatever, but it does take these 90% of update efforts away from third party vendors and centralizes them into the hands of Google. Which is nice, since you avoid effort dupli/triforcation.

However, OS updates remain as important as ever, just with a different scope. Ofc, if no vulnerabilities pop up in the remaining 10% that are not PS-patchable, then the vendor can release no updates whatsoever. It's just crucial that as soon as a vulnerability arises, they will.

 

Btw, since you keep bringing up iOS stock apps. They can already be re-installed through the App Store and IIRC not all of them are default-installed these days, e.g., the Podcasts app. So if Apple wanted to, they could easily release new versions of/patch stock apps in the App Store. They simply chose to bundle them with iOS updates for now.

[LAwLz]

17 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Well yes, but on the other hand a phone can only be compromised/vulnerable as a whole or not.

Well I think that's a bad way of looking at things as well.

 

In my mind, this conversation is as bizarre as saying:

"Wearing a helmet while riding a bike doesn't matter, because it doesn't protect you from a crazy person stabbing you."

"Yeah but a helmet protects you from falling over. It doesn't protect you from all dangers, but it protects you from some which is better than nothing".

"No, you're either vulnerable to getting damaged or you're not".

 

 

Again, the fact that some things (quite a lot actually, but not all) can be patched without requiring an OS update matters a lot.

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Dracarris said:

that a security issue cannot be fixed through Google/PS and I am in the hands of some non-committing/unreliable third-party vendor to fix it or not.

Security patches isn't exactly an area where I want to deal with likelihoods or chances for fixes.

 

The way I see it: Lets say 90% of bugs is fixable through Play Store. That does not affect/reduce the importance of OS updates Sony/Samsung/whatever, but it does take these 90% of update efforts away from third party vendors and centralizes them into the hands of Google. Which is nice, since you avoid effort dupli/triforcation.

I don't think you understand.

Project mainline modules are phone agnostic. When Google developers ONE patch for a module, it gets sent out to every single phone which has that module, and it gets updated on every single phone.

The idea that "Well you have to rely on Google to develop the patch" is a fix for the entire fragmentation issue. What I am gathering from your post is that you are trying to play this as some kind of "well you're just changing the responsibility from Sony/Samsung/whatever to Google", which is in my opinion a dumb take just like saying "well the update situation is the same for Apple, it's just that you shift the responsibility from Samsung to Apple".

The fact that updates become phone agnostic and get applied to all phones fixes the issue that has existed up until fairly recently, the fact that phone manufacturers tend to neglect their phones after a while. Google can't do that because an update developed for the Pixel 8 will also apply to for example the Pixel 4. As long as they develop a mainline module update for one phone, they develop it for all phones with that mainline module.

 

It's not like the switch to project mainline means that instead of Samsung having to develop an update to the ART runtime for the Galaxy S10 now Google has to develop an update to the ART runtime for the Galaxy S10. The change to project mainline means that Google develops one update to the ART runtime and then the Galaxy S10 gets that update "for free".

The idea you seem to imply that now Google has to develop it for the Galaxy S10 is false, because they don't have to think about the S10 at all, but it gets the update anyway.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Dracarris said:

However, OS updates remain as important as ever, just with a different scope. Ofc, if no vulnerabilities pop up in the remaining 10% that are not PS-patchable, then the vendor can release no updates whatsoever. It's just crucial that as soon as a vulnerability arises, they will.

I agree that if a security issue arises in something that can't be patched through a mainline module then it is important that it gets patched through a system update.

But I think it is foolish to look at this in black-and-white terms like "this does not change anything except how much effort is required by companies". It changes how often a system update is required to fix security issues, and how often that is required is a very important thing you can't just dismiss into a binary "it either never happens or it always happens" statement.

 

 

I think a Covid-19 analogy might be good because it also deals with probability and vulnerabilities.

An N99 mask filters out "99%" of airborne particles. Not wearing a mask filters out 0% airborne particles. This can be seen as requiring full system updates for everything, vs only some particular things.

 

Does wearing an N99 mask mean you can't get covid? Of course not, just like project mainline doesn't mean you never have to install a system update.

Does that mean someone wearing a mask is just as safe or exposed as someone who doesn't wear a mask? I mean, in theory both have some risk of getting infected, and if infected both have to get the same treatment.

 

If you get infected, then it is important to get treated (for covid, or a vulnerability in your phone), but my point is that we can't dismiss counter measurements for getting infected in the first place just because they do not have 100% coverage. Dismissing it like "you still need the same treatment if infected so therefore you're in the same position as I am" is very black-and-white thinking that misses a lot of very important details.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Btw, since you keep bringing up iOS stock apps. They can already be re-installed through the App Store and IIRC not all of them are default-installed these days, e.g., the Podcasts app. So if Apple wanted to, they could easily release new versions of/patch stock apps in the App Store. They simply chose to bundle them with iOS updates for now.

It doesn't matter what Apple might in theory be able to do if they don't do it in practice.

The fact of the matter is that if you want a new update to for example the dialer on iOS, you have to wait for Apple to release a full system upgrade in order to get the new dialer. If they don't release an update for your phone model, then you won't get the new dialer. This is the situation iOS users are in.

On Android, on the other hand, users do get the new dialer without requiring a system update. If their manufacturer decides to stop releasing updates for their particular phone, that phone still gets quite a lot of updates including security fixes and new features. They won't get 100% of all security updates and new features, but the fact that they get some at all is better than none. Do you not agree?

[Dracarris]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

don't think you understand.

Project mainline modules are phone agnostic. When Google developers ONE patch for a module, it gets sent out to every single phone which has that module, and it gets updated on every single phone.

No clue where you deduct from that I don't understand this. In the next paragraph you cited from me, even there it becomes clear that I am well aware. And also contrary to what you write, I specifically said that this centralization of fix-responsability is a good thing. Simply because any effort and code duplication is always bad.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The idea you seem to imply that now Google has to develop it for the Galaxy S10 is false, because they don't have to think about the S10 at all, but it gets the update anyway.

Again, absolutely no clue where you pull this from/get the idea I would think that.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I agree that if a security issue arises in something that can't be patched through a mainline module then it is important that it gets patched through a system update.

But I think it is foolish to look at this in black-and-white terms like "this does not change anything except how much effort is required by companies". It changes how often a system update is required to fix security issues, and how often that is required is a very important thing you can't just dismiss into a binary "it either never happens or it always happens" statement.

You are right that this changes the frequency (and scope) of OS updates that vendors need to release. But it does not change the importance of them, as you claimed several time since a phone being vulnerable/compromised or not is indeed a binary thing. So if your kernel is not patched and vulnerable, it does not help a terrible lot that all mainline modules are patched. It reduces the attack surface a lot, which is good, but it does not yield you a secure phone. Next question btw is how long compatible versions of mainline modules for a given Android version are released, i.e., for the last Android version that can be installed on a specific phone. Are there any commitments in place from Google?

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It doesn't matter what Apple might in theory be able to do if they don't do it in practice.

Again, that was not the discussion. You claimed Apple cannot release new versions of their stock apps other than through OS updates. All I said is they can, but currently don't chose to do so. Personally I also don't want to have a new dialer every few months, so the yearly update with the major iOS tick is plenty enough.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

They won't get 100% of all security updates and new features, but the fact that they get some at all is better than none. Do you not agree?

Yes. it's better. I still chose to go for a ecosystem where the manufacturer has a very consistent track record of 100% support, within reasonable time ranges, and with security updates having a higher priority than new features.

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

No clue where you deduct from that I don't understand this. In the next paragraph you cited from me, even there it becomes clear that I am well aware. And also contrary to what you write, I specifically said that this centralization of fix-responsability is a good thing. Simply because any effort and code duplication is always bad.

I deducted it because you chose to highlight the reduced effort necessary as the big benefit, rather than the much bigger and more important aspect that the code is now phone agonistic and as a result, is essentially guaranteed to be available to all phones and roll out in a very quick manner.

I guess you could say that's a byproduct of the reduced effort, but rather than a reduction to 12 or 1/3 effort necessary, the more accurate number is like a reduction to 1/2000 the effort.

 

 

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

You are right that this changes the frequency (and scope) of OS updates that vendors need to release. But it does not change the importance of them, as you claimed several time since a phone being vulnerable/compromised or not is indeed a binary thing. So if your kernel is not patched and vulnerable, it does not help a terrible lot that all mainline modules are patched. It reduces the attack surface a lot, which is good, but it does not yield you a secure phone.

Dude, how can you say something that drastically changes the frequency and scope of updates doesn't have any effect on the importance of the other updates?

If we want to take it to the logical extreme, imagine if every single part of Android was a modular project mainline module (or an app that could be updated through the Google Play Store), except let's say the code that controls the volume buttons. Would you really say that system updates are equally important on iOS and Android in such a hypothetical scenario because "IF a security vulnerability was ever discovered in that specific code, then a full system update would be important"? 

Yes, you are right that it would be important in that scenario, but how often a full system upgrade is necessary to fix security issues (or add features) plays a very important part in determining how valuable they are.

 

If an iPhone stops getting system updates, you are shit out of luck. You will be totally left behind without any security updates whatsoever and without any new features whatsoever.

On Android, if you stop getting system upgrades you will still keep getting quite a lot of updates which improves security and adds new features.

 

Getting let's say 50% of all security updates is hell of a lot better than getting 0% of all security updates. Getting 70% of all feature updates is also hell of a lot better than getting 0% of feature updates.

Do you not understand the difference? If you do, then I would kindly request that you stop pretending like they are one and the same and that everything is either black or white.

Phones being vulnerable or not is NOT a binary thing because the level of which they are vulnerable can vary. If 10 security vulnerabilities are discovered on an iOS device and on an Android device, both of which have stopped getting system upgrades, then the iOS device will be stuck with 10 vulnerabilities forever. Meanwhile, the Android device might get updated so that 9 out of the 10 vulnerabilities are fixed. Yes, the Android device still may have 1 vulnerability unpatched, but that does not mean it is in the same position as the iOS device, which would most likely be at a far greater risk of being compromised.

(Please note that numbers like "9 out of 10" are made-up scenarios to illustrate a point)

 

What you are arguing is essentially like saying "it doesn't matter if you use Windows XP or Windows 11 if you have a GTX 780 Ti graphics card, because if a vulnerability is discovered in your graphics driver then that won't be fixed". You're right that if a vulnerability is discovered in the driver then both machines are at risk of being "compromised", but since security isn't a binary thing it is still accurate to say that the Windows XP machine is at greater risk of being compromised because it has more vulnerabilities and is in an overall worse state since more of its software parts are not getting updates. 

 

 

 

I really dislike that you are trying to box things into "secure" or "not secure". What even is a "secure phone"? A phone with zero vulnerabilities? Because in that case no phone is "secure phone" and all phones should be treated as equal, regardless of support window, because all phones have at least one vulnerability, discovered or not, and in active use or not. That includes the iPhone and all Android devices. Which is why it's so stupid to boil it all down to some binary "secure vs not secure" status.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Next question btw is how long compatible versions of mainline modules for a given Android version are released, i.e., for the last Android version that can be installed on a specific phone. Are there any commitments in place from Google?

What do you mean? Again, I feel like you don't understand project mainline. The modules and updates are not tied to a specific version of Android.

A mainline module update developed for Android 14 will run using the exact same code on Android 10. There is no "for a given Android version", which is why I keep saying Android system upgrades are not as important as system updates on iOS.

There are no commitments from Google because as long as they keep developing Android, the new code will run on older versions of the OS. Google would have to stop developing Android in order to stop sending out updates to older phones.

In theory, as long as everything keep going as it is today, my Galaxy S10 running Android version 12 will keep getting new features and security updates to some parts of its OS in the year 2050 when Google releases Android version 41.

 

There is a chance/risk that something major will happen that disrupts these plans so I wouldn't bet on it actually going that long, but you get the point. As it is set up today, that would be the case, and it would require 0 additional effort from Samsung and Google to keep my Galaxy S10 updated.

 

The modules are not tied to any specific Android version, other than the version where the module was introduced. The ART module was introduced in Android 12 so a phone running Android 11 won't be able to get updates to it without a system update, but a phone running Android 12* will keep getting updates to ART for as long as Google makes updates to it, even if Google develops an update with Android version 30 in mind. The same code will run on both Android 12 and Android 30.

The mainline module updates are decoupled from the OS version.

 

 

*I am not sure if it's a requirement for all phones running Android 12 to have ART as a module. It might be that phones that upgraded to 12 but launched with an earlier OS had the option to not implement it as a module but I am not sure. Phones that launched with Android 12 or later must have it as a module though.

 

 

9 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Again, that was not the discussion. You claimed Apple cannot release new versions of their stock apps other than through OS updates. All I said is they can, but currently don't chose to do so. Personally I also don't want to have a new dialer every few months, so the yearly update with the major iOS tick is plenty enough.

Now you're just arguing semantics...

And the dialer was just an example. While you might not want a new dialer every month, getting updates to other apps could be very useful, and the fact remains that once system updates for one model of iPhones get dropped you won't get any updates to the stock apps at all. It's not just about getting a new dialer, it's about getting things like security updates to your browser, or new features and improvements in other apps. The health app, the camera app and so on. 

I would much rather get some updates than no updates at all. Stop pretending like it's bad to have the possibility of getting updates to apps because "what if they change the dialer every month!?".

 

 

Google and Apple have very different approaches to how they handle updates. You can't compare them directly to each other because they have different features and ways of dealing with shortcomings unique to that platform. Apple makes up for the lack of modularity by providing very long OS support. Google makes up for the lack of long OS support by removing as much as possible from the OS updates.

An iOS user who points at Android and says "lol, look at the short OS support" is missing the point just as hard as an Android user pointing at iOS and saying "lol, look at the lack of modularity, they can't even update the dialer without an OS update".

[Obioban]

MKBHD follow up video:

 

 

[filpo]

10 minutes ago, Obioban said:

MKBHD follow up video:

 

 

Added to original post

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, Obioban said:

MKBHD follow up video:

 

 

and the pixel pass thing is more than reason enough to not buy a pixel based on a promise from google

[LAwLz]

51 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

and the pixel pass thing is more than reason enough to not buy a pixel based on a promise from google

The Pixel pass situation is grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. 

In the MKBHD video it sounds like Google cheated people out of getting a free phone. That's not what happened. 

Pixel Pass was basically a payment plan. You got the phone and then paid it off over the course of 2 years. Nobody got "cheated out of a free phone" because the phone wasn't free to begin with, and what you paid for over the years was the phone they had already given you. 

 

Nobody got cheated out of anything with the cancelation of Pixel Pass. People got exactly what they paid for, which was their old phone. 

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The Pixel pass situation is grossly misunderstood and misrepresented. 

In the MKBHD video it sounds like Google cheated people out of getting a free phone. That's not what happened. 

Pixel Pass was basically a payment plan. You got the phone and then paid it off over the course of 2 years. Nobody got "cheated out of a free phone" because the phone wasn't free to begin with, and what you paid for over the years was the phone they had already given you. 

 

Nobody got cheated out of anything with the cancelation of Pixel Pass. People got exactly what they paid for, which was their old phone. 

cant agree with you there

pixel pass was pretty much google's leasing solution. You pay a monthly fee and every 2 years you traded your old phone for the new one. With the google one services as an extra

By not even completing a first round of lease google definitely cheated out everyone who bought into pixel pass for that reason. The only thing good out of this is that google didn't attempt to take the phones back or force everyone to pay an extra fee to cover the difference between the a full purchase and the lease.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

cant agree with you there

pixel pass was pretty much google's leasing solution. You pay a monthly fee and every 2 years you traded your old phone for the new one. With the google one services as an extra

By not even completing a first round of lease google definitely cheated out everyone who bought into pixel pass for that reason. The only thing good out of this is that google didn't attempt to take the phones back or force everyone to pay an extra fee to cover the difference between the a full purchase and the lease.

Except you didn't lease anything... You got the phone. That's the difference between a lease and a payment plan.

If you hadn't gotten to keep the phone afterward then you would have had a point. But you did keep the phone, because it was basically a payment plan with a few added extras. 

 

Other programs, such as the "iPhone Upgrade Program" works like a lease. You pay a montly subscription and get to upgrade your phone every year. But the part that's different about that is that you never actually own your phone. When you upgrade you have to return it. That's not how the Pixel Pass program worked. 

[suicidalfranco]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Except you didn't lease anything... You got the phone. That's the difference between a lease and a payment plan.

If you hadn't gotten to keep the phone afterward then you would have had a point. But you did keep the phone, because it was basically a payment plan with a few added extras. 

 

Other programs, such as the "iPhone Upgrade Program" works like a lease. You pay a montly subscription and get to upgrade your phone every year. But the part that's different about that is that you never actually own your phone. When you upgrade you have to return it. That's not how the Pixel Pass program worked. 

had to research it for a bit

pixel pass was in fact financing with bonuses. So at the end of the 2 years you keep the phone you paid in full and would have gotten the option to renew the contract for the same price with a new phone.

I understood it wrong and saw as google counter offer to Apple and Samsung leasing solutions.

 

Still, Google inability to commit still holds true. And people still shouldn't use google futures plans as something to considerate when deciding what to buy. 7 years of upgrade i'd believe it from fairphone cause their past track record shows that they can actually do it. 7 years of upgrade from google... only time will tell, but past records says it most likely won't happen

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

had to research it for a bit

pixel pass was in fact financing with bonuses. So at the end of the 2 years you keep the phone you paid in full and would have gotten the option to renew the contract for the same price with a new phone.

I understood it wrong and saw as google counter offer to Apple and Samsung leasing solutions.

Yeah, and the tech influencers and news outlets aren't really making things easier by misrepresenting the situation. 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

Still, Google inability to commit still holds true. And people still shouldn't use google futures plans as something to considerate when deciding what to buy. 7 years of upgrade i'd believe it from fairphone cause their past track record shows that they can actually do it. 7 years of upgrade from google... only time will tell, but past records says it most likely won't happen

I agree with that.

Although I don't think they have broken any promises regarding updates before (with Nexus devices, Pixel devices, or Chromebooks), and I don't think they would make this promise if they didn't plan on sticking to it.

My guess is that they will do what Apple does and in a worst-case scenario water down newer updates for older devices. So they can still say they updated the OS to the latest version, but not all features will be available.