Much harder for an OS than an app. Phone makers have their own custom set of drivers for driving their unique hardware and these often have to be changed in subsequent releases to deal with changes to the hardware abstraction layer. And even for releases that don't change the exposed hardware abstraction layer it can be really difficult to know if each phone maker's drivers will deal properly with subtle changes to the underlying OS.

This is not an impossible problem to mostly-solve, but it is orders of magnitude harder than what Chrome browser has to deal with.

Exactly. I mean, Chrome itself (being an app) is pushing updates on android at a cadence now that almost matches what they are doing on the desktop.

Doing hardware integration is a lot harder than writing an app. I wish more app developers recognized this.

(That said: I do think Google could have done a much better job at separating out the true kernel/HAL/BSP layer stuff, which needs to be done per-device, from the framework layers that are largely device-independent. There's no reason to force a full hardware test just to push an fix for the Intents framework or whatever).

I can't even run chrome on my android (2.3). I've resorted to Firefox which is actually pretty nice.

Firefox for Android supports Froyo (2.2) up the latest Jelly Bean (4.2). Chrome for Android only supports ICS (4.0).

Performance is part of the Chrome brand and supporting 2.3 would only serve to weaken that brand. It would also require a monumental engineering effort.

Can you be more specific? There is no reason for Chrome to use the platform WebView on any Android version supporting loading native libraries. Are there OpenGL limitations or something else blocking Chrome from running on 2.3?

I also have heard carriers generally do not allow it (i.e. software makers pushing updates without the carriers permission). I have heard the reason is basically support costs. If they have not had time to test and vet your update against all the models running on their network, and you brick a phone (or a million), those customers are calling the carriers and they are probably pissed. They wouldn't know how to contact Google even if the thought of doing so wasn't so laughable.

Microsoft manages decently (note that as a Linux user I just gagged a little bit ;-)) with the WHQL concept.

> Not to mention that Chrome has figured out how to push updates, while a majority of Androids are still running a version released over two years ago.

The reason for the hold out is the carriers, not Google. Google is very good at pushing updates to phones when it's not limited by the carriers (and Android implemented over the air updates years before anyone else did. iPhones still require cables to be updated).

  > The reason for the hold out is the carriers, not
  > Google. Google is very good at pushing updates to
  > phones when it's not limited by the carriers

I didn't imply it had to be a technical solution. If users can't update their phones that run Google's operating system because Google isn't leaning hard enough on the carriers, then Google needs to fix that.

Apple has managed to strong-arm the carriers into letting it supports its customers, and Google's market position isn't too much weaker than Apple.

  > iPhones still require cables to be updated).

iOS has supported OTA updates since iOS 5, which was released almost two years ago.

Just to add data to those wondering, iOS 5 released 16 months ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history)

Google is responsible for pushing updates to some other company's customers against that company's will?

Google's customers get updates just fine.

I haven't required a cable for an iOS update for a while.

iPhones have not required tethered updating for a year and a half now. OTA updating arrived in iOS 5.

> The reason for the hold out is the carriers, not Google

For a Google SVP, much of the role is external. If getting partners on board is important and it hasn't happened, then you're out.

Andy's previous company implemented over the air updates years before anyone had even thought of Android or iOS. :-)

"iPhones still require cables to be updated"

Only for power and it's just a recommendation...

Updating a firmware while on battery is a pretty bad idea, so I can see why it's recommended.

>iPhones still require cables to be updated

This simply isn't true.

Are you talking updates without prompting the user? My Nexus (original) updates itself every so often with a prompt.

Android ought to update like Chrome: silently downloaded via Wifi (optionally via 3G/4G), installed in the background to whatever extent possible, and then show a reboot prompt only if needed.

Android is a Linux distribution, so most updates ought to be possible without having to reboot the device.

Chrome's auto-updating has broken flash for me several times. The auto-update arrow icon seems to turn from green to red to brown (?), and once it's past green, flash stops working, more or less forcing me to restart it.

It's pretty much the equivalent of forcing a reboot of an OS like Android.

I'm led to believe there's some kind of regulation preventing phones from updating without user intervention, given the 'you will not be able to make emergency calls' prompt most phones seem to show on an update.

No, we're talking about any updates, which is more than most Android phones receive.

If OTA updates aren't baked into the existing OS, it's highly unlikely that will be possible.

The day Google auto-pushes a new OS to my phone is the last day I ever use any Android device. It is my device, not theirs, and I will decide when and if I will change its OS.