We Need to Talk About Android

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by bunderbunder on Tuesday March 06, 2012 @10:44PM (#3674167)

And Microsoft was pushing updates and security patches to all those XP machines. Still are, over 10 years after initial release.

Whereas Android users are lucky if they're still getting updates and security patches after 10 months.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by mrb on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @05:06AM (#3674967)

It does not change his point. Many Windows users are not regularly applying security patches or upgrading to the latest Windows version, making the Windows ecosystem fragmented, yet this did not prevent it from becoming a market leader on desktops, with a large Windows development economy flourishing and producing apps compatible with many different Windows versions and service pack levels.

For the same reason, Android fragmentation is a non-issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by batista on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @08:43AM (#3675428)

or upgrading to the latest Windows version, making the Windows ecosystem fragmented

No, this did not made the Window ecosystem "fragmented" in the sense that Android is. Windows always had excellent backwards and forward compatibility, which meant you could develop for XP and still run on Vista and vice versa. You just couldn't take advantage of the latest and greatest APIs, but most apps used the classic APIs anyway --you still had access to the whole of the OS and hardware across all Windows versions, even with a custom built C API or MFC.

On Android devices you are cutoff from using tons of features if you can't deploy to the latest versions. And you have to walk a very fine line to make it compatible with all versions/form factors, and mostly cut corners.

For the same reason, Android fragmentation is a non-issue.

A, the classic "lalalala, fingers in the ears" argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by mrb on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @02:42PM (#3676774)

Android too offers excellent forward compatibility! It is easy, as API changes are generally additive. I challenge you to find a few different apps written for, say, Android 1.6 that don't run on 4.0. I am sure some examples exist, but they are rare. In fact, I would even argue that Windows apps fail more often to be forward compatible than Android apps, because of the sheer complexity of the Windows software stack compared to Android.

As to backward compatibility, just like on Windows, it is the developers' responsibility to ensure he refrains from using APIs that are too recent. For example, if you write a Windows Direct3D 10 game, it won't run on XP because this API is only available on Vista and up. Same thing for Android: select the right API level when developing your app! http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/api-levels.html How is Windows better/different than Android in this respect?

I speak from experience. I have developed on both Windows and Android, contrary to most people in this thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by bad_user on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @12:04PM (#3676111)

     which meant you could develop for XP and still
     run on Vista and vice versa

That's not the case. A lot of apps and drivers broke on Vista.

You should really go and read The Old New Thing, as it's really enlightening: http://amzn.to/wW0Okn

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by ajross on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @12:11AM (#3674367)

Handset vendors and carriers push security patches routinely (though not commonly, the sandbox architecture makes it a lot less needed than on a desktop OS). It's OS upgrades that are slow. Holes get closed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by nodata on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @03:59AM (#3674851)

Can you flesh out your statement a bit?

You distinguish between security updates and OS updates. I'm not aware of any difference, an update is an update. I've never seen an OTA update that wasn't a point release. How are these deployed differently?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by dagw on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @08:06AM (#3675298)

My old SE phone got random OTA updates regularly, but non of them changed the android version number. I have no idea what those updates where though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by bunderbunder on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @12:21AM (#3674381)

The article links another article which shows, graphically, how long a number of popular Android phones were getting updates - including security patches. According to it, Android users are lucky to be getting updates after a mere 10 months. Including security patches. And that's assuming you buy the phone immediately after it hits the market.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by ajross on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @01:26AM (#3674515)

Not sure which article you mean. You're saying you're aware of an unpatched vulnerability on an android handset?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by te0x on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @04:24AM (#3674901)

http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphan...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We Need to Talk About Android by fluidcruft on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @10:34AM (#3675786)

There are many, many unpatched vulnerabilities on Motorola Milestone XT720 (and many others). Google doesn't even release security patches for old releases (until recently)--their opinion seems to be that all manufacturers should update to Gingerbread or whatever the latest OS happens to be. Google finally seems to have pulled their heads out of the sand or stopped humming with their fingers in their ears recently and made security point release for Froyo a few weeks ago that backported some security fixes that had been in Gingerbread for a long time, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]